This is the starting point for Europe’s lofty dreams of greener air travel – a collection point in Malaysia for greasy plastic bottles filled with discarded frying oil, thousands of miles from its final destination.
One Saturday morning last month in the city of Melaka, volunteers in green T-shirts rushed over as Adibah Rahim and her husband drove into the central square, eager to unpack, weigh and register her consignment of used cooking oil (UCO) – the “liquid gold” in European plans to ramp up production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
Rahim left the collection point 90 ringgit ($21) richer, three ringgit per litre of oil – a welcome boost to her family’s household budget.
“We usually collect UCO from around 200 members of the public,” said Michael Andrew, sales manager for Evergreen Oil & Feed, the company running the Melaka collection with the local council and a supplier to leading European SAF producers including Spain’s Repsol, UK-based Shell and Finland’s Neste.
When made from waste such as UCO, rather than agricultural commodities like soy or palm oil, backers say SAF can slash planet-heating emissions by up to 80% over kerosene jet fuel, without taking up land that would otherwise be used for food crops, or fuelling forest destruction.
But behind SAF’s climate-friendly facade, a months-long investigation by Climate Home News and its partner The Straits Times has uncovered an opaque global supply chain that exposes jet fuel providers and their aviation clients to significant fraud risks, raising doubts about the climate benefits of the sector’s main green hope for the years ahead.
As SAF producers scramble for limited raw materials to meet new blending quotas in Europe and growing demand elsewhere, barely used and virgin palm oil is being passed off as UCO to traders that supply fuel companies, experts and industry operators told us. Palm oil that is not considered waste is not permitted under European Union rules for SAF because of its links to deforestation.


Our reporting focused on the UCO trade between Malaysia, the world’s second-biggest palm oil producer, and Spain, the EU’s largest aviation market and home to one of its SAF pioneers – oil-and-gas giant Repsol.
Fried in Spain?
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Repsol CEO Josu Jon Imaz held up his company’s new 250-million-euro ($285 million) plant for renewable fuels, including SAF, near the historic Spanish port town of Cartagena as an example of how Europe can pursue a fair, green transition. Nearly half of the plant’s cost was financed by the EU’s lending arm, the European Investment Bank.
Repsol, which aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, started large-scale production of biodiesel and jet fuel – with its SAF mainly made from UCO – at the plant early last year.
Contrasting this with electric vehicles, many of them imported from China, Imaz said the raw material for Repsol’s renewable fuels “comes from Spanish farms and from the Spanish rural economy”.
In a promotional video for those fuels, Spanish celebrity chef Susi Díaz is seen dispensing advice to young cooks in the kitchen of her La Finca restaurant. Olive oil is then poured out of a pan into steel jugs as a voiceover explains how the waste cooking residue will be sent to the Repsol biofuels refinery.
Spain’s restaurants, however, are not the main source of Repsol’s UCO.
In 2024, more than 126,000 tonnes of UCO from Asia – enough to fill 50 Olympic-sized swimming pools – arrived in the Spanish region of Murcia, where Repsol’s flagship biofuels plant is located, according to trade data published by Spain’s tax agency.
Nearly two-thirds came from Malaysia, whose UCO exports to the region saw a 10-fold rise in the same year the energy heavyweight fired up its Cartagena SAF refinery.
The figures do not specify who provided or bought the raw material. But Climate Home obtained a list of shipments of UCO certified for the European market that were sourced from Malaysia by Repsol’s trading unit in Singapore, based on analysis of customs records provided by Data Desk, an investigative consultancy.
Repsol told Climate Home it “complements with imports when necessary” and receives raw material shipments from more than 20 countries. It declined to provide more details about its imports for “competitive reasons”.
The company is promoting the recycling of UCO from Spanish households – of which it says only 5% is currently collected – at its fuel stations across the country. But according to the trade data, Repsol purchased at least 53,000 tonnes of UCO from five Malaysian companies, including Evergreen Oil & Feed, in 2024.
No incidents involving fraudulent UCO were detected in Repsol’s supply chain, with its imports meeting EU rules on green certification. But our investigation found the company’s heavy reliance on Malaysian supplies exposes it to fraud risks that raise wider questions about global assertions over the sustainability of SAF.
-
Factbox: How we tracked Repsol’s UCO supply chain
Climate Home set out to find out what sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) are made of and how sustainable they really are. We focused on the supply chain of Repsol as the leading fuel supplier in the EU’s largest aviation market and a prominent advocate of SAF as a solution to decarbonising the sector.
Repsol does not publicly disclose detailed information on where the raw materials used in its SAF production are sourced from. A company representative told us that Repsol operates in “a global market, and for competitive reasons, we do not specify the origins or percentages of the raw materials”.
We analysed the summary audit report for the sustainability certificate issued for Repsol’s flagship SAF refinery in Cartagena. The document from International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) lists the raw materials used at the plant, but provides only limited information on the origin of each specific feedstock.
We submitted a freedom of information request to the European Commission asking for a detailed list of shipments to Spain of used cooking oil (UCO), which we knew was Repsol’s main feedstock. In response, the Commission sent a highly redacted document obscuring the names of suppliers and recipients. We asked the Commission to review the decision, but after a nine-month wait, its original response was largely upheld.
Spanish authorities had asked for the names to be redacted, arguing that their disclosure would “infringe the legitimate interests” of those concerned, the Commission said.
We then analysed foreign trade records published by Spain’s tax authority. While the data did not include names of individual companies, it pointed to a spike in imports of UCO destined for the Murcia region – where Repsol’s SAF plant is located – from Malaysia and China in 2024.
Working with Data Desk – an investigative consultancy – we obtained a list of Malaysian companies that supplied UCO to Repsol’s trading unit in Singapore. This unit has said publicly that it is “deeply involved” in the supply chain for raw materials – mainly UCO – from Asia for renewable fuels, including SAF.
Having located Repsol’s suppliers, we then sent a reporter to attend a UCO collection event organised by the largest of these, Evergreen Oil & Feed, in the city of Melaka, where its owner confirmed it sells UCO to the Spanish energy giant.
Asked what steps it takes to fight fraud, Repsol said it operates a rigorous supplier monitoring system to ensure the sustainability and integrity of its SAF production. A “very strong” compliance process means dubious raw materials and suppliers suspected of misconduct are quickly weeded out, it added.
“Repsol firmly rejects any fraud that distorts competitiveness in the sector and supports all initiatives by relevant authorities to combat it,” the company said in emailed comments.
Shrinking air travel’s carbon footprint
Europe’s green aviation fuel refineries are boosting output because of new requirements by the EU and the UK for planes to use more SAF in the coming decades. From the start of this year, fuel supplied to airports across Europe needs to contain at least 2% of SAF, with targets rising gradually over the next 15 years, putting huge strain on tight global supplies.
SAF is crucial for shrinking aviation’s carbon footprint, according to industry body the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and is expected to account for 65% of emissions reductions by 2050, when the sector has committed to reaching net zero.
In 2023, emissions from international plane travel accounted for 2.5% of the world’s energy-related carbon emissions. As air travel increases, and other sectors are more easily able to decarbonise, that share is set to grow.
Repsol’s Imaz told financial analysts early last year that emissions-cutting alternatives to SAF – such as restricting short-haul flights – would represent “a drop in the ocean”.
But surging demand for SAF’s feedstock of choice, UCO, and a global certification system based on self-declaration at the start of the supply chain are encouraging fraud that undermines the new fuel’s green credentials.
‘Ridiculous’ collection numbers
This investigation found that by the time Asia-based traders ship UCO supplies overseas to refineries for processing into SAF, guaranteeing their environmental integrity is virtually impossible – despite the certification system on which fuel companies and airlines rely.
A source at a leading Malaysian UCO supplier to companies including Repsol told The Straits Times that some UCO collectors and restaurants are committing fraud by providing oil that does not qualify as used, although it is difficult to prove.
In Malaysia, which is among the world’s leading suppliers of both UCO and virgin palm oil, government-subsidised cooking oil is cheaper than UCO – providing a clear incentive for fraud.


In a 2024 report, Brussels-based environmental group Transport & Environment (T&E) cited figures showing that Malaysia already exports about three times as much UCO as it is estimated to collect domestically and import, raising concern about where that oil is coming from – and what it consists of.
The analysis by consultancy Stratas Advisors, used as a basis for the report, says the “substantial deficit” indicates the “risks of fraud and palm oil potentially compensating for the shortfall”.
In 2023, 458,000 tonnes of UCO originating in Malaysia were registered with International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), the leading certification scheme recognised by the European Commission to demonstrate compliance with its biofuels sustainability criteria.
In absolute terms, that puts Malaysia second only to China. But if all that UCO were collected from its population, it would have had by far the highest volumes per person worldwide: 15.2 litres for each Malaysian inhabitant, compared with 0.9 litres per capita in neighbouring Indonesia and 3.8 litres in Spain.
Cian Delaney, campaigns coordinator at T&E, said that figure is “ridiculous”, adding that for it to be feasible, Malaysia would need to be “a world leading collection and refining system – which it isn’t”.
Exactly what it says on the bottle?
The waste ingredients from which SAF is made change hands multiple times in a largely opaque system. To verify their sustainability, European regulators rely on checks by private auditors and agencies that issue green certificates based on their findings.
But there is a blind spot: the restaurants, street stalls, households and factories from which the UCO is pooled self-declare the origin and authenticity of their contributions. Aside from ad-hoc spot checks and sampling, there is no way of knowing that all of these providers are telling the truth.
“The opportunity, or incidents, of fraud is very high,” said Vasu R Vasuthewan, the former Malaysia head for the ISCC.
Malaysian authorities recently uncovered criminal syndicates that had pocketed thousands of dollars a day by getting hold of large amounts of subsidised cooking oil, mixing it in with UCO, and then selling it on to industrial UCO traders.


Industry sources told Climate Home and The Straits Times that many households and restaurants are motivated to replace cooking oil after a single use – contrary to standard practice – and then sell it on as UCO. Cooking oil is considered waste when it is no longer fit for frying – generally after being used between three and five times.
“Restaurant compliance [with sustainability standards] may be very low,” said Vasuthewan, who now runs his own UCO import and export business. “Many will fake their declaration, hoping they won’t get caught.”
Malaysia’s Deputy Minister of Plantation and Commodities Chan Foong Hin, who has acknowledged that fraud is an issue in the UCO sector, said authorities are “actively monitoring the industry to prevent fraudulent activities” and strengthening enforcement mechanisms.
“To maintain supply chain integrity, various measures are in place, including traceability systems, certification requirements, and stringent export documentation,” he told The Straits Times.
Delaney of T&E said it is difficult for auditors to physically check the origin of the oil, since hundreds of restaurants can supply the same collection point, making it a “notable blind spot”.
Spot checks, patchy audits
In theory, there is a system in place to keep fraudulent stocks out of the supply chain. Buyers and regulators in Europe rely on audit companies to trace the raw materials used in SAF and prove their green credentials.
Those audits are verified by authorised certification systems like ISCC – which is led by the biofuels industry and, according to one source, enjoys “a kind of monopoly” in the sector. It then issues sustainability certificates to commodities traders and fuel suppliers.
ISCC says its certification process supports “sustainable, fully traceable, deforestation-free and climate-friendly supply chains”.


Yet while auditors conduct random field checks in some cases, that happens less often in countries outside the EU, industry experts say.
According to James Cogan, compliance and markets lead at Irish biofuel firm Clonbio, it is far easier for fraud to occur outside the EU where “it’s much less visible to us”.
An analysis by T&E in China, for example, showed that sampling of points of origin happened in less than 10% of the ISCC-approved audits, whereas in the EU it was about 30%.
Adam Kirby, ISCC’s senior sustainability manager, told Climate Home that auditors monitor volumes coming in and out of collection points for any suspicious behaviour, in addition to carrying out spot checks.
He added that the ISCC follows the requirements established by regulators like the European Commission.
-
Factbox: How ISCC verification works
Throughout the complex SAF supply chain, the ISCC requires operators to pass certified information on the origin of the raw materials and their carbon savings from one operator to another.
Traders typically receive UCO from individuals and restaurants at collection points or storage facilities audited under the scheme. But those bringing in the oil are mostly not vetted directly. In the majority of cases, they are simply required to fill out a self-declaration form stating that their UCO meets the definition of waste, meaning that it is not just regular palm oil, and is compliant with the ISCC’s sustainability criteria.
UCO collectors are required to keep all these forms in a database available for inspection by third-party auditors who check that the same amount of UCO coming into a facility is then going out.
If everything stacks up, the ISCC issues a “proof of sustainability” certificate which fuel producers like Repsol rely on to confidently buy the raw material in compliance with EU and/or international regulations.
Airlines are given access to these certificates as evidence they are buying SAF that meets sustainability requirements
In 2024, ISCC also conducted 79 special “integrity assessments” – around two-thirds targeting Asia-based suppliers – which independently monitored the work of auditors. In a third of cases, it found violations of its certification requirements, including an inability to demonstrate the traceability of products, leading to the withdrawal of 11 certificates.
From frying pan to frequent flier
Under the current system, the entire SAF supply chain relies on a long paper trail rooted in those self-declarations and sporadic inspections at the points where UCO is collected.
In Malaysia, Evergreen’s owner CK Lau told The Straits Times the company follows the “proper processes” in its collection based on the requirements established by the ISCC. He added that the documentation is “critical” as, otherwise, the company would not be able to export its UCO.


Repsol, for its part, said it requires “suppliers to be certified under European Commission-recognised voluntary regimes”.
In turn, airline companies that buy from Repsol such as International Airlines Group (IAG) – the parent company of British Airways, Iberia, Vueling, Aer Lingus and LEVEL – rely on documentation they get from it and other jet fuel providers, to show the SAF they are paying for has green certification.
In exceptional cases, IAG told Climate Home it has sent its own staff to carry out checks on the ground, as with a Shanghai-based Chinese supplier last year. It described the outcome of that audit – which included supply, record-keeping, environmental and health and safety standards – as “positive”.
Robert Boyd, Boeing’s Asia-Pacific sustainability lead who previously worked for IATA, thinks airlines’ exacting standards will bring positive change in the SAF industry. “You’ll see a race to the top… on sustainability, and it will, in a way, be self-regulated,” he added.
SAF certification faces EU scrutiny
In the meantime, following a string of fraud allegations about the authenticity of UCO-derived biofuels imported from China, the EU has been trying to ascertain whether the certification system governments and businesses rely on is fit for purpose.
EU authorities have been in talks to strengthen that system, leading to speculation that the ISCC could be suspended for failing to catch cases of biodiesel fraud. The ISCC denied in a statement that regulators had considered halting automatic EU-wide acceptance of its certificates, adding that its relationship with the European Commission remained constructive.
“There’s always bad actors, there’s always bad people, and there’s only a certain amount of policing that can be done in any industry,” said Kirby. “We at ISCC have done, I think, an incredible job.”
A European Commission spokeswoman said the bloc’s executive arm was “closely monitoring” the SAF market “to detect and prevent fraud, which risks undermining the EU’s ambition to effectively decarbonise air transport”.
Authorities in the US and Singapore, which wants to position itself as a regional SAF hub, have also voiced concern about fraud in the SAF supply chain.
“We are aware of concerns raised by various stakeholders, including the EU and the US, regarding fraudulent practices in the SAF supply chain. We share the same concerns as these pose risks to market confidence, fair trading and development of a nascent SAF market,” said Daniel Ng, chief sustainability officer at the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS).
He said the authority was working with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection to develop “harmonised standards for feedstock verification to prevent further fraudulent practices”.
Demand for UCO sizzles
Whatever action regulators take to keep SAF fraud-free, leading European refiners such as Repsol are pushing for a level global playing field as well as more public funding to bring down costs and help develop the nascent sector on the continent.
IATA warned earlier this month that the European mandates had caused the SAF price paid by airlines to double because of hefty compliance fees being charged by producers.
Repsol’s aviation head Carlos Suárez Cubillo warned that fuel producers in parts of the world with laxer rules could produce SAF “with less regulation and less control of the feedstock… and here in Europe that could de-incentivise the production, the construction of new facilities”.
In Brazil, for example, an emerging SAF industry is gearing up to use crop-based feedstocks that are commonly linked to deforestation – and are therefore banned in Europe – such as soy and palm oil, as well as sugarcane-based ethanol, which has been linked to labour abuses and modern slavery.


An investigation by Climate Home’s partner in Brazil, InfoAmazonia, found that the palm oil producer behind a planned biorefinery in the Amazon region – billed as Brazil’s first SAF project – is growing the crop on land areas subject to sanctions by the national environment agency over illegal deforestation, and is struggling financially after rights abuse allegations.
Brazilian firm behind SAF plan found growing oil palm on deforested Amazon land
IATA hopes its efforts to put in place a global registry for SAF, launched in April as a voluntary initiative, will boost transparency around feedstocks and their greenhouse gas savings – and enable airlines to have some level of visibility and comparability between countries, fuel providers and airports.
SAF producers and airlines are also looking to other waste-based materials to meet rising mandates – especially as more advanced fuels made from green hydrogen and carbon dioxide, known as e-SAF, are still being developed and tested.
Air travel’s ‘holy grail’: Jet fuel made from CO2 and water prepares for take-off
Repsol, for example, recently closed a deal with US vegetable oils giant Bunge to source camelina and safflower – non-food crops that can grow on poor land – to produce hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) for biodiesel and SAF.


In January, it also announced it would invest more than 800 million euros ($906 million) in Europe’s first plant in the Catalan city of Tarragona to produce “renewable” methanol from organic urban waste that now ends up in landfill, for use in maritime, road and aviation transport from 2029.
But in the meantime, Europe’s overwhelming reliance on UCO means it will continue to import supplies from Asia – despite the concerns over fraud, said Sophie Byron, global head of biofuels pricing at S&P Global Commodity Insights.
“That trade flow is not going away anytime soon,” she said.
‘Token effort’ on aviation emissions?
At Repsol’s vast refinery complex near Cartagena, the colourful pipes and metal cylinders of the flagship SAF unit are dwarfed by the site’s traditional, fossil fuel-refining infrastructure.


Repsol’s plants processed 43.3 million tonnes of crude oil last year, according to its annual report. In contrast, its renewable fuels production capacity stands at 1.25 million tonnes per year – of which the Cartagena plant accounts for 250,000 tonnes, including SAF.
It is a token effort towards tackling rising aviation emissions, said Pedro Luengo of Spanish environmental network Ecologistas en Acción, standing on a hillside overlooking the complex.
As Spain’s airports prepare for another record-breaking summer holiday influx this year, Luengo warned that the hype around SAF could prove counter-productive in the fight against climate change by justifying yet more air travel.
“Instead of gradually substituting fossil fuels with other [green] sources and consuming less, what we are doing is expanding the opportunities because we have more fuels available to use,” he said. “That is a contradiction.”
This investigation was developed with the support of Journalismfund Europe.
The Straits Times in Singapore will publish a version of this story in the coming days.
The post Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?
Climate Change
Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030
An upcoming UK government consultation on weakening targets for electric vehicles (EVs) could cost consumers as much as £3bn a year by 2030, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
It could require the UK to import an extra 17m barrels of oil in 2030, raising expected net imports by 8%, as well as adding 2.5% to national emissions that year, the analysis shows.
After years of fierce lobbying by parts of the car industry – and despite the significant savings on offer for EV drivers – media reports suggest that EV targets could be “watered down”.
Under current rules, battery EVs – BEVs, those which run only on electricity – must make up a rising share of new car sales in the UK.
This policy, known as the “zero-emission vehicles” (ZEV) mandate, was introduced by the previous Conservative government and sets a goal for 33% BEV sales in 2026, rising to 80% in 2030.
(Carmakers are able to use “flexibilities” to help meet their targets, which reduces the effective target under the ZEV mandate to an estimated 25% of sales in 2026.)
Now, the government under new Labour prime minister Andy Burnham is reported to be considering a cut in the BEV target for 2030 to just 50% of new car sales, alongside options for 60% or 70%.
Carbon Brief understands that a consultation on weakening the ZEV mandate is being reviewed by the prime minister’s office in Number 10, ahead of being formally released.
If the mandate is weakened to 50% by 2030 – and if carmakers make more use of “flexibilities” – there could be up to 3m fewer BEVs on UK roads by 2030, according to the NGO T&E.
Previous Carbon Brief analysis found that BEVs are around £1,100 cheaper to run per year than a petrol car, thanks to far lower fuel costs.
Overall, BEVs are more than £1,000 per year cheaper to own than either petrol cars or plug-in hybrids (PHEVs, which can run on petrol or electricity).
This is according to analysis of the “total cost of ownership” by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), including purchase price, fuel costs, insurance and proposed pay-per-mile charges.
In total, Carbon Brief analysis shows that UK drivers could be hit with an extra £3bn in annual ownership costs by 2030, if the ZEV mandate is weakened, as shown below.

A weaker ZEV mandate could “put billions of pounds of committed investments at risk”, reports BusinessGreen, including in the EV charging network and battery supply chains.
Industry group Energy UK says that the mandate is “working in the way it was designed to work” and that it is the “single biggest driver of emissions reductions” in government climate plans.
However, Carbon Brief analysis shows that a weaker ZEV mandate could result in an extra 7.4m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (MtCO2) in 2030. This would add the equivalent of 2.5% to national emissions in 2030, under the UK’s international climate goal for that year.
In addition, a weaker ZEV mandate could result in the UK needing to import an extra 17m barrels of oil in 2030, equivalent to 8% of projected net imports that year.
Energy UK says that shifting to EVs will help to reduce household energy bills “for everyone”. This is not only through direct cost-of-ownership savings for EV drivers, but also by spreading the costs of upgrading the electricity system across a wider user base.
Car industry group the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders claims that its members are spending “blilions…on discounts, finance incentives and marketing support” and that “natural” EV demand is below the level required to meet the current ZEV mandate. Its claims are disputed.
related
Q&A: Does the world need ‘carbon capture and storage’ to reach net-zero?
UK withdraws millions in funding from world’s second-largest rainforest in Congo
28 quotes from new UK leader Andy Burnham on climate, net-zero and fossil fuels
Analysis: UK newspapers have already printed 63 editorials in 2026 backing North Sea drilling
The post Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030
Climate Change
“We’ve gone backwards” – new plastics treaty text dims hopes for production curbs
A new draft text to revive deadlocked UN plastics treaty talks does not include specific measures on managing runaway plastic production, a growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, drawing criticism from some countries and campaigners that ambition for the global pact is shrinking.
After diplomats met in Nairobi early in July for the first time since negotiations fell apart a year ago, Chilean ambassador Julio Cordano, who is chairing the talks, released a first document last weekend, setting out elements of a possible treaty to tackle plastic pollution.
Cordano stressed this is an “informal reference document” rather than a negotiated text. But its structure is similar to a draft treaty and closely resembles the previous version rejected by governments during the last round of formal negotiations in Geneva.
The new text recognises the world’s “unsustainable” levels of plastic production and consumption, both of which are projected to nearly triple by 2060. But it contains no measures to stem that growth, critics say, pointing to what they see as a broader weakening of ambition.
They argue the document is increasingly aligned with the demands of fossil fuel-producing countries, including Gulf states, the US and Russia, which have pushed for the treaty to focus on managing plastic waste rather than limiting production.
“When you leave the countries that have the most vested interests in delaying meaningful action to shape the agenda, you end up with a text that does nothing to end plastic pollution,” said David Azoulay, environmental health programme director at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
France disappointed with production omission
“We’ve gone backwards rather than forwards,” Christina Dixon, a campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), told Climate Home News. “A text that was rejected by the majority of countries in Geneva as being too weak and not ambitious enough has been repackaged one year later with some key elements removed and put out as a kind of sign of progress.”
A French diplomatic source told Climate Home News it was “disappointing” that the text lacked any concrete provisions on tackling “unsustainable” levels of plastics production and consumption. That is despite a majority of countries repeatedly advocating for curbs and scientists saying the world cannot put an end to plastic pollution without tackling the issue at source, they added.
Governments across Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Pacific islands have previously called for efforts to limit the manufacturing of plastics to “sustainable levels”, but their efforts have been frustrated by strong and persistent opposition from a small group of fossil fuel producers, who see plastics as a growing market for oil and gas.
Weakening of production ambition
Cordano told Climate Home News that the “concept” of sustainable production is still reflected in different parts of the new document.
But measures aimed at achieving that objective have progressively weakened over time. Initial versions of the draft treaty, dating back to 2024, included a standalone article with the option of setting a global target to reduce the production and consumption of primary plastics.
That disappeared from successive drafts published in Geneva last year. The last version nevertheless said data on plastic production could be considered in future assessments of whether the treaty was meeting its objectives. Observers saw this as an important provision that could have strengthened the pact over time and potentially kept the door open for a global production target.
The new text only mentions “sustainable production” in the preamble and includes an article saying that countries could improve the design of plastic products in order to contribute to “sustainable production”.
“There’s a war of attrition element,” said Dennis Clare, a negotiator for the Pacific island nation of Micronesia. “The countries that want to do less are dragging out discussions and gradually pressuring the more ambitious to compromise towards a lower common denominator.”
Little space for thorny discussions
Countries have twice failed to agree on a global plastics treaty at what were meant to be final rounds of negotiations in December 2024 and August 2025. After being selected as the new chair earlier this year, Cordano has been working to steer the process back on track through a series of informal meetings, hoping diplomats can find common ground ahead of the next formal negotiations scheduled for early 2027.
But he has been criticised for sidelining discussions on some of the thorniest issues. Cordano kept plastic production off the official agenda for the Nairobi meeting a few weeks ago. He said beforehand that countries could bring any issue to the table, but production did not feature in the summary of discussions subsequently published by the chair.
Clare said discussions on fundamental elements of the treaty, including production, had been “constrained” and that there was little space for them in Nairobi.
Cordano told Climate Home News the Nairobi talks had provided space both for “reaffirming positions and expressing new ideas”, adding that countries “remain free to raise all issues they consider important”.
Informal talks between negotiators are held behind closed doors and neither the media nor external observers can take part.


Campaigners have accused the chair of making political calculations to reach an agreement at any cost. “He has clearly identified that the only way to achieve an agreement by consensus is to do away with the more complex elements of the treaty like those that deal with sustainable production and consumption of plastics,” the EIA’s Dixon said.
Cordano said he continues to be guided by countries as “they develop their own exchanges and continue working towards possible landing zones”.
Push for more ambition
Governments will debate the new text at another meeting of chief negotiators in Bangkok, Thailand, at the end of September, and a new version of the document is expected after that meeting.
The French diplomatic source said the current text should not be viewed as “an end-product”, but as a starting point that “can and should be improved”.
France, together with the EU and members of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), will continue pushing for stronger provisions, including measures to address plastic production, the source said.
China’s coal power rebounds as record clean energy goes to waste
The HAC group includes over 70 countries, primarily from across Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Pacific.
Micronesian negotiator Clare said countries on the frontline of the plastics crisis may decide to reject a really weak treaty that puts the burden on them to clean up somebody else’s waste, while producers can keep churning out plastics unrestrained.
“If the treaty does not include essential elements of the solution, even an initial, apparent diplomatic success – an agreement – can come to be seen over time as an environmental failure,” Clare warned.
The post “We’ve gone backwards” – new plastics treaty text dims hopes for production curbs appeared first on Climate Home News.
“We’ve gone backwards” – new plastics treaty text dims hopes for production curbs
Climate Change
South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court
Layers of red dust coat South Africa’s Saldanha Bay, a legacy of the one billion-plus tonnes of iron ore exported from what was once a quiet coastal fishing town in the 1970s. Now the government wants to turn this area into the “oil and gas hub of South Africa”, but opposition from local communities and civil society could force a change of plan.
Since 2014 South Africa has developed a strategy for taking “full advantage” of its marine resources, known as Operation Phakisa. It has resulted in the mapping of more than 95% of the country’s nearly 3,000-kilometre coastline for offshore oil and gas exploration.
The plan seeks to “drill 30 exploration wells in 10 years”, which it estimates could lead to the production of an average of 370,000 barrels of oil and gas per day over 20 years, with Saldanha Bay earmarked as a key logistics hub. It also aims to develop other marine sectors like aquaculture, maritime transport and ocean tourism.
However, two major court cases against the government and oil giants Shell and TotalEnergies have challenged those plans, as coastal residents, allied with national civil society groups, have pushed back against oil concessions held by the multinationals, arguing they were not consulted, and that towns like Saldanha Bay could face social and environmental harms from the fossil fuel extraction.
Melissa Groenink-Groves, programme manager at legal nonprofit Natural Justice, said the cases in South Africa could set a precedent for the whole region. “When communities win in the courts, the successes serve as inspiration for other communities to advocate [for] their rights in their own contexts,” she explained.
She added that the legal challenges to Operation Phakisa also develop climate litigation in the African context, and could impact how environmental impact assessments are conducted going forward.
Globally, as the oil and gas industry sets its sights on the ocean, with over 85% of new discoveries in 2024 made offshore, scientists and activists warn it could threaten marine life and coastal communities, and weaken the ocean’s ability to trap excess heat from the atmosphere, fuelling planetary warming further.

Taking oil companies to court
About 300 kilometres north of Saldanha Bay, the Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, backed by nonprofits The Green Connection and Natural Justice, has taken TotalEnergies to court over its plans to drill for oil and gas in a 30,000-square-kilometre block off South Africa’s west coast.
The oil exploration block is in a biodiverse marine area bordering Namibia and South Africa known as the Orange Basin, which is a “highly relevant” sanctuary for endangered species, according to Nelson Mandela University’s Institute for Coastal and Marine Research.
Among other grievances, the cooperative maintains that the company’s environmental impact assessment was flawed, failing to consider the project’s contribution to climate change, and that the government “placed the profits of a multinational corporation above the livelihoods of vulnerable coastal communities”. The Western Cape High Court concluded hearings in late March and is expected to deliver a ruling later this year.
Walter Steenkamp, chairperson of the Aukotowa Cooperative, is concerned that the oil and gas drilling will lead to increased inequality, asking “for whom is the development? Definitely not for us.”
In a written statement, TotalEnergies told Climate Home News that it “is a responsible operator fully committed to complying with all applicable South African legislation”.
Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment
Communities and climate impacts at stake
On the other side of the country, along South Africa’s eastern coastline, community-based nonprofit Sustaining the Wild Coast and partner organisations challenged Shell and Impact Africa’s exploration permit, arguing that the firms had failed to consult impacted communities – a legal requirement under South African law.
Co-plaintiff Sinegugu Zukulu also said in 2022 that “oil and gas will lead to more emissions, and in the face of climate change, this is wholly irresponsible”.
Following two rulings against the companies by lower courts, the case is now before South Africa’s highest Constitutional Court, which has reserved judgment since September 2025. A ruling against the companies would be final, effectively ending the exploration permit.
Legal expert Groenink-Groves said oil exploration applications under Operation Phakisa have been “granted largely without properly assessing the devastating impact an oil spill could have on small-scale fishers, the risks of drilling in ultra-deep waters, [and] without accounting for climate change impacts associated with oil and gas exploitation”.
She added that exploration applications have often failed to consider coastal management laws and in some cases, cross-border and regional environmental risks.
Shell and South Africa’s Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to written requests for comment.

South Africa’s offshore oil ambitions
Fishers around South Africa, many of whom have for generations relied on marine resources for survival, say the country’s offshore oil and gas push is sacrificing their livelihoods for profit.
“Why do they want to destroy our heritage? We can’t afford to say yes to oil and gas because the ocean is our source of life,” said Carmelita Mostert, a member of advocacy group Coastal Links and third-generation Saldanha Bay fisher.
Yet with unemployment above 30%, alongside high levels of poverty and wealth inequality, the government sees Operation Phakisa as a vehicle for socioeconomic development.
South Africa’s Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Gwede Mantashe has described the court cases as “anti-development”, and claimed that the environmental organisations are funded by the CIA.
Sifiso Dladla, a campaigner with human rights organisation groundWork, argued that the close relationship between the government and the fossil fuel industry – including its 3% contribution to gross tax revenue – limits the potential success of movements pushing for an inclusive energy system. Politicians “need money to win elections. Mining companies need the government to protect them,” he said.
Patrick Bond, a political economist and sociology professor at the University of Johannesburg, said Operation Phakisa only makes economic sense if its social and environmental harms are ignored, adding that “if a genuine social cost of carbon analysis were done in any African fossil fuel project, there would be few – if any – able to justify the projects economically”.
At a global scale, Bond said oil multinationals have the financial backing of European governments – including France’s $2.8 billion stake in TotalEnergies – which can help make local resistance more effective where it has international allies to amplify the messages.
For Saldanha Bay fisher Mostert, the fight is about protecting the livelihoods of coastal communities. “It is my hope that we can stand strong and protest,” she said. “If oil and gas is not allowed, our lives will be much easier and better – but if oil and gas goes ahead we will be in absolute agony.”
The post South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court appeared first on Climate Home News.
South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits

