Stalled Progress: Negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty Continues into 2025

CCB • December 4, 2024

4 December 2024 - The UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meeting in Busan, South Korea, was supposed to be the fifth and final round of negotiations to produce the first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, by the end of 2024. However, it concluded in early December 2024 without an agreement, leaving countries with an extended deadline and a proposal by the Chair to resume talks at an additional session (INC 5.2) in 2025 to resolve outstanding disagreements. Countries will use the latest version of the Chair’s text as the basis for the continued negotiations.


Plastic production & global warming

At the heart of the discussions was whether the treaty would include limits on plastic production. Over 100 nations, including small island states, African countries, and several European and developing nations like Norway and Mexico, along with the EU, supported a proposal to set a global target for reducing plastic production. Many have emphasized that this is essential to address chemicals of concern. However, for some plastic-producing and oil and gas countries, such a proposal crossed a red line.


The plan of petrochemical states to maintain plastic production growth threatens to derail global climate goals. Every year, the world produces more than 360 million tonnes of new plastic. Plastic production is on track to triple by 2050. Scientists estimate that a 75% reduction in plastic production is needed by 2040 to keep global warming to 1.5°C. Without such cuts, plastic production alone could consume up to 31% of the world’s remaining carbon budget to stay within that critical temperature threshold.


Plastic & health

The economic burden of health impacts is growing. Research by the Endocrine Society revealed that merely four groups of plastic-related chemicals are responsible for health expenses exceeding $400 billion annually in the United States. On a global scale, the UN Environment Programme cautions that failing to address chemical and plastic pollution could result in costs reaching as high as 10% of the world’s GDP.

Microplastics have been found in air, fresh produce, and even human breast milk. In animals, such as fish, these broken-down bits of larger plastics have been linked to lower levels of growth and reproduction, among other issues. Researchers are still working to determine more conclusively whether microplastics pose a direct risk to human health, and if so, at what level.


Finance

Another key area of contention was the financial support for developing country parties. At least 126 countries have called for an independent, dedicated fund to assist with treaty implementation. However, the Chair’s draft weakened this demand, and this is one of the issues will be furthered discussed at INC-5.2 – as well as the proposal of establishment of a polymer production fee, a widely supported mechanism for funding global action.

Science & civil society

“The science is clear: A treaty that protects human health and the environment must address the issues of plastic production and chemicals,” said Bethanie Carney Almroth, Professor at the University of Gothenburg, speaking for the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, a network of over 400 independent experts.


“Coalition Clean Baltic, along with many other environmental organizations, entered INC-5 with the expectation of securing a treaty that would protect human health by regulating chemicals throughout the lifecycle of plastics and reducing production,” commented Eugeniy Lobanov, Leader of the Hazardous Substances Working Area at Coalition Clean Baltic. “However, progress has been slow and did not lead to finalizing a text. We are united with many other organizations and countries in their ambition for a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution across its lifecycle, as set out in the UNEA Resolution 5/14.”


INC-5.1 made some progress toward a treaty to end plastic pollution, producing a streamlined Chair’s Text open for further submissions at INC-5.2. Delegates worked extensively on revisions but the exclusion of civil society and observers from discussions raised significant concerns about transparency and inclusivity.


What´s next?

So in the end, the INC-5.1 did not produce a final treaty, leaving key details, including the dates and modalities of the next session, unresolved. There was no proposal for intersessional work, so informal discussions will continue in an effort to align on the core provisions of the draft treaty, which include:

• Article 3 on products, including the possibility of restricting chemicals in plastic production and ensuring transparency and traceability of chemicals in plastic products;
• Article 6 on supply, including the possibility of setting a reduction goal for plastic production;
• Article 11 on setting a financial mechanism that will be crucial to funding the implementation of the treaty, particularly upstream control measures.


Delegates acknowledged the complexity of addressing plastic pollution, which intersects with broader environmental issues like climate change and biodiversity loss, but expressed hope for continued progress in future sessions.


-END


***

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


Further Information

  1. UNEP Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution – 5th Session
  2. Daily coverage of INC-5 from IISD: Earth Negotiations Bulletin

Tampering with EU Fisheries Policy would ‘open Pandora’s Box’, NGOs warn

By CCB • March 30, 2026
Brussels, 30 March 2026 - Today, Fisheries Ministers from EU Member States meet with the European Commission for the AGRIFISH Council. On this occasion, Oceana, BLOOM, ClientEarth, Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), Seas At Risk and WWF EU, handed a symbolic ''Pandora’s Box'' to the EU Commissioner Costas Kadis, sending a clear message as the European Commission prepares its 2026 evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The box represents the risks of revising EU’s main fishery policy framework: once opened, competing demands from Member States, industry, small-scale fishers, and coastal communities could quickly spiral into division, regulatory delays and uncertainties. This would put at risk the hard-won progress made in restoring Europe’s fish populations and improving the profitability of the fishing sector. NGOs urge decision makers to build on the progress made to date and to prioritise the full and timely implementation of the existing rules. Reopening the CFP and its related provisions would undermine ocean health and the long-term future of Europe’s fishing communities. '' Europe's fisheries policy is facing a credibility test. The law is already there. The tools to rebuild our seas already exist. What's missing is the political will to deliver. Overfishing should have ended by 2020 at the latest. Reopening the CFP would signal that missed deadlines carry no consequences, erode trust, revert the progress made, and put the future of our fisheries and coastal communities at stake ’’, said the NGO coalition. *** Oceana: Vera Coelho, Executive Director and Vice President in Europe BLOOM: Claire Nouvian, Founder and General Director ClientEarth: John Condon, Lead of Marine Ecosystems Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB): Ida Carlén, Co-Chair Environmental Justice Foundation: Steve Trent, CEO/Founder Seas At Risk: Dr Monica Verbeek, Executive Director WWF EU: Ester Asin, Director

CCB´s submission to the EU Call for Evidence on the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

By CCB • March 10, 2026
Uppsala, March 2026 - CCB has closely worked with the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) ever since its adoption and welcomed the opportunity to give feedback to this crucial directive for marine biodiversity and ocean health through the EU Call of Evidence . Evaluations conducted by the EU Commission previously found many positive effects for EU marine waters stemming from the directive, but also that the directive has some shortcomings. CCB however, maintains that the largest obstacle to fully implementing the directive and achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) is the lack of political will among Member States to do so. This forthcoming revision must therefore result in a framework directive that is more easily enforceable, measurable and implementable, accompanied by sufficient funding to carry out the measures. Furthermore, in order to achieve GES as fast as possible other key pieces of EU legislation must also support reaching it and focus on achieving the goals of the MSFD in their objectives. Seeing that European seas generally are in poor condition and under mounting pressure from human activities and that in the Baltic Sea the situation is especially dire there is an urgent need for truly ecosystem-based management of our seas and for reaching GES. The revised MSFD can help us achieve this, but only if it includes the points outlined below and the directive is fully and swiftly implemented: *** [Short version]*** Operationalise the overarching GES goal: EU sea areas were supposed to reach GES already in 2020, but due to low political ambition, sadly did not do so. Member States should therefore strive to reach GES as fast as possible now. Setting a new overall deadline for when to reach GES is not the answer on how to achieve this goal most efficiently, instead tools that address pressures and measure progress and ensure actual, timely implementation of ambitious measures must be included in the revised directive in order to operationalise achieving the overall GES goal. CCB therefore recommends making the existing and forthcoming threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria legally binding and part of the main directive. Improving regional coordination and implementation: To improve the coherence, coordination and effectiveness of MSFD implementation, assessment of GES, monitoring and the national PoMs the role of the Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) must be clarified. CCB would welcome collating all the national PoMs into one regional PoM for the Baltic Sea, which should be aligned with, in addition to reaching the goals of the MSFD, with achieving the goals of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). Land-sea interface: For the Baltic Sea to achieve GES it is key that land-based pressures, primarily nutrient runoff from agriculture causing severe eutrophication, is also addressed and that implementation of the MSFD goes hand in hand with the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The goals of the MSFD and achieving GES should also be included when implementing and shaping the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as well as any synergies with implementing the EU Zero Pollution Action Plan which are also important to identify and utilise. The Baltic Sea also has a too high prevalence and level of other pollutants and hazardous substances affecting marine life. Fisheries and aquaculture: As one of the main pressure factors on the marine environment in general, as well as in the Baltic Sea, fisheries and aquaculture and the effects they have on the marine ecosystem and its biodiversity must be addressed in order to achieve GES. This is especially crucial when considering the MSFD descriptor for Biodiversity (D1), Fish and Shellfish (D3), Food webs (D4) and the one for Seabed integrity (D6). Climate change: Climate change is also affecting the Baltic Sea faster than other marine regions and must be factored in when managing the sea area and its resources to ensure EBM and the full implementation of the MSFD and achieving GES. The effects of the climate crisis should be accounted for when setting pressure reduction targets and threshold values for the descriptors and their criteria, in a way that when an effect cannot be measured nor predicted the precautionary principle must be used. Revising Art. 14 of the MSFD: Article 14 in the MSFD outlines the acceptable exceptions when reaching GES is not possible. The article needs to be revised in the forthcoming revision, since it contains too many and too broad in scope possibilities for exemptions (e.g. in Art. 14(4)), which jeopardise the implementation and fulfilment of the directive as a whole. A possible way of modifying it would be to introduce an obligation for Member States to demonstrate that they have taken all measures within their control nationally and that they have tried to address the problem and advance solving it on a regional level through cooperating with other Member States, before they can apply for a possible exemption. Make the Programme of Measures contain ambitious & concrete measures: One of the cornerstones of the MSFD is the national PoMs that are published every six years and are precluded by an assessment of GES in national waters and a monitoring programme. Unfortunately, the current approach to PoMs where Member States freely can choose measures has led to an overall too low level of ambition in the PoMs, and to large differences within regions and between neighboring countries in terms of which measures are included. In order to fully implement the directive and to achieve GES it is of paramount importance that the national PoMs have a high level of ambition and contain concrete, implementable measures and that there is regional coordination. Easing the reporting burden: One of the results from the evaluation of the MSFD was that the current reporting burden is considered to be too high and a possible way to address this is to align the reporting obligations of the MSFD to more reassemble those of the WFD, that has a more simplified 6-year cycle compared to the MSFD. The implementation cycle however should not be revised or at least not in a way that delays reaching GES. Improve coherence with other legislation: To ensure that the revised MSFD is fully implemented it is essential that coherence with other relevant legislation is improved. The MSPD (foundation for the forthcoming Ocean Act) is also currently being revised and to reach the goals for both the directives achieving GES needs to be a cornerstone of the Ocean Act. This is the only way to deliver truly ecosystem-based management of our seas, and the revision of both directives should therefore be coordinated and focused on achieving GES. CCB looks forward to continuing to provide input to the revision process of the MSFD as well as working with the implementation of the MSFD, especially in the Baltic Sea. CCB expects that the revision will result in a more enforceable directive that leads to the fast implementation of ambitious measures to improve the state of the Baltic and European Sea areas and to the achievement of GES. The full text of the submission is available here . *** Links to supplemental documents supporting our positions: CCB’s submission to the Call for Evidence for the Ocean Act Guiding Recommendations for Source-to-Sea Restoration in Riverine, Coastal, and Marine Ecosystems (Coalition Clean Baltic, 2025) Position Paper on Marine Protected Areas (Coalition Clean Baltic 2024) Don’t sink the Common Fisheries Policy – fulfil its potential (joint NGO Briefing 2025) Blue Manifesto (joint NGO paper)