Theme 1Monitoring and assessment

Theme 1 focused on advances in monitoring. New OSPAR indicators and assessment methods are improving the detection of beach, seafloor and microscopic litter, while drones, artificial intelligence, Raman spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging offer faster ways to survey remote coastlines and identify small plastic particles. Citizen science also demonstrated its value: more than one million litter observations have been recorded in Norway, providing a level of coverage that conventional monitoring could not achieve alone. Biological indicators can extend this reach further. Plastic was found in more than 90 per cent of the Cory’s shearwater fledglings examined in the Azores, supporting their use as sentinels of pollution in remote Atlantic waters.

Despite this progress, differences in classification, sampling design, detection limits and laboratory procedures still make comparisons difficult. Results can also change depending on whether litter is assessed by item count or weight. Harmonised methods, clear quality controls and better source identification are therefore essential. New technologies are most useful when they complement existing field surveys and can be integrated into established monitoring systems.

Theme 2Sources, pathways and fate

Theme 2 followed plastics through atmospheric, freshwater, marine and biological pathways. The presentations showed that transport is influenced by particle size, buoyancy, currents, sea ice and extreme events. Lakes, glaciers and marine sediments may act as sinks or environmental archives, while atmospheric transport carries microplastics into remote parts of Iceland and the wider Arctic. Models can connect these observations and help identify likely accumulation areas, but their accuracy depends on better field data.

Sources varied considerably between regions. Untreated wastewater in Greenland was estimated to release about 2.1 tonnes of litter into the sea each year, including roughly 1.2 tonnes of wet wipes. In northern Canada, consumer packaging was more prominent than fishing-related debris, pointing to local waste management as the main concern. In Irish and Icelandic waters, however, fisheries appeared to be a more important source. These differences underline the need for locally grounded responses rather than uniform assumptions.

Plastic contamination was also documented in ringed seals, seabirds and Atlantic herring, although the long-term effects remain uncertain. Overall, the sessions called for closer cooperation between monitoring, modelling, citizen science and decision-making. The strongest approaches are those that combine new technology with established methods, account for regional conditions and turn environmental observations into measures that prevent pollution at its source.

Theme 3Assessing impacts of plastic pollution

Theme 3 presented evidence of physical, biological and chemical impacts across marine, coastal and terrestrial ecosystems. Fishing-related debris was a particularly persistent source of harm. Plastic, largely ropes and threadlike fishing material, was found in every gannet nest examined on Iceland’s Eldey island. On Svalbard, approximately one entangled reindeer was recorded for every three kilometres of surveyed coastline, with nets, ropes and strapping bands responsible for the cases observed. Citizen science can help document such interactions, although reporting remains uneven in remote and sparsely populated areas.

Less visible impacts were also discussed. Microplastics can transport microbial communities and move through food webs, while plastic additives and associated chemicals were detected in devil rays, mussels and commercially important fish. Ship paints were found in seawater, sediments and seabirds, pointing to an additional source that is not fully captured by conventional monitoring. While detecting a chemical does not automatically demonstrate harm, the findings show the need for better exposure data, risk assessment and long-term monitoring.

Theme 4Circular economy, innovation and industry solutions

Theme 4 focused on circular-economy and industry solutions. Fishing and aquaculture equipment received particular attention because lost gear can continue catching animals, while mixed materials and contamination make recycling difficult. Norwegian aquaculture was estimated to hold roughly 302,000 tonnes of plastic in active and stored infrastructure, with annual losses to the marine environment estimated at between 2,000 and 3,500 tonnes. Gear marking, registration databases, loss reporting and organised retrieval were identified as practical ways to improve traceability.

Extended Producer Responsibility could strengthen accountability, but its effectiveness depends on transparent reporting and cooperation throughout the value chain. Better product design and material selection could improve recyclability, while biodegradable materials may be useful in selected applications. However, their cost, durability and behaviour under real marine conditions require further testing. The wider lesson was that circularity must be considered throughout a product’s life cycle, rather than only when it becomes waste.

Theme 5Mitigation, management and restoration

Theme 5 examined how mitigation, management and restoration can work in practice. Nordic countries have developed useful approaches for collecting and managing discarded fishing gear, but none yet has a complete system for tracking gear from purchase to disposal. Recycling continues to be restricted by mixed polymers, degradation, transport costs and limited processing capacity. Small net-mending cut-offs were identified as an important but often overlooked source of pollution, often lost because of working conditions, limited storage space and time pressure rather than deliberate disposal.

Community-led initiatives showed that meaningful change is possible when people have suitable support. A programme in rural Guatemala significantly reduced household plastic burning, although limited waste infrastructure and few affordable alternatives remain major obstacles. Youth clean-up and stewardship programmes in northern Norway created paid work, skills and social connections in addition to environmental benefits. Indigenous and local knowledge was also recognised as essential for developing solutions suited to remote communities. At the same time, the sessions warned against allowing volunteers to become a substitute for properly funded waste-management systems.

Theme 6Science–policy interface and capacity building

Theme 6 turned to the relationship between science and policy. Monitoring should begin with a clear decision or policy need, rather than collecting data without knowing how it will be used. In many cases, measuring changes close to the source—such as production, collection or waste-management rates—may reveal the effects of policy more clearly than additional sampling in distant environmental sinks. Long-term harmonised beach monitoring in Europe has already supported policy and recorded an estimated 30–40 per cent reduction in beach litter, showing that comparable data can demonstrate whether interventions are working.

Coordination remains a greater challenge than the overall volume of data. Monitoring programmes use different methods across beaches, water, sediments, wildlife and particle sizes, making results difficult to combine. Global coordination, common standards and source identification are therefore necessary, but methods must still reflect local conditions. Tyre particles, for example, require dedicated analysis and would otherwise be excluded despite representing a major source of microplastic emissions.

Local knowledge was repeatedly described as part of the evidence base, not simply a form of outreach. Communities can identify pollution hotspots, explain local sources and reveal logistical barriers that models or short-term projects may overlook. However, their participation must be supported by laboratories, training, transport, disposal systems and stable funding. Prevention at source also remains the most cost-effective approach: washing-machine filters and restrictions on microbeads, for example, could substantially reduce releases from Antarctic research facilities at relatively low cost.

OverallFrom documenting to preventing

Overall, the four themes called for action across the entire plastic life cycle. Monitoring must be designed to answer practical questions, products should be made easier to recover and recycle, and producers must share responsibility for pollution. Technology and regulation both matter, but neither is sufficient without adequate capacity, sustained funding and meaningful participation by communities and industries. The central task is no longer simply to document plastic pollution, but to use the knowledge already available to prevent it.

Panel 1Indigenous approaches for actionable solutions

The first panel explored Indigenous approaches to plastic pollution. Imported food, medical products and other single-use plastics have changed waste patterns in northern communities, while the loss of access to traditional foods can increase dependence on packaged alternatives. At the same time, community-based research on geese and eggs showed how environmental monitoring can support food security and answer local questions about the safety of traditional foods.

Speakers stressed that research in Indigenous communities must begin with relationships, humility and shared decision-making. Researchers should not arrive with fixed questions, collect information and leave. Communities must help shape the questions, methods and interpretation of results, with Indigenous knowledge treated as equal to Western science. Long-term cooperation also creates opportunities to train young people, strengthen cultural knowledge and build local scientific capacity. Knowledge transmission between elders and youth was presented as essential to both environmental stewardship and community resilience.

Panel 2Circular fishing gear systems

The second panel examined how Extended Producer Responsibility could support circular fishing-gear systems. Producers, users, recyclers and authorities all have a role, but regulations differ considerably between countries. Even the definition of a producer can be unclear when gear is manufactured, imported, assembled and used across different jurisdictions. Greater harmonisation, clearer reporting and consistent measurements of what enters the market and what is collected would make these systems easier to implement.

Design also matters. Fees could be adjusted to reward gear that lasts longer or is easier to recycle, creating an incentive for innovation. Early sorting and dismantling—sometimes beginning onboard fishing vessels—can reduce recycling costs. However, recycled material often struggles to compete with cheaper virgin plastic, and smaller recyclers face high transport costs, complex export rules and strict material-quality requirements. Circularity will therefore require both regulatory support and stronger markets for recycled materials.

DiscussionFrom Knowledge to Action

The interactive “From Knowledge to Action” discussion, informed by 116 survey responses, returned repeatedly to prevention. Reducing unnecessary plastic production and use was considered more effective than relying solely on waste-management systems that may lack the capacity to handle growing volumes. Extended Producer Responsibility should also reflect the external costs of products, including clean-up work that is currently carried out by communities and volunteers.

For fishing gear, practical measures are already available. Gear marking, registration systems and simple additions to electronic logbooks could improve knowledge of what is being used and lost. Collection targets could ensure that larger pieces are returned to shore, while greater attention is needed for the small net cuttings and fragments that commonly reach beaches and are difficult to recover.

The discussion also emphasised that community-designed projects will not create lasting change unless they are supported by evidence, local ownership, enabling governance and sustainable finance. Successful pilots need a clear route towards replication and integration into long-term planning. Innovation is important, but institutional support is what allows solutions to continue after project funding ends.

ClosingNo country can act alone

The closing remarks reinforced that no country can address plastic pollution alone. International cooperation and a meaningful global legal framework remain essential, but action should not wait. The day’s central message was that effective solutions already exist: the task now is to connect them, fund them properly and ensure that responsibility is shared fairly across governments, producers, industries and communities.