When science meets politics: Inside the stalled plastics treaty negotiations

For Prado Domercq, a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Environmental Science, it was her first time inside such a forum. “It was super interesting but also overwhelming,” she recalled. “You didn’t know how things would happen until hours before, and suddenly you were in a plenary session with representatives from around the world making statements about the future of plastics.”

Domercq attended as part of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, a network of researchers volunteering their expertise to inform the negotiations. “Just being with them made a complete difference,” she said. “They were well respected, and many delegations reached out to them directly for scientific input.”

The battle over scope

The negotiations, known formally as INC-5.2, were supposed to deliver a treaty addressing plastics across their entire life cycle—from extraction and production to disposal. But the most contentious debates centred on what the treaty should actually cover.

“Two very contentious articles involved sustainable production and chemical additives,” Domercq explained. “Some parties didn’t want to deal with production caps or chemicals at all. They wanted the treaty to focus only on waste management.”

This divide—between a “low ambition” coalition, which sought to narrow the treaty’s scope, and a “high ambition” coalition pushing for limits on virgin plastic production and toxic additives—permeated every discussion. “Even when the resolution clearly cited the full life cycle of plastics, some countries insisted on replacing the word 'plastics' with 'plastic waste' in the text,” Domercq said. “That difference in wording signalled a completely different treaty.”

Industry influence and imbalance

Observers noted that more than 230 lobbyists linked to the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries attended the Geneva talks—outnumbering the combined delegations of the European Union and its 27 members states, and far exceeding the presence of scientists and Indigenous representatives.

Domercq noticed their impact in subtle ways: “In the negotiation rooms, it was only delegates speaking, and you didn’t always know who they were. But the industry connections were noticeable in some delegations.”

For Marlene Ågerstrand, Associate Professor at the Department of Environmental Science, who spearheaded the effort to secure the university’s UN accreditation but did not attend the negotiations, this imbalance was stark but unsurprising.

“We see a large group of observers representing industry—chemical, plastics, fossil fuel—while scientists are few,” she remarked. “Public universities have traditionally not been allowed to be present. Many researchers do not even know they can go, or their institutions do not encourage it.”

That Stockholm University was now among the few public universities accredited to attend was, in her view, a breakthrough. “It was fantastic that Stockholm University made this effort,” Ågerstrand said. “But there was still a huge imbalance in who got heard.”

The role of scientists

Inside the negotiation rooms, science was present but not decisive. “Parties brought their own science, sometimes twisting terms or even denying established facts,” Domercq remarks. “I heard claims like, ‘There is no proof of emissions from plastic production,’ which was completely wrong.”

Scientists, however, could play an important role in the corridors. “You didn’t have a word in the negotiations, but you could talk to delegates in between,” Domercq explained. “Many came to us asking for information. Sometimes they wanted papers or data they could use directly. That was how science got into the room.”

Ågerstrand framed it more bluntly: “Sadly, it does not matter if we did a million studies showing plastics were a problem. Without political will, there will be no treaty. What scientists can do is act as knowledge brokers—translating evidence into accessible information for decision-makers.”

For Domercq, scientists’ involvement was also about principle. “For scientists to participate in these meetings is an exercise of democracy,” she pointed out. “Even without a formal voice in the room, our presence meant that evidence and transparency were part of the process.”

Frustration and hope

By the time Domercq left Geneva, she felt the talks had stalled. “It was frustrating,” she admitted. “The first week was full of energy, but discussions didn’t lead anywhere. Then a new text was proposed that ignored much of what had been debated.”

However, both scientists emphasised that the lack of an agreement might ultimately have been better than a weak deal. “Everyone agreed it was better to have no treaty than a bad treaty,” Ågerstrand said. Domercq agreed: “The fact that countries were holding out for a high-ambition treaty—that was positive. It showed a real commitment to tackling the problem at its roots, not just managing waste.”

A path forward

The next steps remain uncertain. Some high-ambition countries are exploring parallel processes outside the UN framework to advance binding measures. Meanwhile, the Scientists’ Coalition continues its work, despite limited resources, to analyse the proposed treaty text and provide evidence-based recommendations.

For Ågerstrand, the lesson was clear: “If scientists do not enter these arenas, someone else will take that place—and they will not speak for science. Even if we are few, we need to be there.”

Domercq agreed. “To really inform the process, scientists need time, training, and support. But even then, just being present matters. It shows that science has a place at the table.”

In Geneva, politics may have stalled the treaty. But for the researchers, the experience marked a beginning: their first step into a global arena since being awarded UN accreditation—where the stakes for science, society, and the planet’s plastic-choked future could not have been higher.

Read more on the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution website