As negotiations to establish a global treaty tackling plastics pollution are set to resume next month, both the science and business communities want to see talks conclude with agreements which include harmonised regulations.
Calling for a binding treaty grounded in science, justice and bold political will, more than 60 scientists and experts from around the world have written a series of open letters which have been published in the journal Cambridge Prisms: Plastics. The writers warn that “the plastics crisis has become a defining environmental, health and social justice issue of our time.” The authors assert that INC5.2 “is the world’s best opportunity to secure a binding agreement that tackles plastic pollution across its entire life cycle.”
“This is not just a call for action, this is the scientific community bearing witness. We’ve watched the evidence pile up for decades. This treaty is a test of whether the world is prepared to govern plastics in a way that reflects the scale and urgency of the crisis,” said Professor Steve Fletcher, Editor-in-Chief of Cambridge Prisms: Plastics and Director of the Revolution Plastics Institute.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastics Pollution meeting, INC-5.2, will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, 5-14th August. The discussions are aimed at agreeing and adopting a new instrument that will end plastics pollution. INC-5.2 is a continuation of discussions held at, INC-5.1, which took place in Busan, Korea, at the end of 2024, where agreement could not be reached.
The authors say that their letters provide a “coherent, evidence-based roadmap” for treaty negotiators. The letters set out a number of "key demands" which include: legally binding targets to cap and reduce plastic production; phase-out of additives and chemicals in plastics known to be toxic; global health safeguards and inclusion of affected communities in the treaty design and implementation - especially Indigenous Peoples; independent scientific oversight protected from “corporate lobbying and greenwashing”; and financing and compliance mechanisms to ensure treaty enforcement and support for low-and middle-income countries.
In a letter highlighting the health impacts of microplastics and nanoplastics, Dr Cressida Bowyer, Deputy Director of the Revolution Plastics Institute at the University of Portsmouth said: “There is clear and growing evidence that plastic poses serious risks to human health. Yet the approach to health protection in the treaty still hangs in the balance.” Dr Bowyer is calling for the treaty to “directly address human health impacts in its core obligations.”
Several letters also warn of the risk of industry lobbying derailing the treaty’s ambitions. A letter authored by researchers from universities in Canada, Scotland, and Ireland asserts that “Opposition to binding measures – such as obligations to regulate petrochemicals or reduce global plastics production – remains intense and widespread.”
Professor Tony Walker, School of Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Canada added: “Subsidies and inadequate pricing of externalities have a major role in sustaining the current linear plastic economy, and thus preventing a needed transition towards a more circular economy with a focus on reducing consumption of plastics, phasing out single use plastics and providing a pathway towards a more regenerative and restorative plastics economy.”
Also calling for an agreement, the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, a coalition of more than 300 companies, organisations and financial institutions, has said that it “remains steadfast in our belief that a robust treaty with global rules and common obligations is the most effective way to pursue a lasting impact on plastic pollution while delivering economic, environmental and social value.”
Asserting that “voluntary and fragmented action is not enough, and measures determined differently in each country will add significant barriers and costs for business to implement the necessary changes at scale,” the coalition says that it “supports a treaty with harmonised regulations because it drives consistency across borders while supporting national ambitions and provides the lowest cost option to effectively address plastic pollution.”
Benefits of a harmonised treaty, according to the coalition, include: significantly increased recyclability and reusability of products across the world, with global recycled content availability projected to increase by 77% by 2040; improved long-term business and investor decision-making, and lower the cost of capital; and a 23% reduction in global mismanaged waste.
Members of the coalition include: Borealis, L’Oreal, Nestle and Unilever, and are among the businesses that will be represented at the upcoming negotiations.
Further reading:
• Microplastic pollution: Europe moves forward with new regulation
• Antimicrobial resistance: How microplastics can increase the spread of AMR
• New technologies give a boost to circular plastics
• Unilever leads stakeholder call to finalise global plastics treaty
Get more science and innovation news every month in Chemistry & Industry magazine. You can subscribe to C&I here.
Visit Blog