Address
1958 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704 USA Phone: +1 510 883 9490 info@no-burn.org
100s
of Zero Waste City commitments
14
movement-building alliances formed
"The overlapping crises of our time present an opportunity to build more resilient cities by implementing zero waste models.
Fact Sheets Reports Case Studies Campaign Tools Policy Briefings Webinar Recordings
Latest Resources

The Global Plastics Treaty: A Historic Opportunity 

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly decided on a mandate to create the world’s first Plastics Treaty, a legally binding international law aimed at reducing plastic pollution worldwide, and covering the full life-cycle of plastic. Plastic is a growing crisis with devastating impacts on the environment, human health, human rights, environmental justice, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, biodiversity, and climate. Global actions to address this crisis are urgently needed. As numerous studies have demonstrated, plastic has been found everywhere, not only in ecosystems and the atmosphere but also in the food we eat, the water we drink, and even inside our bodies. For the Global Plastics Treaty to be effective in reversing the tide of plastic pollution, mechanisms and solutions to address it need to exist within climate and planetary boundaries. This treaty is an opportunity to get it right and open a path for comprehensive national policies to regulate plastic production and consumption. It can potentially be one of the most significant environmental agreements in history.

 For more information, visit https://www.no-burn.org/unea-plastics-treaty/. 

The next round of negotiations or Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for the plastics treaty (INC-5.2) will take place in Geneva, Switzerland August 5-14. The negotiations are held under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

For those following online a webcast is available here.

Upcoming Online Journalist Briefings 

LinkedIn Live: INC-5.2 Plastics Treaty Primer

Date: Jul 24, 2025, Thursday

Time: 10PM Malaysia | 4PM Rwanda | 8AM Mexico | 7AM PST 

Register: https://www.linkedin.com/events/7349287367825870850/

Civil society leaders from around the world as well as Member State delegates from Rwanda and Panama will discuss what’s at stake at the Geneva negotiations, and the path forward for a strong plastics treaty. 

Africa

Date: 24 July 2025, Thursday

Time: 3pm GMT

Register: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/O7GoIfh7Soe0HuLdxcHx-Q 

This media briefing aims to empower African journalists to effectively report on the upcoming INC-5.2 negotiations of the plastics treaty, spotlighting key priorities from African civil society and negotiators. 

Asia Pacific

Date: 23rd July Wednesday

Time: 11:30 AM – 1:00 PM IST (Delhi) | 1:00 PM Bangkok | 2:00 PM Kuala Lumpur | 6:00 PM Suva

Register: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_MORLqhxsR-qxlX-p-me0QQ (bit.ly/preINC52briefing) 

This media briefing grounds the plastics treaty negotiations within the Asia Pacific context, with speakers from across the region. 

United States

Date: July 23, Wednesday 

Time: 12pm PST | 3pm EST

Register: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_EGzyBYiQTuib9h1tuf_hsA

Leading plastics treaty experts from across the U.S. will offer insights on the U.S. delegation’s participation in the global plastics treaty negotiations and contradictions in the U.S. ‘s position. 

Latin America and the Caribbean 

Press briefing recording  (spanish only)

Taller para periodistas: La crisis del plástico y el Tratado global de plásticos

INC-5.2 Agenda

The negotiations will take two official forms: plenary (live-streamed on the UNEP website), and contact groups, which are confidential in nature according to Chatham House Rules. There will be four contact groups with two occurring in parallel at any given time.  The negotiations are presided over by the Chair, Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador, and are negotiated by the countries in the United Nations, called Member States. Here is the text that Member States will be negotiating at INC-5.2 (see GAIA’s comments here). 

According to the Scenario Note that the Chair has recently released, the flow of negotiations may be the following: 

  • August 5: Opening Plenary
    • 10am brief Opening Plenary, no verbal statements for Member States (opportunities to submit in advance on the online portal), potential 30 minute window for observer interventions (civil society statements)
    • Organizational matters will be addressed here: Rules of Procedure, Adoption of Agenda 
  • August 5-8, 11-14: Contact Groups
    • The bulk of the negotiations will be split into four “Contact Groups,” each negotiating different groups of articles in the treaty text.
  • August 9: “Stocktake” Plenary
    • Chairs of each Contact Group will give a brief report of their progress
  • August 10: Informal Consultations
    • informal consultations among members (no formal convenings)
  • August 14: Closing Plenary

Another Chance at Clinching a Strong Plastics Treaty

The below summarizes the most recent developments in negotiations leading up to INC-5.2. For a recap of the outcomes of INC-5, please see our report. For more information on the outcomes of previous INC’s please see our news archives. 

We Are the Majority

At the close of INC-5 in Busan, South Korea, late last year, it was clear that, although more time was clearly needed for negotiations on the treaty provisions, the ambitious countries vastly outnumbered and isolated the small group of countries looking to weaken the final treaty text. In one particularly rousing moment, Juliet Kabera of Rwanda read a statement on behalf of over 85 countries emphasizing their shared commitment to a legally binding treaty enshrining reduction targets, phase-out of harmful chemicals, a just transition, and an equitable financial mechanism. She then urged everyone in the room who supported an ambitious treaty to stand up, and 90% of the people present leap to their feet and applaud. It was a powerful moment in the room and a reminder of the determination of the majority.  To date: 

Read GAIA’s response to the announcement of INC-5.2.

Environment Ministers United at UNOC: “The Nice Wake-Up Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty”

At the United Nations Oceans Conference in Nice, France in June, environment ministers and representatives from 96 countries (the majority of United Nations Member States) reaffirmed their dedication to securing a strong plastics treaty in a declaration coordinated by France entitled, “The Nice Wake-Up Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty.”  

Civil society leaders applauded the statement’s reaffirmation of the need for a treaty to have a global target for plastic production reduction, to phase out the most problematic plastic products and hazardous chemicals, and to include monitoring and reporting mechanisms to ensure that countries remain on target, as well as room to strengthen commitments based on emerging science, health, and environmental impacts. 

Another noteworthy inclusion in the statement is the call for standard decision-making practices, if consensus cannot be reached. This further isolates the few obstructive countries who have insisted on consensus decisionmaking as a tactic to stall negotiations and weaken the ambition of the final treaty (see here for details).  

While the declaration missed several demands from civil society, overall non-profit organizations welcomed the statement as a floor, not a ceiling, of ambition in negotiations. 

Read GAIA’s response to the release of the Nice Wake-Up Call.

Setting the Stage: the Negotiations Process

The below summarizes the procedural issues at stake in negotiations at INC-5.2.

Ministers Waiting in the Wings

Ministers from Member States will attend INC-5.2 at the controversial invitation of UNEP’s Executive Director Inger Andersen. Although no ministerial segment is included in the INC mandate, dedicated informal ministerial roundtables are planned for August 12th to 14th. 

The Tyranny of Consensus vs. Voting for Democracy

In previous INC’s, a central sticking point has been the fierce debate over Rules of Procedure, namely Rule 38 (1), which dictates voting procedures. A small group of countries including Saudi Arabia and Russia have used what could have been routine procedural matters as a tool to undermine a strong treaty, and are proposing full veto power over treaty text by advocating for consensus only, with no opportunity for voting if consensus cannot be reached. Provisions for voting are an essential bargaining chip that can serve to bring the more obstructive parties to the negotiating table. At INC-2 in Paris, extensive time used to argue over Rules of Procedure led negotiators to reach a tense truce, where a provision for voting was adopted provisionally and an interpretative statement was added to rule 38. It’s turned into a can of worms that Member States have been hesitant to open as the bully countries have continued to insist in consensus only. 

However, as countries have become more determined to make INC-5.2 the last INC and come out with a strong treaty at the end of it, calling for a vote seems like the only way out of the consensus gridlock, allowing the will of the majority to dictate the resulting treaty, instead of the stubborn few. 

The standard for voting provisions has been set in many other successful international negotiations like the Minamata Convention on mercury, and the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions. 

Will Civil Society be in the Room? 

According to a report from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to attend INC-5, a larger group than any national delegation or civil society organization, and gained extensive access to government representatives from around the world–including from within their country delegations. 

While the industry profiting from the plastics crisis has been given free reign in the negotiations, civil society access has been severely limited, and even countries themselves, particularly in the Global South, have been sidelined through exclusionary practices like failing to provide adequate language interpretation services in negotiating rooms. At INC-5, civil society was physically locked out of negotiations, in violation of our rights and standard practice. 

Key Issues to Watch at INC-5.2 

The below summarizes the potential lightning rod issues in negotiations at INC-5.2.

The Battle Over Plastic Production

A key tension point in the negotiations thus far is over including ambitious and binding plastic production cuts in the final treaty. The vast majority of countries (over 100) engaged in the negotiation process have remained open to including production reduction targets in the treaty, reflected in Article 6, option 2 of the Chair’s draft text. However, a small but vocal minority, primarily made up of fossil fuel-producing nations, have sought to sabotage the talks through obstruction tactics and by arguing that plastic pollution starts only at the disposal stage.

One such tactic is to call into question the definition of where the “life-cycle” starts, despite numerous precedents in international environmental policy, making clear that the “life-cycle” starts at extraction. Member States have already committed to developing a treaty that covers the full plastic life-cycle. 

The other is to dilute the text on plastic reduction by using the terms, “circular economy” and “circularity” as a dog whistle, signaling an emphasis on downstream measures only (waste management), instead of getting to the root of the problem. There is overwhelming evidence that plastic as a material is not “circular” and inevitably becomes waste.  This vocal minority claims that plastic only becomes pollution at the disposal stage, despite the scientific consensus and outcry from millions of people around the world whose land, air, and bodies are being poisoned by this industry. Plastic doesn’t become pollution, plastic is pollution from the moment of fossil fuel extraction. 

Will Just Transition be Enshrined in the Treaty? 

A just transition under the treaty must promote systemic change that upholds human rights and allows communities most impacted across the plastic life-cycle–particularly waste pickers,  Indigenous Peoples, and frontline and fenceline communities– to live and work with dignity, free from the harms of the plastic industry. A just transition must be truly inclusive, from decision-making to implementation, and allow impacted communities to define their own vision for a plastic pollution-free world, and ensure no communities are impacted by future systems. 

Specifically, the treaty should retain a dedicated article on just transition, as well as retain its mention in the preamble and objective. A Just Transition Coalition made up of a diverse group of impacted stakeholders including Indigenous Peoples, frontline communities, and waste pickers  have unanimously agreed that drastic plastic production cuts are needed to protect their lives and right to safe and dignified work. 

For more information, please see the International Alliance For Waste Pickers Recommendations on Section II, Part 12 on Just Transition section.

Who’s footing the bill? A Financial Mechanism Fit for Purpose 

A plastics treaty is only as strong as its budget; in order to ensure its proper implementation, developing countries must have access to adequate resources. This means a dedicated financial mechanism that includes mandatory contributions from high-wealth and top-plastic producing countries to support lower income countries to meet the agreement, especially pacific small island developing states. This fund must help right historical injustices by funneling money from the countries most responsible for plastic production and export– to countries who have borne the brunt of its costs, particularly in the Global South, and finance a just transition. 

There has been lots of momentum around a proposal from the Africa Group, GRULAC, Cook Islands, Fiji and Federated States of Micronesia for the organization of the dedicated financial mechanism that centers equity, and has been supported by over 150 countries. 

There is a debate over financing the treaty using public vs. private finance, especially from donor countries– The problem with leaving it to the private sector is that they will have control over where the money goes and who gets it, a highly undemocratic process that puts profit over social good. Another threat is the potential inclusion of widely debunked, industry-promoted financial mechanisms like plastic credits or “offsetting.”  Plastic credits have shown time and again that they do not actually reduce plastic pollution. Including them in treaty financing will only give companies a social license to pollute. (See a recent academic paper summarizing the evidence against plastic credits, tying it to the failures of carbon credits).  

In addition to a dedicated fund, a polymer fee would potentially serve as a powerful financial mechanism, as well as eliminating plastic production subsidies, which currently add up to US$ 30 billion annually for direct subsidies in the top 15 plastic-polymer-producing countries alone. 

Stop the Smokestack

GAIA has been monitoring the rise of industry-influenced promotion of burning waste in cement kilns and other incinerators, plastic credits, chemical “recycling,” and substitution with other single-use materials (like bioplastic) instead of reuse systems, all of which not only cause even more pollution, but shift the focus away from production cuts, which undermines the treaty’s aims to eradicate plastic pollution. 

Potential Outcomes of INC-5.2

The below summarizes the potential outcomes of INC-5.2, with an understanding that no one has a crystal ball, and negotiations can always go in unexpected directions. 

Best Possible Outcome: Landing a Strong Treaty

Civil society remains hopeful that INC-5.2 will conclude with an agreed upon text for a strong plastics treaty, which would be ratified by the end of the year. This text would enshrine the priorities listed below, with an adequate financial mechanism.  The treaty must also make provisions for adding and amending the text through annexes at future implementation meetings (COPs) to reflect the latest science on the social and environmental impacts of plastic pollution. COPs must also allow for voting on these annexes, as well as make the annexes “opt-out” vs. “opt-in” for ratifying countries, to ensure more widespread adoption. 

Policy analysts predict that breaking the consensus deadlock through voting will be essential to securing an ambitious plastics treaty. 

For more information on the pathways to an effective plastics treaty, read our policy brief. 

Good Outcome: Getting Most of the Way There

There is a chance that negotiators finalize the majority of the treaty text, and will only require  meetings to resolve minor issues before the ratification.

Middling Outcome: No Agreed Upon Text, Another INC

One potential outcome of the negotiations is that Member States and the Chair will decide that more time is needed to work out critical sticking points in the Chair’s Text– leading to an INC-5.3, INC-6 or other meetings after INC-5.2. It may be appropriate to give negotiators more time to agree on a treaty, as long as procedural conditions change so that Member States do not repeat the same dynamics and expect a different result. Namely, if Member States finally call for a vote at INC-5.2, loosening the stranglehold that consensus has had on the negotiations thus far, then further negotiations can be justified, as the conditions for those negotiations will have changed. 

Bad Outcome: A Weak Treaty

If the majority of Member States decide to capitulate to the select few countries insisting on a weak treaty (devoid of these priorities), there will be devastating consequences for the climate, human health, and environmental justice. However, even in this worst case scenario, there is still hope. A group of ambitious Member States could decide to form a “Coalition of the Willing” and develop a separate treaty process outside of UNEP, which could result in a much stronger treaty. If enough higher income countries and trading partners ratify the treaty, it creates pressure for other countries to sign on after the fact, to avoid complicated trade and economic barriers. Universality then, could be achieved over time under stronger conditions. There is an established precedent for this in past treaty processes (see chapter 5 of our policy brief.) This route is far from perfect and can face issues related to funding and civil society access to negotiations, but is still an option on the table if current talks fall through. 

It is also important to note that even if plastics treaty negotiations do not culminate in a strong treaty, civil society’s work has already been strengthened through movement alignment, consequential scientific research conducted to support treaty negotiations, the relationships we’ve been able to forge with government leaders, the increased visibility of the plastics crisis, and the global understanding that plastic is pollution and for as long as production is not regulated and reduced, there will be no meaningful resolution to the crisis. 

Overall aims for the Treaty

We call on governments to ensure that the emerging instrument includes:

  • Mandatory targets to cap and dramatically reduce plastic production,  commensurate with the scale and gravity of the plastic pollution crisis and aligned with planetary boundaries. This includes, but is not limited to, the elimination of single-use plastics, and other non-essential, unnecessary, or problematic plastic products and applications—including intentionally-added microplastics. This system should be supported by measures to prevent countries that are not parties to the treaty from undermining these agreements.
  • Bans on toxic chemicals in all virgin and recycled plastics based on groups of chemicals, including additives (e.g., brominated flame-retardants, phthalates, bisphenols) as well as notoriously toxic polymers (e.g. PVC). 
  • Legally binding, time-bound, and ambitious targets to implement and scale up reuse and refill to accelerate the transition away from single-use plastics. Correspondingly, the treaty must reject false solutions, regrettable substitutes, and polluting and ineffective techno-fixes such as “chemical recycling,” incineration, waste-to-energy, co-processing of plastic-rich RDF in cement kilns, international waste trade, plastic credits, and other schemes which perpetuate business as usual and support continued plastic production and pollution to the further detriment of the climate, human and environmental health.
  • A just transition to safer and more sustainable livelihoods for workers and communities across the plastics supply chain, including those in the informal waste sector; and addressing the needs of frontline communities affected by plastic production, incineration, and open burning. This approach necessitates respect for human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and due recognition of the traditional knowledge and expertise of Indigenous and tribal original people of the lands affected, as well as local communities, waste pickers, and formal sector recyclers towards resolving the crisis.
  • A dedicated financial mechanism that provides new, additional, dedicated, adequate, accessible and predictable funding on a grant basis to enable eligible developing countries implementing the treaty core obligations.
  • Provisions that hold polluting corporations and plastic-producing countries accountable for the profound harms to human rights, human health, ecosystems and economies arising from the production, deployment and disposal of plastics.  Provisions should also provide science-based solutions—including traditional knowledge. 
  • In the same light, the treaty should also set publicly accessible, harmonized, legally binding requirements for the transparency of chemicals in plastic materials and products throughout their whole life-cycle. 
  • Polluters should be kept out of the treaty negotiations. The INCs should result in a treaty that limits the influence of entities with conflicts of interest (like plastics producers) in the ongoing work of the Conference of Parties (COP) of the eventual treaty.
  • Decision-making by voting at the COPs to allow the treaty to be strengthen over time

Key References 

GAIA “Wrap-Up” Report on the Outcome of INC-5

GAIA’s Pathways to an Effective Plastics Treaty policy paper

GAIA’s Comments on the Chair’s Draft Text 

Academic paper on plastic credits

Academic paper with the scientific argument for plastic production reduction 

All GAIA resources relating to the Global Plastics Treaty

Media Contacts

Global Press Contact: 

Regional Press Contacts: 

Spokespeople

The GAIA Network has a diverse delegation of members going to INC-5.2, mostly from the Global South. Our spokespeople can give you on-the-ground perspectives on how plastic has impacted their region, and the solutions that they are building rooted in equity and justice. They specialize in climate and plastics, corporate accountability, health and toxics, waste colonialism, false solutions (e.g., “chemical recycling”, incineration), environmental justice, policy, and more. Contact us to arrange an interview. 

About GAIA 

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

Follow us on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, BlueSky, and LinkedIn for live updates during INC-5, and our regional accounts:

GAIA Africa: Instagram, Facebook

GAIA LAC: Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn

GAIA Asia Pacific: Instagram, Facebook, LinkedInGAIA US Canada: Instagram, Facebook, Twitter

INC Plastics Treaty plenary with Plastic Producing Countries speaking blah blah

Plastic is a growing crisis with devastating impacts on the environment, human health, human rights, environmental justice, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, biodiversity, and climate. Global actions to address this crisis are urgently needed. As numerous studies have demonstrated, plastic has been found everywhere, not only in ecosystems and the atmosphere but also in the food we eat, the water we drink, and even inside our bodies. For the Global Plastics Treaty to be effective in reversing the tide of plastic pollution, mechanisms and solutions to address it need to exist within climate and planetary boundaries. This treaty is an opportunity to get it right and open a path for comprehensive national policies to regulate plastic production and consumption. It can potentially be one of the most significant environmental agreements in history.

sign the petition
en español

Newsroom

Newsroom Archive at YouTube

Go to our playlist and watch past newsroom videos.

Watch more here

Read the latest plastics treaty news

News Plastic Treaty – News Press Releases

International Women’s Day: GAIA/BFFP Africa Addresses Plastic Pollution through a Gender Justice Lens

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 9, 2026 Plastic pollution poses a critical threat to both human health and the environment,…

March 10, 2026Carissa Marnce
News Plastic Treaty – News

Nueva Presidencia para las negociaciones del Tratado global de plásticos

La sociedad civil insta a la nueva Presidencia a garantizar mayor transparencia e inclusión. PARA SU PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: 7…

February 7, 2026Camila Aguilera
News Plastic Treaty – News

Countries Adopt New Chair of Plastics Treaty Negotiations 

Civil Society Urges New Chair to Enforce Greater Transparency, Inclusivity FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 7, 2026 Geneva, Switzerland– Member…

February 7, 2026Claire Arkin
Browse all plastics treaty news

Read our policy briefs/submissions

Plastic Treaty – Policy Briefs

Analysis of the INC Chair’s Text by the Latin American and the Caribbean Member Organizations of GAIA

The Latin American and Caribbean organizations that have been monitoring negotiations for a Legally Binding Instrument to stop Plastic…

August 1, 2025Camila Aguilera
Plastic Treaty – Policy Briefs

Análisis del texto del presidente del INC del Tratado de plásticos desde las organizaciones latinoamericanas y del Caribe miembros de GAIA

Las organizaciones de Latinoamérica y El Caribe que venimos haciendo seguimiento al proceso de negociaciones para un Instrumento legalmente…

July 24, 2025Camila Aguilera
Plastic Treaty – Policy Briefs

Pathways to an Effective Plastics Treaty (Bahasa Melayu)

Laluan kepada Perjanjian Plastik yang Berkesan – Plastik – 5 Jun 2025 Menjelang INC-5.2, para perunding perlu membuat beberapa…

July 3, 2025Agnes Mampusti
Browse all policy briefs/submissions

Issues in Focus

Plastics Crisis: Challenges, Advances and Relationship with Waste Pickers

Negotiations must include the recognition of the historical work of those who have recovered more materials and in the most efficient way: the waste pickers.

ENG
ESP
PT
Waste pickers collecting separated waste from households, showing why UNEA plastics treaty is essential
Rommel Cabrera/GAIA, 2019. Waste pickers collecting separated waste from households. Tacloban City, the Philippines.

People stanging in front of a large plastic pile of trash, showing why UNEA plastics treaty is essential

Overview of the Plastics Treaty/Tratado sobre plásticos

Plastic pollution does not respect borders. It is in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, and even in our bodies. A new binding legal instrument, covering the entire lifecycle of plastic, is required to tackle this planetary crisis.

ENG
ESP
FR

The Plastic Waste Trade

Top exporters such as the United States, Germany, the UK, Japan and Australia are placing a disproportionate toxic burden on the environment and communities in importing countries. A Global Plastics Treaty can enact stricter measures on the waste trade to prevent environmental injustices.

ENG
ESP
FR
Am American flag on top of piles and piles of plastic trash (UNEA Plastics treaty - GAIA)
Image of a waste picker

Plastic and Waste Pickers/Recicladores

Plastic takes up a large percentage of the waste handled by waste pickers. Consequently, they are one of the most vulnerable occupation groups that stand to be impacted by the global plastics treaty. The treaty must establish the legal frameworks required to improve working conditions for waste pickers.

ENG
ESP
FR

Toxics and Health

Plastic contains toxic chemicals that leach into our food, water, and soil. Out of about 10,000 chemicals used as plastic additives, few have been widely studied, let alone regulated. A treaty must address plastic’s toxic burden.

ENG
ESP
FR
UNEA plastic treaty GAIA
UNEA plastic treaty GAIA

Plastic and Climate Change/Los plásticos y el cambio climático

Plastic is a significant contributor to climate change throughout its lifecycle. By 2050, emissions from plastic alone will take up over a third of the remaining carbon budget for a 1.5 °C target. A plastics treaty must impose legally-binding plastic reduction targets.

ENG
ESP
FR

Chemical “Recycling” and Plastic-to-Fuel

Faced with increasing pressure from lawmakers and civil society to reduce plastic production and greater awareness of the limits of mechanical recycling, the petrochemical industry has been peddling chemical “recycling” and “plastic-to-fuel” as a primary solution to plastic pollution. However, after billions of dollars and decades of development, these approaches do not work as advertised. A plastics treaty stands to be undermined if it embraces these industry-backed false solutions.

ENG
ESP
KOR
FR
People manifesting in favor of UNEA plastic treaty GAIA
People manifesting in favor of UNEA plastic treaty GAIA

Waste Incineration and Burning Waste in Cement Kilns

Burning waste emits climate pollution and other toxic chemicals, and is the least energy-efficient and most costly method of energy production. A plastics treaty must adopt a moratorium on new incinerators and encourage a roadmap to phase out all existing incinerators by 2030.

ENG
ESP
FR

Burning Waste in Cement Kilns

Burning plastic in cement kilns results in toxic emissions, threatening the health of workers, communities and the environment, especially in low-income countries in the Global South. Widespread burning of waste in cement kilns would also worsen the already devastating carbon footprint of the cement industry. A plastics treaty must phase out burning plastic waste in cement kilns.

ENG
ESP
FR

Plastic Neutrality and Credit

The global plastics treaty provides an important opportunity to officially discourage or ban the use of plastic credits before they become widespread. Doing so would avoid the incredible amount of regulatory oversight needs —both in the private and public sectors— to organize and
manage international plastic credit markets. The collective efforts could be better spent on reducing plastic production rapidly.

ENG
ESP
FR
People working with plastic residue - one of the topics of the global plastics treaty.

Zero Waste Finance

A transition from a plastic-reliant economy toward a circular zero waste economy requires effective mobilization and allocation of financial resources. Public and private finance have distinct and intersecting roles to play in supporting and scaling up innovations for waste prevention, redesign, alternative delivery and reuse systems as well as improving existing waste collection and recycling systems.

ENG
ESP
FR

Extended Producer Responsibility

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies seek to improve the environmental and social performance of products by holding producers and brand owners accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. The global plastics treaty must embed well-designed EPR policies in it, guiding producers to prioritize upstream solutions.

ENG
ESP
FR
Responsible people collecting plastic waste
Image of bioplastics that the global plastic treaty focuses on

Bioplastics

The global Plastics Treaty must focus on plastic reduction and reuse, instead of substituting a plastic single-use item for a bio-based, biodegradable, or compostable one.

ENG
ESP
FR

Webinars

Watch the most recent Plastics Treaty webinars
Webinar Archive at YouTube

Go to our playlist and watch past webinars.

Watch more here

Previous Next

Study: Particulate Matter Levels in Communities Hosting Waste Incinerators Up to 8 Times Higher than World Health Organization Guidelines

First of Its Kind Cross-Regional Citizen Science Air Quality Monitoring Project in Surabaya, Indonesia; Ogijo, Nigeria; Dumaguete, Philippines 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 2 July, 2025

A citizen-science study monitoring the air quality nearby waste incineration facilities in three cities in the Global South found high levels of particulate matter (PM); PM2.5 levels were 5-8 times higher and PM 10 were between 3-5 times higher than the guidelines set by the World Health Organization. The study comes as a response to local governments and regulatory agencies’ failure to monitor these facilities’ pollution levels, allowing them to continue unchecked. Community groups are calling on their local governments to enforce stricter environmental regulations and monitoring for polluting facilities, if not shut them down altogether. 

“The air pollution from these incinerators are not just a distant threat—they’re already affecting our health and daily lives,” states Wahyu Eka Styawan of WALHI East Java, Indonesia. “People are coughing, struggling to breathe, and living in fear of what they can’t see but can certainly feel. What’s worse, we’ve been kept in the dark. There’s no transparency, no real space for public participation in decisions that affect our future. This is not just unfair—it’s dangerous. We urgently call on governments to cancel these waste-to-energy projects and start listening to the people who are paying the price with their lungs.”

Three members of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)— War on Waste (WOW) Negros Oriental in Dumaguete, Philippines; Green Knowledge Foundation in Ogijo, Nigeria; and Indonesian Environmental Forum (WALHI) in Surabaya, Indonesia organized community volunteers to wear portable air-quality monitors near the polluting facility, in addition to stationary air monitoring equipment. 

The monitors measured two kinds of particulate matter (PM)– PM 2.5 and PM 10. The study found: 

  • In Dumaguete, citizens monitored the area nearby a pyrolysis-gasification unit at a Central Materials Recovery Facility. The PM2.5 concentration level was unhealthy for a portion of the population 24 out of 27 days (88%), and was up to 7 times higher than WHO guidelines, as a result of the facility’s emissions. Researchers estimated that up to 179 premature deaths could be avoided annually by shutting down the pyrolysis plant.
  • In Surabaya, citizens monitored the area nearby a gasification facility called Benowo Waste-to-Energy Power Plant. Maximum daily average PM2.5 levels were up to 8 times higher than WHO guidelines, exceeding the threshold 100% of the monitoring days. Throughout the entire mobile monitoring period (31 days in total), the air quality was not considered healthy for a single day. 
  • In Ogijo, citizens monitored the area around a facility claiming to recycle tires called Tec High Profile Nigeria Limited. The maximum daily average PM2.5 level was up to 5 times higher than WHO guidelines, exceeding the threshold 100% of the monitoring days.Throughout the entire monitoring period (23 days in total), the air quality was unhealthy for a portion of the population. 

PM is a known carcinogen. Because it is so small, particulate matter can easily permeate every organ in the body, with disastrous consequences on human health. PM can cause asthma, bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancers, among others.

Many of the readings were taken at nearby schools, retirement homes, residential areas, local stores, and farmland, showing how the pollution can affect everyday life of community members, and that those most vulnerable in our society–children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health issues– are particularly exposed.

“Often, the burden of proving that industrial pollutants could cause harm are unjustly placed on poor communities, but new technologies such as the one used in our study allow citizens to present incontrovertible evidence of exposures to toxic pollutants and demand greater transparency and accountability,” explained Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, a member of the scientific team supporting the communities.

Waste-burning projects in the Global South are often presented as a sophisticated way to solve municipal waste problems, especially increasing volumes of plastic waste– which are primarily produced by Global North companies and countries and shipped to the Global South, either as single-use plastic items for sale or in the waste trade. Even in Global North countries with strong environmental safeguards, waste incineration has shown to be hazardous. 

Despite this, international financial institutions like the ADB and World Bank continue to recommend and support incineration in policy frameworks and projects, particularly in the Global South, despite the industry’s poor reputation. 

“Global climate financing for waste management should should avoid funding these false solutions and prioritise solutions at the top of the waste hierarchy, which not only reduce climate emissions but also deliver co-benefits like local job creation, soil restoration, and improved livelihoods,” said Weyinmi Okotie, GAIA Africa, Clean Air Program Manager and Executive Director of Green Knowledge Foundation.  

Press contacts:

Global: Claire Arkin | claire@no-burn.org

Africa: Carisa Marnce | carissa@no-burn.org

Asia Pacific: Robi Kate Miranda | robi@no-burn.org 

###

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

Declaración lanzada en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Océanos

Las negociaciones del Tratado de plásticos continúan del 5 al 14 de agosto

PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: 10 de junio de 2025

Niza (Francia) – En el segundo día de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Océanos celebrada en Niza (Francia) del 9 al 13 de junio, ministros y representantes de 95 países (la mayoría de los Estados miembros de las Naciones Unidas) hicieron pública una declaración titulada “La llamada de atención de Niza para un Tratado de plásticos ambicioso”. La declaración sienta las bases para la próxima ronda de negociaciones (INC-5.2) que tendrá lugar en Ginebra (Suiza) del 5 al 14 de agosto. Tras la publicación de la declaración, más de 235 organizaciones de la sociedad civil emitieron su propia declaración en respuesta, apoyando la Declaración de Niza como un «punto de partida y no el máximo al que aspiramos» en relación a la ambición en las próximas negociaciones.

Ana Rocha, Directora de política global de plásticos de GAIA, afirma: “Nos alienta ver esta demostración de ambición por parte de la mayoría de los países, que muestran un frente unido contra el pequeño número de Estados petroquímicos que intentan impedir un tratado sólido. Aunque faltan varios elementos cruciales en la declaración, es un sólido punto de partida para las negociaciones. Ahora necesitamos que estos Estados miembros sigan manteniéndose firmes y garanticen el tratado histórico que el mundo necesita”. 

Los líderes de la sociedad civil aplaudieron la reafirmación en la declaración de la necesidad de un tratado que tenga un objetivo global de reducción de la producción de plástico, que elimine progresivamente los productos plásticos más problemáticos y las sustancias químicas peligrosas, y que incluya mecanismos de seguimiento y notificación para garantizar que los países se mantienen en el objetivo, así como margen para reforzar los compromisos en función de la ciencia emergente, la salud y los impactos ambientales. 

Sin embargo, en la declaración faltan referencias a una transición justa, en particular para los recicladores y trabajadores informales, y a la salud y los derechos humanos, incluidos los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. La declaración no hace pleno hincapié en el cambio de sistemas, especialmente la reutilización y el rellenado, en un mecanismo financiero que permita la aplicación y el cumplimiento, y en la necesidad de obligaciones nacionales para cumplir los objetivos globales. 

Larisa de Orbe de Acción Ecológica de México: Tenemos ya bastante evidencia de cómo en todo el ciclo de los plásticos se violan los derechos humanos. Por ello es indispensable que el espíritu del Tratado de Plásticos  sea la protección de los derechos humanos y de la justicia ambiental y no  proteger los intereses económicos y políticos de los contaminadores.

Mohamed Kamal, de la Greenish Foundation de Egipto, afirma: “La Declaración de Niza es un llamado de atención que subraya la importancia de adoptar posiciones firmes sobre los artículos clave y las medidas necesarias para abordar eficazmente la contaminación por plásticos. Sin embargo, se queda corta a la hora de reconocer la necesidad de un mecanismo financiero nuevo e independiente, un elemento esencial para garantizar el éxito del tratado que fue solicitado por más de 120 países en el INC-5 y defendido por África.” 

Los miembros de GAIA también advierten contra enfoques nocivos de gestión de residuos como la incineración “de residuos a energía”, el “reciclado” químico y los créditos de plástico, que no harán sino agravar la crisis de los plásticos. 

En una línea de la declaración también se hace un llamamiento a las prácticas  de toma de decisiones, en caso de que no pueda alcanzarse un consenso. En anteriores INC, los Estados petroquímicos han intentado saltarse la convención y paralizar los avances negándose a aceptar una disposición para la votación, lo que básicamente permite a un único Estado miembro impedir que el mundo resuelva la crisis del plástico. 

Wong Si Peng, del C4 Center de Malasia, afirma: “La toma de decisiones mediante votación, una vez agotados todos los esfuerzos por alcanzar un consenso, es vital para que la futura Conferencia de las Partes sea eficaz. Votar no debe malinterpretarse como abandonar las alianzas o la cooperación; al contrario, mediante el voto, los Estados miembros protegen tanto su soberanía como los derechos de los ciudadanos a los que representan en la mesa de negociación.”

Contactos de prensa:

Global: Claire Arkin, claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

América Latina y el Caribe: Camila Aguilera, camila@no-burn.org | +56 9 8913 6198

África: Carissa Marnce, carissa@no-burn.org

Asia Pacífico: Robi Kate Miranda, robi@no-burn.org | +63 9275854157

###

GAIA es una alianza mundial de más de 1.000 grupos de base, organizaciones no gubernamentales y particulares de más de 90 países. Con nuestro trabajo pretendemos catalizar un cambio global hacia la justicia medioambiental,fortaleciendo los movimientos sociales de base que promueven soluciones a los residuos y la contaminación. Imaginamos un mundo justo, sin residuos, basado 

en el respeto de los límites ecológicos y los derechos comunitarios, en el que las personas estén libres de la carga de la contaminación tóxica y los recursos se conserven de forma sostenible, no se quemen ni se viertan.

Declaration Released at United Nations Oceans Conference

Plastics Treaty Negotiations Continue August 5-14

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 10, 2025

Nice, France – On the second day of the United Nations Oceans Conference in Nice, France (June 9-13), Ministers and representatives from 95 countries (the majority of United Nations Member States) released a declaration entitled, “The Nice Wake-Up Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty.” The statement sets the stage for the next round of negotiations (INC-5.2) taking place in Geneva, Switzerland from August 5-14. Following the release of the declaration, over 235 civil society organizations released their own statement in response, supporting the Nice declaration as a “floor, not a ceiling” of ambition in the upcoming talks. 

Ana Rocha, GAIA’s Global Plastics Policy Director, states, “We are heartened to see this demonstration of ambition from the majority of countries, who are showing a united front against the small number of petro-chemical states trying to prevent a strong treaty. While there are several crucial elements missing from the statement, it is a strong starting point for negotiations. We now need these Member States to continue to stand their ground, and secure the historic treaty the world needs.” 

Civil society leaders applauded the statement’s reaffirmation of the need for a treaty to have a global target for plastic production reduction, to phase out the most problematic plastic products and hazardous chemicals, and to include monitoring and reporting mechanisms to ensure that countries remain on target, as well as room to strengthen commitments based on emerging science, health, and environmental impacts. 

However the statement was missing reference to a just transition, particularly for informal waste pickers and workers, and health and human rights, including rights of Indigenous Peoples. The statement does not fully  emphasize systems shift, especially  reuse and refill, a financial mechanism that enables implementation and compliance, and the need for national obligations to meet global targets. 

Larisa de Orbe, from Acción Ecológica in Mexico states, “We already have enough evidence of how human rights are violated throughout the entire plastics cycle. It is therefore essential that the spirit of the plastics treaty be the protection of human rights and environmental justice, rather than protecting the economic and political interests of polluters.”

Mohamed Kamal of the Greenish Foundation in Egypt states, “The Nice Wake-Up Call Declaration underscores the importance of strong positions on key articles and measures necessary to effectively address plastic pollution. However, it falls short in acknowledging the need for a new and independent financial mechanism, an essential element for ensuring the success of the treaty that was called for by over 120 countries in INC5 and championed by Africa.” 

GAIA members also caution against harmful waste management approaches like “waste-to-energy” incineration, chemical “recycling,” and plastic credits, which will only exacerbate the plastics crisis. 

A line in the statement also calls for standard decision-making practices, if consensus cannot be reached. At previous INC’s, petro-chemical states have attempted to buck convention and stall progress by refusing to accept a provision for voting, essentially allowing a single Member State to prevent the world from solving the plastic crisis. 

Wong Si Peng of C4 Center in Malaysia states, “Decision-making through voting – once all efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted – is vital for the future Conference of Parties to be effective. Voting should not be misconstrued as abandoning alliances or cooperation – instead, through voting, member states protect both their sovereignty and the rights of the citizens they represent at the negotiation table.”

Press contacts:

Global:  Claire Arkin, claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

Africa: Carissa Marnce, carissa@no-burn.org 

Latin America and the Caribbean: Camila Aguilera, camila@no-burn.org

Asia Pacific: Robi Kate Miranda, robi@no-burn.org | +63 9275854157

###

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA: 2 Abril, 2025

Santiago, Chile– Más de cien miembros de la sociedad civil de GAIA (la Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración) de los cinco continentes firmaron una carta dirigida a Anacláudia Rossbach, directora ejecutiva de ONU-Hábitat, en la que piden a la organización que deje de promover la incineración de residuos para la producción de energía (WTE), un enfoque de gestión de residuos perjudicial y ampliamente desacreditado, y que en su lugar promueva soluciones justas y equitativas basura  cero.

La carta llama específicamente la atención sobre la publicación de ONU-Hábitat elogiando la incineración de residuos en su página de LinkedIn el 6 de marzo, así como su inclusión en su página web de mejores prácticas basura cero.

Además de su postura pública, ONU-Hábitat está influyendo en las decisiones de los municipios a favor de la incineración de residuos, contradiciendo la misión de la organización de difundir estrategias probadas para promover el desarrollo urbano.

Por ejemplo, en São Paulo, Brasil, ONU-Hábitat ha financiado a varios consultores proincineración que han promovido la propuesta de construir tres incineradoras WTE en la ciudad, en oposición directa a las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro locales, los recolectores de residuos y otros grupos comunitarios que piden a la ciudad que invierta en iniciativas basura cero.

La carta describe los impactos en el clima y la salud, los exorbitantes costos y las amenazas a los medios de vida de los recolectores de residuos que genera la WTE.

Wahyu Eka Styawan, miembro de GAIA de WALHI/FoE Indonesia de la región de Java Oriental, afirma: «En Surabaya, Indonesia, la incineración de residuos no ha reducido la cantidad de residuos, sino que ha generado contaminación, con una calidad del aire que a menudo alcanza niveles insalubres. En lugar de un sistema que simplemente quema residuos y crea nuevos problemas, necesitamos un enfoque de basura cero que aborde los residuos a través de la producción y el consumo sostenibles»

«La incineración no resuelve los problemas de los residuos, sino que crea una serie de riesgos para la salud y el medio ambiente, y compromete el desarrollo de políticas para una mayor reutilización, reciclaje y compostaje», afirma Danita Zarichinova, miembro de la junta o coordinadora de ZW en ZaZemiata en Bulgaria y miembro de Zero Waste Europe. «Las plantas de conversión de residuos en energía en Europa emiten dioxinas y gases de efecto invernadero, lo que demuestra que esta supuesta «solución» es, de hecho, costosa tanto para la salud de las personas como para sus bolsillos».

Los miembros de GAIA en todo el Sur global están rechazando la incineración de residuos para generar energía. «Ahora existen métodos alternativos más sostenibles y sin residuos que evitarían los principales peligros para la salud de la incineración, producirían más energía y serían mucho más baratos en términos reales, si se tuvieran en cuenta los costes sanitarios. La incineración de residuos para generar energía es, sin duda, una opción que no se puede plantear en África», afirma el Dr. Leslie Adogame, director ejecutivo de SRADeV Nigeria.

Más de 500 ciudades de todo el mundo están haciendo la transición hacia basura cero a través de políticas o prácticas, como la recogida selectiva, el compostaje y leyes que reducen los envases de un solo uso.

Cecilia Torres, de la organización Mingas por el Mar, describe: «En Ecuador, donde la gestión de residuos sólidos es inadecuada, hemos implementado modelos basura cero en restaurantes costeros de playa, logrando una reducción inmediata de la contaminación plástica en áreas naturales. Además, esto ha fomentado un proceso de aprendizaje positivo, en el que tanto el sector turístico como los visitantes comprenden la importancia de minimizar los residuos, asociándolo con una experiencia de mayor calidad y un importante ahorro de costes».

“ONU-Hábitat no debería promover esta tecnología obsoleta y contaminante cuando afecta a tantas vidas, especialmente en comunidades que ya enfrentan graves injusticias ambientales. Debemos volver a basura cero invirtiendo en sistemas que reduzcan los residuos desde su origen y fomenten la reutilización y el reciclaje de materiales reciclables, en lugar de quemar desechos y generar más contaminación tóxica”, afirmó Nazir Khan, Director Ejecutivo de Minnesota Environmental Justice Table.

Según la experiencia de Fundación El Árbol, Chile, Paulina Romero comenta: «El compostaje comunitario ha surgido como una gran oportunidad para avanzar hacia ciudades basura cero. En 2023, lanzamos el programa “Compostaje comunitario: soluciones colectivas al problema de la basura”. Gracias a esta iniciativa, se ha logrado reducir la cantidad de residuos orgánicos enviados a rellenos sanitarios y, con ello, disminuir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.»

Press contacts:

Camila Aguilera, Comunicaciones, GAIA América Latina y el Caribe  

camila@no-burn.org | +56 9 8913 619

###

GAIA es una alianza mundial de más de 1.000 grupos de base, organizaciones no gubernamentales y particulares de más de 90 países. Con nuestro trabajo pretendemos catalizar un cambio global hacia la justicia medioambiental fortaleciendo los movimientos sociales de base que promueven soluciones a los residuos y la contaminación. Imaginamos un mundo justo, sin residuos, basado 

en el respeto de los límites ecológicos y los derechos comunitarios, en el que las personas estén libres de la carga de la contaminación tóxica y los recursos se conserven de forma sostenible, no se quemen ni se viertan.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 2, 2025

New York, NY– Over one hundred civil society members of GAIA (the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives) across five continents signed onto a letter addressed to Anacláudia Rossbach, Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, calling on the organization to cease its promotion of waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration– a harmful and widely discredited waste management approach– and instead uplift just and equitable zero waste solutions.

The letter specifically called attention to UN-HABITAT’s post praising WTE on its LinkedIn page on March 6, as well as including WTE in its zero waste best practices webpage. 

In addition to its public stance, UN-HABITAT is influencing municipalities’ decisions in favor of WTE, contradicting the organization’s mission to disseminate proven strategies to promote urban development. 

For example, in São Paulo, Brazil, UN-HABITAT has bankrolled several pro-incineration consultants  who have promoted the proposed build-out of three WTE incinerators in the city, in direct opposition to local non-profits, waste pickers, and other community groups calling for the city to invest in zero waste initiatives instead. 

The letter describes the climate and health  impacts, exorbitant costs, and threats to waste picker livelihoods that WTE poses. 

GAIA member Wahyu Eka Styawan of WALHI/FoE Indonesia East Java region states:  “In Surabaya, Indonesia, waste-to-energy has not reduced waste, but created pollution—with air quality often reaching unhealthy levels. Instead of a system that just burns waste and creates new problems, we need a zero waste approach that addresses waste through sustainable production and consumption.” 

“Incineration does not solve waste problems, but instead creates a range of health and environmental risks, and compromises the development of policies for more reuse, recycling, and composting,” says Danita Zarichinova, Board member or ZW coordinator at ZaZemiata in Bulgaria and Zero Waste Europe member. “Waste-to-energy plants in Europe emit dioxins and greenhouse gases, proving  that this supposed ‘solution’ is in fact costly both to people’s health and their pocketbooks.”

GAIA members throughout the Global South are rejecting waste-to-energy incineration. “There are now more sustainable zero waste alternative methods of dealing with waste which would avoid the main health hazards of incineration, would produce more energy and would be far cheaper in real terms, if the health costs were taken into account. Waste-to-energy incineration is certainly a no-option for Africa,” says Dr Leslie  Adogame, Executive Director of SRADeV Nigeria. 

More than 500 cities around the world are transitioning to zero waste through policies or practices, such as separate collection, composting, and laws that reduce single-use packaging. 

“In Ecuador, where solid waste management is inadequate, we have implemented zero waste models in coastal beach restaurants, achieving an immediate reduction in plastic pollution in natural areas. Additionally, this has fostered a positive learning process, where both the tourism sector and visitors understand the importance of minimizing waste, associating it with a higher-quality experience and significant cost savings,” said Cecilia Torres, Mingas por el Mar, Ecuador. 

“UN-HABITAT should not promote this aging, polluting technology when it harms so many lives, especially in communities already overburdened by environmental injustices. We should go back to zero waste by investing in systems that reduce waste at its source and support the reuse and recycling of recyclable materials, rather than burning waste and creating more toxic pollution,” said Nazir Khan, Executive Director at Minnesota Environmental Justice Table.

Press contacts:

Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead

claire@no-burn.org | 

###

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

Re: Stand Strong for Community Health Protections by Implementing Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act Without Delay

Dear Governor Newsom,

We urge you to stand firm in implementing SB 54 without delay or industry interference. Individuals nationally and globally overwhelmingly support strong environmental protections, with two-thirds of Californians identifying plastic packaging waste as a major problem. The world is watching as the Global Plastics Treaty advances, and California has the opportunity—and responsibility—to lead with integrity.

You are in a unique position to be a national leader, and to ensure an effective and health-centered solution to the well-known global plastic packaging crisis by moving SB 54 implementation forward before the March 8, 2025, deadline.

California cannot allow industry to degrade the intent of this landmark law. Your administration has already demonstrated leadership in protecting public health and the environment—most notably with the 2024 closure of the state’s last two municipal waste incinerators. That progress must continue. SB 54 explicitly excludes plastic recycling technologies that produce hazardous waste, including chemical recycling methods like pyrolysis and gasification, which have been exposed as false solutions.

California policy provides a critical firewall between incineration technologies and recycling. The following policies consistently classify incineration (including gasification, pyrolysis, and similar approaches) as waste disposal–in line with US Environmental Protection Agency regulations on incineration–while these recycling goals and requirements prevent incineration and similar approaches from masquerading as recycling: 

  • Goal of 75% of solid waste generated annually statewide be source reduced, recycled, or composted (AB 341, Public Resources Code 41780.01)
  • Waste Management Hierarchy (Public Resources Code 40051)
  • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) amendment of Section 126, Item 3970-101-0001 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2022
  • Battery Recycling (AB 2440, 2022) amendment of Public Resources Code 42420.1
  • Tire Recycling (Public Resources Code 42873)
  • Carpet Recycling (Public Resources Code 42968)
  • Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Eligibility (Public Resources Code 25741)
  • Elimination of Diversion Credit for Transformation (AB 1857 C. Garcia, 2022)

Please uphold the state and your powerful legacy by standing strong against industry pressure to slow down or halt implementation of SB 54 and to weaken its protections against so-called “chemical recycling,” as described in recent news articles. SB 54 drew a clear line to “exclude plastic recycling technologies that produce significant amounts of hazardous waste,” specifically including the so-called “chemical recycling” technologies identified in Senator Allen’s SB 54 Letter to the Journal and respective committee analyses: solvolysis, solvent-based technologies, pyrolysis, incineration, and gasification. 

The success of SB 54 depends on strong state oversight, not industry self-regulation. California has a chance to set the national standard for producer responsibility in plastics. We urge you to uphold your commitment to environmental justice and stand strong against corporate influence.

Sincerely,

Denaya Shorter

Senior Director, GAIA US & Canada

ATTACHMENT: Nov 2024 NGO letter on chemical recycling in SB 54

Building off of the Momentum from INC-5, INC-5.2 to be Held in Geneva, Switzerland August 5-14

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 3 March, 2025

New York, NY–  Today, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) announced during the  Bureau Meeting that the next round of plastics treaty negotiations (International Negotiating Committee or INC-5.2) will take place at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland from 5-14 August 2025.

Ana Rocha, Director of Global Plastics Policy at GAIA, states: 

“The tides turned at INC-5, and the possibility of an ambitious plastics treaty is now more concrete than it’s ever been. At INC-5.2, governments must keep up the momentum and stay strong against fossil fuel interests in order to deliver the treaty that will keep us below 1.5 degrees.”

In particular, Member States must defend a provision for voting if consensus cannot be reached, to ensure a democratic process where no one nation can block progress towards a treaty. (See GAIA’s INC-5 Wrap Up, “What’s Next” section for details.)  

INC-5.2 is an extension of the plastics treaty talks–in the previous round of negotiations in Busan, South Korea (INC-5) in November of last year, leaders agreed that more time was needed to secure a strong plastics treaty. 

At INC-5 the majority of countries* supporting ambitious measures like plastic reduction targets, elimination of chemicals of concern, a just transition, and an equitable financial mechanism fought back against a small group of petroleum-producing nations seeking to stall and weaken the treaty outcomes, making it clear that they will not bow to petro-state pressure.  

Global South countries led the charge towards ambition, bolstered by civil society groups, frontline communities, Indigenous Peoples,  and the scientific community. 

Quotes from Members:

“At INC-5.2, we must remember that the fight against plastic pollution is fundamentally a fight for environmental justice. We need a treaty that centers the voices and experiences of those most impacted, particularly in the Global South. This means ensuring equitable access to resources, technology, and effective decision-making processes that break through the consensus deadlock. Only then can we create a treaty that truly serves the health of our planet and its people,” states Eskedar Awgichew Ergete from Eco-justice Ethiopia.

“I believe that there is need for really candid discussions between parties that are based on good faith. Right now, each country understands the others positions and genuine dialogues can be extremely helpful in forging ways forward. Countries are there to defend their national interest, but if they could also go into negotiations with an understanding that they collectively represent the whole world’s population and that the earth and future generations quality of life are dependent on their collective decision, then they will restore the hope of humanity,” states Dorothy Otieno from Centre for Environmental Justice And Development, Kenya.

“At INC5.2, to secure a future free from plastic pollution is to unite with urgency and foresight-binding action together as a global community to tackle the root of the problem not just so the crisis. Our actions today will determine the world we leave behind—a world where humanity thrives in harmony with the planet, not in its destruction,” states Sarah Onuoha from Sustainable Research and Action for Environmental Development, Nigeria.

“At INC-5.2 it is essential that countries listen to observers who have first-hand knowledge of the impacts of plastics throughout their life cycle and to science without conflicts of interest. It is important that the treaty reflects the voices of the global south, because by doing so, environmental justice would be achieved. With a solid treaty, the Global South can be better protected against the interests of the North, which impose their will through economic power and market control, imposing trade agreements and relegating the countries of the Global South to the role of suppliers of natural resources,” states Cecilia Bianco from Taller Ecologista, Argentina.

“To ensure that the global treaty can really stop plastic pollution, we need it to impose global and binding targets for the reduction of the production and consumption of plastics worldwide. And for the negotiations to move in that direction, we need brave governments that take the lead and are willing to fight for the protection of the health of their people and territories, even if it means confronting the oil-producing countries,” states Alejandra Parra,  Zero Waste and Plastics Advisor for GAIA Latin America and the Caribbean.

“At INC-5.1, over 80 countries reaffirmed their commitment to progress towards an ambitious and effective treaty to combat plastic pollution, by rejecting any attempt to leave the previous session with a watered-down agreement. The upcoming INC-5.2 negotiations shall be a defining moment to turn this commitment into concrete action. The treaty must not only curb plastic production but also uphold an inclusive process that ensures the participation and the protection of the rights of affected communities. The world cannot afford another treaty that prioritizes political convenience over planetary survival. At INC-5.2, governments must step up, delivering a treaty that is not only strong today but remains effective for generations to come.” states Rafael Eudes, Aliança Resíduo Zero Brasil.

“Countries like Bangladesh face a multidimensional plastic crisis – simultaneously an environmental, health and waste management crisis that is overwhelming state capacity. Without a reduction in production, we won’t see a reduction in consumption. While our communities are suffocated by plastics, we hope the Global Plastics Treaty can serve as an avenue to tackle the global crisis – yet without the necessary political will, inclusivity of stakeholders including affected communities, waste workers, informal sector workers and civil society – this treaty process will struggle to get off the ground and will remain hostage to a few blockers.INC 5.2 is already borrowed time, the process must move forward to avoid even greater catastrophe.” -Bareesh Hasan Chowdhury of Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA)

“The Plastic Treaty must include limits on plastic production, especially banning single-use plastics since they have no real benefit and cannot be properly managed. The responsibility for waste management, particularly plastic waste, should not fall on us alone but on manufacturers and producers. The waste should be returned to them. If we, as waste workers, are the ones managing plastic waste, then we should be adequately compensated for our work.” -Aloja Santos of Philippine National Waste Workers Alliance (PNWWA)

“Aotearoa New Zealand and all other nations must uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples in all Global Plastics Treaty processes. The efficacy of Indigenous leadership in protecting both planet and people must be recognised if we are to effectively end plastic pollution. Indigenous rights to participate in policy and decision making have been violated throughout Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and our critical voices marginalised. A truly just Global Plastics Treaty must centre Indigenous rights, solutions, and leadership, while incorporating other important voices including frontline communities, waste pickers, and independent scientists. Now is the time for strong upstream measures including production cuts and an end to extraction, our future generations deserve nothing less.” -Matt Peryman of Tāngata Whenua Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty (TWC) and Aotearoa Plastic Pollution Alliance (APPA)

Note to Editor: 

For in-depth analysis of the outcomes of INC-5 and the political climate leading into INC-5.2, please read GAIA’s latest paper. 

*List of Ambitious Countries: 

Press contacts:

Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead

claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

Camila Aguilera, Communications Coordinator, GAIA Latin America and the Caribbean 

camila@no-burn.org 

Carissa Marnce, Africa Communications Coordinator

carissa@no-burn.org

Robi Kate Miranda, Communications Officer, GAIA Asia Pacific

robi@no-burn.org | +63 9275854157

###

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped.

Our Work
Global Community
Donate

Stay Connected

Sign up for our Global Newsletter to stay up today on our cross regional work.