Negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution are ongoing, with the scope of the treaty being a major point of contention.
Countries are divided on whether the treaty should cover the entire plastic life cycle or focus on specific aspects, reflecting differing national interests and environmental philosophies.
The UNEA Resolution 5/14 serves as a key reference point in these discussions.
As negotiations on a global treaty to end plastic pollution continue, the issue of scope remains one of the most debated. Member states have expressed divergent views on how expansive or restrained the treaty’s coverage should be, reflecting broader geopolitical alignments, national interests, and environmental philosophies.
A central point of reference for many is the mandate laid out in the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 5/14. Countries such as the United States, along with allies including Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Monaco, Iceland, and New Zealand, emphasized that the resolution already provides a sufficiently clear framework.
The African Group of Nations, represented by Malawi and Ghana, advocated for a scope fully grounded in the UNEA resolution while emphasizing that it must address the entire plastic life cycle. Rwanda and South Africa echoed this view, urging a comprehensive approach that goes beyond final products to tackle leakage, environmental harm and socioeconomic impacts.
Several countries such as Iran, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation explicitly requested the exclusion of upstream components like hydrocarbons and polymers from the treaty’s scope. These positions align with a broader bloc, including Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and China, which appears cautious about treaty provisions encroaching on industrial or energy sectors
Others, like the Philippines and South Africa, support including the full life cycle of plastics, from design to disposal. Indonesia offered a nuanced stance, marking polymerization as the starting point while ruling out national security and emergency response as treaty concerns.
This debate illustrates the tension between calls for system-wide transformation and efforts to contain the treaty within politically palatable boundaries. As discussions progress, reconciling these divergent views will be essential to developing a treaty that is both actionable and widely acceptable.
This is a click to zoom map. View the larger image by clicking on it