A plastics treaty is urgently needed, but getting it right will take time

More than two years ago, Nature urged the international community to prioritise science as nations negotiate to agree on a treaty to end plastic pollution. Such a pact is urgently needed.

About 400 million tonnes of plastic are produced each year, and that figure is expected to double by 2040. Only 9% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled.

If left unchecked, and if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, plastic production and disposal are estimated to be responsible for 15% of allowed carbon emissions by 2050.

But the effort to curb plastic pollution is, at best, a work in progress. The latest round of talks in Busan, South Korea, broke down on 1 December without formally agreeing on a treaty. Campaign groups and delegates from many countries – particularly island nations, which see the impact of plastic pollution every day as plastic washes up on their shores – were clearly angry and frustrated.

The outcome of the meeting was no surprise. International agreements can take years to finalise. This is particularly true for complex agreements that involve the regulation of individual chemicals and chemical products. Negotiations on the UN Chemical Weapons Convention lasted more than a decade from start to finish, before the agreement was opened for signature in 1993.

A text for the plastics treaty has been finalised and negotiators will meet again to continue talks within a year. Although delegates’ disappointments are justified, the commitment to continue discussions and the ambition of most participating countries to secure a strong agreement are positive, says Samuel Winton, a researcher at the Global Plastics Policy Centre at the University of Portsmouth in the UK, who is studying the negotiations.

Five rounds of negotiations have taken place since negotiations on the pact were given the green light at the UN Environment Assembly in March 2022. The proposed pact would cover polymers and microplastics – particles less than five millimetres long – and products containing them.

This would include a list of designated products to be regulated. There would also be provision for chemicals and products to be exempt from the pact, but the criteria for these have not yet been defined.

The pact would have a “financial mechanism” – that is, some form of financing attached. Who will contribute, how much the total fund should be and what it is to be used for are all yet to be agreed.

Some of these questions may remain pending until the text of the pact is finalised and the first Conference of the Parties (or COP meeting) is held. We know from COP meetings on other topics that it is extremely difficult for participants to reach an agreement when there are so many issues in dispute.

One area on which the latest meeting produced, at best, a fragile consensus was the section of the text that said any final agreement should cover the “full life cycle” of plastics.

This was in no small part because what is meant by the full life cycle still needs to be defined. Most countries interpret this as including both the production and disposal of plastics. However, around 30 countries that extract and sell fossil fuels – including Kuwait, Russia and Saudi Arabia – oppose the idea of ​​setting limits on plastic production and want the treaty to focus on regulating waste flows.

This is an area in which the role of scientists will be crucial, both in helping to define terms according to a consensus of evidence and in conducting research to bridge any knowledge gaps.

Having said that, it has been difficult for scientists to gain access to the negotiations on the treaty. This is partly due to logistics – only about 2,000 accredited observers out of a total of 3,300 participants are allowed to attend the talks, and the meeting rooms cannot accommodate such a number of people.

Another reason, according to researchers at the Centre for Science and Environment, a New Delhi-based think tank, is that some decisions were taken in closed groups of countries that did not allow observers to attend. This is not a positive development, as it risks undermining trust in a transparent process.

Observers represent industry, non-governmental groups and academic research. According to the Centre for International Environmental Law, a non-governmental organisation in Washington DC, each negotiating session so far has seen more representatives of the fossil fuel industry than the previous session (see go.nature.com/3zgjzba).

These voices cannot be allowed to dominate. The Nairobi-based UN Environment Programme is the overall host for the talks, and has still not announced how it will formally incorporate independent scientific advice. There should be no further delay in addressing this: a formal role for scientists is essential.