pollution

NORWAY: ‘On top of being environmentally irresponsible, deep-sea mining is unlikely to be profitable’
CIVICUS speaks with Martin Sveinssønn Melvær, Materials and Industry Lead at the Bellona Foundation, about the bill recently passed by Norway’s parliament to allowcommercial-scale deep-sea mining.

The Bellona Foundation is an independent civil society organisation that seeks to meet climate challenges by identifying and implementing sustainable environmental solutions.

What’s wrong with commercial-scale deep-sea mining, and what should be done about it?

The main problem with deep-sea mining is that it is starting up too fast, without fundamental knowledge about impacts on biology, ecosystems and carbon sinks. It entails a high risk of severe environmental consequences such as massive carbon emissions, the degradation of fish stocks and the extermination of potentially key species – including some that, for all we know, could have provided a cure to the next pandemic.

Exploration and mining should be banned until the science base is sufficient to understand their impacts and how to mitigate them, and until preservation areas have been established. If science turns out to show that deep-sea mining can be done responsibly, it should be allowed to proceed, but it would still have to be strictly regulated.

A second problem is the way deep-sea mining has been pushed in Norway. The government vastly exaggerates the amounts of mineral resources in Norwegian waters. The Geological Survey of Norway has stated that the Norwegian Offshore Directorate’s estimates have not been done according to established standards and they are exaggerated and therefore misleading. Independent experts have supported this claim and pointed out that if a private company had used a similar method to the Offshore Directorate, it would have qualified as fraud.

A third problem is timing. The rush to allow deep-sea mining is based on a gross miscalculation. Seabed minerals are presented as a solution to the shortage of metals needed for the green transition. But forecasts by the International Energy Agency and other serious sources indicate that the mineral bottleneck, in which mineral supply will have problems meeting demand, will last about 10 or 15 years, while the most optimistic estimates indicate that commercial seabed mining in Norwegian waters will only be able to start between 15 and 25 years from now. The technology needed for deep-sea mining is still very immature and history shows that it takes many years of development to move new technology to an industrial scale. At Bellona, we believe the solution to the mineral bottleneck is not deep-sea mining but a strong focus on circularity combined with more sustainable mining practices on land.

Why has the Norwegian government rushed to allow commercial-scale deep-sea mining?

It’s difficult to understand why the Norwegian government would rush this process. My impression is that it’s overly eager to find a new industry that can create jobs as the oil industry declines, not realising, or not wanting to realise, that on top of being environmentally irresponsible, deep-sea mining is unlikely to be profitable. Even the main Norwegian oil company, Equinor, has warned against deep-sea mining and referred to the precautionary principle, which calls for the adoption of precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high.

Something that should also be factored in is strong pressure by Offshore Norge, the oil industry’s lobbying organisation. Although the main oil companies have not shown much interest in deep-sea mining, Offshore Norge has promoted it very actively. You could call it ‘petroholism’. Our government is used to giving the oil industry everything it wants.

How have Norwegian environmental organisations advocated against the bill?

We have participated in public hearings and drawn media attention to the major knowledge gaps and flawed governmental process. We have met with politicians and presented the facts, and although many politicians have listened, the government managed to gather enough support to pass the bill.

Thanks to our advocacy, the bill passed in a slightly improved version that requires parliament to approve the first mining licences before mining can start. This gives us further space for continuing advocacy. We will keep fighting to stop licensing when time comes for parliament to discuss their approval.

How have key stakeholders reacted to the new law?

There has been a lot of criticism of the Norwegian process from various sources. Norwegian companies such as Morrow Batteries have signalled that they don’t want seabed minerals, while others, such as Storebrand Asset Management, have directly criticised the process.

At the European level, many have reacted strongly. European Parliament members have voiced criticism. Two famous French activists, alongside actor Lucas Bravo, have criticised the process and travelled to Norway to protest. An online petition by Avaaz gathered more than 550,000 international signatures.

Deep-sea mining should be stopped until current knowledge gaps have been filled. We encourage everyone to support a global moratorium on deep-sea mining.

Civic space in Norway is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Bellona through itswebsite or Facebook page, and follow it onTwitter andInstagram.
PHILIPPINES: ‘Climate change is no longer theoretical. It is a fact of life and a threat to our lives’
CIVICUS speaks about the impacts of climate change and the response of climate activism with Ronan Renz Napoto, founder and executive director of Balud, a youth-led movement from the Philippines that promotes ecological consciousness by engaging with and empowering young people.

Why did you become a climate activist?

What made me a climate activist was the trauma of living through one of the strongest-ever recorded super typhoons in the world’s history. Almost 10 years ago, on 8 November 2013, super typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) hit the Philippines. It provoked a lot of global discussions on how climate change was affecting the global south, particularly the Philippines and Southeast Asia.

The typhoon caused enormous damage and killed more than 6,000 people. We lost relatives and friends, our homes were destroyed and our livelihoods were compromised.

Because typhoons usually hit around this time of year, now we are all anxious again. We are constantly reminded of how our lives and livelihoods were affected, and of how nothing changed for the better despite our efforts and the global media coverage we got.

We have continued to experience similarly destructive typhoons. Extreme weather events have affected our farmers’ crops and diminished the catch of our fishers. Climate change has resulted in greater food insecurity and poverty.

In the Philippines, climate change is no longer theoretical. It is a fact of life and a threat to our lives. Before the typhoon we had dreams and hopes for the future, but we have had to push them aside to focus on surviving and fighting back.

What is climate activism focusing on in the Philippines?

We want to hold polluters accountable for their emissions and for the neglect of their climate responsibilities. In the Philippines, environmental defenders are often threatened and risk their lives when protecting our resources from corporations’ greed. To hold them accountable for their emissions, numerous organisations and activists have submitted a landmark petition to the Philippines’ Commission of Human Rights. The next step should be to force them to decrease their emissions drastically and eventually stop emitting carbon.

We push for reparations so that communities are properly compensated, and for funding for adaptation. The transition to renewable energy sources must be a just transition, ensuring that communities’ vulnerability to disaster decreases. Otherwise catastrophes will hit over and over, and the response will continue to be reactive, limited to responding to what has happened instead of producing proactive and preventative solutions. It’s not enough to go help communities after the disaster has happened – disasters must be prevented from happening.

But the resources of the Philippines are limited, so we will need external support. Since this crisis is the global north’s doing, it is only right for them to support our adaptation.

We want global north governments to acknowledge their responsibility for their pollution and its effects on the global south. If you look at emissions data, you will find the Philippines contributes very little compared to the big polluters of the global north. But the biggest impacts of their pollution are being felt in the Philippines and the rest of the global south. This is unfair.

But it’s not just our issue; it is a global issue. What has happened – and continues to happen – in the Philippines is an experience shared with many other countries, particularly in the Pacific, where people are very susceptible to sea level rise, typhoons and cyclones.

That’s why the leaders of nine small island states have gone to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the United Nations’ maritime court, to ask it to determine if carbon dioxide emissions absorbed by the oceans can be considered pollution, and if so, what obligations countries have to prevent it.

Why is it important to have carbon dioxide emissions absorbed by oceans recognised as pollution?

In an archipelagic country like the Philippines, which is surrounded by waters, livelihoods depend on the bounty of marine resources. Whatever comes into the ocean that is not part of its natural ecosystem is bad. Pollution of our marine sanctuaries, oceans and beaches translates into health risks and economic losses. It affects sea life and therefore our food security.

Carbon dioxide is a pollutant, but it is not specifically mentioned in international law on maritime pollution, and as long as it is not recognised as such, it creates no obligations for states.

Will you take part in the upcoming COP28 climate summit?

I don’t think I will be taking part in COP 28 since it is far away, expensive and very hard to get funding for. I think this will be the case for most climate activists in the Philippines. Unsurprisingly, one of our main concerns is getting a good amount of representation in the ongoing discussions on climate change. Apart from the lack of funding, it is always hard to get into global climate discussions because there is not a dedicated space for us.

However, I look forward to seeing planned actions being implemented. So far, the results of the summits have been mostly about acknowledging concerns and making statements. Now it’s time to ensure that decisions are operationalised and states – particularly the rich and powerful ones that are part of the problem – are held to account. We cannot continue planting trees on one side while allowing them to cut down trees on the other side. That way we’ll never make any substantial progress.

Civic space in the Philippines is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with Balud through itsFacebook page, personalemail andLinkedIn.
TRAITÉ SUR LE PLASTIQUE DES NATIONS UNIES : « La santé humaine et l’environnement doivent primer »
CIVICUS parle des progrès réalisés en vue d’un traité des Nations Unies sur les pollutions plastiques avec Vito Buonsante, avocat spécialisé en droit de l’environnement et conseiller technique et politique au Réseau international pour l’élimination des polluants (IPEN).

L’IPEN est un réseau mondial d’organisations de la société civile (OSC) qui cherche à améliorer les politiques en matière de produits chimiques et à sensibiliser le public afin d’éviter que les substances dangereuses ne soient produites, utilisées ou éliminées de manière préjudiciable à la santé humaine et à l’environnement.

La plupart des gens ne savent pas qu’un traité des Nations Unies sur la pollution plastique est en cours d’élaboration. Quand et comment le processus a-t-il commencé ?

En mars 2022, l’Assemblée des Nations Unies pour l’environnement (ANUE), organe décisionnel le plus élevé au monde en matière d’environnement, a approuvé un large mandat pour entamer des discussions sur un traité international visant à répondre aux menaces croissantes des pollutions plastiques. Le champ d’application du traité sur le plastique est censé inclure tous les impacts des plastiques tout au long de leur cycle de vie, y compris les effets des produits chimiques toxiques contenus dans les plastiques sur la santé humaine et l’environnement. Il devrait contribuer à faire progresser le monde vers un avenir sans produits toxiques.

Selon l’analyse de l’IPEN, basée sur le mandat de l’UNEA, l’accord final doit aborder de quatre manières différentes les impacts sur la santé des plastiques et de leurs contenus chimiques. Premièrement, il doit évoquer les produits chimiques toxiques contenus dans les plastiques : leur emploi, leur émission et leurs effets nocifs tout au long de leur cycle de vie, allant de la production à la consommation et jusqu’à la gestion des déchets. Deuxièmement, comme le mandat souligne l’importance de promouvoir une conception durable, le traité doit veiller à ce que les produits chimiques dangereux soient éliminés de la production du plastique et que les plastiques contenant des produits chimiques dangereux ne soient pas recyclés.

Troisièmement, la résolution de l’AENU souligne l’importance de prévenir les menaces que les plastiques toxiques font peser sur la santé humaine et l’environnement. Dans ce cadre, elle appelle à une coordination avec la convention de Bâle de 1989 sur le contrôle des mouvements transfrontières de déchets dangereux et de leur élimination, la convention de Rotterdam de 1998 concernant l’importation de produits chimiques dangereux, la convention de Stockholm de 2001 sur les polluants organiques persistants et l’Approche stratégique de la gestion internationale des produits chimiques, un cadre politique mondial adopté en 2006. Le traité doit donc s’attaquer aux effets sur la santé et l’environnement de l’exposition aux produits chimiques dangereux et aux émissions toxiques tout au long du cycle de vie des plastiques.

Quatrièmement, la résolution de l’UNEA reconnaît les microplastiques comme faisant partie de la pollution plastique. Cela signifie que le traité doit également aborder les risques chimiques pour la santé et l’environnement liés aux microplastiques, y compris leur potentiel en tant que vecteurs de contamination chimique.

Quels sont les progrès réalisés lors de la première session de négociations ?

La première session du Comité intergouvernemental de négociation chargé d’élaborer un instrument international juridiquement contraignant sur les pollutions plastiques, y compris dans le milieu marin, s’est tenue à Punta del Este, en Uruguay, du 28 novembre au 2 décembre 2022.

Lors de cette première réunion, les États ont eu l’occasion d’exprimer leurs intentions concernant le traité qu’ils envisagent. D’un côté, un grand groupe d’États, travaillant sous l’égide de la High Ambition Coalition pour mettre fin à la pollution plastique, ont exprimé leur désir d’un traité qui change la façon dont les plastiques sont fabriqués et qui s’attaque aux causes profondes de la pollution plastique. De l’autre côté, un groupe d’États se bat pour un traité qui ne change rien au statu quo. Il est inquiétant de constater que ces pays comprennent le Japon, l’Arabie Saoudite et les États-Unis, qui souhaitent tous voir un traité axé uniquement sur la gestion des déchets plutôt que sur l’ensemble du cycle de vie des plastiques, et construit sur la base d’engagements nationaux volontairement acceptés plutôt que sur des obligations contraignantes à tous les niveaux.

La deuxième session aura lieu fin mai et début juin à Paris, en France. Les négociations du traité devraient être achevées d’ici à la fin de l’année 2024, délai à priori respectable. Des mesures globales peuvent être adoptées. Le monde scientifique a déjà été très clair : il serait illusoire, après 40 ans d’échec à recycler même une petite partie des déchets plastiques, de penser que la solution à la crise de la pollutions plastique réside dans le recyclage des quantités croissantes de plastique produites. Il est trop tôt pour savoir la direction que prendront les discussions, mais il devrait être possible de se mettre d’accord sur un certain nombre de normes mondiales, même au risque que certains États ne ratifient pas immédiatement le traité.

À quoi ressemblerait un traité ambitieux ?

La mesure la plus importante pour que le traité soit efficace est la réduction de la production totale de plastique. Si la production ne ralentit pas, la quantité de plastique doublera au cours des 20 prochaines années et deviendra vraiment incontrôlable.

Une deuxième mesure clé concerne la conception des plastiques. Il est nécessaire de supprimer tous les additifs chimiques toxiques, tels que les bisphénols, les PFAS et les retardateurs de flamme, ainsi que tous les polymères toxiques tels que le PVC et le polystyrène. On sait que ces produits chimiques ont des effets nocifs sur la santé, perturbant notamment les fonctions hormonales, la fertilité et les fonctions cérébrales des enfants. La création de cycles de matériaux plus sûrs repose donc sur l’élimination de ces substances des plastiques. Il est également très important d’améliorer la transparence en ce qui concerne les ingrédients des plastiques ainsi que les quantités et les types de plastiques produits. Sans une image claire de ce qui est produit et où, il sera difficile de lutter contre la pollution plastique.

L’ambition doit également s’étendre à la mise en œuvre du traité, pour laquelle les pays développés doivent s’engager à créer un fonds. Quelle que soit la rigueur des dispositions du traité, sans un investissement considérable dans sa mise en œuvre l’impact ne pourra qu’être limité. Des engagements ont récemment été adoptés en faveur de fonds pour le climat et la biodiversité, mais aucun fonds n’a encore été créé pour lutter contre la pollution plastique et les effets liés aux produits chimiques et aux déchets.

Qu’apportent les OSC environnementales à la table des négociations ?

Les OSC disposent d’un large éventail de compétences et d’expériences qui sont très utiles aux négociateurs de traités. L’IPEN, par exemple, plaide depuis plus de vingt ans pour la reconnaissance de l’impact des produits chimiques toxiques contenus dans les plastiques, en montrant clairement, par le biais de nombreux rapports scientifiques et de tests sur les plastiques et les produits en plastique, comment ces derniers exposent les communautés et les populations vulnérables à des produits chimiques toxiques.

Nous sommes convaincus que la nécessité de résoudre cette crise planétaire prévaudra. La communauté internationale semble échouer dans la lutte contre le changement climatique. Elle ne peut pas aussi échouer dans la lutte contre les plastiques. Le traité sur les plastiques pourrait démontrer que la coopération internationale est le meilleur moyen de résoudre les problèmes mondiaux et que la santé humaine et l’environnement peuvent et doivent passer avant les intérêts nationaux et commerciaux.

Contactez l’IPEN sur sonsite web ou sa pageFacebook, et suivez@ToxicsFree et@VitoABuonsante sur Twitter.
TUNISIA: ‘We are just students fighting for the future in times in which our opinions are disregarded’
CIVICUS speaks about the impacts of the climate crisis in Tunisia and civil society responses with Aziza Fakher, a biology-geology engineering student and member of Youth for Climate Tunisia (YFC Tunisia).

Founded by two students in July 2019, YFC Tunisia strives for social and climate justice in Tunisia. It acknowledges the impact of the climate crisis on vulnerable and marginalised communities and demands climate action through digital campaigns and on-the-ground mobilisation.

What prompted the foundation of YFC Tunisia, and what issues do you currently work on?

The movement was started during the 2019 heatwave, which hit the whole of Tunisia and was so bad that you couldn’t leave your home without first getting properly hydrated.

Due to its diversity of ecosystems and landscapes, Tunisia faces multiple climate issues. Access to water is a human right, but here it is a very challenging issue. Receding coastlines put the lives of many Tunisians living on islands in peril. The coastline as a whole is endangered.

We are also working with other civil society organisations (CSOs) to stop industrial pollution in the city of Gabès, which faces an environmental catastrophe. Industries there have destroyed natural ecosystems and Indigenous communities. This fits the definition of ecocide, and the rest of the country should acknowledge it.

All of this has impacted on women in very specific ways. There are rural areas where women still have to carry barrels of water for as far as 10 kilometres. In places such Gabès, they live amid pollution, and for those of reproductive age this can have long-lasting impacts both on themselves and on future generations.

We advocate for the introduction of climate education in all school curriculums and for exposing women to it as well, so they can transmit it to their children. Although the government has signed an agreement indicating support, it has so far been passive. CSOs lack funds to get this work done and the state hasn’t intervened or reached out to help.

Why is climate so important for young people in Tunisia?

This is important to us because it’s our future that is at stake. Young people have been very serious and dedicated to tackling this crisis from day one: we have skipped school to fight for the climate, we have helped other CSOs, we have reached out to political figures who have shut us down and refused to meet with us and listen to us. We have played a role in influencing other young people and raising wider awareness, which has been an important goal of the movement since it was founded. Indeed, we are still recruiting more young activists every day and we are able to provide them with a platform and a space to express themselves and their thoughts about the ongoing crisis.

People tend to forget that we are just students fighting for the future in times in which our opinions are disregarded. Many of us are endangering our daily lives, but we think it is worth it.

How has thecurrent political crisis influenced your work?

The political and economic situation has influenced our movement. If one of your main tactics is to reach out to decision-makers to advocate for the adoption and implementation of laws and policies, a constantly changing situation is a big problem. It does not let us get ahead in our work and regularly makes us lose ground on the progress previously made.

When we first held a strike in Tunis, the Tunisian capital, we were exposed to religious conspiracy theories, which people tried to use against us because they refused to believe that climate change was real. Politicians and government officials should have conveyed the correct message to educate the public so that this crisis isn’t something alien and mysterious to them. But they didn’t.

We received backlash and were targeted with criticism and hate speech concerning our methods. Others, however, have said that our discourse is too soft, that we do not take risks and that we are not active in real life. Our response to them is that we are young Tunisians living in a context of political unrest, so our real-life activities are always uncertain.

The economic context for activism is also complicated, especially following the recent news about the president’s intention to ban all foreign funding for Tunisian CSOs.

We have often found ourselves lagging in the funding department. The situation is very difficult for many CSOs that have no independent funding. If we are unable to get funding, we will be unable to work on new projects. We are very uncertain regarding our future plans. And being young activists, we also struggle to exercise our right to access data and information, which is a huge issue in Tunisia.

Additionally, we have faced bureaucratic restrictions. For example, we have recently had to submit our registration paperwork because we are working on climate education and we are not allowed to work with children or in a school or university environment unless we are recognised and certified as a formal CSO. But we have faced challenges because the process is very slow and requires a huge amount of paperwork.

What are your demands for national and international decision-makers ahead of the COP27 climate change summit?

We are aware that activity in the global north has a huge environmental impact on the global south, including Tunisia. Since COP27 will be held in Egypt this year, we have formed a coalition with other environmental rights groups to work at a regional level.

We want to see more engagement from local and global politicians in terms of laws and policies to tackle climate change, and also for them to condemn greedy capitalist profiteers. We would like the Tunisian government to acknowledge the Sustainable Development Goals in the Tunisian context and to implement nationally determined contributions and start a transition to renewable energy.

New laws must also be introduced to protect future generations’ right to water and food security. The Ministry of Environment must adopt climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. Effective waste recovery and management systems must be adopted, because the lack of these is a huge problem for local communities. People have died as a result of living near toxic waste dumps. We also need state-run awareness campaigns targeted at marginalised and vulnerable communities. And we want climate education in all schools, because of its crucial role in preparing kids for the future to come.

We are willing to work together with other CSOs that share our goals. Because these are human rights issues, we would like to bring them into the United Nations Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review sessions, where civil society voices are heard, taken into consideration and empowered.

Civic space in Tunisia is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Youth for Climate Tunisia through itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@yfctunisia on Twitter.
UN PLASTICS TREATY: ‘Human health and the environment must come first’
CIVICUS speaks about the progress being made towards a United Nations (UN) Treaty on Plastic Pollution with Vito Buonsante, an environmental health lawyer and technical and policy advisor at the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN).

IPEN is a global network of civil society organisations (CSOs) seeking to improve chemical policies and raise public awareness to ensure that hazardous substances are no longer produced, used or disposed of in ways that harm human health and the environment.

Most people don’t know there is a UN Treaty on Plastic Pollution in development. When and how did the process start?

In March 2022, the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA), the world's highest-level decision-making body on the environment, approved a broad mandate to start talks on an international treaty to address the growing threats from plastic pollution. The scope of the Plastics Treaty is meant to include all impacts from plastics throughout their lifecycle, including effects from the toxic chemicals in plastics on human health and the environment. It should help move the world towards a toxic-free future.

In IPEN’s analysis, based on UNEA’s mandate, the final agreement must address the health impacts of plastics and their chemicals in four ways. First, it must address the use, release of and harms from toxic chemicals from plastics in all of their lifecycle, from production to consumption and waste management. Second, as the mandate emphasises the importance of promoting sustainable design, the treaty must ensure that hazardous chemicals are eliminated from plastic production and plastics with hazardous chemicals are not recycled.

Third, the UNEA resolution noted the importance of preventing threats to human health and the environment from toxic plastics and calls for coordination with the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the 1998 Rotterdam Convention concerning the importation of hazardous chemicals, the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, a global policy framework adopted in 2006. The treaty must therefore address the health and environmental impacts due to exposure to hazardous chemicals and toxic emissions throughout the plastics lifecycle.

Fourth, there’s the issue of microplastics, which the UNEA resolution recognises as included in plastic pollution. This means the treaty must also address the chemical health and environmental hazards from microplastics, including their potential to be vectors for chemical contamination.

What progress was made in the first session of negotiations?

The first session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, took place in Punta del Este, Uruguay, from 28 November to 2 December 2022.

In this first meeting states had the opportunity to express their intentions for the treaty that they envision. On one side, we have seen a large group of states, working under the umbrella of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, that have expressed their desire for a treaty that makes a difference in how plastics are made and tackles the root causes of plastic pollution. On the other side, there is a group of states fighting for a treaty that makes no difference to the status quo. Worryingly, these countries include Japan, Saudi Arabia and the USA, all of which want to see a treaty focused only on waste management rather than the entire lifecycle of plastics, and built on the basis of voluntarily agreed national commitments rather than binding obligations across the board.

The second session will take place in late May and early June in Paris, France. Negotiations should be completed by the end of 2024, and it should be possible to make the deadline. Global measures can be agreed. The science is very clear: it would be delusional to think that recycling the growing amounts of plastics that are being produced is the solution to the plastic pollution crisis, after 40 years of failing to recycle even a small amount of the plastic waste. It is too early to understand in which direction the talks will go, but it should be possible to agree on a number of global standards, even at the risk of some states not immediately ratifying the treaty.

What would an ambitious treaty look like?

The most important measure an effective treaty should include is the reduction of the total production of plastics. If production doesn’t slow down, over the next 20 years the amount of plastic will double and it will become truly impossible to control.

A second key measure concerns the design of plastics. Here there is a need to remove all toxic chemical additives, such as bisphenols, PFAS and flame retardants, and all toxic polymers such as PVC and polystyrene. These chemicals are known to cause adverse health impacts, disrupting hormonal functions, fertility and children’s brain functions, among others. Removing them from plastics will create safer material cycles. It is also very important to improve transparency about both plastics ingredients and the quantities and types of plastics produced. Without a clear picture of what is produced and where, it will be difficult to beat plastic pollution.

Ambition should also extend to implementation. There must be a commitment from developed countries to create a fund to implement the treaty. No matter how stringent the provisions of the treaty are, without considerable investment in implementation, impact will be limited. Commitments have recently been adopted for funds for climate and biodiversity, but there is not yet a fund established to tackle plastic pollution and other chemicals and waste-related actions.

What are environmental CSOs bringing to the negotiating table?

CSOs hold a wide range of expertise and experiences that are very valuable for treaty negotiators. IPEN, for instance, has advocated for the recognition of the impacts of the toxic chemicals in plastics for over two decades, clearly showing through many scientific reports and testing of plastics and plastic products how plastics products are exposing communities and vulnerable populations to toxic chemicals.

We are optimistic that the need to solve this planetary crisis will prevail. The international community has been failing on climate change and cannot fail on plastics as well. The Plastics Treaty could be a way to show that international cooperation is the best way to solve global problems and that human health and the environment can and must be put ahead of national interests and business interests.

Get in touch with IPEN through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@ToxicsFree and@VitoABuonsante on Twitter.
UN PLASTICS TREATY: ‘It is up to civil society to speak up for the public when their governments won’t’
CIVICUS speaks about the progress being made towards aUnited Nations (UN) Treaty on Plastic Pollution with Aidan Charron, End of Plastics and Canopy Project Coordinator with EARTHDAY.ORG.

Growing out of the first Earth Day in 1970, EARTHDAY.ORG is the world’s largest recruiter to the environmental movement, working with more than 150,000 partners in over 192 countries to diversify, educate and activate the environmental movement worldwide.