Article 13 of the Global Plastics Treaty draft proposes a compliance mechanism, sparking debate among member states.
While many support a transparent, inclusive committee, countries like China and Saudi Arabia prefer a nonpunitive approach.
Despite differing views, there's consensus on refining the committee's procedures, with the Conference of Parties set to finalize its structure.
Article 13 of the draft Global Plastics Treaty addresses the establishment of a compliance and implementation mechanism, which has emerged as a point of both convergence and contention among member states. The proposed mechanism includes the formation of a committee tasked with supporting implementation and promoting adherence to treaty obligations. Most countries support the idea in principle, but differ significantly on the structure, function and level of authority of such a body.
A broad group of countries, including members of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the European Union, have expressed support for a transparent, inclusive and facilitative committee. Their positions reflect an ambition for a strong implementation system rooted in equity and accountability. They have proposed specific features such as permanent representation for SIDS, gender balance in committee membership and clarity on decision-making rules. These positions highlight a desire for a mechanism that reflects the treaty’s global scope and ensures fair representation of vulnerable regions.
At the same time, several countries—including China, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Türkiye and the Philippines—advocate for a softer, nonpunitive approach. They emphasize the need to respect national capacities and support implementation through dialogue and cooperation rather than enforcement. Their positions suggest a preference for voluntary compliance mechanisms that avoid any perception of external imposition.
Some states, notably Iran, have expressed fundamental opposition to the concept of a compliance mechanism as currently framed. Their suggestions lean toward a cooperative body that avoids any accountability provisions, raising questions about the scope and effectiveness of such a structure.
Despite these differences, there is general agreement that the modalities and procedures of the committee can be refined and adopted later by the Conference of Parties (COP). The inclusion or exclusion of terms such as ‘review’ and the clarity of procedural rules will likely shape the final form of Article 13 and influence the treaty’s ability to drive meaningful implementation.
This is a click to zoom map. View the larger image by clicking on it