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 • October 27, 2026
27 October 2026 , Luxembourg - EU fisheries ministers increased central Baltic and Bothnian herring catch limits beyond the European Commission’s proposals and significantly increased the sprat catch limit, falling short of the precaution needed to protect the role of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea food web. The Council also rejected proposed cuts to accidental catches of severely depleted cod and western Baltic herring populations. NGOs warn that fishing limits remain too high and urge EU ministers to follow the agreement with concrete plans to rebuild depleted fish populations. Herring: further measures needed to safeguard fragile recovery and protect vulnerable populations EU fisheries ministers increased the catch limit for central Baltic herring to 165 228 tonnes, a 71% increase compared with 2026. The population has shown signs of improvement after years of depletion. However, the central Baltic herring population remains vulnerable, and rebuilding must restore healthy age and size structures as well as overall abundance. Although below the scientific headline catch advice, the Council’s decision exceeds the Commission’s proposal, which was more precautionary and recovery-oriented and should have been followed by the ministers. “Ministers have recognised the need for caution, but still allowed more herring to be caught than the Commission proposed. These vulnerable populations need a stronger chance of lasting recovery, with clear rebuilding targets, a timetable for reaching them and measures that are implemented and enforced ,” said Cathrine Pedersen Schirmer, Senior Fisheries Policy Advisor at Coalition Clean Baltic. For Bothnian herring , ministers retained the three-month spawning closure but increased the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) by 12% , despite the population remaining below healthy levels. The Commission’s proposed TAC for this fish population was already a compromise between population rebuilding and maintaining fishing opportunities. The agreed higher TAC poses a risk to the recovery of the Bothnian herring population and creates increasing uncertainty for the industry. “ Fisheries decisions must also account for the risks to fish population recovery. Even catch limits within the ICES advice range can leave stocks at risk of remaining below the biomass levels that should trigger recovery measures. Fishing opportunities must give depleted populations a real chance to recover to healthy level s,” said Beatrice Rindevall, Chairperson of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. The Gulf of Riga herring TAC was also set above NGOs’ recommendations, with an increase of 11% compared with 2026, despite the recent decline in its spawning biomass and its importance to the Baltic food web. Lower limits for this fish population would have better supported population health and long-term resilience. Sprat: recovery must extend to the Baltic Sea food web The sprat agreement remains a significant concern. The Council’s decision, in line with the Commission’s proposal, to increase the sprat catch limit by 44% to 291 590 tonnes exceeds the level NGOs recommended. Although the population has increased, the agreed limit does not sufficiently account for sprat’s importance as prey for cod, salmon, seabirds and other marine wildlife, persistent catch misreporting or the risk of catching vulnerable herring alongside sprat. “ Herring and sprat are vital to the Baltic Sea ecosystem. When setting fishing opportunities, decision makers must leave enough prey in the water to support predators like cod and salmon, to rebuild ecosystem health and align with the EU’s nature restoration ambitions ,” said Justyna Zajchowska, Fisheries Lead for WWF Baltic Sea Programme. Salmon: no increase in catch limits, but stronger protection needed NGOs welcome the decision not to increase salmon fishing opportunities. However, fishing should be restricted to compensatory hatchery-released salmon or salmon from rivers where populations are at full reproductive capacity. Fishing on vulnerable wild populations must be avoided and, if returning salmon numbers are insufficient, additional adaptive management measures should be deployed immediately, considering the impact of recent poor spawning runs. “ Good returns to some large rivers are encouraging, but they do not demonstrate recovery across the Baltic region. Many smaller river populations remain in serious difficulty. We need fishing restrictions that protect those vulnerable salmon throughout their migration and allow enough fish to reach their spawning grounds ,” said Thomas Johansson, Chairman of Östersjölaxälvar i Samverkan and Secretary General of the Baltic Salmon Fund. Cod, western Baltic herring and plaice: Council misses opportunity to curb bycatch Both Baltic cod populations and western Baltic herring remain severely depleted. Targeted cod fisheries remain closed, while ministers retained the small-scale fisheries exemption for western Baltic herring. Yet ministers agreed bycatch quotas well above the Commission’s proposals for 2027 and at the same level as 2026, falling short of the protection sought by NGOs. For all three populations, the agreed bycatch quotas permit continued catches despite ICES advice for zero catch. The Council’s decision to increase the plaice TAC to 11,237 tonnes , well above the level NGOs recommended, missed an opportunity to secure a reduction in accidental cod catches. The decision also does not reflect the very low reported landings of this species. Declining weight and condition of plaice also warrant greater caution. The TAC must be combined with effective enforcement of mandatory selective gear to reduce cod bycatch and the implementation of the landing obligation. Annual fishing limits must support lasting recovery The Council’s decisions on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027 are not ambitious enough to secure restoration of all Baltic Sea fish populations. These decisions should be seen in the context of last year’s joint commitment by the European Commission and Baltic Sea Member States to seek dedicated scientific advice from ICES on rebuilding pathways for fish populations. In the absence of such rebuilding-oriented advice, and whilst we are waiting for it, decisions should be more cautious and based on the available recovery-focused catch options provided by the scientists in their traditional advice. Fisheries management must also support EU marine restoration objectives and the achievement of good environmental status in the Baltic Sea. Restoring fish populations and food webs is essential to the recovery of the sea itself and to the long-term future of Baltic fisheries and the coastal communities that depend on them. ENDS *** Further information: Link to Council decision Link to Commission’s proposal Link to Joint NGO recommendations on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2027 Media contact: Beatrice Rindevall, Chairperson, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, ordforande@naturskyddsforeningen.se Cathrine Pedersen Schirmer , Senior Fisheries Policy Advisor, Coalition Clean Baltic, Cathrine@ccb.se Justyna Zajchowska , Fisheries Lead, WWF Baltic Sea Programme, jzajchowska@wwf.pl Dr. Katja Hockun, Senior Expert Meeresschutz, Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V., hockun@duh.de Konrad Stralka , Executive Director, BalticWaters, konrad.stralka@balticwaters.org Magda Jentgena , Baltic Sea and Freshwater Programme Manager, Pasaules Dabas Fonds, mjentgena@pdf.lv Regan McEnroe , Chairperson, Nature and Youth Sweden, ordforande@faltbiologerna.se Tapani Veistola, Executive Director, Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto (Finnish Association for Nature Conservation), tapani.veistola@sll.fi Thomas Johansson , Chairman, Östersjölaxälvar i Samverkan, and Secretary General, Baltic Salmon Fund, thomas@balticsalmonfund.com .
By CCB • August 31, 2026
Uppsala, 31 August 2026 - Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB) welcomes the Commission’s recognition that declining fishing pressure has not consistently delivered higher biomass, that recruitment and biomass are deteriorating for a number of stocks, and that Baltic fisheries urgently need rebuilding trajectories. These findings must now shape the Council’s decision on the 2027 fishing opportunities and the Commission’s position during the Council negotiations. The poor status and decline of many Baltic Sea fish populations have been documented over several decades and show that the ecosystem is in severe distress. Cumulative human pressures have contributed to major ecosystem shifts, and at the same time climate change is making the shallow, semi-enclosed Baltic Sea warmer and less saline. These combined pressures affect not only fish biomass but also recruitment, population age and size structures, species interactions and the functioning of the wider food web. The Baltic crisis reflects the persistent failure to fully implement the CFP and the Baltic MAP, including their precautionary safeguards and the legal obligation to apply ecosystem-based fisheries management. Fishing opportunities for 2027 must therefore mark the first concrete step towards ambitious, timebound rebuilding trajectories that reduce fishing pressure and enable depleted populations to recover to healthy levels. These trajectories must include implementation of an ecosystem based approach by accounting for species interactions, food-web needs, habitat conditions, environmental and climatic change and scientific uncertainty, while reinforcing, not replacing the CFP’s objectives and the Baltic MAP’s existing safeguards in Art. 4.6. The Commission’s 2027 proposal is now before the Council. The October Council must turn the commitment to rebuild Baltic fish populations into measurable action by adopting fishing opportunities that deliver rapid and sustained recovery. Under no circumstances should the TACs adopted be higher than levels proposed by the European Commission. Fishing opportunities aligned with scientific evidence, legal safeguards and ecosystem needs are the basis for both a recovering Baltic Sea and viable fisheries in the long term. Read the full CCB's submission and recommendations here .