On May 20, 2026, HEJSupport participated in the bilateral meeting with the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC), Mr. Julio Cordano, and the UN Women’s Major Group.
In the intervention, HEJSupport highlighted the issue of chemicals in plastics and the importance of chemical control under the plastics treaty. Below is the Chair’s reflection on the statement.
1. Chemicals are central but politically complex
The Chair clearly acknowledged that chemicals are a central political issue in the INC. “You were talking about the issue of chemicals, and I fully agree that definitely that’s part of the discussion, and necessarily we will need to look into it much more closely. I have the feeling that this is one of the central elements of the political discussion in the INC.”
He also noted that some delegations push back on including chemicals in the treaty by arguing they are already covered under BRS/Minamata Conventions:
“We know that there are countries that do not want to consider chemicals at all under the plastics treaty, because they believe that chemicals are already regulated by the BRS conventions, by the Minamata convention…”
…but the Chair does not endorse that view; he’s describing it as a political reality to manage.
2. Scale and implementability of chemical controls
The Chair highlighted the scale and technical challenge of regulating chemicals in plastics:
“I know that there are like 16,000 chemicals associated with plastics. And so the question is, how do we tackle the variety of chemicals that can be harmful for human health and for the environment?”
He frames two main implementation questions:
- Listing vs. grouping chemicals
- Making a full list would be “quite an exercise” and may be seen as inefficient.
- Grouping or “bundling” chemicals might be easier, but it still leads to a long, evolving list as industry introduces new substances.
- Dynamic nature of chemicals
- Because new chemicals keep being developed, any control system must cope with continuous change, not just a static list.
So the Chair is not rejecting chemical control; he is emphasizing that designing workable controls is a major challenge.
3. Need for broad confidence and clarity on scope
The Chair links chemical control to confidence and participation of delegations:
“There is a significant amount of delegations that are not fully on board with this idea precisely because they feel that the discussion on the scope and other things of the treaty does not provide clarity on the way forward.”
He stresses:
- Some delegations say Resolution 5/14 is crystal clear, others say it is not clear enough.
- Lack of clarity creates a “vacuum of certainty”, which undermines confidence in implementing a far‑reaching chemicals regime.
- Because plastic pollution is a universal problem, he insists that all major economies and all delegations need to be on board for chemical controls to be credible and implementable.
4. Chair’s role: balancing recognition of the problem with political feasibility
The Chair’s position is essentially:
- He agrees there is a real problem with chemicals in plastics:
“We need to acknowledge the fact that we have this problem with products, with chemicals, and that [it is] definitely part of the discussion that we need to have.”
- His job as Chair is not to impose a specific chemical-control design, but to:
- Facilitate a conversation that recognizes both the urgency and substance of the chemical problem; and
- Navigate the political and practical complexities so that:
- The treaty is ambitious,
- Implementable, and
- Enjoys broad confidence among parties.
He presents chemical control as necessary, but constrained by:
- Implementation questions (how to manage thousands of chemicals, lists vs. groups, evolving substances), and
- The need for consensus or at least wide acceptance among delegations.
Additionally, the Chair connects chemicals with gender, health, and just transition.
Chemicals as part of a broader gender/health/just transition package
When responding to the three priorities (just transition, health, gender equality) highlighted by NGOs, the Chair frames them as interconnected elements that need to be unpacked for implementation:
He noted the relevance of these three elements. And the question is whether… we need specific provisions for the three of them, or do we need some hooks to ensure that we have a substantive and meaningful work stream… after the text is adopted… “Gender equality is a little bit more cross‑cutting.”
Key points:
- Just transition and health could become stand‑alone articles.
- Gender equality is seen as a cross‑cutting lens that applies across the treaty.
- The Chair is looking for “hooks” in the text that allow continued, more detailed work post‑adoption (which would logically include chemicals, especially where they affect women and workers).
Chemicals and gender/health via frontline workers and waste pickers
Later, after NGO’s intervention on chemicals and gender, the Chair explicitly links waste pickers, women, and chemical exposure:
He noted that “The issues related to just transition can be extremely relevant. For example, the recognition of waste pickers, where there is a large participation of women who are exposed to chemicals, and of course, they are in the front line of the combat to plastic pollution, but at the same time, they’re facing the risks to their health and… we cannot just ignore that.”
Key points:
- Just transition is not only about jobs; it’s about health and chemical exposure, especially for women waste pickers.
- The Chair sees recognition of these groups as a direct entry point for gender equality and health protections in the treaty.
He also notes this logic can be applied more broadly to other parts of the treaty as well. It means that chemical control measures (e.g., product rules, value‑chain controls) should be designed with gendered health impacts and frontline workers in mind.
