select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on no treaty agreement being reached at the end of the UN plastics pollution meeting.
Prof Aldina Franco, Professor in Ecology and Global Environmental University of East Anglia, said:
“Evidence of the harmful effects of plastic on people, wildlife, and ecosystems continues to grow. Our recent research revealed that some birds are incorporating polypropylene ropes into their nests—a behaviour linked to high chick mortality. Urgent action is needed to reduce the amount of plastic in the environment. While it is disappointing that no political consensus was reached at the recent INC meeting in Geneva, it is encouraging that countries remain in discussions, working toward a global agreement.”
Prof Richard Thompson OBE FRS, Head of the International Marine Litter Research Unit at the University of Plymouth and a co-coordinator of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, said:
“It is obviously disappointing that those around the table couldn’t reach agreement following ten days of negotiations. However, as someone who has spent the past three decades looking at the issue of plastic pollution, I do feel that it’s almost better to have no agreement at this point in time than global support for something which may have been diluted to such an extent as to render it meaningless.
“There are well over 100 nations supporting the principles of an ambitious treaty to end plastic pollution. Some are undecided and getting the best available scientific evidence to inform their decisions has been a key part of my work over the last week. There are also some nations with lower ambition, and this is mainly because I think they fear the treaty could bring economic costs for their countries – for example, those countries who are major producers of oil and gas which is the carbon source for plastic production.
“In this regard we need to be clear this is not a treaty to end plastic production, but a treaty to end plastic pollution. It needs to provide what is needed to ensure that only plastic products which bring an essential use to society are produced and that such products are safer and more sustainable than at present. This will require development of associated international criteria together with standards, testing and labelling, to provide a level playing field to support innovation and facilitate international trade in safer and more sustainable products.
“Plastic pollution contaminates our planet from the poles to the equator and from our deepest oceans to our highest mountain. Microplastics are in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Pollution occurs along the entire lifecycle of plastics and negatively affects economies, wildlife and human health. And plastic production is set to triple over the next few decades so unless we take action the problem will escalate.
“The science clearly indicates the need for an internationally-binding treaty to end plastic pollution. One thing that struck me is that some nations have stringent health and safety regulations in their own country, but do not support such standards being applied internationally via the treaty. One can only speculate as to the reasons for this, but the United Nations was established to facilitate cooperation among nations to tackle challenges such as plastic pollution. We can only hope that for the sake of the planet and future generations, negotiators take a more collaborative approach at the next round of negotiations.
“Having attended dozens of meetings and met hundreds of negotiators and representatives from industry and civil society organisations during INC-5.2, my feeling is that the willingness to reduce the global threats posed by plastic pollution is as strong as ever. The precise nature of any future agreement, and its implementation is what’s still up for debate and this is a rapidly evolving space. At the last round of negotiations, for example, the United States supported ambition and what can be achieved by multilateralism. However, all of that has evaporated and the same policy negotiators are taking a different stance, so it’s too early to say how negotiations will unfold going forward.”
Dr Sam Harrison, an environmental modeller at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, said:
“There are ever-increasing amounts of plastics present in the environment and any delay to tackling this is very concerning. We already know that plastics and chemicals added to, or contained within, plastics cause harm to animals, humans and plants, and any delay only serves to worsen these impacts, risking knock-on effects for ecosystems and planetary health.
“Though we don’t have the global plastics treaty that we had hoped for, it is reassuring that member states unanimously expressed support for continuing negotiations at a later date. Key differences exist between countries, and reconciling these will be the biggest challenge. While the vast majority support an ambitious treaty with caps on production of plastics and bans on the most problematic plastic products and chemicals, several countries continue to put a block on reducing production. However, the science is clear: plastic production is the main driver of plastic pollution, and tackling plastic pollution cannot be effective without reducing production.
“The next steps are uncertain, but there is likely to be a resumed negotiating session, perhaps within the next six months. Before that, countries might talk to each other informally to try to bridge remaining gaps, though such efforts between previous negotiation sessions have clearly not been successful. There were calls from several countries for a change in process, perhaps even allowing countries to vote on issues when agreement from all countries cannot be obtained. There is also the potential for countries that support a strong treaty to branch off and form their own multilateral agreements.
“It is crucial that any treaty is underpinned by science, and it is reassuring that high ambition countries like the UK and EU understand the importance of this. However, the amount of misrepresentation of the science during negotiations by certain countries was very concerning, with some even denying a link between plastic production and pollution. It is more important than ever that scientists make their science heard in negotiations to ensure that we end up with a strong, evidence-based treaty that can effectively tackle plastic pollution and its harms.”
Prof Steve Fletcher, Director, Revolution Plastics Institute, University of Portsmouth, said:
“The lack of an agreement in Geneva is both concerning and disappointing. This was a critical opportunity to end plastic pollution for future generations.
“Whilst there has been no consensus, it is important to recognise that this is because ambitious countries refused to accept a watered-down treaty. The draft treaty on the table omitted key actions to prevent plastic pollution, including measures to control the production of plastic, regulate the use of chemicals in plastics, and establish global rules on plastic products.
“The weak treaty proposed by the Chair at the end of this negotiation meeting was insufficient to deliver the changes needed to end plastic pollution. Therefore, ambitious countries had little choice but to reject this diluted and ineffective treaty text.
“The lack of agreement on the terms of a treaty to end plastic pollution is undoubtedly a setback for global plastic pollution policy. We know that plastic pollution is accelerating and has negative effects on people and nature, therefore, any delay in forging effective global policy to end plastic pollution is time wasted.
“The areas of disagreement and consensus in global plastics policy are now clearer than ever. While it is frustrating that an agreement could not be reached at this meeting, it is critical that the investment of time, resources, and energy does not go to waste and that the negotiations in Geneva are used to accelerate progress at the next round of negotiations.
“The time from now until the next formal negotiation meeting is critical. This is the time to reset and prepare for decisive progress. The focus must be to:
“The goal set in 2022 to end plastic pollution across its full life cycle is still achievable. But it will require governments to use the coming months to regroup, have frank political discussions, and commit to a more decisive approach when they next meet.
“The world cannot afford another round lost to procedural deadlock. The plastics crisis is worsening, the science is clear, and the solutions are well known. What is missing is not knowledge, but the will to match words with binding action.”
Alexis McGivern, Head of Stakeholder Engagement, Oxford Net Zero, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment and Oxford Net Zero Fellow, University of Oxford, said:
“The lack of consensus in Geneva brings us right back to where we were in Busan: with exhausted delegates and observers leaving without a deal. It is bitterly disappointing to leave Geneva without an instrument to manage the harmful life cycle of plastics, especially given that the extremely high burden of time, capacity and finance needed to participate in these negotiations. Nonetheless, we know that no treaty is better than a bad treaty. Gaveling in a weak treaty that fails to tackle toxic chemicals of concern, curb plastic production or protect human health implication of unfettered plastic production, is one that will be difficult to strengthen over time in the COP process.”
From our colleagues at SMC Australia:
Dr Nina Wootton is a Marine Researcher from The University of Adelaide, working on marine plastic pollution, said:
“The collapse of the Geneva negotiations on a global plastics treaty is a devastating missed opportunity to tackle this crisis at its source. After nearly three years, nations have walked away without agreement, with powerful plastic-producing countries, including the US, blocking caps on virgin plastic production and bans on harmful chemicals. The science is clear: recycling alone will not solve this problem. Plastic production is projected to triple by 2060, while microplastics and associated chemicals are already found in our oceans, wildlife, and human bodies.
“Vulnerable, remote communities, often with limited waste management infrastructure, will continue to bear the brunt of this pollution. Australia remains committed to ending plastic waste by 2040, but without collective ambition and action from the biggest, wealthiest nations, that goal becomes harder to reach. This was our chance for transformative change — and we let it slip away.”
From our colleagues at SMC Spain:
Carmen Morales Lecturer at the University of Cadiz, researcher at the Institute of Marine Research (INMAR) and Scientists Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty in Geneva (Switzerland), said:
“After 10 days of negotiations, in this sixth phase to agree on a global treaty on plastic pollution, no treaty has been reached. We see two main groups: Member States that want an ambitious and effective agreement, and those that want a treaty limited to waste management.
“We have scientific evidence showing that in order to tackle the problem of plastic pollution, we must consider the entire life cycle of the material, from resource extraction to the final destination of the plastic. An effective treaty should reflect a reduction in the production and use of plastics. If the chemicals associated with plastics are not regulated, our health and that of all living beings will be compromised.
“It seems that science is being listened to more, but it is not always taken into account. The draft text presented by the chair on Wednesday [Ecuadorian Luis Vayas Valdivieso, chair of the negotiating committee] left out these points, resembling a waste treatment agreement, much weaker than the previous Busan proposal.
“There was a lot of disagreement among countries and a request was made for a new draft to be prepared.
“In the early hours of Friday morning, after long hours of waiting and widespread uncertainty, a new text was issued, with a more ambitious tone but not enough for the majority. A significant group of countries preferred not to accept a weak agreement that does not include the entire material cycle.
“Despite the frustration, a weak treaty that ignores key elements is not desirable, as it could keep the world tied to a long-term agreement that is incapable of ending plastic pollution. The current proposal should be significantly strengthened and, with a more concerted global effort, it is still possible to achieve a treaty that is commensurate with the problem we face.”
Ethel Eljarrat, Director of the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Studies (IDAEA-CSIC), said:
“Six rounds of meetings over almost three years have failed to produce agreement on the measures needed to tackle one of the greatest environmental challenges facing our planet. Disappointment and frustration reign, although this was to be expected.
“Unfortunately, a small group of oil-producing countries has blocked progress on the two key issues needed to tackle the problem: putting a cap on global plastic production and banning toxic chemicals associated with plastic.
“The other countries have not agreed to sign a minimalist treaty, which seems quite reasonable. The proposal presented did not provide any guarantees as to its effectiveness in advancing the fight against the harmful effects of plastic pollution. Accepting it would have been tantamount to giving in and denying the existence of a real problem. International treaties on other issues of global concern, such as climate change, have usually set targets to be achieved within a timeframe that, unfortunately, is never met and needs to be extended. But in this case, the starting point is so weak that it is unacceptable.
“Focusing the solution to the problem of plastic pollution solely on recycling the waste generated, when recycling rates with current production levels do not even reach 10%, is clearly insufficient. Pretending that measures should be addressed at the national level is to misunderstand what plastic pollution means for the environment.
“Now we can only hope for further meetings that will lead to a treaty that, at the very least, sets acceptable minimum standards. Meanwhile, with every year that passes without an agreement, we continue to increase the production of virgin plastic, generate more plastic waste that spreads into our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and use toxic substances that enter our bodies and affect our health.”
Declared interests
Prof Aldina Franco: I have no declaration of interest to declare. I have not been involved in the UNEP talks nor am associated to UNEP or the INC.
Prof Richard Thompson: Co-coordinator of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty
Prof Steve Fletcher: Steve Fletcher currently works on projects funded by the World Economic Forum, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Aquapak Ltd, Defra, and the Flotilla Foundation. He is a member of the independent UN International Resource Panel and is the NERC Agenda Setting Fellow for Plastic Pollution.
Alexis McGivern: None
Dr Nina Wootton: Nina has not declared any conflicts of interest.
Carmen Morales: The author has not responded to our request to declare conflicts of interest.
Ethel Eljarrat: The author has not responded to our request to declare conflicts of interest.
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.