Article 16 of the Global Plastic Profiles 2025 treaty outlines a framework for periodic evaluations led by the Conference of the Parties.
Countries like Malawi and Ghana stress evidence-based assessments, while others, including Samoa and the Philippines, advocate for broader evaluation scopes.
Despite differing views, most parties agree on the importance of systematic evaluation for continuous improvement.
Article 16 sets the foundation for assessing how well the treaty achieves its objectives over time. It provides a framework for periodic evaluations led by the Conference of the Parties (COP), using scientific, technical and policy-relevant data. While the current draft is broadly aligned with the aim of building an ambitious and responsive treaty, country submissions indicate varying levels of engagement with the scope, timeline and mechanisms of such evaluations.
Several countries and regional blocs see the effectiveness evaluation as a critical tool for continuous improvement. The African Group, represented by Malawi and Ghana, has emphasized the need for evidence-based assessments, calling for the establishment of baseline data and harmonized methodologies to track plastic flows and environmental impacts. Bangladesh and Hungary echoed this approach, proposing shorter evaluation timelines and integrated monitoring tools to generate actionable insights.
Small Island Developing States (SIDS), including Samoa and the Philippines, advocated for expanding the evaluation scope beyond technical indicators to include traditional knowledge, socioeconomic factors, and the unique vulnerabilities of frontline communities. These countries also supported the creation of a science-policy interface to guide decision-making. Norway and Indonesia reinforced the need for inclusive metrics, with Norway highlighting the potential role of corporate lifecycle reporting, and Indonesia recommending attention to social impacts.
Other countries, such as the United States and Kazakhstan, supported the current structure but proposed moderate changes, including adjusted timelines and information-sharing mechanisms. By contrast, Saudi Arabia proposed a more restrained role for evaluation, favouring terminology such as ‘review’ rather than ‘monitoring’ and expressing concern about turning the process into a compliance tool.
Despite these differences, most parties recognize the value of systematic evaluation. The key challenge moving forward will be to design a process that is rigorous, inclusive and flexible—capable of generating credible insights while accommodating the diverse circumstances of participating countries.
This is a click to zoom map. View the larger image by clicking on it