While it is vital to agree to a set of global objectives and targets to reduce plastic pollution as part of the Global Plastic Treaty, past negotiations have been troubled by differences in regional and national priorities and needs. To take these different priorities and needs into account, this letter proposes the adoption of an interdisciplinary source-to-sea approach. A source-to-sea approach emphasizes the connected nature between land-based sources of marine plastic pollution along the life cycle of plastic products on the one hand, and air, soil, and water cycles that determine marine plastic flows and associated sustainability risks on the other hand. It takes into account how we know more about the way in which production, use and plastic waste contribute to the pollution of rivers and seas in one location (e.g. in Europe), than we do for rivers and seas in other places (e.g. Africa). There are also regional and national differences in how much awareness exist about plastic pollution and how it is governed and regulated. These differences translate in different priorities and needs in terms of how to most efficiently and effectively reduce plastic pollution. The letter argues that these differences should be embraced and that an interdisciplinary source-to-sea approach can help to develop tailor-made regional and national targets and measures that in turn contribute to achieving the global ambitions of the Global Plastic Treaty. A key role is foreseen for existing governance institutions, such as river basin commissions and regional seas conventions (coordinated by UNEP Regional seas Programme), while the Global Plastic Treaty can become a platform for sharing of approaches, lessons and strategies between regions and countries so that over time, plastic pollution will be reduced worldwide.

Plastic pollution poses a critical and escalating threat to human health across the full life cycle of plastics. Scientific evidence links exposure to plastics and associated pollution to a range of adverse health outcomes. Vulnerable populations, particularly those in informal settlements and low-resource settings, bear disproportionate health burdens. The UN Global Plastics Treaty presents a vital opportunity to embed human health protection at its core. To be effective, the treaty must apply the precautionary principle, recognise and address health impacts across the full plastics life cycle, and phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals. The treaty must be adaptable to emerging scientific evidence, and inclusive of equity and human rights to protect present and future generations. Inclusion of a dedicated health article, alongside specific health considerations across a number of key provisions in the treaty text, and consideration of the right to health throughout all aspects of the treaty, will be essential for delivering on the treaty’s objective to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution.

Indigenous Peoples are disproportionately impacted at every stage of the plastic lifecycle, from the extraction of the fossil fuel feedstock and plastic production, to the widespread dispersal of maco-, micro- and nanoplastics in the natural environment. They face many barriers to their participation in UN processes and must constantly push for their rights to be upheld and for their full and effective participation to be secured. This constant basic struggle for Indigenous rights and participation can consume all the energy and efforts of Indigenous delegates in UN processes at the expense of all the other important knowledge and messages they carry from their communities and nations to address the very real and serious harms that have been inflicted on their territories and all the life within it. Negotiators at INC-5.2 have a great responsibility to address this serious global crisis, while being reminded that Indigenous Peoples, who are on the frontlines of the plastic pollution crisis, must be equal participants as experts of their own knowledge and science and participate in the process as rightsholders in all decision-making that affects them.

Support for a high-ambition plastics treaty is gaining strength, particularly within global civil society and among lower-income developing countries. Still, opposition to binding measures – such as obligations to regulate petrochemicals or reduce global plastics production – remains intense and widespread. We propose the concept of a “petrochemical historical bloc” to help reveal the depth and extent of the forces opposing strong global governance of plastics. At the bloc’s core are petrostates and industry, especially producers of oil and gas feedstock, petrochemicals and plastics. Extending its influence are broader social forces – including certain political and economic institutions, consultancy firms and nongovernmental organizations – that reinforce and legitimize the discourses and tactics thwarting a high-ambition treaty. This bloc is driving up plastics production, externalizing the costs of pollution, distorting scientific knowledge and lobbying to derail negotiations. Yet the petrochemical historical bloc is neither monolithic nor all-powerful. Investigating differing interests and evolving politics within this bloc, we contend, can expose disingenuous rhetoric, weaken low-ambition alliances and reveal opportunities to overcome resistance to ambitious governance. In light of this, and toward highlighting fractures and potential counter-alliances and strategies, we call for a global research inquiry to map the full scope and nature of the petrochemical historical bloc.

As governments prepare for the decisive round of negotiations for the global plastics treaty in August 2025, trade remains a largely overlooked yet indispensable element in shaping an effective and equitable agreement. We argue that trade, spanning plastic feedstocks, resins, products, and waste, forms the connective tissue of the plastics economy and that it must be embedded in the treaty’s architecture. Drawing on global trade data, country cases, and precedent from multilateral environmental agreements, we demonstrate how trade both drives plastic pollution and can serve as a lever for circularity and sustainability. We outline the asymmetries in global plastics trade and their implications for equity and implementation, especially for small and import-dependent states. The article proposes a suite of actionable recommendations for INC-5.2, including trade-related transparency, WTO-aligned treaty provisions, and dedicated capacity-building support. By integrating trade governance into the plastics treaty, negotiators can build an agreement that is both environmentally ambitious and structurally sound.

Plastics and climate change are inseparable issues, both materially and geopolitically. Plastics are derived almost entirely from fossil fuels and have an enormous greenhouse gas footprint. Aligning with the Paris Agreement requires rapid, dramatic decreases in plastic production, contravening the industry’s plans to continue expanding production. The oil, gas and petrochemical industry wields substantial power in both the climate and plastics treaty negotiations and has used that power to stymie progress in both. Rather than repeat the failures of the climate negotiations, plastics negotiators should seek to create a “plastics club” for ambitious action.

As negotiations on the Global Plastics Treaty progress, the extent to which reuse is embedded in the Treaty will serve as an indicator of its ambition to transform plastic systems rather than merely manage their waste outputs. Reuse is one of the most powerful yet underutilised interventions to achieve circularity, and is essential for reducing plastic production, lowering emissions and disrupting the dominance of single-use models. However, the current Treaty text reflects only limited and ambiguous references to reuse, often coupled with recycling, raising concerns that this cornerstone of circularity is at risk of being sidelined. This article argues that the Treaty’s effectiveness, both as a regulatory instrument and as a tool for transformation, will depend on whether it embeds the enabling conditions required to make reuse viable at scale. Drawing on recent research by the Global Plastics Policy Centre, we explore two core areas where progress is urgently needed: first, the limitations of setting numerical reuse targets without the underlying systems, infrastructure and regulatory clarity needed to implement them; and second, the persistent structural and regulatory barriers that prevent reuse systems from scaling. Without system-wide enablers, the Treaty risks repeating the common policy pattern of prioritising headline commitments over operational feasibility. Numerical targets, while politically attractive and symbolically important, do not create the conditions needed for sustained reuse uptake. Effective systems require regulatory mandates alongside design standards, infrastructure investment and mechanisms for tracking performance and ensuring compliance. At the global level, structural barriers include divergent regulations, inconsistent standards, a lack of harmonised definitions and metrics and financing systems that favour single use. Extended producer responsibility schemes, still skewed towards recycling, have not adequately incentivised reuse. The Treaty presents an opportunity to address these barriers through common standards and policy signals that support reuse as the default. To realise reuse as a transformative pillar of circularity, the Treaty must go beyond aspiration and commit to building the conditions under which reuse can thrive, which would shift plastics governance towards systems that value durability, more equitable responsibility and reform.

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.

Plastic pollution is a global issue, with microplastics gaining international attention from Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the government, the public, media and academia; microplastics are a growing source of concern. This research article aims to explore the Cape Town beachgoers’ general knowledge and understanding of microplastic pollution in terms of its potential effects on the environment and human health. Using a questionnaire, the study was conducted at Muizenberg and Lagoon Beach, and involved participants belonging to the age group of <18–64 years. A sampling technique known as convenience sampling was used. This technique allowed individuals to be selected based on their willingness to be part of the sample and their availability; it allowed participants with no obvious knowledge of microplastics to take part. The data were recorded in Excel and analysed with the Statistical Package Social Sciences. Although the public was relatively familiar with microplastics at the time of the study, 40% of the participants from Muizenberg Beach did not know what microplastics are, while 60% knew. In Lagoon Beach, 26.67% did not know what microplastics are, while 73.33% did. Environmental education and the prohibition of microplastics were identified by the majority of respondents as necessary measures for reducing microplastic pollution and further research was suggested, with some of the respondents believing that the lack of strict regulations on plastic use was the greatest difficulty in reducing the pollution from microplastics.

On all levels of governance, there have been varied policy responses to the marine plastic pollution issue. These responses include the development of innovative waste management, circular economy, extended producer responsibility and product stewardship approaches. Non-state actors play important roles in these approaches across global and national levels. Regulatory bodies often experience challenges with implementing sustainable, conservation measures, demonstrating that regulatory measures alone cannot generate the required change to effectively stop marine and terrestrial plastic pollution. Effective plastic pollution governance requires participation from non-state actors in its design, development and implementation. This article examines the gaps that exist in the governance of a plastics circular economy, including the focus on recycling and end-of-pipe/down-cycling solutions and the lack of attention on the other ‘Rs’ that are required for true circularity, for example, refuse, reduce, resell, reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture, repurpose and recover energy. We argue that non-state actors can help fill these gaps through multi-stakeholder partnerships, community-led plastic programmes and policies and environmentally and socially responsible industry-based solutions that utilise market-based initiatives. This article explores the roles of non-state actors in plastic policymaking and the gaps and opportunities for non-state actors in the development and implementation of holistic, integrated, ‘whole of life cycle’ and circular economy policies.