European Commission’s

Scientific Advice Mechanism

Microplastic Pollution

The Policy Context

Background Paper

Input to work by the European Commission’s Group of Chief

Scientific Advisors aimed at delivering science-based policy advice on the health and environmental impacts of

microplastics

15 November 2018

For bibliographic purposes this document should be cited as: SAM (2018). ‘Microplastic Pollution: The Policy Context - Background Paper’, The Scientific

Advice Mechanism Unit of the European Commission, 68 p. web version

Unit RTD.02 - Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM)

E-mail: EC-SAM@ec.europa.eu

Disclaimer

In developing a Scientific Opinion on Microplastic Pollution and its Impacts, the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors asked the Scientific Advice Mechanism Unit to prepare this background paper. Its purpose is to provide a snapshot of the policy context with respect to which: 1. scientific evidence of relevance to the subject in question can be collated and reviewed; and 2. deliberations can take place regarding possible elements to address in the intended Scientific Opinion. While effort has been made to ensure accuracy and pertinence of the information included, no claim is made as to the perfection and completeness of the content.

Although staff of the Commission services participated in the preparation of the report and provided information and assistance in assembling it, the content may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

Print ISBN 978-92-79-97559-2 doi: 10.2777/25898 KI-06-18-343-EN-C

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-97560-8 doi: 10.2777/998601 KI-06-18-343-EN-N © European Union, 2018.

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission

documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must

be sought directly from the copyright holders.

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 3

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ 6

1. PURPOSE ............................................................................................ 7

2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 8

3. THE EUROPEAN UNION ..................................................................... 12

3.1. THE EU PLASTICS STRATEGY .......................................................... 12

3.2. WASTE & SUBSTANCE-/PRODUCT-SPECIFIC MEASURES ................. 14

3.2.1. Waste Framework Directive ............................................... 14 3.2.2. Single Use Plastics and Fishing Gear ................................... 15 3.2.3. Chemical Regulation and Microplastics ................................ 16 3.2.4. Unintentional Release from Tyres, Textiles & Paint ............... 17 3.2.5. Packaging and Packaging Waste ........................................ 18 3.2.6. Food and Drinking Water .................................................. 18 3.2.6.1. Food Contact Materials and Biocides ................................ 18 3.2.6.2. Drinking Water .............................................................. 19 3.2.6.3. Human Food Chain - European Food Safety Authority ........ 20 3.2.7. Industrial Emissions ......................................................... 20 3.2.8. Landfill ........................................................................... 21

3.3. WATER POLLUTION MEASURES ...................................................... 22

3.3.1. Water Framework Directive ............................................... 22

3.3.2. Marine Litter .................................................................... 23

3.3.2.1. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive ........................... 23

3.3.2.2. Port Reception Facilities .................................................... 25

3.3.2.3. Funding Measures ............................................................ 25

3.3.3. Urban Waste Water Treatment .......................................... 26

3.4. AIR POLLUTION MEASURES ............................................................ 27

3.4.1. Ambient Air Quality .......................................................... 27

3.4.2. Other initiatives ............................................................... 28

3.5. RESEARCH MEASURES .................................................................... 30

3.5.1. Ecological Aspects of Microplastics ..................................... 30

3.5.2. Health Aspects ................................................................. 30

3.5.3. Human biomonitoring ....................................................... 31

3.5.4. RTD initiatives to strengthen the science-policy interface ...... 31

3.5.5. Other RTD Framework Programme Projects ......................... 32

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

4 15 November 2018

3.5.6. Activities of the Joint Research Centre ................................ 32

3.5.7. Lanzarote Declaration ....................................................... 33

4. INTERNATIONAL LEVEL .................................................................... 34

4.1. UNITED NATIONS (UN) ................................................................... 34

4.1.1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS ) 35

4.1.2. International Maritime Organisation ................................... 35

4.1.3. Waste & Substance-Specific Measures ................................ 36

4.1.4. United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations

Environment Assembly .................................................................. 38

4.1.5. The Global Programme of Action ........................................ 40

4.1.6. Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine

Environmental Protection ............................................................... 41

4.1.7. Food and Agriculture Organization ...................................... 41

4.1.8. World Health Organization ................................................ 42

4.1.9. World Bank ..................................................................... 43

4.2. REGIONAL SEAS CONVENTIONS ..................................................... 44

4.3. THE ARCTIC COUNCIL ..................................................................... 46

4.4. THE NORDIC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS - NORDIC MARINE GROUP .. 47

4.5. THE GROUP OF TWENTY (G20) ....................................................... 47

4.6. THE GROUP OF SEVEN (G7) ............................................................ 48

4.7. WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM ............................................................. 49

4.8. HONOLULU STRATEGY .................................................................... 50

4.9. MAJOR TRANSBOUNDARY RIVER BASINS ....................................... 51

5. NATIONAL LEVEL .............................................................................. 53

5.1. EUROPE .......................................................................................... 53

5.1.1. Belgium .......................................................................... 53

5.1.2. France ............................................................................ 54

5.1.3. Germany......................................................................... 54

5.1.4. Iceland ........................................................................... 55

5.1.5. Ireland ........................................................................... 55

5.1.6. Italy ............................................................................... 55

5.1.7. Norway ........................................................................... 55

5.1.8. Sweden .......................................................................... 56

5.1.9. United Kingdom ............................................................... 57

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 5

5.2. NORTH AMERICA ............................................................................ 58

5.2.1. Canada ........................................................................... 58

5.2.2. USA ............................................................................... 60

5.3. CENTRAL - AND SOUTH –AMERICA ................................................. 61

5.4. AUSTRALASIA ................................................................................. 62

5.4.1. New-Zealand ................................................................... 62

5.4.2. Australia ......................................................................... 63

5.5. ASIA ............................................................................................... 63

5.5.1. China ............................................................................. 63

5.5.2. India .............................................................................. 64

5.5.3. Japan ............................................................................. 64

5.5.4. South Korea .................................................................... 64

5.5.5. Taiwan ........................................................................... 64

5.6. AFRICA ........................................................................................... 65

6. REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 66

List of Tables

TABLE I - MEASURES TO CURB PLASTIC WASTE AND LITTER (EXTRACTED FROM EU PLASTICS

STRATEGY) ............................................................................................... 13 TABLE II – OVERVIEW OF EU POLICY MEASURES .......................................................... 29 TABLE III – OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT ..................................................... 52

List of Figures

FIGURE 1 – MICROPLASTIC EMISSION PATHWAY MODEL GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION (HANN, SHERRINGTON, JAMIESON, HICKMAN, KERSHAW, BAPASOLA, & COLE, 2018) ................... 8

FIGURE 2 – GLOBAL RELEASES OF PRIMARY MICROPLASTICS TO THE WORLD OCEANS (BOUCHER ET AL., 2017) ..................................................................................................... 9

FIGURE 3 - ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF MICROPLASTICS TO SURFACE WATER (UPPER AND LOWER

RANGES) – TAKEN FROM (HANN ET AL., 2018) .................................................... 10

FIGURE 4 – SKETCH OF A NEW GLOBAL ARCHITECTURE FOR COMBATTING MARINE PLASTIC LITTER AND

MICROPLASTICS, BASED ON OPTION 2 AND 3 IN UNEPS ASSESSMENT ............................ 40 FIGURE 5 - MEASURES AND ANTICIPATED EFFECTS - SWEDISH CHEMICALS AGENCY (KEMI) ......... 57

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

6 15 November 2018

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This background paper was prepared by James Gavigan, Dulce Boavida and

Annabelle Ascher from the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism

(SAM) Unit as input to the work of the European Commission’s Group of Chief

Scientific Advisors in developing a Scientific Opinion on Microplastic Pollution and its

Impacts. An earlier draft was provided to the SAPEA expert Working Group in

relation to the Evidence Review Report it was preparing on the subject for the Group

of Chief Scientific Advisors.

The SAM Unit wishes to thank the following who have either reviewed and

commented on earlier drafts or provided useful input, suggestions or helped in

different ways in the course of drafting this paper.

European Commission:

SG CASAER Jeroen, GASC Emilien

DG ENV AILE Silvija, BERTATO Valentina, BIERMANN Tobias, HENRICHS Thomas, MARMO Luca, NEALE William, PAPADOYANNAKIS Michail Georgios, RICHIR Marc, ROSENSTOCK Nele-Frederike, SCHADE Sven, SCHALLY Hugo-Maria, SPONAR Michel

DG RTD AGUAR FERNANDEZ Maria Pilar, BALABANIS Panagiotis, BOWADT Soren, DE SMET Michiel, GRUBER Sigi, GUIU ETXEBERRIA Garbine,

KARJALAINEN Tuomo, MALTAGLIATI Silvia, MISIGA Pavel, NORAGER Sofie, WEYDERT Marco

DG MARE PETRIKOVICOVA Alena, SHEPHERD Iain

DG GROW HUALDE GRASA Eva Patricia, KRASSNIG Christian, LEROY CADOVA Petra, MANIKAS Rizos-Georgios, D’ACUNTO Salvatore

DG SANTE HEROLD Diana, VANHEUSDEN Veerle, VERSTRAETE Frans

DG JRC ANGERS Alexandre HANKE Georg, HOEVELER Arnd, MUNOZ-PINEIRO Amalia, PETRILLO Mauro, RAFFAEL Barbara, SOKULL-KLUETTGEN Birgit, TOUSSAINT Brigitte, VAN DEN EEDE Guy

Others:

ECHA SIMPSON Peter, QUINN Bernadette

EFSA MACKAY Karen

W.H.O. DE FRANCE Jennifer

Government of Canada HANNA Sandy, DA SILVA Sarah

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 7

1. PURPOSE

This paper has been drawn up as background input to work by the European

Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) aimed at delivering science-based

policy advice on the health and environmental impacts of microplastics1. The

European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors launched work on this

topic following exploratory discussions in the first half of 2018 including a scoping

workshop with experts on 26 April 2018 and publication of an Initial Statement

published by the Advisors on 09 July 20182.

In the first stage of this work, an independent group of experts set up by the SAPEA

consortium of European science academy networks3 will produce by December 2018

an evidence review report on microplastic pollution and its impacts. This evidence

review, based on publicly-available scientific literature, will cover the natural

sciences including a specific focus on scientific modelling, the social and behavioural

sciences as well as political and legal sciences.

One of the purposes of this background paper is to help set the policy scene for the

SAM work, and notably for the political and legal sciences component of the SAPEA

evidence review. That part of the SAPEA evidence review should provide a synthesis

of state-of-the-art academic and any other readily-available and published expert

analyses of legislation, regulation and policies relevant to microplastics.

This document also forms part of the basis on which the Group of Chief Scientific

Advisors will build the Scientific Opinion it plans to deliver to the European

Commission in 2019.

1 The term microplastics commonly refers to man-made plastic particles – spherical, elongated fibre or irregularly shaped - whose longest dimension 'φ' is < 5 mm (5000 μm). The upper limit of 5 mm is generally accepted because this covers a range of particle sizes that can be readily ingested by organisms. Researchers sometimes further distinguish between macroplastics (φ > 5 mm), mesoplastics (1 mm < φ ≤ 5 mm), microplastics (0.1 μm < φ ≤ 1 mm) and nanoplastics (φ ≤ 0.1 μm). See also a note by the European Chemicals Agency on the definition of microplastics in a specific context 2 See the Initial Statement and the main points from the Scoping Workshop on the SAM Website; see also the minutes of the 13th meeting of the European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors 3 See SAPEA website – SAPEA is a key component of SAM

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

8 15 November 2018

2. INTRODUCTION

This paper maps the broad policy landscape relevant to the problem of microplastic

pollution4. Its primary focus is on EU policy though information is also included on

some international and national policy initiatives.

To set the scene, published estimated ranges of microplastic emissions of

petrochemical origin5 into the environments correspond to a central value of 11.7

million tonnes per year according to (Boucher, Friot, & IUCN, 2017). 3.2 million

tonnes of this is plastic from different sources that enters the environment already

in microscopic form (dubbed by some as ‘primary microplastics’), with a further 8

million tonnes coming from the degradation of large plastic items already in the

environment.

Figures 1 and 2 below illustrate some of the complexity of the ‘primary

microplastics’ component.

Figure 1 – Microplastic Emission Pathway Model Graphical Representation (Hann et al., 2018)

4Adapted from various sources including (Brennholt, Heß, & Reifferscheid, 2018; Steensgaard et al., 2017), (European Commission: Plastics Strategy ex-ante Impact Assessment & The Single Use Plastics Directive ex-ante Impact Assessment, 2018) 5 i.e. not including natural rubber particles which would add a further 33%

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 9

Figure 1 schematically depicts a number of the different pathways of primary

microplastics from source to sink. Overall, it is estimated that around 48% of

primary microplastics end up in the ocean, the remaining 52% remaining trapped in

soil or sewage sludge.

Figure 2 shows the estimated breakdown by source of the 48% (1.5 million tonnes

per year) which ends up in the world’s oceans. It is particularly noteworthy that,

according to this report, tyre abrasion, washing clothes and city dust together

account for 87%.

Figure 2 – Global releases of primary microplastics to the world oceans (Boucher et al., 2017)

The so-called Eunomia study (Hann et al., 2018) carried out for the Commission

also gives an overview of the different estimates of microplastic emissions into the

environment and their fate. Figure 3 below taken from this study shows estimated

ranges of emissions into surface water from different sources. Notable in this is the

impression that plastic pellets could account for the second highest proportion of

microplastic leakage into the environment, contrasting with the much smaller

proportion of 0.3% for plastic pellets in Figure 2. It is not clear what the discrepancy

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

10 15 November 2018

between these two plastic pellet proportions is due to. Part of it stems from the fact

that Figure 2 refers to the proportion of emissions which end up in the oceans as

opposed to Figure 3 which refers to emissions to surface waters. More generally,

such discrepancies in published literature can also stem from the wide variety of

definitions, calculation/modelling methodologies, assumptions and approximations

that different authors adopt and make and for which it is therefore always important

to refer to the original sources to avoid misinterpretations.

Figure 3 - Annual Emissions of Microplastics to Surface Water (Upper and Lower Ranges) – taken from (Hann et al., 2018)

* * *

In the following sections, brief, mostly factual, information is given on a variety of

measures including policy strategies and legally-binding legislation relevant to

microplastic pollution. Most measures described are quite broad, forming part of

wider sets of actions aimed at plastics, all types of waste or pollutants more

generally. More often than not, the relevance of individual measures to microplastic

pollution is implicit or indirect. However, some do specifically target microplastics.

Furthermore, reflecting an evolving policy agenda, the overview lists measures

which are either already in place, or have been announced and are currently being

developed, or are at some stage in the negotiation process between proposal and

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 11

adoption. An attempt is also made to capture relevant forward-looking information

on individual measures.

In the EU part, the measures are subdivided into sections in an attempt to

distinguish between different categories – e.g. measures aimed at different

environmental compartments (air, water, land), or types of substances, or with

different intervention logics (regulatory, funding, coordination). This typology only

works partially as some measures cut across different categories. Nonetheless,

presenting the measures in this way illustrates the relative paucity of policy

attention to the air and land compartments and even freshwater compared to the

marine environment.

No attempt is made to distinguish between different categories in the international

section given the mostly broad nature of the measures at this policy level. However,

here too it is obvious that most attention is paid to the marine compartment.

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

12 15 November 2018

3. THE EUROPEAN UNION

3.1. The EU Plastics Strategy

In the EU, adressing plastic pollution is a high political proirity6 reflecting an equally

high and increasing concern among EU citizens. This is consistent with the EU’s

leading role in sustainable development policy and praxis. Examples of overarching

initiatives include the Circular Economy Package7, of which the Plastics Strategy8 is

a particularly pertinent part.

The Circular Economy Package adopted by the Commission in 2015, aims to

stimulate Europe’s transition towards a circular economy in which resources are

used in a more sustainable way. The actions proposed therein should help to close

the loop in product life cycles from production and consumption to waste

management and the market for secondary raw materials. Plastics are listed as one

of its five priorities.

The Plastics Strategy announced in the circular economy package was adopted on

16 January 2018. It contains a wide range of legislative and non-legislative

measures some of which are new and others which are either already being

developed or in the process of review/ revision. The measures are divided into four

groups: 1. Improving the economics and quality of plastics recycling; 2. Curbing

plastic waste and littering; 3. Driving innovation and investment towards circular

solutions; and 4. Harnessing global action. In the ‘curbing waste’ group, the

strategy launches a broad approach to reducing microplastic emissions (see Table I

below). Apart from the measures listed directly aimed at microplastics, measures to

reduce macroplastic litter, from which much microplastics derive, also form part of

this approach. All measures considered to be relevant are described in more detail

in the sections which follow.

The analysis underpinning these measures9 draws on two studies, one of which10

aims to clarify sources, pathways and options for reduction of microplastics emitted by products, such as textiles, car tyres and synthetic turf sports pitches during their life cycle, or by other processes, such as losses of plastic pellets during production and transport. The other study11, which focuses on industries that use intentionally

6 An illustration of this is the idea floated in the Commission’s proposal for the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework to introduce a plastics levy (not a tax) on Member States calculated on the amount of non-recycled plastic packaging waste 7 Commission Communication COM(2015)614 8 Commission Communication COM(2018)28 9 As set out in the Staff Working Document SWD(2018)16 10 Investigating options for reducing releases in the aquatic environment of MPs emitted by (but not intentionally added in) products 11 Intentionally added microplastics in products

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 13

Table I - Measures to curb plastic waste and litter (Extracted from EU Plastics

Strategy12)

Measure Timeline

Actions to reduce single-use plastics: - analytical work, including the launch of a public consultation, to

determine the scope of a legislative initiative on single-use plastics

ongoing

Actions to tackle sea-based sources of marine litter: - adoption of a legislative proposal on port reception facilities for the

delivery of waste from ships - development of measures to reduce loss or abandonment at sea of

fishing gear (e.g. including recycling targets, EPR schemes, recycling funds or deposit schemes)

- development of measures to limit plastic loss from aquaculture (e.g. possible Best Available Techniques Reference Document)

Q1 2018 2018 onwards

Actions to monitor and curb marine litter more effectively: - improved monitoring and mapping of marine litter, including

microplastics, on the basis of EU harmonised methods - support to Member States on the implementation of their

programmes of measures on marine litter under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, including the link with their waste/litter management plans under the Waste Framework Directive

2018 onwards

Actions on compostable and biodegradable plastics: - start work to develop harmonised rules on defining and labelling

compostable and biodegradable plastics - conduct a lifecycle assessment to identify conditions where their

use is beneficial, and criteria for such application - start the process to restrict the use of oxo-plastics via REACH

Q1 2018 onwards

Q1 2018

onwards ongoing

Actions to curb microplastics pollution: - start the process to restrict the intentional addition of microplastics

to products via REACH - examination of policy options for reducing unintentional release of

microplastics from tyres, textiles and paint (e.g. including minimum requirements for tyre design (tyre abrasion and durability if appropriate) and/or information requirement (including labelling if appropriate), methods to assess microplastic losses from textiles and tyres, combined with information (including possibly labelling)/minimum requirements, targeted research and development funding)

- development of measures to reduce plastic pellet spillage (e.g. certification scheme along the plastic supply chain and/or Best Available Techniques reference document under the Industrial Emissions Directive)

- evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive: assessing effectiveness as regards microplastics capture and removal

ongoing ongoing Q1 2018 onwards ongoing

12 See Annex 1 of Plastics Strategy at COM(2018)28

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

14 15 November 2018

added microplastics in their products (cosmetics, detergents, paints, etc.), aimed to

carry out an environmental and human health risk assessment, as well as gathering

information for a socio-economic analysis of the impacts of risk management actions

relating to restricted use.

Recent / forthcoming: European Parliament report on plastics strategy13; an Opinion14 published on 22 June 2018 by the EP Fisheries committee calling for

several actions on microplastics; Council Conclusions (25 June 2018)15 which endorse the microplastics aspects of the Plastics Strategy and request the Commission to provide an annual progress report on the Circular Economy Action Plan

3.2. Waste & substance-/product-specific measures

Measures relevant to waste management of plastics are included in the recently-

revised Waste Framework Directive and the Packaging and Packaging Waste

Directive. Recycling targets for municipal waste (65% by 2030) and plastic

packaging waste (55% by 2030) should increase capture of plastic waste when they

enter into force by 2020. However, whilst Member States need to improve their

collection systems, the targets can be reached without necessarily improving litter

prevention. The waste prevention provisions in the revised Packaging Directive,

formulated in terms of “encouraging” packaging reuse, are rather soft in nature. Full

application and enforcement of current waste legislation will therefore not stop

littering and leakage of plastics into the environment.

In addition to such broad framework directives, there are a variety of other

substance-specific or product-specific measures relevant to microplastic pollution at

various stages of development. Brief information is given on all of these in what

follows to the extent available.

Waste Framework Directive

The revised Waste Framework Directive adopted by Council16

on 22 May 2018

requires waste to be managed without endangering human health and without risk

to water, air, soil, plants or animals. It contains broad objectives on prevention (i.e.

the preferred option) and waste management. It implements the "polluter pays" and

"extended producer responsibility (EPR)" principles and requires Member States to

adopt waste management plans and waste prevention programmes. Plastics used in

13 European Parliament P8_TA(2018)0352 14 European Parliament PECH_AD(2018)619288 15 Delivering on the EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy 16 Directive (EU) 2018/851

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 15

agriculture are covered by this Directive17. Member States must coordinate these

different plans and measures with others which they are required to implement

under international and EU water legislation18. The revised Directive sets general

targets to increase household waste recycling to a minimum of 50 % by weight by

including at least waste materials such as paper, metal, plastic and glass plastics.

Recent / forthcoming: The revised Directive entered into force on 04 July 2018

and must be transposed into national legislation by 05 July 2020.

Single Use Plastics and Fishing Gear

As announced in the Plastics Strategy, the European Commission proposed in May

2018 new EU-wide rules in the form of the SUP Directive19 targeting the ten single-

use plastic products most often found on Europe's beaches and seas, as well as lost

and abandoned fishing gear. Together these account for 70% of all marine litter.

Building on the success of the Pastic Bags directive20, a similar, targeted, approach

is proposed. The measures include: a ban on plastic cotton buds, cutlery, plates,

straws, drink stirrers and balloon sticks; consumption reduction targets; waste

management and clean-up obligations for producers; Member State obligation to

collect 90% of single-use plastic drinks bottles by 2025; a labelling requirement

indicating how waste should be disposed; and obligatory awareness-raising

measures. The measure for fishing gear, which accounts for about 27% (11,000

tonnes per year) of marine litter, is an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for

gear containing plastic to ensure that the cost of managing waste plastic fishing

gear, once it has arrived on shore, is covered by the producers of plastic fishing

gear. Note that the Fisheries Control Regulation21 of November 2009 already

requires gear to be marked, retrieval equipment to be carried on board, and lost

gear to be retrieved or its loss reported in case it cannot be retrieved.

17 Note that the specific case of agricultural mulches and their biodegradability has been discussed at length in the context of their proposed exclusion by the Commission in the revision [COM(2016) 157] of the 2003 fertilizing products regulation, and their proposed inclusion by the European Parliament – the discussion is currently in the final trilogue stage of the legislative procedure

18 Regional Seas Conventions, Marine Strategy Framework Directive & Water Framework Directive (see below) 19 COM(2018)340 Proposed Directive on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment 20 Plastic Bags Directive (EU) 2015/720 amending Directive 94/62/EC - Prior to the SUP Directive proposal, the only product-focussed legal instrument specifically tackling a single-use plastic was the Plastic Bags Directive which has successfully reduced the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags and related environmental impacts while stimulating reuse. Adopted in 2015, it was the first time consideration was given to consumption in addition to management of packaging and packaging waste. Member States choose which measures to put in place to achieve a consumption rate of below 40 bags per person per year by 2025, including the use of economic instruments such as pricing, taxes and levies and marketing restrictions such as bans that are proportionate and non-discriminatory, and national reduction targets 21 See (EC) No 1224/2009 and detailed requirements included in the Control Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/11 of 8 April 2011

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

16 15 November 2018

Note that some SUPs are considered to be ‘packaging’ if they contain a product (e.g.

cups filled with a beverage at the point of sale); drinks bottles, caps and lids; crisp

packets and sweet wrappers; plastic bags; food & fast-food containers; cups.

However, the same SUPs may also fall outside the definition of packaging if sold

separately (e.g. a pack of empty cups). As a result, the same product can be

subject to different legal acts and measures.

Recent / forthcoming: It is hoped that decision on the SUP Directive will be

reached following the first reading in the current legislature which ends in May

2019. Reports from associated EP Committees PECH, ITRE, AGRI and ECON

finalised and received a positive vote in EP Plenary in October 201822; Council

discussions on-going with the consideration of the compromise version presented by

the AT Presidency in September 2018. Intensive meetings and start of the trilogues

expected during Austrian Presidency. A revision of the Fisheries Control Regulation

planned for 2018 will introduce daily electronic reporting for all vessels and remove

the exemption of small vessels from the obligation to carry retrieval equipment.

Chemical Regulation and Microplastics

The European REACH regulation23 adopted in 2006 regulates the production and use

of chemicals with the main aim to ensure a high level of protection for human health

and the environment, while promoting alternatives to animal testing as well as the

free circulation of chemicals in the EU internal market, while enhancing the

competitiveness and innovation. According to REACH, manufacturers, importers and

downstream users must register their chemicals and are responsible for their safe

use. Also under REACH, selected substances are evaluated and restrictions may be

imposed to address unacceptable risks. Substances of special concern undergo an

authorisation procedure. Regarding microplastics, REACH already refers to plastic

monomers and additives. However, polymer substances as such are exempt from

registration and evaluation unless the content of (unreacted) monomers exceeds

certain limits or they contain certain additives triggering registration and evaluation

… “until those that need to be registered due to the risks posed to human health or

the environment can be selected in a practicable and cost-efficient way on the basis

of sound technical and valid scientific criteria”. The polymer importer and/or

producer must (if not already done by another operator) register the monomer with

the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) if … “the polymer is made up of more than

2% or more of the monomer substance(s), and the total quantity usage of the

monomer shall exceed more than 1 t per year”. Polymers, monomers and additives

can be subject to restriction on the basis of Art. 68(1) of the REACH Regulation.

22 See EP Briefing on Single-use plastics and fishing gear (July 2018) 23 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 17

Recent / forthcoming: In line with the REACH procedures for restricting

substances that pose unacceptable environmental or health risks, the Commission

has launched the restriction process by requesting the European Chemicals Agency

to review the scientific basis for taking regulatory action at EU level to restrict the

use of: 1. Oxo-degradable plastics24

and 2. Intentionally-added microplastics in

products (such as cosmetics, detergents, paints)25

. The restriction intentions were

introduced on 17 January 2018. ECHA has 12 months (i.e. until January 2019) to

present a technical dossier for a restriction if the conditions are met. Then, ECHA’s

scientific committees for Risk Assessment and Socio-Economic Analysis would begin

work in March 2019 and submit their opinions to the Commission in spring 2020. If

the ECHA Committees confirm that a restriction is needed, the Commission would

propose an amendment of Annex XVII of REACH by the end of 2020, to be voted in

Comitology.

Unintentional Release from Tyres, Textiles & Paint

As indicated in the above table extracted from the Plastics Strategy, policy options

for reducing microplastic emissions from tyres, textiles and paint would be

examined, citing a number of different possibilities. Acknowledging that tyre

abrasion is a significant source of microplastics and that a suitable method to

measure tyre abrasion is not currently available, the proposed revision in May 2018

of the tyre labelling regulation26 states that the Commission should mandate the

development of such a method, taking into full consideration all state-of-the-art

internationally developed or proposed standards or regulations, with a view to

establishing a suitable testing method as soon as possible. Note that the call for

such a test method is also found in the EU Plastics Strategy itself. Voluntary

measures are being discussed by the tyre and textile industries (see section below).

Possible restrictions under REACH covered in the previous section could apply to

paints in cases where microplastics are intentionally-added or intentional release

during their use, e.g. washing paint brushes.

Recent / forthcoming: The ordinary legislative procedure for the tyre labelling

regulation is just beginning.

24 so-called oxo-degradable plastics', while claiming biodegradability properties have been found to offer no proven environmental advantage over conventional plastics, while their rapid fragmentation into microplastics cause concerns https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18244d9bb 25 bans on the use of microplastics in specific personal care products have been put in place in the United States and Canada and several EU Member States have notified the Commission of draft laws to ban microplastics in certain cosmetics. As this could lead to fragmentation of the single market, the Council has called on the Commission to take measures on microplastics, especially from cosmetics and detergents https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18244cd73 26 COM(2018)296

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

18 15 November 2018

Packaging and Packaging Waste

The 1994 packaging and packaging waste directive27 sets targets for the recovery

and recycling of packaging waste and essential requirements for placing packaging

on the market. A revised Packaging and Packaging waste Directive28 adopted on 30

May 2018, re-focuses prevention objectives on re-use and envisages new rules: a

new target of 55% recycling of plastic packaging waste by 2030, a ban on landfilling

of separately-collected waste and introduces an Extended Producer Responsibility

(EPR) obligation and minimum requirements for EPR schemes.

Recent / forthcoming: The revised Directive entered into force on 04 July 2018

and must be transposed into national legislation by 05 July 2020. Relevant novelties

include: suggested reuse measures (deposit-return schemes; qualitative or

quantitative targets; economic incentives; setting minimum percentage reusable

packaging); minimum targets for plastic waste recycling set at 50% by 31 Dec 2025

and 55% by 2030; commercialization, import and export of one-use plastic utensils

prohibited from 2020; from 2030 all packaging in EU must be reusable or easily

recyclable.

Food and Drinking Water

3.2.6.1. Food Contact Materials and Biocides

According to EU legislation in vigour, plastic food contact materials may not release

over 10 mg/dm2 of their constituents to food29, and shall not transfer any of their

constituents to food in amounts hazardous to human health. The directive also

specifies the thresholds according to the form and composition of the

plastic/polymer in question. It is the task of the competent Member State

authorities to ensure that these requirements are met. The most comprehensive

specific EU measure on plastic materials and articles is a 2011 regulation30. This sets

out rules on the composition of plastic food-contact materials, and establishes a list

of substances that are permitted for use in the manufacture of food-contact plastics.

As the Regulation is regularly amended, a non-legally-binding version31 is

maintained.

27 Directive 94/62/EC 28 Directive (EU) 2018/852 29 Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, OJ L 12, 15.1.2011, p. 1. Also Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 on recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foods 30 Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 31 Consolidated version of Regulation (EU) No 10/2011

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 19

Substances that require authorisation for use in food contact materials, such as

functional constituents of plastic, are evaluated32 by the European Food Safety

Authority (EFSA) and authorised30 at EU level. One such example are ‘surface

biocides33’ which are used in the manufacture of food contact materials and are

intended to be present in the final article itself. The purpose of these biocides is to

keep the surface of the food contact material free from microbial contamination. For

food contact materials made from plastic, such biocides are regarded as additives

because they are intentionally added to the plastic to exert an effect.

Recent / forthcoming: Amendments to the plastics regulation34 on limits for

metals and certain food groups will enter into force in September 2018.

3.2.6.2. Drinking Water

Water for human consumption is considered to be food35 and must be safe once it is

put into the bottles. The EU legal framework for food safety therefore should, as a

rule, ensure the safety of bottled water and that any microplastics therein do not

constitute a risk, and so should not be present in concentrations that could cause

negative effects on human health. Tap water must meet the specifications of the

Drinking Water Directive36. The Commission monitors emerging scientific data on

possible health effects related to micro‐ and nanoplastics, their entry in the food

chain and water environments, and the resulting human and animal exposure

through regular diets. Appropriate measures can be considered in case evidence

indicates that a health risk cannot be excluded. Through its 01 Feb 2018 proposed

revision of the Drinking Water Directive37, the Commission promotes access to tap

water for EU citizens in order to reduce packaging needs for bottled water. At the

same time, the proposal includes an obligation to monitor the presence of

microplastics in drinking water when there is a risk and to take remedial actions in

case of potential danger for human health. The Regulation on biocides32 also applies

to drinking water.

Recent / forthcoming: the ordinary legislative procedure is underway for the

revised drinking water directive. Council discussion under the Austrian Presidency

took place on 25 July and 25 September, next meeting takes place on 16 November

2018. The European Parliament plenary has adopted its report (Rapporteur Dantin)

32 Regulation (EU) No 1935/2004 of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food 33 Regulation (EC) No 528/2012 of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products 34 included in the amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1416 35 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles and requirements of food law (to which a targeted revision was recently proposed - see Com(2018)179), establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety of 28 January 2002, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1. 36 Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32 37 COM(2017) 753 final

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

20 15 November 2018

on 23 October. First reading agreement could be still possible under the Romanian

presidency in first half 2019.

3.2.6.3. Human Food Chain - European Food Safety Authority

In 2016, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) took a first step towards a

future assessment of the potential risks to consumers from microplastics and

nanoplastics in food, especially seafood, producing a comprehensive literature

review in a Statement on - Presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with

particular focus on seafood38, taking stock of scientific developments, identifying

data and knowledge gaps and recommending future research priorities to address

them. The review concluded that there are insufficient data on the occurrence,

toxicity and fate after digestion of these materials to carry out a full risk

assessment. It also concluded that nanoplastics require particular attention. The

review reported many data gaps on the impacts of microplastics on human health as

well as some studies showing that microplastics can be transferred between trophic

levels and that microplastic and nanoplastics can penetrate deeply into organs with

yet unknown consequences. It also concluded, based on conservative estimates,

that microplastics in seafood represent a very small proportion of the overall

exposure of humans to additives or contaminants. Toxicity data is lacking for both

microplastics and nanoplastics for a human risk assessment to be possible. In 2011,

EFSA’s Scientific Committee also published Guidance on the risk assessment of the

application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain39. This

guide was updated on 4 July 201840.

Recent / forthcoming: At present, EFSA has no mandate from the European

Commission (EC) or the EU Member States (MS) to update the 2016 statement.

However, on the request from the EC/MS, and once more data become available,

then a full risk assessment would be carried out.

Industrial Emissions

The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)41 aims at preventing, controlling and

reducing the impact of industrial emissions on the environment (air, water, and

land). According to the directive’s guiding principle of sustainable production, an

integrative approach to pollution emissions, production process consumption of

resources and energy and environmental damage caused by operation and post-

closure of an industrial plant, must be followed. Best available techniques (BATs)

have to be applied. Annex I of the Directive, lists industrial activities giving rise to

38 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4501/epdf 39 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2140/epdf 40 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5327 41 Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 21

pollution including the production of organic chemicals such as plastic materials

(polymers, synthetic fibres).

The release of plastic pellets along the industrial supply/ production chain, which

accounts for a sizeable fraction of microplastic emissions42, is within the scope of the

Directive. Member States have to ensure that industrial installation operators take

all appropriate preventive measures against such pollution and apply BATs. Member

State issued permits must include requirements to ensure protection of the soil and

groundwater as well as waste monitoring and management, and limit values for

listed and non-listed43 substances. For polymers, the Reference Document on Best

Available Techniques in the Production of Polymers is relevant44. Another draft BAT

reference Document on “Common waste gas and waste water

treatment/management systems in the chemical sector”45 does not include

information on limiting polymer emissions but discusses the benefits of polymers

(polyelectrolytes) as adsorbents in regard to waste water treatment/management,

polymer addition for various types of sludge and for various methods of dewatering

when it comes to sludge treatment techniques.

Recent / forthcoming: The EU Plastics Strategy announced the development from

2018 onwards of measures to reduce plastic pellet spillage such as a certification

scheme along the plastic supply chain and/or a Best Available Techniques reference

document under the Directive.

Landfill

Landfilled waste must comply with the requirements of the recently revised directive

(adopted on 30 May 2018)46, which aims to prevent negative impacts of landfills on

groundwater, surface waters and human health via strict technical requirements. It

defines landfills for 1) hazardous waste, 2) non-hazardous waste and 3) inert waste.

Under the Directive there are no limits to the amounts of plastic waste that can be

landfilled though several Member States have introduced their own limits. Protection

of nearby soil, coastal- and fresh waters must also be accounted for when location

and implementation/design of the landfill are decided. The recently-adopted

revisions require Member States to significantly reduce landfill waste disposal.

Member States are required to ensure that, as of 2030, waste suitable for recycling

or other recovery, in particular contained in municipal waste, will not disposed of as

landfill. Use of landfills should remain exceptional rather than the norm.

42http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/pdf/microplastics_final_report_v5_full.pdf 43 Substances likely to be emitted from the installation concerned in significant quantities, having regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another 44 European Commission, 2007 45 European Commission, 2016 46 Directive (EU) 2018/850

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

22 15 November 2018

Furthermore, the Member States must ensure that by 2035, no more than 10% of

municipal waste is disposed of in landfills.

Recent / forthcoming: The revised Directive entered into force on 04 July 2018

and must be transposed into national legislation by 05 July 2020.

3.3. Water pollution measures

The most important water-related legislative acts are the Water Framework

Directive (WFD)47 and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)48. They

establish legal frameworks for the protection of European freshwater and marine

environments respectively, but with some overlap as far as transitional (estuaries)

and coastal waters are concerned. Although both aim at achieving good

ecological/environmental status, there is a discrepancy between them regarding

plastic waste. In MSFD, descriptor 10 “marine litter” – one of 11 indicators of good

environmental status - defines waste, whereas in WFD such waste is not mentioned.

In a possible future revision of the WFD (next review due in 2019), this discrepancy

might be removed.

Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD), which entered into force in December 2000.

It does not oblige Member States to take measures against litter in surface waters,

but if they do, they should report this. Recital 40 states that “with regard to

pollution prevention and control, Community water policy should be based on a

combined approach using control of pollution at source through the setting of

emission limit values and of environmental quality standards”. Article 10 describes

the approach for point and diffuse sources in more detail in terms of BAT49 emission

controls, emission limit values, or best environmental practice in the case of diffuse

impacts, and points to further relevant directives50.

Microplastics are not explicitly addressed in the WFD though this discrepancy could

be addressed in a possible revision due in 2019. However (Wesch, Klein, & Paulus,

2014) argue that plastic waste is already indirectly covered by the WFD as it

currently stands. In their opinion, as litter - including microplastics – may influence

water quality, it is relevant to determining the good ecological status of freshwater

systems.

47 Directive 2000/60/EC 48 Directive 2008/56/EC 49 best available techniques 50 Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control; Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment; Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 23

WFD Article 16 gives rise to a list of 45 priority substances, several of which - e.g.

di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, nonylphenol, or octylphenol - are contained in plastic

products which member states are legally obliged to monitor. However, the

measured concentration of a substance includes all sources and cannot indicate the

plastic-related percentage. WFD Annex VIII contains an indicative list of the main

pollutants such as “persistent hydrocarbons and persistent and bioaccumulative

organic toxic substances” and “substances and preparations, or the breakdown

products of such, which have been proved to possess carcinogenic or mutagenic

properties or properties which may affect steroidogenic, thyroid, reproduction or

other endocrine-related functions in or via the aquatic environment” which might

include synthetic polymers and their additives.

Recent / forthcoming: the WFD is currently undergoing a detailed review51 which

may lead to a possible revision in 2019.

Marine Litter

The problem of marine litter has led to a variety of measures under different policy

areas (water, marine, waste, product and fisheries policies) some of which focus on

reducing entry into the sea via different pathways such as waste or sewage systems

or from sea based sources. For instance, Article 9 of the Joint Communication on

international ocean governance52 deals with plastic pollution, in support of

Sustainable Development Goal 14 under UN Agenda 2030.

3.3.2.1. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is the only EU legal instrument

tackling marine litter explicitly and directly. It does not regulate specific human

activities but requires Member States to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES)

by 2020 for eleven MSFD descriptors, one of which focuses on marine litter while

leaving specific measures up to Member States. GES is achieved when "properties

and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine

environment". It has led to an improved understanding of macro- and micro-litter

(notably from plastics) mostly attributed to tourism and recreational activities,

urban waste, industrial activities, shipping, and commercial fishing. Under MSFD,

Member States had to adopt measures to address marine litter by 2016. However,

on the basis of the programmes of measures submitted (in 2016) by Member

States, it was not possible to calculate by how much marine litter would be

reduced53. The most common type of measures reported by Member States were

beach clean-ups and 'fishing for litter' – i.e. costly downstream measures, as

51 See Evaluation and fitness review plan 52 JOIN(2016)49 53See COM/2017/03

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

24 15 November 2018

opposed to more effective upstream waste management and prevention measures

which raise awareness but only have a modest impact. However, wide application of

such measures could eventually lead to harmonisation at EU level, shifting the focus

to upstream measures. On 31 July 2018, the Commission published a report54

assessing Member States’ programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive.

Urgent improvements are needed in the monitoring of micro-litter and of seabed

and surface litter. Systematic and comparable monitoring of the impact of litter on

marine animals and nature as well as localisation and extent of human activities

generating marine litter should also be covered by monitoring programmes. Also,

the lack of agreed baselines or thresholds for litter and micro-litter, hampers

progress monitoring. Overall the EU is unlikely to meet internal (7th Environment

Action Programme to 2020, Circular Economy action plan) and international

commitments55 without additional measures.

According to a revised Commission Decision56 (April 2017), Good Environmental

Status (GES) should be determined on the basis of amounts, with threshold values

established at Union or other levels (regional/sub-regional) for litter and micro-litter

on beaches/water column/seafloor, for litter ingested by marine animals and for

adverse effects (entanglement, other types of injury or mortality or health effects,

of the species concerned due to litter). Setting thresholds for litter quantities and

impacts at the appropriate geographic level will also enable the setting of targets

and monitoring of progress towards their achievement. EU funding is also being

deployed to understand and combat the rise of marine litter57, supporting global,

national and regional action — for example, in November 2017, the Commission

launched a call for proposals for €2 million to tackle marine litter58.

54 See COM(2018)562 & SWD(2018)393 55 Such as its commitment in 2014 as part of the Circular Economy package to meet the UN SDG 30% marine litter reduction target - endorsed by the Council but not linked to specific measures 56 Commission Decision C(2017)2901 –e.g. for D10C2 — The composition, amount and spatial distribution of micro-litter on the coastline, in the surface layer of the water column, and in seabed sediment, are at levels that do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment. Member States shall establish threshold values for these levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account regional or subregional specificities; for D10C3 — The amount of litter and micro-litter ingested by marine animals is at a level that does not adversely affect the health of the species concerned. Member States shall establish threshold values for these levels through regional or subregional cooperation. 57 For instance, in the Arctic Region, the Circular Ocean INTERREG project is testing new opportunities for reusing old fishing nets, including a material to remove pollutants from water (http://www.circularocean.eu/). In the Baltic Sea Region, the BLASTIC project maps potential litter sources in urban areas and monitors litter levels in the aquatic environment (https://www.blastic.eu/). Both projects are supported by the European Regional Development Fund. 58 Under the overarching ‘Sustainable Blue Economy’ call: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/information-day-blue-growth-calls-under-emff.

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 25

Recent / forthcoming: Member States were due to report updates of their

determination of good environmental status, targets, and assessment of

environmental status by 15 October 2018 [Article 17(2) (a) & (b)]. The Commission

will build on these different elements to issue an implementation report in 2019

which will review progress [Article 20], ahead of the 2020 deadline for achieving

good environmental status. Also, an MSFD position paper on micro-litter is due at the

end of 2018.

3.3.2.2. Port Reception Facilities

Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo

residues (PRF Directive) aims to reduce all discharges of waste from ships at sea,

including from fishing vessels and recreational craft. It requires Member States to

provide adequate port reception facilities, and ships to deliver their waste to these

facilities before departure from the port. It also requires Member States to set up

cost-recovery systems ensuring there is no incentive for ships to discharge their

waste at sea. In 2018, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new PRF

Directive59 (as part of the Commission’s Circular Economy Package), seeking further

alignment with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from

Ships (MARPOL Convention) with a special focus on addressing marine litter from

sea-based sources. Through a mix of incentive and enforcement measures, the

proposed Directive should result in maximising garbage delivery from ships to waste

reception facilities in ports. The charges for bringing litter ashore, including fished-

up litter, will be independent of the amount. Reporting and inspection obligations for

fishing vessels and small recreational craft have been brought more in line with

other vessels. The proposal will improve the adequacy of port reception facilities, in

particular their operation in accordance with EU waste legislation, including the

obligation for separate collection of waste from ships.

3.3.2.3. Funding Measures

The structural support tool for the Common Fisheries Policy, the European Maritime

and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), may provide financial support for the recovery of litter

and gear from the sea. Such support can come for action that is either part of

fishing activities,(i.e. bringing litter that is caught in the nets while fishing back

ashore - so called "passive" fishing for litter), or as part of specific retrieval and

recovery actions of waste and/or lost and abandoned gear ("active" fishing for

litter). Over the seven year period 2014-2020, 14 Member States plan a total of 108

such projects supported with around €22 million from the EMFF. The European

Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) which in its current third phase of

59 COM(2018)33

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

26 15 November 2018

deveopment (2017-2020) includes data collection on plastics and microlitter60 is also

funded unde the EMFF. The improvement of waste handling infrastructure and

management processes on vessels and at ports is also eligible for support under the

EMFF, as are other measures to reduce the impact of fishing on ecosystem such as

innovation in catch handling, storing, processing and marketing processes61.

In addition to the EMFF, other EU funding programmes (Horizon 2020, Life, ERDF

etc.) also finance actions for the prevention, reduction and retrieval of marine litter

via actions under shared management with Member States. The Commission also

directly finances action to understand and combat the rise of marine litter.62

Recent / forthcoming: Under the EMFF a €2 million call for proposals to address

marine litter was launched in November 201763. The proposals received are

currently being evaluated (Update). Post 2020, in line with the plastic strategy, it is

envisaged to addressing marine litter is proposed as a priority in the new EMFF

proposal64.

Urban Waste Water Treatment

As well as ending up as solid waste disposal, a significant amount of plastic ends up

in urban wastewater systems. To protect the environment from the adverse effects

of urban wastewater discharges and discharges from certain industrial sectors, the

European Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)65 was adopted in 1991.

It concerns the collection, treatment, and discharge of domestic effluent or mixture

of domestic and certain industrial wastewater (see Annex III of the directive) and/or

rainfall water. Whilst UWWTD has improved the quality of discharges over the years,

the Directive does not entail any requirements when it comes to the amount of

plastic in the effluent. There are cases of plastic and other litter entering the

environment through the sewage network, for example, through combined sewer

overflows (CSOs)/ storm water overflows. Microplastics are either not completely

captured (capture potential is between 50-80%) in the treatment plants or

accumulate in the sludge – part of it being reused in agriculture with a clear risk of

releases of microplastics back to the environment. In this regard, There are no

monitoring requirements for microplastics in place and no comparable results for

60 Note that microplastic is a major component of microliter which also includes many other classes of discarded material

61 EMFF, Articles 38.1c, 39, 40.1a and 43.1 62 For instance, in the Arctic Region, the Circular Ocean INTERREG project is testing new opportunities for reusing old fishing nets, including a material to remove pollutants from water (http://www.circularocean.eu/). In the Baltic Sea Region, the BLASTIC project maps potential litter sources in urban areas and monitors litter levels in the aquatic environment (https://www.blastic.eu/). Both projects are supported by the European Regional Development Fund. 63 Under the overarching ‘Sustainable Blue Economy’ call: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/information-day-blue-growth-calls-under-emff. 64 COM(2018)390 65 Directive 91/271/EEC

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 27

different types of facilities or treatments. There is also no known method of

removing microplastics from sludge.

Recent / forthcoming: The Commission’s on-going evaluation of the UWWTD66

due to be completed in 2019, will, according to the Plastics Strategy, assess

effectiveness as regards microplastics capture and removal. Improved

implementation should result from the new requirement to coordinate measures

with those under the MSFD and Waste Framework Directive. The UWWTD

assessment could have important implications for the 1986 Directive67 regulating

agricultural use of sewage sludge and which has been under consideration for

revision in recent years.

3.4. Air pollution measures

The main instruments of relevance to air quality in the EU are a series of Directives

setting standards to prevent excessive pollution concentrations and other policy

initiatives. Air pollution is covered by the Sustainable Development Goal SDG11

"Sustainable cities and communities".

No consideration is given in any of these to air-borne microplastics per se. However,

detailed prescriptions are provided in the legislation regarding air-borne particulate

matter specifying two different size thresholds – PM10 and PM2.5 which refer

respectively to particles of up to 10 microns or 2.5 microns in their longest

dimension. No mention is made of the type of material or composition of such

particulate matter and so, by default, microplastics under the size thresholds are

covered. However, the characteristics of airborne microplastics –mostly fibres from

synthetic fabric which are of micron scale in their narrow dimension but can be

hundreds of microns in their long dimension – mean they are not covered by the

current terms of the legislation. Furthermore, household exposure – the main

exposure situation - to such microfibers is not covered by the legislation.

Ambient Air Quality

The current framework for the control of ambient concentrations of air pollution in

the EU consists of two Ambient Air Quality Directives: 2008/50/EC and

2004/107/EC. An additional 2015 Directive 2015/1480/EC amends several annexes

to Directives 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC (i.e. rules concerning reference

methods, data validation and location of sampling points for the assessment of

ambient air quality).

Recent / forthcoming: A fitness check of the relevant legislation started in 2017

and will end at the end of 2019. Relevant to the fitness check and any eventual

66 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-4989291_en 67 Directive 86/278/EEC

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

28 15 November 2018

follow-up is on-going work in the W.H.O. on air quality guidelines which will run to

2020/21 and other W.H.O. work focusing on ultrafine particles (<0.1 μm in

diameter).

Other initiatives

In 2013, the Commission adopted a Clean Air Policy Package which included a Clean

Air Programme for Europe (setting objectives for 2020 and 2030), and proposals for

Directives on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants

(the NEC Directive) and on limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air

from medium combustion plants (the MCP Directive). A long-term, strategic and

integrated policy to protect against the effects of air pollution on human health and

the environment was adopted in 200568. On 17 May 2018, the Commission

published a Communication 'A Europe that protects: Clean air for all' outlining

measures available to help EU Member States to fight air pollution.

68 The Clean Air for Europe (CAFÉ) Programme (2001; now closed) was a programme of technical analysis and policy development that underpinned the development of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution under the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

29 15 November 2018

Table II – Overview of EU policy measures A. The date of the most recent relevant official document referred to in the text above (such as proposal date or adoption date or launch date, etc. as applicable);

B. Current status and forthcoming milestones; C. The main environmental compartment(s) concerned by the measure;

D. Whether or not the measure explicitly targets microplastics;

$ MP - Microplastic

Measure Date [A] Status & Milestones [B]

Concerned

Environmental

Compartments

[C]

MP$

Explicitly

Targeted

[D]

The EU Plastics Strategy Jan 2018 New – implementation ongoing Soil/Water/Air Yes

Waste Framework Directive May 2018 Revised version to transpose Soil/Water/Air No

Single Use Plastics and Fishing Gear May 2018 Legislative process ongoing Water (Marine) No

REACH Oxo-degradable Jan 2018 Milestones: Jan 2019; spring 2020 Soil/Water Yes

REACH Intentionally added Jan 2018 Milestones: Jan 2019; spring 2020 Soil/Water Yes

Unintentional Release from Tyres, Textiles & Paint Jan 2018 Ongoing Soil/Water/Air Yes

Packaging and Packaging Waste May 2018 Revised version to transpose Soil/Water No

Food Contact Materials Aug 2016 Evolving amendments Soil/Water No

Drinking Water Dec 2017 Legislative process ongoing Freshwater Yes

Industrial Emissions Nov 2010 Pending: Certification scheme / BAT BREFs Soil/Water Yes

Landfill May 2018 Revised version to transpose Soil/Water/Air No

Water Framework Directive Dec 2000 Ongoing review Fresh Water No

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive Jun 2008 Ongoing implementation Water (Marine) No

Port Reception Facilities Jan 2018 Legislative process ongoing Water (Marine) No

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive May 1991 Ongoing review Fresh Water No

Ambient Air Quality Aug 2015 Ongoing review Air No

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

30 15 November 2018

3.5. Research measures

Given that the study of microplastics is a relatively new field, it is not surprising that

a significant amount of activity is taking place in the research and research-policy

realms. This is the certainly the case in the EU’s RTD Framework Programme

Horizon 2020 and it is likely to continue under the next one – Horizon Europe. Note

that the idea of making “plastic-free oceans” one of the themes of a new mission

approach to be inaugurated under Horizon Europe was proposed in an independent

report by Prof Mazzucato69 submitted to the Commission in Feb 2018.

Some recent and on-going EU-level research-related activities are summarised here.

Ecological Aspects of Microplastics

As part of the Oceans Joint Programming Initiative70, four research projects with

overall funding of € 7.7 million were launched in January 2016 to investigate

ecological aspects of microplastics as a three-year pilot71: BASEMAN focuses on

overcoming standardisation and comparability deficiencies in the measurement and

monitoring of environmental microplastics; EPHEMARE is examining the

ecotoxicological effects of marine microplastics; PLASTOX is investigating the

ingestion, food-web transfer, and ecotoxicological impact of microplastics, together

with persistent organic pollutants (POPs), metals and plastic additive chemicals

associated with them, on marine species and ecosystems; and WEATHER-MIC

investigated the weathering processes of microplastics and the distribution and toxic

impacts of the resultant particles and the implications for risk assessment. As these

projects are due to end in 2018, it is pertinent that a central concern of JPI Oceans

is to ensure that all its policy-relevant research is effectively communicated to

relevant policy mechanisms.

Health Aspects

The long-term impact of microplastics on human health remains largely unknown

since most studies to date have been limited to the impact on marine life consuming

microplastics directly. An article in The Economist on 3 March 201872 offered the

following perspective:

Whereas filthy air kills 7m people a year, nearly all of them in low- and

middle-income countries, plastic pollution is not directly blamed for any. A

report last year by the Lancet Commission on pollution and health, which put

69 Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union - A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth 70 JPIOceans 71 http://www.jpi-oceans.eu/ecological-aspects-microplastics 72 The known unknowns of plastic pollution

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 31

the total number of pollution-related deaths at 9m, mentions plastics once in

its 45 pages.

However, it is clear that humans are everywhere exposed to these particles via

seafood, water supply, the air we breathe and the dust in our home. Therefore, it is

imperative to measure and monitor such exposure and take precautionary measures

to reduce and eliminate such exposure when the potential risks justify doing so.

Human biomonitoring

The European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (HBM4EU)73 is a joint effort of 28

countries and the European Environment Agency, co-funded by the European

Commission under Horizon 2020. The main aim of the initiative is to coordinate and

advance human biomonitoring in Europe. HBM4EU will provide better evidence of

the actual exposure of citizens to chemicals and the possible health effects to

support policy making.

A first HBM4EU prioritisation exercise resulted in nine substance groupings74 for

work in 2017 and 2018. For these substances, many of which are found in plastics

as additives, scoping documents compiling information on substance classification,

policy-related research questions and research objectives are available and will

regularly be updated75

Recent / forthcoming: A second round of prioritisation has been finalised in the

first half of 2018 and will be included in the work plans for 2019-2021. Substances

selected have been published on the HBM4EU website76.

RTD initiatives to strengthen the science-policy interface

These RTD initiatives aim to provide inputs to strategic programming for R&I, in

particular for Horizon Europe, and to other areas of EU policy, in the form of policy-

relevant evidence, identification of policy gaps or barriers or innovative policy

opportunities. The evidence and insights are distilled from the findings of EU RTD

Framework Programme projects and contextualized by drawing in wider state-of-

the-art scientific expertise available in the research community. At present, there

are two of these initiatives on-going of relevance to Microplastics which aim to

deliver reports by late 2018/ early 2019. One is on a Circular Economy for Plastics

which is very broad in scope but which does cover Microplastics in the part focusing

on plastic pollution – it will help to shape an EU strategic research and innovation

73 https://www.hbm4eu.eu/ 74 phthalates and Hexamoll® DINCH; bisphenols; per-/polyfluorinated compounds; flame retardants; cadmium and chromium VI; PAHs; aniline family; chemical mixtures; and emerging substances 75 https://www.hbm4eu.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/scoping-documents-for-2018.pdf 76 Acrylamide, aprotic solvents, arsenic, diisocyanates, lead, mercury, mycotoxins, pesticides, benzophenones

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

32 15 November 2018

agenda for plastics as announced in the Plastics Strategy. The second project is on

Urban Water Management and is following a similar timeline to the one on Plastics.

Recent / forthcoming: draft reports shared with stakeholders over summer 2018

and due to be finalised by end of 2018 (Circular Economy for Plastics) and early

2019 (Urban Water Management).

Other RTD Framework Programme Projects

The coordination and support action Seas, Oceans and Public Health in Europe

(SOPHIE) which runs from 2017 to 2020 exploring the interplay between the health

of the marine environment and that of humans includes work on microplastics. It

aims to build a network of researchers and practitioners from two traditionally

distinct groups: marine and maritime specialists; and the medical and public health

community.

TOPIOS (Tracking of Plastic in Our Seas) is a 5-year (2017-22) research project,

funded through a European Research Council Starting Grant project to Erik van

Sebille. Its goal is to improve understanding of the way plastic litter moves through

our ocean by developing a comprehensive model for tracking marine plastic through

our ocean. CLAIM (2017-21) is a 19-partner, 14 country project targeting

prevention and in-situ management of visible and invisible marine litter, through the

development of five innovative new technologies and redefined methodologies.

GoJelly (2018-21) is 15 partner, 8 country project developing a prototype

microplastics filter (GoJelly) for commercial and public use, where the main raw

material is jellyfish mucus.

Relevant finished projects include: CLEANSEA (2013-15) addressing the monitoring

and management of marine litter; NANOPLAST (2013-16) consisting of a

computational modelling approach to the interaction of nanoplastics with biological

membranes; and FreshwaterMPs (2015-17) investigating the degradation and fate

of plastics in freshwater systems and the toxicity of microplastics to frechwater

biota.

Activities of the Joint Research Centre

The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) is exploring77 the lack of

harmonisation and reference materials in scientific work (methods, definitions,

protocols, etc.) aimed at measuring and monitoring microplastic presence and

exposure routes. It is also carrying out a mapping of data and methodologies gaps,

focusing on the food/feed chain78. The JRC also supports the Marine Strategy

77 Reference Materials Unit (JRC.F6) 78 Knowledge for Health & Consumer Safety Unit (JRC.F7)

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 33

Framework Directive’s Technical Group on Marine Litter79 on litter as a threat to the

marine environment and as potentially creating harm, including socioeconomic

aspects. Baselines are being derived, thresholds discussed and there is work on

monitoring guidance to improve exposure data80.

Recent / forthcoming: Review paper/ report on microplastics in the food chain to

be published before end of 2018 or early 2019; a MSFD micro-litter position paper

due at the end of 2018 and a draft of which will be discussed at the MICRO2018

conference on 20 Nov 2018.

Lanzarote Declaration

In 2016, members of the microplastic research community met in Lanzarote, Canary

Islands, Spain for the first international conference on microplastics, MICRO 2016:

"Fate and Impact of Microplastics in Marine Ecosystems: From the Coastline to the

Open Sea."

During the conference, members of the scientific committee and organising board

launched a collaborative process culminating in the Lanzarote Declaration81. In this

Declaration, the scientific community recognises its responsibility as individual

scientists to change behaviours related to plastic production and consumption, and

to inform others of their social, cultural, economic and environmental implications.

Recent / forthcoming: MICRO2018 Conference82 The international conference will

take place from 19 – 23 November 2018, Lanzarote, Spain. Main topics to be

addressed include: marine ecosystems; freshwater bodies; from macro to nano;

social change and behaviour; human health; policy.

79 Water & Marine Resources Unit (JRC.D2) 80 See http://mcc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dev.py?N=41&O=434&titre_chap=TG%20Marine%20Litter 81 https://micro2016.sciencesconf.org/conference/micro2016/pages/Lz_Declaration_june21st2016.pdf 82 https://micro2018.sciencesconf.org/

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

34 15 November 2018

4. INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

Microplastic pollution is a cross-border issue for which governments should co-

ordinate efforts to understand and address their possible health and environment

impacts (Borrelle et al., 2017). International regulation - namely, conventions,

agreements, regulations, strategies, action plans, programmes, and guidelines - are

mostly not legally binding on individual nations but they can shape mutually-

consistent regional and national policies, priorities and actions. The need for

international regulation of plastic pollution is presently being discussed and actioned

in different international settings – inter-governmental, supra-national, trans-

governmental and private. Such initiatives help to foster effective, inclusive and

relevant multilateral action and to address the fragmentation that may undermine

domestic measures.

Global international plastic pollution policy agreements are currently in a state

similar to that in which climate change agreements were in 1992, when the UN

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) formally recognized the

climate change problem and encouraged voluntary, undefined support (Borrelle et

al., 2017). If international efforts on plastic pollution evolve at the same pace as

those for climate and carbon emissions, an effective agreement may not be in place

before 2040. To avoid waiting 20 years, the lessons learned from the policy

processes related to carbon emissions should be applied (Steffen et al., 2015).

Table III on page 48 presents an overview the International regulations - namely,

conventions, agreements, regulations, strategies, action plans, programmes, and

guidelines.

4.1. United Nations (UN)

There are several United Nations (UN) instruments, specialised structures and

agencies (autonomous organizations) coordinating efforts and initiatives relevant to

this topic.

Many of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)83 and 169 associated targets

of the UN’s overarching 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted in 2015

are relevant to microplastic pollution. The EU and its Member States are committed

to the 2030 Agenda84. This Agenda has a strong call to action on marine litter in

Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources. A

number of the other SDG targets, even if not directly aimed at protecting marine

83 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld 84 Council conclusions 'A sustainable European future: The EU response to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development' (General Affairs Council, 20 June 2017); 'Next steps for a sustainable European future – European action for sustainability' (COM(2016) 739)

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 35

resources, will have beneficial effects on microplastics, in particular under Goal 12

on Sustainable Consumption and Production (UN Environment, 2018).

Note for example, target 12.4: “By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound

management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance

with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air,

water and soil in order to minimise their adverse impacts on human health

and the environment”. And target 14.1 “ By 2050, to prevent and significantly

reduce marine pollution of all kinds, particularly from land-based sources, including

marine litter as this is the most relevant commitment related to microplastics.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS )

At the global level, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS85), which sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the

oceans and seas must be carried out, provides for the general obligation to protect

and preserve the marine environment and includes the obligation to take all

measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine

environment from any source. UNCLOS is the only binding policy that requires

nations to minimise pollution from both marine and land based sources that may

enter the marine environment.

International Maritime Organisation

International binding agreements on marine plastic litter and microplastics vary in

scope, objectives, approaches, principles, and reporting and compliance

requirements. Those dealing with sea-based pollution include the London

Convention, especially its 1996 London Protocol, and the International Convention

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) implemented through national

law by its signatories. Despite growing attention to marine plastic in these contexts,

deficiencies in policy integration and coherence remain a large governance gap.

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) - a specialised agency of the United

Nations responsible for regulating shipping including the discharge of garbage (food,

domestic and operational waste, plastics, fishing gear) from ships in the context of

MARPOL - pioneered the prohibition of plastic disposal from ships anywhere at sea

almost 30 years ago. MARPOL Annex V prohibits the discharge of all types of

garbage into the sea from all ships, with some exceptions such as food waste, cargo

residues, cleaning agents/additives that are not harmful to the marine environment.

IMO is one of the partners in the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML), which

is managed by UN Environment. IMO co-leads on sea-based sources of marine litter

together with the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Under this partnership,

85 http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

36 15 November 2018

several activities have been undertaken, including the development of a training

package on MARPOL Annex V and port reception facilities and a review of plastics in

the waste streams under the London Convention and Protocol. IMO has contributed

to the development of the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on Marine Litter.

The MOOC has been created in order to stimulate leadership and offers

opportunities for actionable and change-oriented learning related to marine litter.

The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) addresses environmental

issues under IMO’s remit. This includes the control and prevention of ship-source

pollution covered by the MARPOL treaty, including oil, chemicals carried in bulk,

sewage, garbage and emissions from ships, including air pollutants and greenhouse

gas emissions. Other matters covered include ballast water management, anti-

fouling systems, ship recycling, pollution preparedness and response, and

identification of special areas and particularly sensitive sea areas.

In their 73rd session86, 22-26 October 2018 Marine Environment Protection

Committee (MEPC), adopted an action plan to address marine plastic litter from

ships, intended to contribute to the global solution for preventing marine plastic

litter entering the oceans through ship based activities. The Action Plan identifies a

number of actions, which will be reviewed at MEPC 74 (May 2019) prior to further

work being undertaken, including a proposed study on marine plastic litter from

ships; looking into the availability and adequacy of port reception facilities;

consideration of making marking of fishing gear mandatory; promoting the reporting

of loss of fishing gear; facilitating the delivery of retrieved fishing gear to shore

facilities; reviewing provisions related to the training of fishing vessel personnel and

familiarization of seafarers to ensure awareness of the impact of marine plastic

litter; and strengthening international cooperation, in particular the Food And

Agriculture Organization (FAO) and UN Environment.

Waste & Substance-Specific Measures

Global instruments regulating land-based pollution (not specifically plastic) to

protect human health and the environment, and which consider different aspects of

the life cycle of chemical products and waste, include:

– The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for

Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade87

– The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of

Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal88.

– The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants89.

86 http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/MEPC/Pages/MEPC-73rd-session.aspx 87 http://www.pic.int/ 88 http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/tabid/1271/Default.aspx

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 37

The Stockholm and Basel Conventions are international binding instruments that

may offer the best opportunity to reduce the impacts of plastics and plastic waste

globally.

The agreement of most relevance at the international level to the management of

plastics is the Basel Convention. This agreement provides solid vision for

international governance of plastics. The Preamble states “the most effective way of

protecting human health and the environment from the dangers posed by

[hazardous and other] wastes is the reduction of their generation to a minimum in

terms of quantity and/or hazard potential.” Thus, quantity as well as the

characteristics of a product are important once it becomes waste. The current Basel

policy framework does not classify plastics as hazardous unless they contain

persistent organic pollutants (POPs) regulated under the Stockholm Convention or if

they meet certain criteria under the Basel Convention. As per the latter, plastics

from household wastes are regarded as “other” wastes “requiring special

consideration” (Annex II) and for the most part do not fall within the discussions on

hazardous wastes.

Raubenheimer & McIlgorm (2018) discuss the limitations and opportunities of the

international legal and policy framework to reduce the impact of plastics throughout

their lifecycle, in particular, the roles of the Basel Convention and the Stockholm

Convention. Both conventions are found to be inadequate to manage the entire

lifecycle of all plastic applications. Options were suggested for strengthening the

international legal and policy framework in order to reduce on a global scale: 1) the

quantity of plastic waste generated, and 2) the hazard of plastics throughout their

lifecycle.

In 2017, the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention decided that its

subsidiary body, the Open-ended Working Group, should consider options under the

Convention to address marine plastic litter and microplastics. In September 2018

this working group made breakthrough recommendations to better address wastes

including marine plastic litter and microplastics90. The decision, which will be

submitted to the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel

Convention (COP), to be held at the end of April 2019 in Geneva, included the

following:

- A proposed new Partnership on Plastic Waste under the Basel Convention,

designed as an international vehicle for public-private cooperation, sharing of best

practices, and technical assistance in the area of at-source measures to minimise

89https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-15&chapter=27&clang=_en 90http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/OpenendedWorkingGroup(OEWG)/Meetings/OEWG11/Overview/tabid/6258/

Default.aspx

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

38 15 November 2018

and more effectively manage plastic waste, thus helping tackle the global

environmental problem of marine plastic litter;

-Consideration of possible amendments to Annexes of the Convention, in relation to solid plastic waste, in order to assist Parties to better minimise and control their transboundary movement.

United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations

Environment Assembly

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is an agency of United Nations

and coordinates its environmental activities, assisting developing countries in

implementing environmentally sound policies and practices. The United Nations

Environment Assembly (UNEA) - the main governing body of UNEP - is the world’s

highest-level decision-making body on the environment. Through its resolutions and

calls to action, the Assembly provides leadership and catalyses intergovernmental

action on the environment. Its Resolutions are not legally binding on Member

States.

A report on Single-use plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability91 (2018) presents the

experience of countries that have introduced bans and regulations on single-use

plastics. The analysis features best practices and lessons learned from cases studies

on single-use bans, levies and other forms of government intervention. The report

recognises that single-use plastic waste generation and waste management

practices differ across regions. While no single measure against pollution will be

equally effective everywhere, the authors outline ten universal steps for

policymakers to tackle the issue in their communities.

The UNEA92 has put marine plastic debris and microplastics amongst the issues of

global importance. The second UNEA session (UNEA-2) in 2016, adopted resolution

UNEP/EA.2/Res.11 on marine plastic litter and microplastics . In it, governments

requested an assessment93 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)94

of the effectiveness of relevant international, regional and sub-regional governance

strategies and approaches to combat marine plastic litter and microplastics, taking

into consideration the relevant international, regional and sub-regional regulatory

frameworks which was published in 2017 (Karen Raubenheimer, Niluefer Oral,

2017).

91https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25496/singleUsePlastic_sustainability.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

93 UNEP (2017), Combating marine plastic litter and micro-plastics: An assessment of the effectiveness of relevant international, regional and subregional governance strategies and approaches 94 UNEP initiatives addressing the impacts of plastic waste entering the sea from land include: The Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA); the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML); and Clean Seas - a global campaign to eliminate major sources of marine litter (microplastics in cosmetics and the excessive, wasteful usage of single-use plastic) by the year 2022

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 39

The United Nations Environment Assembly session in Nairobi on 4-6 December 2017

(UNEA-3), addressed the theme 'Towards a pollution-free planet' embracing broadly

pollution of air, land, waterways, oceans, and management of chemicals and waste.

Among the many outputs was a resolution on marine litter and microplastics

building on the above-mentioned assessment.

The Resolution builds on the increasing scientific knowledge on marine litter and

microplastics and on previous initiatives95 to reduce marine plastic debris and

microplastics. It also builds on the latest UNEP report96 in which States are

encouraged to "develop and implement laws to ban or diminish the production of

single-use trash items and other waste”.

The resolution established an Ad Hoc Open Ended Expert Group to further examine

the barriers to, and options for, combating marine plastic litter and micro-plastics

from all sources, especially land-based sources. It aims to help reach SDG 14 and

target 14.1: “prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in

particular from land-based activities including marine debris and nutrient pollution”

by 2025.

The Ad hoc open-ended expert group on marine litter and microplastics had the first

meeting in Nairobi, 29–31 May 201897, with a view to further examining the barriers

to and options for combating marine plastic litter and microplastics from all sources,

especially land-based sources. Many participants noted the need for enhancing a

broader approach, facilitating resource mobilisation and minimising duplication of

efforts. Other participants recognized enhanced utilization of existing global and

regional mechanisms as important possible support measures, within their

respective mandates. Many participants noted that future actions should build on

existing global and regional mechanisms that could support the process and seek

out avenues where strengthening is needed to enhance their functionality. Several

participants pointed to the need for something new and additional to fill governance

gaps at the international level. Sweden, subsequently supported by others,

proposed a three pillar approach involving: 1) the Regional Seas Programmes and

Conventions (RSCs), 2) the Basel Convention (BC), and 3) the prevention of plastic

pollution. This proposal was visualized in a sketch – Figure 4.

95 including the two previous resolutions on marine litter and microplastics at UNEA-1 and UNEA-2 (Resolutions 1/6 and Resolution 2/11), the Declaration “Our ocean, our future: call for action” adopted at the 2017 UN Ocean Conference, and other voluntary commitments and recommendations, such as the G-20 Action Plan on Marine Litter 96UNEP: "Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers" http://cep.unep.org/meetings/documents/cc6f8715c1e1ecf5b561c49d8358605a/@@download/en_file/Marine_Litter_Legislation-A_Toolkit_for_Policymakers-en.pdf 97 https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/k1801471.pdf

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

40 15 November 2018

Figure 4 – Sketch of a New Global Architecture for combatting marine plastic litter and microplastics, based on Option 2 and 3 in UNEPs assessment98

Recent / forthcoming: Ad hoc open-ended expert group on marine litter and

microplastics will have the next meeting from 3 to 7 December 2018 at the United

Nations Offices in Geneva, Switzerland99

The Global Programme of Action

The Global Programme of Action (GPA) for the Protection of the Marine Environment

from Land-based Activities is the only global intergovernmental mechanism

addressing the connectivity between terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine

ecosystems. It aims to be a source of conceptual and practical guidance for national

and/or regional authorities for devising and implementing actions to prevent,

reduce, control and/or eliminate marine degradation from land-based activities.

UNEP hosts the GPA and coordinates some of its activities. Intergovernmental

meetings are organized every five years to review the progress made by countries

in the implementation of the GPA through their National Action Plans. Marine litter is

a priority under the GPA. As part of its strategy, the GPA secretariat has established

and is strengthening three global multi-stakeholder partnerships: the Global

Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM), the Global Partnership on Marine

Litter (GPML) and the Global Wastewater Initiative (GWI).

98 file://net1.cec.eu.int/homes/117/Boavidu/Desktop/stament_by_sweden-item_5-1.pdf 99 https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/second-adhoc-oeeg

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 41

Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine

Environmental Protection

The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental

Protection (GESAMP) is an advisory body that advises the UN system on scientific

aspects of marine environmental protection. At present GESAMP is jointly sponsored

by nine UN organizations100 with responsibilities relating to the marine environment.

They utilise GESAMP as a mechanism for coordination and collaboration. GESAMP

functions are to conduct and support marine environmental assessments, to

undertake in-depth studies, analyses, and reviews of specific topics, and to identify

emerging issues regarding the state of the marine environment. Each of the

sponsoring bodies appoints a Technical Secretary and IMO an Administrative

Secretary.

In 2015, Working Group 40 of GESAMP “Sources, Fate and Effects of plastics and

micro-plastics in the marine environment” [for which the lead agencies are the

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC) and United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP)] was tasked to conduct a global assessment, based

on published information, of the sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the

marine environment101. In 2016, this report was updated to inform the Second

United Nations Environment Assembly102. The current third phase of WG40’s work

aims are to: 1. develop guidelines covering terminology and methodologies for the

sampling and analysis of marine macro-plastics and microplastics, 2. assess the

occurrence and effects of nano-sized plastics on marine organisms; and 3. assess

the significance of plastics and microplastics as a vector for indigenous and non-

indigenous organisms – making research and policy-relevant recommendations in

the case of 2and 3.

Recent / forthcoming: The above mentioned Guidelines are expected to be

published before the end of 2018.

Food and Agriculture Organization

The FAO is a specialised agency of the United Nations that leads international efforts

to defeat hunger. Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG)

100 GESAMP is co-sponsored between eight organizations: International Maritime Organization (IMO), Food and Agricultural

Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World

Health Organization (WHO), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), United Nations (UN), and United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) 101 http://www.gesamp.org/site/assets/files/1272/reports-and-studies-no-90-en.pdf 102http://www.gesamp.org/site/assets/files/1275/sources-fate-and-effects-of-microplastics-in-the-marine-

environment-part-2-of-a-global-assessment-en.pdf

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

42 15 November 2018

has been a concern for FAO and its Members for many decades. Discussions led by

FAO about marking of fishing gear date back to 1991, when the first meeting

discussing possible guidelines was held in Canada but did not move forward.

In February 2018 FAO adopted voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear

which were endorsed by the FAO Committee of Fisheries in July 2018103. The

Guidelines include indications to implement a gear marking system; to control and

enforce it; to report on and encourage recovery of Abandoned, Lost or otherwise

Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG); to improve commercial traceability of fishing gear

marking; to encourage research, awareness raising and capacity development; and

guidance on the special requirements of developing States and small scale fisheries.

An Annex on a Risk Based Approach to assist relevant authorities in determining the

appropriateness or otherwise of implementing a system for marking fishing gear is

part of the guidelines. It is expected that FAO will be requested to develop a

comprehensive global strategy to address ALDFG and to encourage States to

develop ALDFG action plans.

In 2014, the Global Oceans Action Summit for Food Security and Blue Growth104

requested FAO, IMO and UNEP to work together with GESAMP to improve the

knowledge base on microplastics in the marine environment and provide policy

advice on this topic. UNEP approached GESAMP, FAO and other partners with a

proposal to make a global assessment of sources, fate and impacts of microplastics

on the marine environment with funding provided by the Government of Norway.

FAO was requested to contribute specifically on fisheries and aquaculture - the two

main concerns were to assess the potential impact of microplastics on consumer

health and perception, and understand the potential consequences on fish

productivity as physiological processes are likely to be affected by microplastics

(because of their occurrence and of the presence of additives and contaminants

contained in the plastic).

The resulting report105 took stock of the scientific knowledge available, provided

information on the most likely pathways in terms of sources, transport and

distribution in both marine food chains and seafood value chains, and provided a

framework to assess the risks that may (or might not) affect commercial fish stocks

and consumers. In addition, the report provides policy-relevant recommendations.

World Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialised agency of the United Nations

that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health. WHO produces

international norms on water quality and human health in the form of guidelines

103 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/bodies/Conference_2019/MX970_23/MX970_C_2019_23_en.pdf 104 http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl007e.pdf 105 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7677e.pdf

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 43

that are used as the basis for regulation and standard setting world-wide. Safe and

readily available water is important for public health, whether it is used for drinking,

domestic use, food production or recreational purposes. Improved water supply and

sanitation, and better management of water resources, can boost countries’

economic growth and can contribute greatly to poverty reduction.

WHO produces a series of water quality guidelines, including on drinking-water, safe

use of wastewater, and safe recreational water environments.The Guidelines for

drinking-water quality (GDWQ)106 promote the protection of public health by

advocating for the development of locally relevant standards and regulations (health

based targets), adoption of preventive risk management approaches covering

catchment to consumer (Water Safety Plans) and independent surveillance to

ensure that Water Safety Plans are being implemented and effective and that

national standards are being met.

These GDWQ are updated through a "rolling revision" process which ensures that

the GDWQ presents the latest scientific evidence and addresses key concerns raised

by countries. This has been achieved by systematically updating sections of the

GDWQ as new or updated evidence becomes available. The purpose of the rolling

revision process is to maintain the relevance, quality and integrity of the GDWQ,

whilst ensuring their continuing development in response to new, or newly-

appreciated, information and challenges. The GDWQ are also supported by several

studies and publications that provide background information underpinning their

advice and to serve as additional information to support implementation.

Recent / forthcoming: WHO is currently working on a guidance document on

microplastics in drinking water. This should be finished by the first quarter of 2019.

World Bank

The World Bank Group is part of the United Nations system and has a formal

relationship agreement with the UN, but retains its independence. The World Bank's

Pollution Management and Environmental Health (PMEH) programme107, established

in 2015 aims to reduce the impact of air, land and water pollution on human health

and the environment in target countries and cities among low and middle income

countries (LMICs).

Three strategic objectives guide progress toward this goal:

Help selected countries to significantly reduce air, land, and marine pollution

levels and thereby improve environmental health outcomes

106http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/254637/9789241549950-eng.pdf;jsessionid=74C7C55E94014B2CD366D261C1947468?sequence=1

107 http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pollution-management-and-environmental-health-program#1

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

44 15 November 2018

Generate new knowledge and improve our understanding of pollution and its

health impacts in urban, rural, and marine areas

Promote increased awareness of environmental health and pollution issues

among policy makers, planners, and other relevant stakeholders in low- and

middle-income countries (LMICs) through dissemination of scientific

evidence in this area, including but not limited to content generated through

this program.

One component of the PMEH program activities dealing with integrated solid waste

management to reduce land-based pollution in marine environments refers to plastic

litter. It addresses issues such as upstream control of solid waste generation to

prevent and reduce downstream impacts, focusing on reducing the inflow of plastic

litter into marine environments.

4.2. Regional Seas Conventions

Around the world there are a number of regional seas conventions and action plans

underway to act on plastic and microplastics pollution. The UNEP-coordinated

Regional Seas Programme (RSP)108 , covers 18 regions with more than 146

countries participating in 18 Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans. Among

them, 14 regional seas programmes were established under the auspices of UNEP.

These are: the Black Sea; Wider Caribbean; East Asian Seas; East Africa; South

Asian Seas; ROPME Sea Area; Mediterranean; North-East Pacific; Northwest Pacific;

Red Sea and Gulf of Aden; South-East Pacific; Pacific; West, Central and Southern

Africa; and Caspian. Seven of these programmes are directly administered by UNEP

(Mediterranean, Caribbean, Western Indian Ocean, West, Central and Southern

Africa, East Asia Seas, Northwest Pacific and Caspian Sea). The regional seas

programme functions through an accompanying Action Plan. In most cases, the

Action Plan is underpinned with a legal framework in the form of a regional seas

convention and associated protocols on specific issues.

Starting from pollution abatement, the Regional Seas Programme evolved in the last

four decades to cover regular monitoring and assessment, land-based and sea-

based sources of pollution, Specially Protected Areas and biodiversity, oil spill

contingency/recovery plans, coastal habitat management, Integrated Coastal Zone

Management, marine litter, and legal and institutional frameworks.

Most of the Regional Seas Programmes function through action plans109, which are

adopted by member governments in order to establish a comprehensive strategy

108 www.unep.org/regionalseas 109https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas/what-we-do/working-regional-seas/regional-seas-

action-plans

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 45

and framework for protecting the environment and promote sustainable

development. An action plan outlines the strategy and substance of the programme,

based on the region's particular environmental challenges as well as its socio-

economic and political situation.

Fourteen of the Regional Seas Programmes have also adopted legally-binding

conventions110 that express the commitment and political will of governments to

tackle their common environmental issues through joint coordinated activities. Most

conventions have added protocols, legal agreements addressing specific issues such

as protected areas or land-based pollution.

Four partner programmes, for the Antarctic, Arctic, Baltic Sea, and North-East

Atlantic Regions, respectively, are also members of the Regional Seas Conventions

(RSC) and participate in global exchange of lessons and information.

In Europe, there are four cooperation structures which aim to protect the marine

environment and bring together Member States and neighbouring countries that

share marine waters under the Regional Sea Conventions (RSC).

The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North-

East Atlantic of 1992 (further to earlier versions of 1972 and 1974) – the

OSPAR Convention (OSPAR)

The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment in the Baltic

Sea Area of 1992 (further to the earlier version of 1974) – the Helsinki

Convention (HELCOM)

The Convention for the Protection of Marine Environment and the Coastal

Region of the Mediterranean of 1995 (further to the earlier version of 1976)

– the Barcelona Convention (UNEP-MAP)

The Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea of 1992 – the Bucharest

Convention.

They focus on prevention or reduction of marine litter covering both land- and sea-

based sources, through a range of actions at national or regional level such as

improved waste and waste water management, port reception facilities, targeted

fishing for litter, education, awareness raising and outreach activities.

- Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North ‐ East

Atlantic -OSPAR Commission

This has a Regional Action and Implementation Plan that focusses on key areas that

include inter alia port reception facilities, fishing for litter, education and outreach

110https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/oceans-seas/what-we-do/working-regional-seas/regional-seas-programmes/regional-seas

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

46 15 November 2018

and reduction of single use items. OSPAR has developed consistent data collection

approaches for marine litter monitoring and data reporting for the last several

years111. In 2017 it published a Report Assessment document of land-based inputs

of microplastics in the marine environment112.

One of the requirements of the OSPAR convention is to assess the quality of the

marine environment and each of its compartments (i.e., water, sediments, and

biota), as well as anthropogenic inputs that may affect the quality of the marine

environment. To fulfill this commitment for marine litter, OSPAR has developed

three indicators on beach litter, seabed litter, and plastic particles in the stomachs

of fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis). The OSPAR expert group on marine litter, the

Intersessional Correspondence Group on Marine Litter (ICG-ML), is also developing a

range of other indicators using other biota for outside the range of the fulmar and

indicators for microplastics.

- Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Region of the

Mediterranean (the Barcelona Convention)

This addresses pollution from land and sea based sources. In 2013, the

Mediterranean countries adopted the Regional Plan of the Barcelona Convention for

Marine Litter Management in the Mediterranean—the first legally binding regional

plan for marine litter management at European Regional Seas Level. Its signatories

adopted the Mediterranean Action Plan which was one of UNEP's first regions in the

Regional Seas Programme. In 2016 UN Environment launched the ambitious

Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme (IMAP) which aims to enable a

“quantitative, integrated analysis of the state of the marine and coastal

environment, covering pollution and marine litter, biodiversity, non-indigenous

species, coast, and hydrography, based on common regional indicators, targets and

Good Environmental Status descriptions.”

- The Black Sea Region

Under the auspices of the Bucharest Convention, this is the last region which has

yet to develop an Action Plan and when implemented, will complete the region's

efforts in having regional action plans to combat marine pollution.

4.3. The Arctic Council

Two of the six working groups under the Arctic Council are of relevance. One is the

Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Working Group (PAME). As part of its

work on Arcitic marine pollution, PAME is undertaking a study from 2017 to 2019 on

111 https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/eiha/marine-litter 112 https://www.ospar.org/documents?v=38018

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 47

marine litter in the Arctic including microplastics113 Plastic and microplastic litter in

the Arctic are also covered in the work of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP)114

4.4. The Nordic Council of Ministers - Nordic marine group

The Nordic co-operation involves Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden as

well as the Faroe Islands, Greenland and the Åland Islands.

The Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM)115 is the official inter-governmental body for

co-operation in the Nordic Region. Nine working groups operate under the

environmental NCM, one of them being the marine group. The group17 supports the

Nordic countries with activities and seeks to fund projects that contribute to the

build up of a scientific basis and create a foundation for joint efforts against

pollution in the Nordic marine and coastal environments. It creates a basis for

common Nordic initiatives within international work on marine and coastal areas,

generates a common knowledge about the state and development of marine

pollution in the Nordic countries and their neighbouring areas, and promotes Nordic

cooperation within the marine environment.

A Joint Nordic Statement on marine plastic litter and microplastics116 was adopted

on 27 April 2016. It points out the need to assess the effectiveness of the relevant

international and regional regulatory frameworks to combat marine plastic litter and

microplastics, including their implementation and enforcement, to identify possible

gaps and synergies.

In May 2017, the Nordic Ministers for the Environment took the decision to launch a

Nordic programme to reduce the environmental impact of plastic. Marine plastic

debris is one of the focus areas in the Nordic Plastics Programme 2017–2018117.

4.5. The Group of Twenty (G20)

The G20118 recognises the urgent need for action to prevent and reduce marine litter

in order to preserve human health and marine and coastal ecosystems, and mitigate

marine litter’s economic costs and impacts. It stresses the direct relationship

113 https://www.pame.is/index.php/projects/arctic-marine-pollution 114 See https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/AMAP-Assessment-2016-Chemicals-of-Emerging-Arctic-Concern/1624 115 http://www.norden.org/en/nordic-council-of-ministers 116http://www.norden.org/en/nordic-council-of-ministers/council-of-ministers/nordic-council-of-ministers-for-the-

environment-and-climate-mr-mk/declarations-and-statements/joint-nordic-statement-on-marine-plastic-litter-and-microplastics-27.04-2016/

117 https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1092150/FULLTEXT01.pdf 118 is an international forum for the governments and central bank governors from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

48 15 November 2018

between the challenge of marine litter, environment, human health, economic

development, social well-being, biodiversity and food security.

G20 promotes measures and actions at local, national, and regional levels to

prevent and reduce marine litter. It recognises that the lack of effective solid waste

management, wastewater treatment and storm water systems, and unsustainable

production and consumption patterns, are primary land-based sources and

pathways for marine litter. G20 acknowledges the role of non-state actors and

encourages private sector engagement and solutions to reduce marine litter.

In 2017, G20 members endorsed the G20 Action Plan on Marine Litter119 and a

voluntary Global Network of the Committed120 was established, as a G20 platform to

address marine litter with secretary support from UNEP’s GPML. In addition, a G20

Resource Efficiency Dialogue121 was established in 2017 to exchange views and

experiences on policy options and good practice examples for resource efficiency

along the entire lifecycle of natural resources, products and infrastructure.

4.6. The Group of Seven (G7)

As environmental issues play an important role alongside economics, foreign policy,

and security, topics discussed at G7122 summits include climate change, sustainable

development, resource efficiency, marine pollution, and nuclear safety.

Similar to the G20, the G7 Action Plan to Combat Marine Litter commits members to

actions and solutions to combat marine litter and stresses the need to address land-

and sea-based sources, removal actions, as well as education, research and

outreach. G7 has also advanced related work on resource efficiency with the

establishment of the G7 Alliance on Resource Efficiency (2015)123, the Toyama

Framework for Material Cycles (2016)124, adopted by the G7 Environment Ministers'

Meeting in July 2016 in Toyama (Japan), underlines the importance of reducing the

consumption of natural resources and promoting recycled materials so as to remain

within the boundaries of the planet and achieving a sustainable low carbon Society

and the Five-Year Bologna Roadmap (2017)125.

119 https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000272290.pdf 120 https://www.g20germany.de/Content/EN/Artikel/2017/06_en/2017-06-01-meeresmuell_en.html 121https://www.g20germany.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_G20/2017-g20-resource-efficiency-dialogue-

en___blob=publicationFile&v=4.pdf 122 Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union 123 https://www.neress.de/fileadmin/media/files/pdf/2015/Agenda_Additional_Information.pdf 124 https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000159928.pdf 125http://www.g7italy.it/sites/default/files/documents/Communiqu%C3%A9%20G7%20Environment%20-

%20Bologna_0.pdf

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 49

In June 2018, the G7 released the Charlevoix Blueprint for Healthy Oceans, Seas

and Resilient Coastal Communities with, in annex, an Ocean Plastics Charter126. The

Charter sets a target of ensuring 100 percent reuse, recycling and collection of all

plastic products by 2030 and lists 23 priority actions. The following is an extract

from the preamble to the Charter:

"We, the Leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the

European Union, commit to move toward a more resource-efficient and sustainable

approach to the management of plastics. We resolve to take a lifecycle approach to

plastics stewardship on land and at sea, which aims to avoid unnecessary use of

plastics and prevent waste, and to ensure that plastics are designed for recovery,

reuse, recycling and end-of-life management to prevent waste through various

policy measures."

In September 2018, the G7 Environment Ministers continued advancing discussions

on Working Together on Climate Change, Oceans and Clean Energy. G7

Environment Ministers agreed to the G7 Innovation Plastic Challenge to Address

Plastic Marine Litter. Through the Challenge, all G7 members committed to

undertake international and/or domestic initiatives to address marine plastic

pollution by managing plastics more sustainably.

Recent / forthcoming: G7 Environment Ministers discussed how to implement the

Charter at their meeting on 20 September 2018 in Halifax (Canada). Point 11 of the

Chairs’ summary of the Halifax Ministerial reads: “Ministers noted the efforts by G7

members on scientific advice cooperation on microplastics, and welcomed the

commitment by Canada and the European Commission to host a workshop in 2019

and the invitation for all G7 partners to participate”.

As of October 2018, the Ocean Plastics Charter has been endorsed by 11

governments and 18 major businesses and organizations from around the world.

Others are invited to join the call for action to move toward a more resource-

efficient and sustainable approach to the management of plastics.

4.7. World Economic Forum

In January 2016, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Ellen MacArthur

Foundation127, with analytical support from McKinsey & Company, published “The

New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics.”128 Based on the report,

the Ellen MacArthur Foundation launched an ambitious, three-year initiative to build

momentum towards a plastics system that works. This ‘New Plastics Economy’

126https://g7.gc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/HealthyOceansSeasResilientCoastalCommunities.pdf 127 Ellen MacArthur Foundation - The Ellen MacArthur Foundation works with business, government and academia to build a framework for an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design. 128 https://newplasticseconomy.org/publications/report-2016

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

50 15 November 2018

initiative applies the principles of the circular economy and brings together key

stakeholders to rethink and redesign the future of plastics, starting with packaging.

The second report “The New Plastics Economy: Catalysing action”129 provides a

global action plan to move towards 70% reuse and recycling of plastic packaging,

endorsed by over 40 industry leaders, while highlighting the need for fundamental

redesign and innovation of the remaining 30%.

4.8. Honolulu Strategy

The Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for the Prevention and Management of

Marine Debris130 is a framework for a comprehensive and global effort to reduce the

ecological, human health, and economic impacts of marine debris131. This Strategy

was developed with the support and assistance of scientists, practitioners,

managers, and the private sector from around the world. The United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA)132 Marine Debris provided technical and financial support

throughout the development process.

Many countries and international organisations have been tackling the marine debris

problem for decades, with some signs of progress to reduce their amount and

impact from land-based and sea-based sources. The framework document is

intended to help improve collaboration and coordination among the multitude of

groups and governments across the globe in a position to address marine debris and

to serve as a common frame of reference for action among these communities, as

well as a tool for groups to develop and monitor marine debris programs and

projects.

Therefore, the Honolulu Strategy is intended for use as a:

Planning tool for developing or refining spatially or sector-specific marine debris

programs and projects

Common frame of reference for collaboration and sharing of best practices and

lessons learned

Monitoring tool to measure progress across multiple programs and projects

It does not supplant or supersede activities of national authorities, municipalities,

industry, international organisations, or other stakeholders, but it provides a focal

129 https://newplasticseconomy.org/publications/report-2017 130 https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/Honolulu_Strategy.pdf 131 Marine debris is defined to include any anthropogenic, manufactured, or processed solid material (regardless of

size) discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in the environment, including all materials discarded into the sea, on the shore, or brought indirectly to the sea by rivers, sewage, storm water, waves, or winds. Marine debris may result from activities on land or at sea.

132 https://www.noaa.gov/

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 51

point for improved collaboration and coordination among the multitude of

stakeholders across the globe concerned with marine debris.

For example, the US government’s NOAA is using the Honolulu Strategy to align its

programs and measure outcomes through local and state-level actions, such as the

Hawaii Marine Debris Action Plan133.

4.9. Major transboundary river basins

River systems and other types of waterway represent a major route for carrying

waste, including plastics, to the ocean. When a waterway crosses a national

boundary it is defined as a transboundary waterway.

Almost half the Earth’s land surface (excluding Antarctica) falls within transboundary

basins (including ground water and lakes) and there are a large number of

multilateral agreements dealing with transboundary river basins, some of which

address environmental concerns. Such agreements provide a mechanism which,

potentially, could be utilised to reduce the entry of plastic and microplastics into

waterways and hence reduce their introduction to the ocean. For example, the

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube (ICPDR)134 provides a

legal instrument for cooperation and transboundary management of the Danube. It

covers a range of issues including water quality and the transboundary transport of

hazardous substances, and has been ratified by 15 contracting parties. The ICPDR

Joint Action Plan includes measures to reduce water pollution.

In the case of plastic pollution, published modelling work (Schmidt, Krauth, &

Wagner, 2017) (Lebreton et al., 2017) shows that rivers collectively dump anywhere

from 0.47 million to 2.75 million metric tons of plastic into the seas every year. Ten

rivers carrying 93 % of that trash - the Yangtze, Yellow, Hai, Pearl, Amur, Mekong,

Indus and Ganges Delta in Asia, and the Niger and Nile in Africa – underlines the

extent to which Asia and Africa are at the origin of the vast majority of marine

plastic pollution, the brunt of which is shared globally by all. The Yangtze alone

dumps up to an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of plastic waste into the Yellow

Sea.

133 https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/report/hawaii-marine-debris-action-plan 134 https://www.icpdr.org/main/

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

52 15 November 2018

Table III – Overview of international context

Instrument/ initiative Type Concerned Environmental

Compartments

UN -United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS ) Regulation Water (Marine)

UN - International Maritime Organisation

Regulation Water (Marine)

UN - Waste & Substance-Specific Measures

Basel Convention

Stockholm Convention

Convention Soil/Water/Air

UN - United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations

Environment Assembly

Convention/Action Plan Water (Marine)

UN - The Global Programme of Action Programme/Action Plan Soil (coast)/Water (Marine & Fresh)

UN - Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine

Environmental Protection (Sponsored by nine UN agencies)

Advice/ Guidelines Water (Marine)

UN - Food and Agriculture Organization Guidelines Soil/Water/Air

UN - World Health Organization Guidelines Fresh Water (drinking)

UN - World Bank Guidelines Soil/Water

Regional Sea Conventions – OSPAR Action Plan Water (Marine)

Regional Sea Conventions – HELCOM Action Plan Water (Marine)

Regional Sea Conventions – MED Action Plan Water (Marine)

Regional Sea Conventions – Bucharest Action Plan Water (Marine)

The Arctic Council Action plans and guidelines Soil/Water

The Nordic Council of Ministers - Nordic marine group Programme Water (Marine)

The Group of Twenty (G20) Agreement/Strategy Water (Marine)

The Group of Seven (G7) Agreement/Strategy Water (Marine)

World Economic Forum Action Plan Fresh Water

Honolulu Strategy Global Framework Soil (coast)/Water (Marine)

Major transboundary river basins Regulation Fresh Water

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 53

5. NATIONAL LEVEL

This section mentions relevant measures in a sampling of countries by region

(Europe, North America, Africa, etc.), particularly ones which explicitly refer to

microplastics. The examples described in no way intend to provide a complete or

balanced account of the situation – they are included for illustrative purposes on the

basis a simple internet search for readily available public information in English.

Local and national actions have been the primary approach for mitigating plastic

pollution, using mechanisms such as bans (e.g., microbeads,, plastic bags),

maximum daily limits for emissions into watersheds, and incentives for fishing gear

retrieval.

EU Member States draw on EU legislation, as well as on international agreements

and regional action plans to fight marine litter135. The Commission supports

technically and financially the implementation of such plans developed under the

Regional Seas Conventions and encourages Member States to use them for more

efficient coordination of their national efforts to fight marine litter.

The choice of measures at national or local level is left to EU Member State

administrations - in line with the principle of subsidiarity. For example, a number of

Member States have refundable deposit schemes for bottles. Targeted deposit

schemes can help reduce littering and boost recycling, and have already helped

several countries achieve high collection rates for beverage containers.136

Several EU Member States have banned or will ban very soon certain products

containing plastic microbeads. A number of non-EU countries, like the USA, Canada

and New-Zealand, have already introduced bans on microbeads or have drawn up

voluntary agreements with industry for their phaseout. Others like Japan are not

ready for tight regulations on plastic products and microbeads pending a careful

assessment of the impact on people’s lives and its industries.

5.1. Europe

Belgium

In 2015 the Belgian federal government (Belgian DG Environment, FPS Health, Food

Chain Safety and Environment) ordered the design of a test - to assess and prevent

135 Regional action plans exist for the North-east Atlantic, Baltic and Mediterranean regions, while the one for the Black Sea is being developed. 136 The five best performing Member States with deposit schemes for PET bottles (Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Estonia) reached an average collection rate for PET of 94% in 2014.

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

54 15 November 2018

the emission of primary synthetic micro particles (primary microplastics)137 to assist

companies in assessing their use of synthetic micro particles and in taking measures

to prevent the emission of synthetic micro particles to the environment.

The Federal Minister for Energy, the Environment and Sustainable Development,

Marie Christine Marghem, and representatives of the Belgian and Luxembourg

association for producers and distributors of cosmetics, cleaning and maintenance

products, adhesives, sealants, biocides and aerosols are concluding a sector

agreement for the gradual removal of microplastics from a series of consumer

products. The primary aim of the draft agreement is to enact a total ban on minute

plastic particles (microbeads) in all rinse-off cosmetic products and toothpastes by

2019. The draft agreement also obligates the parties to monitor the relevant

advances in science and technology and take the measures necessary in cases of

newly substantiated problems138.

France

The French government set a target to recycle 100% of plastics in the country by

2025 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about eight million tonnes per year

through enhanced plastics recycling. This is part of the country’s broader circular

economy roadmap (FREC)139.

France has defined the conditions of application of the legislative provisions of the

Environmental Code aimed at prohibiting the placement on the market of rinse-off

cosmetic products for exfoliation or cleaning that contain solid plastic particles, from

1 January 2018140.

Germany

Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA) released a report in 2015 on

microplastics in the environment - Sources of microplastics relevant to marine

protection in Germany 141 which features a comprehensive overview of scientific

papers. It deals with inputs, sources and induced effects in aquatic ecosystems. It

concludes that microplastics from cosmetic products thus play only a minor though

avoidable role in environmental pollution from plastic. Therefore, to reduce the input

137 https://www.health.belgium.be/sites/default/files/uploads/fields/fpshealth_theme_file/microplastics_manual_voor_de_website_env2.pdf 138http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-

databases/tris/en/index.cfm/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2017&num=465&mLang=EN 139 https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/FREC%20anglais.pdf 140http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-

databases/tris/en/index.cfm/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2016&num=542&fLang=FR&dNum=1 141 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/texte_64_2015_sources_of_microplastics_relevant_to_marine_protection_1.pdf

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 55

of microplastics into the environment, and in particular the marine environment, it is

not enough to focus on the use of microplastics in cosmetic products and other

applications. Additional measures which drastically cut the overall quantities and the

further introduction of plastic litter in the environment are needed – not only in

Germany and the EU, but throughout the world.

Iceland

The Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners has given instructions on how

fishing gear waste should be categorised and disposed. If a ship loses its fishing

gear it is obliged by law to record and report the GPS coordinates so it can be

claimed. An agreement has been made with the Icelandic Recycling Fund and

information on annual collection of fishing gear is recorded and published in a

report. The Icelandic fishing industry has created a deposit-refund system on fishing

gear which has decreased derelict fishing gear – this is a system that has been

proven effective globally.

Ireland

The Irish Ministry for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government,

launched in 2017 a public consultation process in relation to a proposed legislative

ban on certain products containing plastic microbeads. Ireland intends to sign a law

to ban microbeads in products by the end of 2018.

Italy

Italy will ban non-biodegradable cotton bud sticks (ban to come into force from

1/1/2019) and microplastics in cosmetics ("cosmetici da risciacquo ad azione

esfoliante o detergente contenenti microplastiche") from 2020142.

Norway

In March 2017 the Norwegian Climate and Environment Ministry asked the

Environment Directorate for a report on a series of new measures to reduce marine

litter and microplastics. Norway is stepping up its efforts to reduce the amount of

microplastics ending up in the ocean and intends to target the most important

sources of this kind of pollution. Measures are now being developed in cooperation

with relevant governmental bodies and in dialogue with relevant stakeholders. The

main focus will be on land-based sources of microplastics including wear and tear of

car tires, artificial turf, paint and textiles. Concrete measures towards the difference

sources are being examined and considered.

142http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-

databases/tris/en/index.cfm/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2018&num=258&mLang=EN

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

56 15 November 2018

The Government is also exploring the potential for extended producer

responsibilities for certain product groups. Since fishing gear and other forms of

plastic equipment used in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors are among the

sources that contribute to marine littering in Norway and regionally, extended

producer responsibility schemes for these product groups are now being considered.

Sweden

A Swedish ban on rinse-off cosmetics containing microbeads entered into force at

the beginning of July 2018. The ban applies to cosmetic products "rinsed or spotted

and which contain plastic particles with a cleaning, scrubbing or polishing function".

It includes, for example, toothpastes, body scrubs, shower gels, shampoos and

conditioners with added microbeads. Products consisting solely of "natural polymers,

long molecules that have not been synthesised, and which have not been modified

chemically" are excluded from the ban. There will be a six-month transition period -

products purchased in stock before July may continue to be sold in stores until

January 2019.

Sweden is considering extending the ban to all products that release microplastics.

In March 2018, the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) produced a report on a

broader proposal143. The aim of the report was to explore the potential need for

further national restrictions to protect the water environment in Sweden. The report

concludes that the action regarding microplastics in cosmetic and chemical products

firstly should take place at EU level. They believe that EU level work on restriction

proposals could result in a reliable decision with clear, harmonized rules and

regulations which would also be cost-effective (Figure1). Their assessment is based

on striking a balance between environmental concerns and the consequences of a

national restriction. The assessment also takes into account the uncertain level of

knowledge about microplastics.

The Kemi report uses the following definition of microplastics: solid plastic particles

that are smaller than 5 mm in any dimension and insoluble in water. According to

this definition, they have identified polymers144 that might be microplastics in both

cosmetic and chemical products. However they have concluded that they do not

have sufficient material at present to assess with certainty which polymers ought to

be designated as microplastics. Information on polymers where these exist in

cosmetic or chemical products is often unavailable. This particularly applies to

properties such as the composition of the polymers, chemical properties, solubility in

water and size.

143https://www.kemi.se/en/global/rapporter/2018/rapport-2-18-mikroplast-i-kosmetiska-produkter-och-andra-kemiska-produkter.pdf in Swedish - summary in English

144 A polymer is not a plastic. Polymers are the main ingredients of plastics.

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 57

Furthermore, it was concluded that there is no established definition that makes

clear limits on these types of properties. It is therefore difficult to identify which

alternatives there are today or what can be developed to replace microplastics in

products.

Figure 5 - Measures and anticipated effects - Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi)

United Kingdom

The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) together with the Ellen

MacArthur Foundation, launched (April 2018) The UK Plastics Pact145, supported by

DEFRA (Department for Food and Rural Affairs) is designed to help drive the UK

towards a circular economy for plastics. It is part of an international Plastics Pact

initiative which in turn is part of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's New Plastics

Economy initiative.

145 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/the-uk-plastics-pact

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

58 15 November 2018

The UK Plastics Pact has published its Roadmap to 2025146 on the 15th November

2018. The document is intended as a guide to help signatories achieve four key

milestones by 2025, all intended to reduce the consumption of single-use plastics

and keep material in use for longer.

A ban on the sale of products containing microbeads has come into force in June

2018. This followed January’s 2018147 ban on the manufacture of products

containing microbeads. The regulations prohibit the use of microbeads as an

ingredient in the manufacture of rinse-off personal care products and the sale of any

such products containing microbeads.

5.2. North America

Canada

In Canada, national and sub-national governments share the responsibility for the

protection of the environment and the sound management of wastes and

wastewater. A combination of laws and regulations, scientific research and

monitoring, waste prevention initiatives, investments in waste and wastewater

infrastructure, public education and outreach programs, and the sharing of best

practices complement each other to address plastic waste, marine litter, and

microplastics in Canada.

New federal wastewater regulations were established in 2012, developed in

consultation with provinces, territories, Indigenous communities and relevant

organizations. The Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations, established under the

Fisheries Act, include mandatory minimum standards for secondary wastewater

treatment. These standards ensure that untreated and under-treated wastewater

will no longer be discharged to Canada’s freshwater and marine environment. The

Regulations also implement a federal commitment under the 2009 Canada-wide

Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent.

In 2014, researchers for Ontario’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

found significant quantities of microplastics in water samples from Lake Erie and

Lake Ontario, with microbeads comprising 14% of the total (Government of Ontario

2016) Government of Ontario, 2016. In response, the Ontario government began to

work with communities, local NGOs and manufacturers to phase out microbeads

from personal care products sold in the province. The provincial ministry also

cooperated with the federal department for government’s Environment Canada

Department of the Environment to conduct further research.

146 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/the-uk-plastics-pact-roadmap-2025 147 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1312/pdfs/uksi_20171312_en.pdf

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 59

In 2015, the federal department for the Environment Canada held consultations and

reviewed more than 130 scientific studies of microbead pollution. Then, in 2016,

after listing microbeads as a ‘toxic substance’ under the Canadian Environmental

Protection Act, the federal Government of Canada announced a ban on the sale,

import and production manufacture of personal care products toiletries containing

microbeads as exfoliants or cleansers as of 1 July 2018 with prohibitions starting in

2018 and a complete ban by 2019.

The Government of Canada is conducting and investing in science to understand the

sources, fate, distribution and impacts of macro and microplastic debris in marine

and freshwater systems, as well as in fauna. In November 2018, the Department of

the Environment will host science workshops to inform the development of a

Canadian science agenda on plastics.

Provincial, territorial and municipal governments have also implemented regulatory

(e.g. bans, levies, extended producer responsibility programs, litter by-laws) and

non-regulatory measures (e.g. educational campaigns, recycling and deposit

programs) that target some plastic products and other wastes.

In 2009, federal, provincial and territorial governments, via the Canadian Council of

Ministers of the Environment (CCME), adopted the Canada-wide Action Plan for

Extended Producer Responsibility (CAP-EPR) to improve waste diversion and

increase recycling across Canada. All provincial and territorial jurisdictions have EPR

or product stewardship programs in place or under development for a wide range of

products including packaging, electronic waste, printed materials and beverage

containers. There are over 160 regulated and voluntary programs in Canada. For

example, beverage container recycling programs are very well established across

the country, with deposit return programs consistently showing higher return rates

compared with curb side waste collection programs.

Canadian businesses are also taking action to reduce plastic waste and marine litter

at every stage of the plastics lifecycle. For instance, the Canadian Circular Economy

Leadership Initiative brings together leading NGOs (National Zero Waste Coalition;

The Natural Step Canada; Institute of the environment, sustainable development

and the circular economy; International Institute for Sustainable Development;

Smart Prosperity Institute) and businesses (Unilever Canada, Walmart Canada,

Loblaw Companies Ltd; Ikea Canada; NEI Investments) to provide leadership,

technical expertise and a platform for collaborating on innovative circular economy

solutions for plastics and other materials.

Canada’s vision is a zero plastic waste future. Building on these existing efforts, the

federal, provincial and territorial governments are working together through the

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) to develop a Canada-wide

approach to eliminate plastic waste and reduce marine litter.

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

60 15 November 2018

In September 2018, the Government of Canada announced it is investing $65

million for plastic waste solutions in developing countries through the World Bank,

$20 million to support the G7 Innovation Challenge to Address Marine Plastic Litter,

$6 million for innovative private-public partnerships through the World Economic

Forum Global Plastics Action Partnership. Canada also committed to another $12

million for domestic plastic innovation challenges. In addition, the Government of

Canada committed to diverting at least 75 per cent of the plastic waste from

government operations by 2030 and joined the Global Ghost Gear Initiative to tackle

abandoned fishing gear.

USA

The US wastewater regulations established by the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act (i.e. the Clean Water Act), provide the basic structure for regulating discharges

of pollutants and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The Act regulates

wastewater and entry of waste from diffuse sources. Total maximum daily loads of

waste are defined aiming at reducing the waste input to freshwater systems.

However, it should be noted that, for example, under Californian law, debris less

than 5 mm is not considered litter subject to regulation.

In 2014, Illinois became the first state to pass legislation on microbeads. However,

this bill fell short of the goals of most environmental groups. The Illinois legislation

defined synthetic plastic microbeads as “any intentionally added non-biodegradable

solid plastic particle”. The bill excluded biodegradable plastics, but did not define

that term, creating a loophole. One could argue that a material is “biodegradable”

even though it degrades only marginally over several years, for example, modestly

changing in shape and form, but persisting in the environment. The definition of

“plastic” was also problematic. Plastic was defined as “a synthetic material made

from linking monomers through a chemical reaction to create an organic polymer

chain that can be moulded or extruded at high heat into various solid forms

retaining their defined shapes during life cycle and after disposal” (Illinois Bill

SB2727148). However, not all polymers in plastics are made by linking monomers.

Some are made by modifying existing polymers – e.g. cellulose acetate (which in

some forms can be biodegradable) is made by acetylating the natural polymer

cellulose, rather than by linking monomers. Also, this definition would not cover

plastics that melt at low temperatures. Finally, it might not cover certain plastics

depending on the design of the final product.

As a result, when proposing legislation in California, the groups aggressively pushed

for wording to eliminate loopholes with respect to biodegradability. However,

inability to reach an agreed definition led to the deletion of that term from the bill

altogether. As a consequence, the California bill banned microbeads made from any

148 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2727&GAID=14&DocTypeID=SB&SessionID=91&GA=100

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 61

plastic, with no exceptions. However the legislation applies only to “rinse-off

products excluding items such as makeup, lotions, deodorant and industrial and

household cleaners. Legislation that passed in other states had language that was

modelled upon either the Illinois bill (i.e., full of loopholes), or the California bill

(i.e., all plastics banned, irrespective of their environmental impact).

The US federal government Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 will prohibit the

formulation and distribution of rinse-off cosmetics (and specifically stated that this

included toothpaste) that intentionally contain plastic microbeads. The term

microbead means any solid plastic particle that is less than 5mm in size and is

intended to be used to exfoliate or cleanse any part of the human body. There are

different deadlines for the prohibition of manufacture (July 2017) and placing on the

market (July 2018), respectively. The respective deadlines are postponed for a year

for ‘non-prescription rinse-off cosmetics.

5.3. Central - and South –America

In May 2016, Chile became the first South American country to approve a

nationwide ban on single-use plastic bags. Soon after, Antigua and Barbuda, and

Colombia passed a similar ban, and in 2017 applied a tax to large plastic bags, while

ordering changes to their design with the aim of achieving greater resistance and

reusability.

Several other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean are using taxes, bans,

and technological innovation to restrict the production and consumption of plastic

bags. The tax began at 20 Colombian pesos for each plastic bag in 2017, and will

increase 10 pesos each year until reaching 50 pesos in 2020 – equivalent to

approximately 0.02 USD. Colombia’s neighbour, Panama, became at the beginning

of 2018 the first country in Central America to ban polyethylene bags.

Costa Rica adopted a national strategy to drastically reduce the use of disposable

plastics by 2021, while in the Caribbean, Belize, Bahamas and Bermuda have

passed or are drafting laws to eradicate single-use plastics. Ecuador aims to

transform the remote Galápagos Islands into a plastics-free archipelago: no more

plastic straws, bags or bottles will be sold or used after 21 August 2018.

In Peru, several bills on the issue of plastic bags are debated in Congress. The

region’s three biggest cities – Mexico City, São Paulo and Buenos Aires – have also

joined the fight against plastic bags. The Mexican capital was one of the first to do

so. In August 2009, the capital city government reformed the Solid Waste Law and

prohibited stores from dispensing bags free of charge. Buenos Aires went a step

further: starting from 1 January 2017, all of the city’s supermarkets were prohibited

from using or selling disposable plastic shopping bags.

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

62 15 November 2018

5.4. Australasia

New-Zealand

In January 2017, the New-Zealand Government released a public consultation

document on a proposed ban of the sale and manufacture of plastic microbeads in

personal care products like facial cleansers and toothpastes.

The consultation document set out the rationale for the ban, summarised below:

plastic microbeads are a problem because they are too small to be retrieved,

are cumulative and do not biodegrade

recent studies have shown that microbeads can be mistaken by marine life

as food, causing long-term damage to aquatic animals like fish and mussels.

This in turn poses a potential threat to human health

there are suitable alternatives to plastic microbeads in personal care

products that do not have adverse impacts on the environment

the products are designed to be washed straight down the drain, and are

only partially captured by the waste water treatment system

this initiative is part of wider global efforts to reduce the amount of plastic

waste in the oceans. The New Zealand ban parallels similar initiatives in the

United States of America (USA), United Kingdom (UK), Canada, Europe and

Australia (by industry self-regulation in Australia).

The New Zealand government regulation banning plastic microbeads149 came into

effect on 7 June 2018. The regulation prohibits, under section 23 of the Waste

Minimisation Act 2008, the sale and manufacture of wash-off products that contain

plastic microbeads for the purposes of exfoliation, cleaning, abrasive cleaning or

visual appearance of the product. A Regulatory Impact Statement150 was prepared

by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). It provides an analysis of options to

prevent the sale and manufacture of “wash-off” products containing plastic

microbeads. Microbeads are defined as synthetic, non-biodegradable plastic beads,

used in personal care products such as bath products, facial scrubs and cleansers,

and toothpastes. The NZ Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has published

149http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2017/0291/latest/DLM7490715.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_microbeads_resel_25_a&p=1 150 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Legislation/RIS/RIS-microbeads-2017.pdf

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 63

information151 on what the ban means for manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and

the public.

Australia

After the New Zealand ban on the sale and manufacture of microbeads to cover all

'wash off' products, there is speculation on whether Australia will follow. In

December 2016, an official meeting of environment ministers (MEM) from federal,

state and territory level across Australia endorsed a voluntary industry phase-out of

microbeads by 1 July 2018.

5.5. Asia

The East Asia Civil Forum on Marine Litter152 is a network of non-profit organizations

devoted to addressing the marine litter issue. Current membership includes

organisations from South Korea, Japan, China (mainland and Taiwan), Bangladesh,

Philippines and Brunei.

China

In 2015, research published in the journal of the International Solid Waste

Association identified China as the world’s largest source of marine plastics. China

participated in the December 2017 UN Environment Assembly which passed a

resolution on marine litter and microplastics setting a non-binding target to prevent

and reduce marine pollution of all kinds by 2025. But China has not yet signed up to

the UN Environment Programme’s Clean Seas campaign which calls on

governments, businesses and individuals to take measures to stop plastic litter

reaching the seas.

In January 2018, China’s highest planning body, the National Development and

Reform Commission (NDRC), announced that it is looking at measures to reduce

plastic waste pollution. It has promised rules on plastic products that are

comprehensive and detailed, as well as more bans, and an accelerated switch to less

polluting materials.

A relevant precedent is China’s 2008 restrictions on ultra-thin plastic bags, which

started an effective clean-up of a once-universal form of litter. The new measures

are likely to focus on the highly visible waste packaging generated by the rise of

online retail and takeaway food.

In the annual meeting between the environment ministers of Japan, China and

South Korea on 24th June 2018 in Suzhou (China), the three agreed to take

151 https://www.epa.govt.nz/news-and-alerts/alerts/microbeads-ban-is-your-product-affected/ 152 www.osean.net

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

64 15 November 2018

leadership roles in tackling the issue of microplastics and other marine garbage and

to propose it as the main agenda item for the 2019 G20 meeting of environment

ministers to be held in Karuizawa (Japan).

India

India today produces more than 25,000 tonnes of plastic waste daily, of which

10,000 tonnes goes to landfills, or is casually discarded. From banning of plastic to

beach clean-up, plastic pollution is being fought at various levels, by state

governments, NGOs and individuals across India. Several Indian states have banned

or regulated the use of plastic, but India still struggles to manage its huge plastic

waste.

For microplastics and their presence in consumer goods regulations are still under

development. The National Green Tribunal in January 2017 had asked the Union

Government to test leading cosmetics brands for microplastics. The submission was

made in response to a plea filed by Delhi-based lawyer seeking complete ban on the

use of microbeads in the manufacture, import and sale of various cosmetics or

personal care products. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has classified

microbeads as “unsafe” for use in cosmetic products and banned the use of

microbeads in cosmetics in October 2017, but it will only be implemented in 2020.

Japan

Japan, along with the United States, abstained from signing the “Ocean Plastic

Charter” that was endorsed by other G7 members and the European Union at the

G7 summit in Canada in June 2018. The government explained that Japan was not

ready for tight regulations on plastic products because it has to carefully assess the

impact on people’s lives and its industries. The Japanese government reportedly

plans to devise a strategy for cutting back on plastic waste through more efficient

recycling, reducing the use of plastics and promoting alternative materials that are

more environment-friendly in time for the Group of 20 summit in Osaka June 28 and

29, 2019.

South Korea

In Oct 2016, the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) has notified the

World Trade Organization (WTO) of its ‘Proposed Amendments to the “Regulation on

Safety Standards of Cosmetics”. The proposed amendments have banned the use of

microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics from July 2017.

Taiwan

As part of its "Sea Waste Management Platform" Taiwan has an ambitious 12-year

timeline to eliminate four types of single-use plastics—takeaway beverage cups,

drinking straws, shopping bags and disposable tableware. For example, in 2020,

free plastic straws will be banned from all food and beverage establishments; from

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

15 November 2018 65

2025, plastic straws for carryout will be banned and customers will need to pay a

fee to use them; in 2030, the use of plastic straws at all establishments in Taiwan

will be banned.

5.6. Africa

Unlike most developed nations where plastic waste is separated from other wastes

prior to disposal, the management of solid wastes in many developing countries

suffers from deficient legal foundations, technology and infrastructure. This results

in urban and industrial wastes being sent to disposal sites or dumped and has been

documented as a major cause of pollution in African waters and is a recognized

source for microplastic pollution153. Most of African freshwater bodies are

transboundary, and therefore their management requires cooperation and effective

regional environmental policies. However, the management of most African

transboundary lakes and rivers ecosystems is compromised by conflicting politics.

Furthermore, when conventions and cooperation do occur, the focus is mostly on

sharing natural resources rather than the control of pollutants. Thus, the political

will to combat issues like microplastic pollution is not strong.

In short, in most African countries, microplastic pollution is not recognized as

emergent issue of concern, although the efforts to levy, reduce, and ban the use of

plastic bags show that the issue is not entirely ignored. Indeed, several African

countries have introduced measures to address plastic bag pollution. Kenya

introduces a total ban on plastic bags in August 2017 and the Nigerian government

is presently under a lot of pressure to do something similar. Botswana introduced a

levy on plastic bags ten years ago, while in 2014 Cameroon outlawed disposable

plastic bags. Eritrea banned plastic bags in 2005, while Mauritania banned the use,

manufacture, and importation of plastic bags from 2013. In 2016, Morocco, Africa’s

second largest consumer of plastic bags, affected a law banning the use of plastic

bags. Rwanda banned plastic bags in 2008 as part of its Vision 2020 plan for

sustainability. Tanzania introduced a ban in 2006. In March 2017 Tunisia introduced

a ban on plastic bag distribution in supermarkets. In South Africa, a bag levy was

introduced in 2004 although they were never banned. In 2007, Uganda introduced a

ban of lightweight plastic bags which came into effect that year. However, the ban

was never implemented.

153 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_6#Fig2

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

66 15 November 2018

6. REFERENCES

Borrelle, S. B., Rochman, C. M., Liboiron, M., Bond, A. L., Lusher, A., Bradshaw, H., & Provencher, J. F. (2017). Opinion: Why we need an international agreement on marine plastic pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(38), 9994–9997. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714450114

Boucher, J., Friot, D., & IUCN. (2017). Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: Global Evaluation of Sources. InternatIonal UnIon for ConservatIon of Nature and Natural Resources. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources . https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.01.en

Brennholt, N., Heß, M., & Reifferscheid, G. (2018). Freshwater Microplastics (Vol. 58). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5

Hann, S., Sherrington, C., Jamieson, O., Hickman, M., Kershaw, P., Bapasola, A., & Cole, G. (2018). Investigating options for reducing releases in the aquatic environment of microplastics emitted by (but not intentionally added in) products - Final Report. Report for DG ENV EC. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/pdf/microplastics_final_report_v5_full.pdf

Karen Raubenheimer, Niluefer Oral, A. M. (2017). Combating marine plastic litter and microplastics: an assessment of the effectiveness of relevant international, regional and subregional governance strategies and approaches. In UNEP. UNEP. Retrieved from www.unenvironment.org

Lebreton, L. C. M. M., Van Der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J. W., Slat, B., Andrady, A., & Reisser, J. (2017). River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nature Communications, 8, 15611. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611

Raubenheimer, K., & McIlgorm, A. (2018). Can the Basel and Stockholm Conventions provide a global framework to reduce the impact of marine plastic litter? Marine Policy. Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.013

Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., & Wagner, S. (2017). Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea. Environmental Science & Technology, 51, 12246–12253. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06377

Steensgaard, I. M., Syberg, K., Rist, S., Hartmann, N. B., Boldrin, A., & Hansen, S. F. (2017). From macro- to microplastics - Analysis of EU regulation along the life cycle of plastic bags. Environmental Pollution, 224, 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2017.02.007

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., … Linn, M. (2015). Article: Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 9(2), 235–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408215600602a

UN Environment. (2018). Addressing marine plastics: A systemic approach - Stocktaking report. Nairobi, Kenya.

Wesch, C., Klein, R., & Paulus, M. (2017). Quality Assurance in Microplastic Detection. Fate and Impact of Microplastics in Marine Ecosystems, 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812271-6.00096-X

European Commisson’s Scientific Advice Mechanism

Microplastic Pollution - The Policy Context

ec.europa.eu/research/sam

#SAMGroup_EU