Exploring the Option of a New Global Agreement on Marine Plastic Pollution – A Guide to the Issues

A new global agreement on marine plastic pollution?

Policy options mentioned in the context of the AHEG meetings include measures aimed at: 64

seems clear, however, is that there are a variety of regulatory measures introduced on national and regional levels around the world, and that, while some of these measures have been more frequently employed than others, there is little sign that one specific regulatory intervention is being singled out as the key solution to the problem. The overall picture is that plastic pollution needs to be addressed in a multitude of ways, at various points in the value chain. This is relevant because it suggests that the identification of specific regulatory measures to effectively tackle the problem could be a challenging task, even on a national level. This in turn points in the direction of marine plastic pollution being a problem with a relatively complex causal structure, which may in part be ascribed to a significant amount of uncertainty (not only about scale, causes, and effects, but also about the effectiveness of various response options) as well as a considerable degree of asymmetry (both within and between States, and with variations along the value chain). There are several analytical models available that can assist States and other actors in their efforts to develop a more precise understanding of the particular dynamics of the issue of marine plastic pollution. One example is the linear causal chain model developed by the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA), which links the causes of a problem with its effects by identifying root causes, underlying causes, immediate causes, direct environmental impact, and direct and indirect socioeconomic impact. 65 Another example is the Driver-Pressure- State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework, which offers an alternative non-linear model,

a. regulating production and consumption of plastics or plastic products , including through prohibitions, restrictive levies, tax incentives, design standards, labelling requirements, or other extended producer responsibility measures on the production, use, trade in, and/or export and import of specific types of plastics (notably microplastics, fishing gear, single-use plastics such as Styrofoam packaging, plastic bags, plastic bottles, plastic cups, and plastic straws); b. improving waste management systems , including by upgrading waste collection, sorting, processing, recycling, and reuse systems; improving port waste reception facilities; and implementing waste-to-energy and plastic-to-fuel technologies; and, c. recovering plastic from the marine environment , including through fishing- for-litter schemes, ocean-based clean-up installations, and coastal clean-up campaigns. In addition, many have noted the need for measures to raise awareness among the public about the impacts and need to address marine plastic pollution. Each of these policy options should be considered on its own merits, including in terms of cost- efficiency and ease of implementation, and it is likely that some will have more precise and targeted effects on preventing discharge of plastic into the marine environment than others. What

64 The policy measures listed here are drawn from the official reports of the AHEG (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/6, especially paras 60-69; UNEP/ AHEG/2018/2/5; and UNEP/AHEG/2019/3/6, especially paras 25-38). See also https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/adhoc-oeeg for additional materials and documents from the work of the AHEG. 65 Juan Carlos Belausteguigoitia (2004), “Causal chain analysis and root causes: The GIWA approach”, Ambio , Vol. 33 no. 1–2, Feb. 2004. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8618947_Causal_chain_analysis_and_root_causes_The_GIWA_approach.

35