Science shows mounting global health risks associated with plastics life cycle pollution. Leveraging evidence and streamlining research to inform policy is critical to safeguarding people and planet. We conducted an electronic survey questionnaire, between 16th April and 16th August 2024, amongst United Nations government delegates developing the Global Plastics Treaty. We explored (1) perceptions and prioritisation of human health evidence, (2) preferred plastic pollution mitigation strategies, and (3) priorities for health research. Responses were collected in Qualtrics and analysed using summary statistics, the Fisher’s Exact Test, and thematically mapped to the Policy Cycle Framework. We received 27 survey responses, balanced by gender and career stage, including 23 countries and all World Bank country income classifications and regions, but greater representation from high-income and European countries. Human health was the highest-ranking concern related to plastics risks (Sum of rank scores (SRS) = 54). Most delegates expressed strong conviction in evidence of risks associated with plastics chemicals, polymers, products, microplastics and broader life cycle emissions. Reducing plastics production (SRS = 53) and eliminating chemicals, polymers and products of concern (SRS = 53) were prioritised, even amongst those affiliated with waste management departments or less convinced of health risks. We found the least regard for recycling as a strategy to protect health (SRS = 4–5) and eliminating open burning was the most prioritised downstream measure (SRS = 15). Generating quantitative, causal data on risks across plastics life cycles, identifying emerging health hazards, defining criteria, safe lists and substitutes for chemicals, polymers and products were government delegate priorities for research, alongside tools to track policy impacts on health and greater bilateral communication between scientists and delegations. Health risks of all forms of plastic pollution were a concern for most delegates responding to our survey. We identified key priorities for policy-driven research to strengthen the science-policy interface and support evidence-based plastics policy that protects human health.

To mitigate plastic pollution, Resolution 5/14 of the United Nations Environment Assembly established an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) tasked with negotiating the Global Plastics Treaty, an ambitious treaty expected to take effect in 2025. This treaty’s success in effectively reducing plastic pollution will depend on the ongoing work of the committee and the existing literature. Herein, I review the literature on the Global Plastics Treaty based on a search of the Web of Science. The data were analyzed, mapped and discussed in depth. The literature indicates an interdisciplinary nature, where Environmental Sciences/Ecology and Government Law are the subject areas with the highest contribution. Plastic pollution is a prominent emerging trend and research topic. Notable gaps include the need for stronger connections among the various directions in the literature and limited collaboration among authors. This work may serve as a basis for other researchers aiming to enhance the literature on the Global Plastics Treaty.

With the ongoing negotiations for an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, and the frustration at the end of Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-3), analyzing the zero draft text, which formed the basis for this negotiation round, is crucial. This analysis examines to what extent the zero draft conveys a clear problem definition as the foundation for an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. We find that the draft lacks a clear problem definition. Additionally, we investigate how the zero draft balances the focus between marine environments and other affected areas and discusses the implications for governance strategies. We find that the draft focuses particularly on fishing gear and hence has a downstream perspective, while upstream measures are equally important. Furthermore, this study delves into the key motivations driving the treaty negotiations, revealing that health and environmental concerns predominate. In comparing our results with previous research, we align with recent publications analyzing INC submissions and onsite statements. In addition, we identify significant differences in key motivations to tackle the plastic pollution issues between the EU and the international level. These disparities, evident in how health and economic arguments are prioritized, reflect varied approaches to combating plastic pollution across political spheres.

National Action Plans (NAPs) are a possible implementation measure for the Global Plastics Treaty, through a NAP-based approach. Their effectiveness in other international agreements is contested, and their current format allows for weak, voluntary measures with limited accountability. By analysing stakeholder and country submissions to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) secretariat ahead of INC-2 negotiations in Paris, June 2023, conducting a literature review, and interviewing key actors, this study aims to determine the support that governments and stakeholders have for a NAP-based approach in the Treaty, and identify the key enablers needed to ensure that NAP-based approaches, if adopted in the Treaty, are effective. Results indicate that by INC-2, more than 85% of countries supported a NAP-based approach, suggesting a high chance of this approach being selected as the means of implementation of the Treaty. However, interviewees and literature reviews indicate that NAPs in their current form are not likely to be effective at delivering ambitious Treaty targets. Six key enablers to improve the effectiveness of plastics NAPs are identified. These enablers should be integrated into any plastics NAPs both independently, and as potential requirements of the Treaty to ensure that NAP-based approaches are effective and have the impact intended.

This perspective explains why the lack of regulation around bioplastics remains a hurdle for the successful development and implementation of a legally binding agreement (the Global Plastics Treaty) by the United Nations Environment Assembly to curb plastic pollution by 2024. For example, bioplastics have been marketed to consumers as the panacea solution to our plastic waste crisis. Of the >400 million tonnes of plastics produced each year, <1% are bioplastics, but the market value of bioplastics is expected to grow. The rapid growth of the environmentally ‘sustainable’ plastic market has resulted in an overwhelming variety of products with different properties and labels, which has led to widespread public confusion, particularly about disposal guidelines. The umbrella term of ‘bioplastics’ describes plastics that can be fully or partially sourced from biological matter, unlike conventional petroleum-based plastics. Within this family of plastics, products can be ‘biodegradable’, ‘oxo-biodegradable’ and ‘compostable’ depending on their chemical composition and the external conditions required at disposal (end-of-life). However, cases of petroleum-based biodegradable plastics have been referred to as bioplastics, which is inaccurate. Overall, this lack of regulation remains a hurdle for the successful development and implementation of the Global Plastics Treaty.

The growing plastic production, the lack of their waste management, and fragmented regulatory responses have increased their abundance in the environment. Plastic pollution has created significant environmental concerns leading to planetary boundary threats. As a result, an increasing number of governments and non-state actors have begun negotiations on a legally binding treaty to cover the full-life-cycle of plastics by 2024. While the negotiations were mandated at the United Nations Environment Assembly 5.2 in March of 2022, how the new agreement would link to existing governance bodies addressing plastic pollution at the global, regional, national and local levels requires careful consideration. This analysis examines the main multi-level governance structures in place to govern plastics while highlighting their principal roles as well as shortcomings and gaps. It then explores ways a new global agreement could complement existing governance structures without imposing and duplicating the work of previous agreements.