Global Plastics Profile 2025: Where countries stand on capacity building, technical assistance and technology transfer
Developing countries are pushing for mandatory commitments from developed countries, while developed countries are talking about voluntary cooperation.
Summary
- Developing countries and negotiating blocs are urging developed countries to commit to providing financial, technical, and technological support for a global plastics agreement.
- They emphasize the need for legal measures on technology sharing and waivers for intellectual property (like patents, trademarks, industrial designs, and geographical indications), while developed countries favor voluntary cooperation, focusing on expertise and shared responsibilities. Inventions (Patents), Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications
Developing countries and groups like AOSIS, AoLSIS, GRULAC, and individual nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia emphasize that successful implementation of the agreement hinges on timely and adequate support based on their needs. These countries advocate for clear obligations on developed countries to provide not only financial but also technical and technological resources.
The proposals range from establishing cooperation mechanisms to including legal provisions mandating technology sharing on fair and preferential terms. In particular, Sadi Arabia has called for strong legal commitments, including intellectual property waivers for environmentally sound technologies.
China, Iran, and Indonesia emphasized that developed countries should take responsibility for capacity-building and provide access to advanced technologies throughout the plastics lifecycle. These positions reflect long-standing concerns about the inconsistency of global technological access and the risk of uneven implementation.
Developed countries like Australia, Canada, the United States, and Japan prefer flexible and voluntary cooperation, mainly supporting those most in need. This group advocates promoting cooperation but resists binding obligations, citing the importance of preserving expertise, shared responsibilities and innovation incentives.
Kazakhstan proposed creating national centers for capacity-building, while Malaysia emphasized that support should be driven by each country and be inclusive and adaptable, focusing on a process-based approach rather than a strict model.
(Edited/Rewriting by Rahman Mahfuz)
Curtesy : Down To Earth
