Indigenous Peoples fight to be heard at plastics treaty talks | News | Eco-Business

On top of this, the talks are dragging on, meaning these costs keep mounting. Busan was meant to be the fifth and final set of negotiations and end with a treaty finalised. But a stalemate – between a bloc of over 100 nations that want the treaty to limit the amount of plastic the world makes, and a handful of oil-producing states that oppose this – pushed negotiations into 2025. Some in civil society are not sure budgets will stretch to allow their ongoing participation.

The INC Secretariat, a body that supports the committee’s work, provides 20 travel grants to civil society participants, including Indigenous Peoples. It says this is “an exceptional practice in a process such as this”. Over 3,300 participants were registered to attend INC-5.

Turned up, locked out

Even when they do make it to meetings, Indigenous People often find they do not get access and influence. They largely attend as “observers”, a category that includes civil society groups, scientists and industry.

While they cannot negotiate directly, observers can join so-called “contact group meetings” that deal with specific issues, where they can keep track of the discussions between international delegates. Sometimes, as in Busan, meeting rooms are too small to meet demand, leaving dozens of observers queuing outside.

INC-5 saw “increased shut out of both Indigenous Peoples and other members of civil society,” says Pamela Miller, co-chair of the International Pollutants Elimination Network and executive director of the Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT). “We were relegated to trying to meet with delegates in the hallways,” she says.

“To be shut out is a violation of human rights,” she says. “It makes the treaty weaker.”

Frustrations were dialled up during the final two days of INC-5, when the INC Bureau – the committee that organises and guides the negotiations – changed the meeting format to “informals”: negotiations that are officially off-limits to observers. Suddenly, the venue’s foyers and cafes were teeming with people who had nowhere else to go.

While it is not unusual for negotiations to clam up towards the end, some see a controlling hand at play. After the stand-up protest at the plenary, “the INC Secretariat was fully aware of the capabilities of observer groups to shake the room”, says Rufino Varea, an Indigenous Rotuman scientist from Fiji who is a regional director at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network. “I think maybe they were trying to pre-emptively avoid any form of disruption to the meeting.”

This is a recurring theme at the UN climate change meetings and the Convention on Biological Diversity too, says Natalie Jones, a policy adviser at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and a researcher on Indigenous participation in international governance. “Across the board, closed meetings are definitely an issue,” she says. “If Indigenous Peoples, and others, can’t get into the room they have no way to ensure their interests are being protected.”

An INC Secretariat spokesperson told Dialogue Earth that at each INC, observers have been forewarned that seating in contact groups would be subject to availability, and that it is standard practice at all UN negotiations to close informal meetings to observer groups.

What is lost

The exclusion of Indigenous Peoples shuts out vital expertise from discussions, multiple experts told Dialogue Earth. Many participants, especially smaller, under-resourced delegations from Global South nations, rely on civil society and scientists to help them navigate the material and provide guidance.

Varea, part of Fiji’s delegation in Busan, says certain countries actively “lean on the advice of the Indigenous Peoples Forum”. Being in the room also enables Indigenous Peoples to lobby less progressive states and hold to account ambitious countries that have promised to push for a strong treaty, adds Lee.

This leaves gaps that some fear are being filled by industry. There were 220 members of the plastics and petrochemical industries registered for INC-5, exceeding delegates from the EU. Several attended on national delegations, granting them direct access to the document under debate.

That power dynamic may be showing in the text. A version released at the end of INC-5 dropped references to Indigenous Peoples rights. The phrase “chemicals of concern” had been scrubbed from the title of an article on managing plastic products and chemicals of concern.

A group of observer organisations, including members of the IIPFP and a coalition of scientists, have publicly condemned the limited access, warning it risks creating an ineffective treaty.

“Our knowledge can ensure that these treaties put the strictest, most protective measures in place to protect our people, but also everybody,” says Viola Waghiyi, a Yupik Indigenous leader from Alaska, who has attended several INCs and works with Miller at ACAT. “We recognise that it’s a global crisis.”

As observers wait for countries to agree on a date and place for another supposedly final meeting (dubbed INC-5.2), there has been time to reflect on what should change. Some want more funding to increase participation of Indigenous Peoples.

Inspiration could also be drawn from more inclusive UN meetings, such as the Stockholm Convention on chemicals called persistent organic pollutants. There, Indigenous Peoples have been able to observe, intervene and participate in contact group meetings, they say. “That is a much more open process,” says Miller, who alongside Waghiyi, has been an observer in those meetings for years.