Finalizing a global plastic treaty must be guided by independent science

The fifth U.N. Environment Programme Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) meeting intended to yield a legally binding global treaty in Busan, South Korea, was meant to be the final one.

However, countries remained far apart on the basic scope of a treaty and could agree only to postpone key decisions and resume talks, dubbed INC-5.2, to a later date. The most divisive issues included capping plastic production, managing plastic products and chemicals of concern, ensuring a just transition and financing to help developing countries implement the treaty.

“There needs to be a reduction of plastics production and chemicals of concern. In my opinion, it was much better to postpone the meeting, given the situation, in order to try to reach a more effective agreement in the INC-5.2 meeting” says Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, PhD candidate at Stockholm Resilience Centre, who took part of the sessions at INC-5 as a member of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.

The science is clear

More than 70 independent scientists from the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty participated in the meeting to support negotiators in understanding and implementing robust knowledge, including the latest peer-reviewed science, into their positions.

“The science is clear: A treaty that protects human health and the environment needs to address the issues of plastic production and chemicals. If the text is improved by strengthening provisions on plastics production and chemicals of concern, then the treaty will more effectively contribute to end plastics pollution and the harms it causes” says Bethanie Carney Almroth, Professor at the University of Gothenburg.

Changes in narratives

In an encouraging development, the Scientists’ Coalition has seen the narrative on plastics change substantially from an issue of waste management only, to better reflecting upstream causes and the full lifecycle impacts of plastic pollution, including plastic chemicals of concern.

This is thanks, in part, to the tireless work of scientists and many others who shared scientific facts with negotiators and observers over the past two years of negotiations.

At the same time the INC-5 process has also seen a few delegations strategically misrepresent scientific evidence during the discussions, to create confusion and delays, according to the Scientists’ Coalition.

“This shows the importance of a having robust, independent science and strategies to prevent conflicts of interest from derailing the future treaty” says Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez.