Global Plastics Treaty: From Ottawa to Busan

CCB • May 13, 2024

On April 30, 2024, the fourth meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) for a global agreement to end plastic pollution concluded in Ottawa, Canada. The event brought together over 2,500 participants from governments, academia, civil society organizations, private sector entities, UN agencies, and international organizations. Coalition Clean Baltic reflects on its participation alongside many other civil society organizations.


Meeting Dynamics


The INC's work was organized into two primary contact groups. The first group addressed introductory elements (Part I: preamble, objectives, principles, scope, and just transition) and substantive provisions (Part II). The second group focused on Part III (Means of Implementation), Part IV (Implementation Measures), Part V (Institutional Arrangements), and Part VI (Final Provisions). These contact groups were further divided into sub-groups to discuss specific elements and provisions.


Countries agreed to advance intersessional work on financial mechanisms, plastic products, chemicals of concern, product design, reusability, and recyclability. However, discussions on primary plastic polymers were excluded from this mandate. Member states decided to include observers in this intersessional work and established a legal drafting group to review the text and provide recommendations to the plenary.


Peru and Rwanda emerged as champions by proposing intersessional work aimed at reducing global use of primary plastic polymers by 40% from 2025 levels by 2040. This proposal received strong support from several countries, including Malawi, the Philippines, and Fiji. In addition, the Bridge to Busan Declaration on Plastic Polymers was launched to garner support for addressing primary plastic polymers in the treaty text, building momentum for the fifth and final round of negotiations in Busan, Republic of Korea, later this year. However, this declaration is non-legally binding and does not address fossil fuel extraction.

Outcomes of INC-4


The main outcomes of INC-4 were:

  • Transitioning from a zero draft, which was a collection of inputs from member states, to a first draft "owned" by the INC, allowing for line-by-line negotiations.
  • Securing intersessional work on regulating chemicals and products.
  • Agreeing to establish a legal group to translate the draft text into appropriate legal language, starting from INC-5.


Reflections


Significant work remains. The transition from a zero draft with 69 pages to a first draft, approximately ten to eleven pages shorter but with over 3,000 brackets of text, marks progress but highlights the extensive negotiations still needed. The first draft, unlike the zero draft, is created and maintained by the INC, enabling more detailed negotiations. However, it still lacks the structure typical of a treaty.


We welcome the decision to conduct intersessional work on chemicals, products, and the financial mechanism. The INC decided to have an open-ended expert meeting between INC-4 and INC-5, but the participation of observers will be limited. It is disappointing that intersessional work will not address the overproduction of plastic, and there is concern about the ongoing focus on plastic recycling, given the increasing evidence that recycling plastic spreads toxic chemicals.


Despite not securing intersessional work on primary plastic polymers, provisions related to polymer production remain in the draft treaty. This is despite efforts by several countries to exclude these provisions from the future agreement's scope.


What Next


With high-ambition issues seemingly off the table, it remains to be seen whether delegates can agree on common ambition levels for other elements or if this will become a "plastics pollution treaty à la carte." Even if a global mandate on key provisions is still possible, some crucial elements may only be included as voluntary options, if at all.


Nonetheless, the treaty could lay the foundations for strengthening ambition levels in the future, especially through the governing body's work to implement and further international collaboration on plastic pollution. The treaty's eventual ambition level does not prevent countries from adopting stronger measures in their national action plans. With more clarity on the treaty's potential post-INC-5, participants and observers can remain hopeful about the power of multilateralism to end plastic pollution.

CCB Recommendations


We urge countries to:

  1. Recognize that more plastic production leads to more plastic pollution. Ending plastic pollution is impossible without curbing plastic production.
  2. Implement the treaty's health objectives by eliminating hazardous chemicals used in plastic production.
  3. Ensure a toxics-free circularity by preventing hazardous chemicals in recycled plastics. Promoting the recycling of plastics with hazardous chemicals will increase exposures and undermine the treaty's health objectives.


Background

As plastic pollution becomes increasingly visible on land and in waterways, calls to address the mounting plastic waste crisis have grown worldwide. Of the approximately 10 billion tonnes of plastic produced since the 1950s, over 8 billion tonnes are now waste, with 10-15 million tonnes leaking into the marine environment each year. This figure is expected to more than triple by 2050.

Studies link unsustainable production and consumption patterns to the exponential growth of plastic pollution, impacting human health and terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Reports in 2022 found plastic particles in human lungs and blood, and a 2021 report found microplastics in human placentas.


***

Article written by Eugeniy Lobanov, CCB Hazardous Substances Working Area Leader

 

Useful resources:

UNEP INC-4 page

IISD Report for INC-4

IPEN Resource page on plastic



By CCB June 10, 2026
The poor status and decline of many Baltic Sea fish populations have been thoroughly documented over several decades, indicating that the entire ecosystem is in great distress. So far, policy interventions have not reversed, or even halted, the negative trend concerning many of these populations. The European Commission itself recently recognised in its Common Fishery Policy (CFP) evaluation report that progress on stock rebuilding is lacking and the number of stocks “ threatened by collapse due to impaired recruitment has increased during the reporting period ”. Fish populations that once formed the cornerstone of the Baltic Sea fishery, such as the eastern and western Baltic cod and the western Baltic herring, are now doing so poorly that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is advising zero catch for these stocks. Yet, even with the targeted fishery being closed for some years now, none of these three stocks are showing sufficient signs of recovery. The condition (such as size and weight-at-age) of many flatfish populations, such as plaice, also raises alarm bells. The salmon spawning migration has fallen short of the target level in the past three years5. As a result, even the healthiest salmon stocks are now unlikely to produce enough smolts corresponding to sustainable levels in the coming years. To address the crisis facing Baltic populations and the broader ecosystem, political will and ambition to improve fisheries management, alongside full implementation of the CFP provisions, are needed. The recent INI report on the Baltic Sea Multi-Annual Plan shows that the European Parliament recognises the importance of ecosystem-based fisheries management as well as the need for consideration of environmental legislation when making decisions on fishing opportunities.6 Fisheries managers must now act swiftly and decisively on the commitment the Commission and Baltic Sea Member States made at last year’s October Agrifish Council to rebuild Baltic Sea stocks. This document presents the joint NGO recommendations regarding Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027, prioritising long-term ecosystem health and sustainable fisheries management over short-term economic interests. The recommendations are based on the ICES advice, the objectives and requirements of the CFP8 and the Baltic Multiannual Plan (MAP), specifically to apply the precautionary approach and implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management, and the objective of achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Last year’s overarching joint Briefing Series on TAC-setting, co-signed by almost 30 organisations across the EU and the UK, including environmental NGOs, recreational fishers, and fishing rights owners, remains valid and provides further context, background and detailed explanations on the cross-cutting issues raised in this document. Read the Joint NGO recommendations on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027 here .
By CCB June 2, 2026
About CCB Coalition Clean Baltic – CCB is a politically independent network, uniting 28 environmental non-profit organizations, as well as partners and experts from 11 countries surrounding the Baltic Sea. The main goal of CCB is to promote the protection and improvement of the environment and natural resources of the Baltic Sea region by encouraging new and constructive approaches and engaging people to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. CCB Secretariat is based in Uppsala, Sweden. Background The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) from 2021 includes a commitment to develop a regional action plan for habitat and biotope restoration by 2026. This plan is expected to: Define qualitative and quantitative restoration targets Establish a prioritized list of restoration actions Provide an implementation toolbox of best practices and methods The scope of the HELCOM action plan focuses exclusively on benthic habitats and biotopes , with particular emphasis on active restoration measures . Adoption of the plan is foreseen at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in November 2026. Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) recognizes the importance of the HELCOM process but also the need to strengthen ambition, improve implementation guidance, consider a source-to-sea approach, and ensure long term ecological effectiveness . Therefore, a CCB Shadow Restoration Implementation Plan will complement and critically assess the HELCOM Restoration Action Plan. The purpose of the CCB Shadow Restoration Implementation Plan is to: Provide a science-based and practice-oriented complement to the HELCOM Restoration Action Plan Identify gaps, weaknesses, and missing elements in the HELCOM Restoration Action Plan Propose concrete, implementable actions, under a source-to-sea approach, to ensure effective restoration outcomes Strengthen alignment with the BSAP objectives and broader regional and EU policies Your Role You will compile the CCB Shadow Restoration Implementation Plan with aims to: 1. Assess the proposed HELCOM restoration measures , particularly their expected ecological impact by Reviewing proposed HELCOM actions for benthic habitats Evaluating whether actions are sufficient to achieve good environmental status Identifing missing measures, insufficient ambition, or unclear guidance 2. Define recommendations on how restoration should be implemented in practice including Required scale, intensity, and geographic coverage of actions Feasibility and effectiveness of active restoration methods 3. Propose additional actions and priorities , especially where the scope of the HELCOM action plan is insufficient, such as Integration of a source-to-sea approach for better ecological coherence Passive restoration measures Including actions on riverine systems (barrier removal, flow restoration) and coastal ecosystems (dunes, wetlands, lagoons) Incorporating important fish habitats and spawning/nursery areas, as well as ecosystem connectivity 4. Align HELCOM restoration efforts with other relevant policy frameworks , including the Baltic Sea Action Plan, Marine Action Plan, EU Biodiversity Strategy, Nature Restoration Regulation, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, Water Framework Directive and Common Fisheries Policy. This is a Joint efforts with WWF Baltic Sea Programme The organisations, CCB and WWF Baltic Sea Program, will produce two separate documents with separate logos and will be presented at a joint side-event at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in November 2026. Actions for the Consultant/Expert & products to deliver The final document of the shadow restoration implementation plan Conduct interviews with all WA Leaders and MOs of CCB working on restoration to gather concrete input Share at the end all notes of the research and transcripts of interviews with MOs Bi-weekly call of consultant + CCB to check-in on progress, problems and next steps Publications/Sources CCB Restoration Guidelines https://irp.cdn-website.com/53007095/files/uploaded/CCB+Restoration+Guidelines_Update+October+2025.pdf CCB BSAP Shadow Plan: https://www.ccb.se/publication/Shadow%20Plan Profile A college degree, preferably in marine science, political science, environmental studies, social sciences, or a comparable field Experience in political campaigning, strategic communication, or advocacy, ideally in environmental, climate, nature, or marine conservation, preferably with an NGO Knowledge about relevant political settings and frameworks in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM, BSAP, MSFD, NRRL, ...) Experience in collaborating with coalitions, initiatives and civil society actors Initiative, independence and reliability working fully remotely Excellent written and spoken English are required Contract Terms Contract Type: can be structured as a consulting contract or a fixed-term employment (for candidates based in Sweden). We are open to discuss what works best depending on your situation. Time: From 15 June until 15 Oct 2026, at 50-75% work pace. Location: Remote position. Application Process: Should you be interested in applying for this position please send your CV (max. 2 pages) together with a personal letter (max. 1 page) before 9 June 2026 to: secretariat@ccb.se *** Being an international organization, CCB’s work is carried out in English. Applications submitted in any other language will not be considered. Incomplete applications (e.g. lacking either CV or personal letter) will be also not considered. We will be reviewing applications as they come in and encourage early applications. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted. *** For inquiries , contact CCB Biodiversity Officer: andrea.cervantes@ccb.se Equal Opportunities CCB is an equal opportunity employer. In the application and hiring process, CCB will not discriminate against any individual based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property, disability, age, family status, sexual orientation and gender identity, economic and social situation.