The global plastics treaty faces significant debate over its guiding principles, with countries divided on which to prioritize.
The Global South advocates for environmental and developmental principles from the Rio Declaration, while developed nations prefer a minimalist approach.
The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities is widely supported, highlighting the need to consider varying capacities and historical responsibilities.
The question of which guiding principles should shape the global plastics treaty has sparked significant deliberation among member states. While there is general agreement that a strong ethical and normative foundation is essential, countries differ markedly on which principles to emphasize and how they should be embedded within the treaty framework.
Many states, particularly from the Global South, have pushed for explicit references to foundational environmental and developmental principles, including those articulated in the 1992 Rio Declaration. The African Group, represented by Malawi and Ghana, advocated the inclusion of all 18 Rio principles, signalling a desire for a treaty rooted in historical precedent and global environmental governance norms.
Similarly, Small Island Developing States (SIDS), including both AOSIS and PSIDS, emphasized principles tailored to their vulnerabilities, such as recognition of special circumstances, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle.
The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) emerged as a recurring theme, with support from a wide range of actors including Brazil, Egypt, India, South Africa and Indonesia. For these countries, CBDR affirms the need to consider varying capacities and historical responsibilities in implementing treaty obligations. Alongside it, principles such as sovereignty over natural resources, the right to development, and equity also featured prominently.
In contrast, the United States and several aligned countries, including Australia, Norway and Switzerland took a minimalist approach. They argued that a well-crafted preamble and operational text would be sufficient, negating the need for a dedicated section on principles. This reflects a broader concern among some developed countries about over-complicating the treaty with abstract or potentially contentious concepts.
Some states sought middle ground. The Philippines, for instance, expressed openness to referencing general principles without insisting on a standalone article.
This is a click to zoom map. View the larger image by clicking on it