Article 2 of the draft global plastics treaty is pivotal yet contentious, as it defines key terms that shape the treaty's scope and enforceability.
Despite efforts to standardize definitions, disagreements persist among nations, risking fragmented implementation and diluted effectiveness. Countries like Norway advocate for clearer definitions, while others, including Russia, seek more precision.
One of the most fundamental yet contentious aspects of the draft global plastics treaty lies in Article 2, which outlines key definitions. These definitions are critical, as they shape the scope, interpretation and enforceability of the treaty’s provisions. However, not only have key terms been inconsistently treated across negotiation drafts, but deep divides remain among states on how central terms should be defined.
In earlier drafts, terms like microplastics, primary plastic polymers, and recycling featured prominently. Yet, these have been omitted in the most recent version, partly due to political sensitivities and differing national priorities. Even terms that remain such as plastic, plastic pollution and plastic waste are still the subject of contention. For instance, plastic is broadly described as a material composed wholly or partially of synthetic or semi-synthetic polymers, while plastic pollution is defined across the full life cycle. Still, these definitions remain open to interpretation and disagreement.
Countries like Norway have called for a clearer and more inclusive definition of microplastics and raised concerns about narrowing the definition of plastic pollution to end-of-life waste. This proposal received support from several other states, notably Bangladesh, the EU and the Philippines. In contrast, countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan and Iran have questioned the inclusion of such definitions without additional precision, such as size thresholds for microplastics or clearer language on emissions. Looking ahead, a pragmatic approach would be to draw from existing international legal instruments to harmonize definitions. Additionally, terms should be contextually developed in tandem with article-specific discussions. Without agreed definitions, the treaty risks fragmented implementation, legal loopholes and diluted ambition undermining its global effectiveness.
This is a click to zoom map. View the larger image by clicking on it