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

emphasizing the interdependence of the causal components of an issue. 66

could also be categorized by sector, or even by expected use-time of plastic products. When elaborating a causal chain and specifying categories for the issue of marine plastic pollution, it is also useful to consider the issue in light of environmental impact and risk. All marine plastic pollution can potentially cause environmental damage in one form or another, but some categories of plastic products can be expected to cause more harm to marine life than others. Risk can in this respect be conceptualized as a function of the severity of impact and the likelihood of discharge, and may vary according to size, shape, colour, or chemical composition of a given plastic item. According to the best available data, ocean discharge rates vary considerably between countries, as do production of plastic resin, product manufacturing, consumption patterns, and recycling capacity. These asymmetries pose an additional challenge for the design of common rules and regulations for all States, as specific regulatory interventions may, to a large extent, have to be tailored to national circumstances. As noted in Section 3, a common strategy for overcoming challenges related to asymmetry is to orient the core provisions of the agreement towards outcomes (e.g. emissions, discharge, releases, impact) rather than towards the regulation of specific acts (e.g. production, sale, trade, dumping, littering). For the issue of marine plastic pollution, this could mean formulating a provision that requires States to achieve a certain reduction in discharge rates Regulating outcomes instead of acts

Disaggregating the problem and identifying priority categories If it proves difficult to identify regulatory measures that would address the problem in its entirety – that is, to formulate a set of obligations, commitments, or authorizations that in combination would be sufficient to create a viable path towards the achievement of the long-term objective – it could be helpful to structure the problem into subcategories, which in turn could be prioritized. This is a quite common approach, and in existing multilateral environmental agreements such categorizations can often be identified in annexes 67 or issue-specific protocols. 68 The 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, for instance, differentiates between chemicals that are to be eliminated (Annex A) and chemicals that are to be restricted (Annex B). Similarly, the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) separates animal species into three categories based on how endangered they are (Appendices I, II, and III). 69 In ongoing multilateral discussions on marine plastic pollution, including at UNEA and the AHEG meetings, a number of specific subcategories of the marine plastic pollution problem have already been introduced. The distinction between land-based sources and sea-based sources, for instance, features prominently in the four resolutions adopted to date. Another example is the categorization of the problem along the value chain for plastics (e.g. processing, production, consumption, and waste management). The issue

66 The DPSIR framework has been widely used over the past two decades, and a number of modifications have also been proposed. See, for instance, Sirak Gari, Alice Newton, and John Icely (2015), “A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems”, Ocean & Coastal Management , Vol. 103, 2015, pp. 63-77, ISSN 0964-5691. Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569114003652. 67 See for instance the Basel Convention or the Stockholm Convention. 68 See for instance the CLRTAP, with specific protocols for different categories of long-range transboundary air pollution. 69 CITES, Articles III, IV and V.

36