Southeast Asia has too much to lose – we need an ambitious plastics treaty: Singapore campaigner Terese Teoh

Eco-Business spoke to Singapore environmental campaigner Terese Teoh who is on the ground in Geneva about her hopes are for an ambitious treaty, and how it could translate into action on the ground in Singapore and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.

“The atmosphere here is a little tense,” she told the EB Podcast. “And I’m also feeling really scared because there is so much at stake.”

“It is supposed to be the last [round of] negotiations. But unfortunately, it also doesn’t really feel like we are at that stage right now, because we are still negotiating some of the most basic elements [in the treaty], which should have been decided long ago,” she said. Teoh is the president of ground-up community group Singapore Youth for Climate Action (SYCA). 

“

Petrochemicals lobbyists have a lot more access to government officials than civil society does. Some of them even act as delegates for our negotiators.

Terese Teoh, president, Singapore Youth for Climate Action

Countries reconvened in Geneva last week after the failure of the supposedly fifth and final round of talks in Busan, South Korea, in December 2024. Negotiators have since reported that the draft text has expanded from 22 to 35 pages, with the number of brackets – often an indication of unresolved issues – in the treaty increasing fivefold to almost 1,500 as reaching a consensus becomes difficult. 

The main point of contention is the inclusion of caps on plastic production in the treaty, which most Southeast Asian countries do not support. Teoh argued that a weakened treaty, which would propose non-legally binding or voluntary restrictions on supply, is no better than having no treaty at all.

This is because this option, known as the “middle ground” in the treaty text, would give the big producer countries no more regulation than they already face to control the amount of plastic they produce, she said. 

“It doesn’t really make sense to have voluntary measures or nationally determined measures. We have seen that playing out in the Paris Agreement and it’s not really working,” she told the EB Podcast.

“We should learn our lesson and recognise that we need stronger language than that. For some topics, there is no in between. It is black and white. It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. There is no trying to water down the text and then patting yourselves on the back and feeling good about it.”

Terese Teoh, Singapore Youth for Climate Action president, at the United Nations in Geneva. Image: SYCA

Tune in as we talk about:

• The atmosphere on the ground in Geneva and the presence of petrochemicals lobbyists
• The slow pace of negotiations and what is at stake
• What are Southeast Asian nations pushing for at the talks?
• Working with the Singapore delegation
• Latin America, a role model for Southeast Asia?
• Is a weakened treaty better than no treaty?
• How could the treaty translate into action in Singapore?

The transcript in full:

What is it like being in Geneva? One of the things we have heard about the treaty negotiations is the presence of a large number of fossil fuels lobbyists…

There is a recent report done by Center for International Environmental Law that found that there were 234 fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists at the negotiations, which is higher than the previous INC. And this is really concerning because it’s not just about the numbers.

We can’t just compare and say: “Okay, there is a lot of civil society [presence] at the negotiation, so it balances out.” It doesn’t work that way. Petrochemicals lobbyists have a lot more access to government officials than civil society does. Some of them even act as delegates for our negotiators.

I think it is really problematic that we are seeing the influx of so much narrow and private interests in the treaty because ultimately we are supposed to be negotiating in the public and environmental interest for a strong plastics treaty.

Terese Teoh at the INC-5.2 talks in Geneva, Switzerland. Image: SYCA

It’s one thing having lots of people representing industry, but in what ways do these people get involved and influence decisions? Surely the decisions are made by policy makers?

I think it’s not very clear to me because it [lobbying] often will take place in the closed-door rooms and I am not privy to these discussions.

But I think we can see from certain country submissions why it is that they are always advocating for particular interests. [For instance, opposing production caps to protect their petrochemicals industries.] 

I would also like to say I’m really inspired by some country delegations that are constantly pushing for ambitious provisions. For example, saying we need legally binding provisions, that we need to emphasise for a strong global list of problematic plastic products.

I also think in countries that are less democratic or have less interactions with civil society, they are maybe more likely to be influenced by the industry mandates, simply because of their political landscape and that existing connection with different industry stakeholders.

I think the atmosphere here is a little tense. And I’m also feeling really scared because there is so much at stake.

It’s supposed to be the last [round of] negotiations. We are not supposed to be at a halfway mark, and following this, there is the upcoming COP [Conference of Parties climate negotiations].

But unfortunately, it doesn’t really feel like we are at that stage right now, because we are still negotiating some of the most basic elements [in the treaty], which should have been decided long ago.

For example, [the] scope [of the treaty], which has already been set out in the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution 5/14 [to end plastic pollution], which lays out a mandate for which we are supposed to establish the instrument for this treaty. [merged] But unfortunately, there are a lot of discussions on what the scope of the treaty should be.

We are also seeing more brackets than ever being added over the last few days rather than simplifying of the text, which means that the text is not confirmed yet because it’s receiving opposition from some members.

There are more than 1,000 brackets in the text, so it’s a little worrying and some delegations are also expressing a lot of concern over this progress.

What are the stances of Southeast Asian countries on plastic production caps? 

The stance is currently not very clear across the different Southeast Asian countries. There is no explicit support for plastic production caps across the countries, and it’s also difficult to say who is in favour and who is not.

But I would say that it is really important for Southeast Asian countries to come to clarity on this because it’s not just a place where there’s a lot of plastic pollution, it’s also a place where there is a lot of plastic production.

Coming to a clear stance on whether they are going to set targets on plastic production is really important.

You are representing SYCA. Do you feel that you have been able to get the ear of the people that you want to talk to in the Singapore delegation to influence or at least give your point of view on what you want to see from a treaty?

Singapore’s environmental civil society isn’t as well developed as other Southeast Asian countries. But I wouldn’t say that we have completely zero access. I think the government still allows us to email them, which we have tried to maximise as much as we can.

We did send them two documents. One policy document for negotiators and one policy document for policy makers, each one looking at different articles in the treaty.

I would say it’s a little unsatisfactory to me so far how the communication is very one way.

It’s just us submitting our documents and we request for a meeting, a dialogue session. But usually it’s not responded to. Just yesterday, another representative from SYCA [at the Geneva talks] and I managed to speak to one of the Singapore delegation members.

He couldn’t say what the Singapore negotiating position was, but he did answer some of our other questions on what broadly Singapore may stand for and he emphasised [the need to be] pragmatic, constructive, etc.

That was a good first step to breaking the ice, although overall it’s quite unsatisfactory and we can’t proceed on with advocating for a strong plastic treaty like this. We need to have a proper two-way dialogue with [the negotiating team], and I hope to see that further blossom one day.

[Note: Eco-Business understands that Singapore is not part of a 100-country group calling for plastic prouction caps. In an earlier reply to queries on Singapore’s stance, the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment said it is unable to disclose the specifics of its positions on various issues as the INC-5 negotiations are ongoing. It said: “Our positions are underpinned by our national interest, taking into account the views of various stakeholders and are broadly aligned with those taken by regional groups that we are members of, such as the Alliance of Small Island States and the Group of Asia Pacific States. We will continue to participate constructively at the negotiations to help build consensus towards an ambitious, positive and effective outcome.”

Tell us about some of the countries that have impressed you in terms of taking a strong position on an ambitious legally binding plastic treaty, that includes production caps, for instance.

Among the different Southeast Asian states, the Philippines has expressed more progressive stances. But at a global level, I’m really impressed by the Latin American countries like Panama, Peru, Chile, who have constantly been pushing for a very strong, ambitious provisions.

It also makes me ask what is it that makes them so progressive and ambitious, and what is the political context. My Brazilian friend told me yesterday that it’s probably because they have so much to lose. [merged] There is so much to protect – the Indigenous peoples, environmental health to protect. That was really inspiring.

It also just makes me think [about] Singapore and Southeast Asia, that we also have so much to lose. Can we emulate our Latin American counterparts and also push for an ambitious treaty that is aligned with environmental and health rights?

How hopeful are you for an ambitious treaty? Is a watered-down treaty better than having no treaty at all?

I would say [I am] semi-hopeful, even as much as my heart tells me that I should be more hopeful.

But if I were to be realistic, because of all the different things that is happening, the blocking, the brackets, I’m a little concerned. But at the same time, at the end of the day, I hope that what whatever happens on the global stage is one thing, while what we also implement domestically in our own policies is another. And I hope that even if treaty takes a really long time to implement and negotiate, we can still be as ambitious as we should be in our own domestic policies.

On the second question, I would argue that, no, a weakened treaty is the same as having no treaty.

For example, if I were to bring up the example of Article 6 on supply, one of the contentious options is between having no text at all – that’s option one – and having a very strong, ambitious language on restricting supply and having global caps on production, which is option two.

Then there is a middle-ground option currently being proposed where they are calling for non-legally binding restrictions on supply. 

For me and my fellow representative from SYCA, according to our analysis, that’s the same thing as having no option. Because the countries that want to control plastic production will already be doing that in their own domestic policies. So it doesn’t really make sense to have voluntary measures or nationally determined measures.

We have seen that playing out in the Paris Agreement and it’s not really working. We should learn from our lessons and recognise that we need language that is stronger than that. For some topics, there is no in between. It’s black and white. It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. There’s no trying to water down the text and then patting yourselves on the back and feeling good about it.

What do you want to see happen as a result of this treaty in Singapore, in terms of controlling plastic or better plastic management?

I want to see Singapore adopt a circular economy and become a zero waste nation. That’s the narrative that Singapore has been talking about for the longest time, but what we have never really seen being implemented. This calls for both reuse and refill infrastructure being set up across our island.

The second one is having a human approach towards the zero waste economy.

What do I mean by a human approach? I feel quite uncomfortable with the predominant reliance on technology to solve all our waste issues. For example, there are a lot of smart bins popping up across the island where they use artificial intelligence (AI) technology to sort out the cans.

I think it’s a real waste of resources. It’s expensive, it’s resource-heavy, it extracts a lot of metals and minerals from the ground, and I don’t think that the environmental cost of sustaining these bins in the long run actually weighs out the environmental benefits that they may proclaim to produce.

I think we should be focusing on aligning with our traditional culture.

We have a lot of people who are already actively involved in the waste management space, like cleaners, karung gunis [traditional waste collectors], can collectors, cupboard collectors, and these often tend to be some of the poorest people in our communities.

“

When businesses produce plastic, they don’t factor in the cost of managing waste plastics.

I think by uplifting their livelihoods, supporting them, empowering them, we are not just doing something that’s good for the environment, but also something that’s good for our own social fabric.

Sometimes it disturbs me when I hear the narrative that these workers are slowly dying out, because nobody wants to do their job. We speak about them as if their rights or their livelihoods are no longer relevant in our economy.

But these people are the faces of our waste management space. They are the ones who manually sort out things who, and create social relationships between the communities and the recyclers and make sure that we can really get stuff properly recycled.

This is something which has gone a very unnoticed in Singapore’s increasingly technocentric approach towards waste management.

We have seen the news recently of record low recycling rates…

I would just add on to that, that like all these trends of having extremely low recycling rates is not new.

We have been seeing it for the last 20 years and it will continue to be that way unless we change our approach of being so focused on the blue [recycling] bin, being so focused on these new smart bins, towards something that uplifts the community who, in the past, have played an extremely important role in [Singapore becoming a] zero waste nation.

I always feel so disillusioned when I see more and more investments going to each of these bins.

There has been little incentive to recycle plastic in Singapore and re-use culture died a little after the Covid-19 pandemic imposed curbs on the bring-your-own movement. 

I also think the very low cost of plastic [contributes to this], partly because of market distortions.

For example, the cost when businesses produce plastic. They don’t factor in the amount of money that needs to go into waste management of the plastics. So that’s why they often insert chemical additives and other things that make the product essentially unrecyclable.

Because of market distortions and plastics being sold at too cheap a price, the general public’s mindset, is: “Oh, since it’s so cheap, I’m sure the government will also be able to handle it in an efficient way.”

The low cost of plastic doesn’t reflect the actual amount of public funds that need to go into tackling the environmental health and public health issues that arise from that.

So I think we also need to know that the prices that we set and the consumer behaviour that results from it are governed by the policies on plastics.

So are you suggesting something like a plastic tax to realise that full lifecycle cost?

This is a very contentious point. Having a plastic pollution tax is also being floated here in the negotiations.

But I think one way we can resolve this fear of having too much taxes is to first have a staggered approach in the tax, where we impose taxes on the most pollutive, harmful and hazardous plastics.

And then for those plastics that are essential to life or not as harmful in a certain way, these don’t have to be taxed. That’s something we have also been trying to convey to the government.

This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity