A group of over 60 leading scientists from around the world has issued an urgent call for governments to agree on ambitious and enforceable action to tackle plastic pollution, branding the final round of UN Global Plastics Treaty negotiations “the world’s last chance to act.” 

In a rare collective intervention, open letters have been published from across a number of global institutions, each of them demanding that leaders agree upon a binding plastics treaty grounded in science, justice, and a “bold political will.”

Among the demands is an emphasis on the need to phase out toxic additives and chemicals from the plastic production process, while reducing the conveyor belt of production altogether.

“This is not just a call for action, this is the scientific community bearing witness,” said Professor Steve Fletcher, editor-in-chief of Cambridge Prisms: Plastics in which the letters have been published. “We have 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.”

The authors have argued that the stakes at the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) could not be higher and that the next and final round of negotiations will be the “world’s best opportunity to secure a binding agreement that tackles plastic pollution across its entire lifecycle.”

Alongside legally-binding targets to cap and reduce plastic production, there has been a strong demand for global health safeguards to protect human health and the structural inclusion of affected communities in the design and implementation of the treaty, especially Indigenous Peoples, informal waste workers, and fence line communities. There is also a call for robust financing and compliance mechanisms to ensure the Treaty is enforced while support is provided to low and middle-income countries.

“The current draft of the Global Plastics Treaty falls short by excluding Indigenous Peoples from decision-making roles while incorporating their knowledge in ways that are disconnected from their rights,” said Professor Max Liboiron from the Department of Geography at Memorial University in Canada. “This is not simply a call for ‘inclusion’, it is a call for governance infrastructure.”

Progress is at risk of being derailed by industry lobbyists and countries with low ambitions on tackling the crisis. Meanwhile, concern has been expressed over the politicisation of science in treaty negotiations. Several scientists have warned that without the meaningful inclusion of those most affected by plastic pollution, the Treaty will fall short.

Calls have therefore been made for the structural involvement of Indigenous Peoples, small island states, women, young people, and residents of pollution hotspots.

An effective Plastics Treaty will need to address the systemic failures of the linear economy and the subsidies and other contributing factors that continues to perpetuate it, while steering economic structures towards something more circular, including the introduction of reuse policies and improved recycling infrastructure. Phasing out single use plastics will be critical in laying a pathway towards a more regenerative and restorative economy, too.

Evidence is mounting that plastic pollution is a health crisis. Microplastics and nanoplastics have been found not only throughout the ocean but the human body, too. These exposures disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including Indigenous Peoples and groups least protected by regulation and often excluded from decision-making forums.

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.

“In order to operationalise the global plastics treaty objective to ‘protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution’, the treaty must directly address human health impacts in the core obligations of the treaty.”

Ahead of the talks taking place in Geneva this August, negotiators have been reminded that the costs of inaction are not abstract but can “be counted in cancers, reproductive harms, and respiratory conditions.”

“To be effective, the global plastics treaty must address the real world architecture of the plastics economy, where trade is the connective tissue,” said Professor Maria Ivanova, Northeastern University in the USA. “At INC-5.2, negotiators must seize the opportunity to design a treaty that is both environmentally ambitious and structurally sound. Trade must be reimagined as a tool for transformation. If trade is the connective tissue of the plastics crisis, it must also be part of the cure.”

More than 100 countries have to date backed an ambitious treaty, yet INC-5.2 arrives after prolonged delays, consensus deadlock, and obstruction by a handful of low-ambition states. The letters argue that the treaty’s credibility and effectiveness now hinge on political courage, not scientific uncertainty.

“The scientific consensus is clear,” said Professor Fletcher. “The only question is whether governments will respond. This treaty could be transformative but only if it avoids the traps of voluntary commitments and techno-fixes,. This is the world’s last chance to act boldly.”

Click here for more from the Oceanographic Newsroom.