COMPARISON TABLE ON THE POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS ON PLASTIC POLLUTION TO BE ADOPTED AT UNEA 5.2

The document compares the Rwanda-Peru (RP) and Japan (JP) draft resolutions for UNEA 5.2, highlighting that while both seek a global legally binding instrument and an intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC), they differ significantly in scope and mandate. The RP resolution adopts a broad 'plastic pollution' scope across all environments using a full lifecycle approach (upstream production to downstream waste), whereas the JP resolution focuses specifically on 'marine plastic pollution' with a stronger emphasis on downstream interventions and a goal to reduce additional marine plastic pollution to zero by 2050. Additionally, the RP resolution proposes an 'open mandate' for the INC and a stronger institutional framework, including a financial mechanism and a scientific and socio-economic body, which are absent or more limited in the JP draft.

• Both the Rwanda-Peru (RP) and Japan (JP) draft resolutions agree on the necessity of a global legally binding instrument and the creation of an intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) to negotiate it, with a goal of completing work by the sixth session of the Environment Assembly.
• The RP resolution addresses 'plastic pollution' across all environments, while the JP resolution limits its scope to 'marine plastic pollution'.
• The RP resolution advocates for a full lifecycle approach covering production (upstream), product design (midstream), and waste management (downstream), whereas the JP resolution emphasizes downstream interventions and excludes specific provisions on sustainable production and product design.
• The JP resolution sets a specific primary goal to reduce additional marine plastic pollution to zero by 2050, aligning with the Osaka Blue Ocean Vision.
• The RP resolution proposes an 'open mandate' allowing the INC to consider any relevant aspects, while the JP resolution utilizes a 'closed mandate' that restricts the INC from considering other relevant aspects.
• The RP resolution requests a stronger institutional framework, including a dedicated financial mechanism and a scientific and socio-economic body, which the JP resolution does not include.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2021). COMPARISON TABLE ON THE POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS ON PLASTIC POLLUTION TO BE ADOPTED AT UNEA 5.2. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CIEL_EIA_12_2021_Comparison-Table-on-the-Potential-Resolutions-on-Plastic-Pollution-to-be-adopted-at-UNEA-5.2.docx-2.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. COMPARISON TABLE ON THE POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS ON PLASTIC POLLUTION TO BE ADOPTED AT UNEA 5.2. 2021. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CIEL_EIA_12_2021_Comparison-Table-on-the-Potential-Resolutions-on-Plastic-Pollution-to-be-adopted-at-UNEA-5.2.docx-2.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=COMPARISON TABLE ON THE POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS ON PLASTIC POLLUTION TO BE ADOPTED AT UNEA 5.2 |date=10 December 2021 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CIEL_EIA_12_2021_Comparison-Table-on-the-Potential-Resolutions-on-Plastic-Pollution-to-be-adopted-at-UNEA-5.2.docx-2.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2021comparison, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{COMPARISON TABLE ON THE POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS ON PLASTIC POLLUTION TO BE ADOPTED AT UNEA 5.2}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2021}, month = dec, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/CIEL_EIA_12_2021_Comparison-Table-on-the-Potential-Resolutions-on-Plastic-Pollution-to-be-adopted-at-UNEA-5.2.docx-2.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }