The Role of Science in Treaty Negotiation and Implementation: The Case of the Fossil Fuel, Chemical or Plastics Industries
For instance, in many industries, companies have long promoted the idea that polluting nature is acceptable until risk assessments show otherwise. There are potentially harmful products that are on the market despite this being an ethical question. In the treaty discussions, lobbyists will demand risk assessments to demonstrate plastics’ impacts on human health before taking action, work that would take decades to do.
Plastics are used extensively because of their highly useful properties — they can be moulded into many shapes and are lightweight, hygienic, cheap to make and good insulators. There is an increase in the production of plastic. Over the past two decades, it has doubled. We now know that they need to be limited because of their huge drawbacks.
Serious steps need to be taken to tackle waste, and alternates must be found. If there are no suitable alternatives, nations must invest in the infrastructure necessary to recycle the materials and ensure that manufacturers take responsibility for the full life cycle of their products. They must make sure that the transitions protect the jobs of people in the industry.
Strong competing-interest rules are necessary for scientific matters. It is recommended that any links between the fossil-fuel, chemical or plastics industries should be reported by participants in the treaty negotiation and implementation. Making such statements public will allow scrutiny and accountability. The United Nations could support a way to verify declarations.
Many scientists were unable to get accreditation for the first three negotiation rounds. Because of the inclusion of universities in the government category, researchers need to be accredited to represent their governments, which they do not. UNEP said in January that those at public universities that are not overseen by their governments can apply. But it is not yet clear whether this change has made it easier for academic researchers to get accreditation.
Despite the competing priorities, it’s important to find common ground in treaty talks. The current system of organizing talks is one of the strengths and all those involved agree that discussions will be guided by independent scientific knowledge. This principle is the first of many. The role of science is still important, because it brought nations together to agree on a treaty.
The problem is running deeper according to my opinion. Corporations are attempting to control the scientific narrative through domesticating the community. They create and support meetings, research projects and learned societies to ostensibly ‘support science’, while redefining it.
I understand that the private sector is not static and that some actors in it want to contribute to a better plastics future. The private sector needs to stop activities that intend to make doubt. Resources would be better utilized on innovations in sustainable plastic materials.