For environmental groups and some countries, however, there was disappointment that limiting plastic production will not be directly on the agenda of the intersessional work.
The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, for example, said there's growing consensus for the treaty to include plastic production reduction targets, noting that more than 50 countries now back such measures.
They and other groups hailed a proposal from Rwanda and Peru to include a 40 percent reduction in plastic production by 2040.
"We saw some progress, aided by the continued efforts of states such as Rwanda, Peru, and the signatories of the Bridge to Busan declaration in pushing to reduce plastic production," said Graham Forbes, head of Greenpeace's delegation to the talks. "However, compromises were made on the outcome which disregarded plastic production cuts, further distancing us from reaching a treaty that science requires and justice demands."
The Bridge to Busan nations, which include Australia, France, Nigeria and the Philippines, say that left unaddressed, plastic production will skyrocket by 2050. That will overwhelm national waste management and recycling programs and make it harder to limit global warming to a 1.5° Celsius temperature increase in the Paris climate agreement, they said.
Controlling unsustainable levels of plastic production "represents one of the most efficient and cost-effective approaches to managing the plastic pollution problem," the declaration said.
In public comments at the April 29 session, Canada, Switzerland, Norway and some other countries expressed disappointment that the intersessionals won't debate "sustainable" levels of production but said compromises were needed to move the treaty forward.
"We understand at this stage the need to compromise," a Canadian diplomat told the plenary. "Like others we would have liked intersessional work on sustainable levels of production and consumption. But we are confident that through informal work, we will be able to deliver to advance these issues, amongst others."
The Center for International Environmental Law said the Ottawa talks "sacrifice ambition for compromise," and Julie Teel Simmonds, a treaty delegate from the Center for Biological Diversity, said frontline and public health groups who came to the talks pushed for cuts in production to better protect people.
She criticized Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and other "fossil fuel-aligned" countries for seeking to limit the treaty to waste management concerns.
"Despite hearing people from polluted communities around the world give sensible proposals to curb the lifecycle harms of plastics, fossil fuel and petrochemical interests are still shamelessly blocking progress and focusing on utterly inadequate plastic waste management," she said.