Subscribe
Deliberations on Article 1 of the Global Plastics Treaty highlight a consensus on ending plastic pollution, with countries advocating for a comprehensive approach addressing the entire life cycle of plastics.
While many support a strong focus on human health and environmental protection, divergent views exist on the treaty's ambition and framing, reflecting varied national priorities and contexts.
The objective of any treaty serves as its compass, defining the shared purpose that binds parties together. In the case of the global plastics treaty, Article 1 aims to establish a unifying mission: to end plastic pollution, including its impacts on the marine environment, while safeguarding human health and the broader ecosystem. This high-level articulation has received wide support, as it mirrors the language and structure found in previous multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).
Deliberations around Article 1 of the Global Plastics Treaty reveal both a broad consensus on the need to end plastic pollution and divergent perspectives on the framing and ambition of this objective. Most countries agree that the treaty should explicitly aim to protect human health and the environment, with many emphasizing the need for a comprehensive, full life-cycle approach to plastics.
Countries such as Ghana (on behalf of the African Group), Rwanda, Bangladesh and Tuvalu (on behalf of PSIDS) advocate for a clear and strong reference to addressing plastic pollution throughout its entire life cycle from production to disposal. They highlight the importance of tackling not only plastic waste, but also upstream drivers like production volumes and product design. These positions often reference marine environments and biodiversity, recognizing the global and transboundary nature of plastic pollution.
Brazil, Egypt and Indonesia also support the overarching goal of ending plastic pollution but tend to frame it within broader sustainable development or environmental protection narratives. Malaysia introduces circular economy considerations, suggesting that sustainable waste management and safer material cycles are integral to the treaty’s success. On the other hand, countries such as Iran, Kazakhstan and Kuwait call for greater sensitivity to national contexts. Iran emphasizes legacy plastic pollution and the need for financial and technical support for developing countries. Kuwait and others express caution about expanding the treaty’s mandate too far, raising questions about overlap with other international health and environment frameworks. Notably, there is variation in how specific or ambitious states wish the objective to be. Some seek quantifiable targets or mechanisms, while others prefer flexible formulations that allow national discretion.
This is a click to zoom map. View the larger image by clicking on it
