Plastics: Can UNEA4 find the right balance?

Outline - Plastics are everywhere and make up a large proportion of the waste stream. While plastic litter is a visual and physical environmental contaminant, especially in rivers and the marine environment, less visible microplastics are of increasing concern. Current control measures are often limited to banning single-use plastics, like plastic bags and straws. UNEA4 considered resolutions on phasing out single-use plastics and strengthening global governance on marine plastic litter and microplastics. The final resolutions were watered down from their initial submissions, proposed action is delayed, and policy approaches are still quite inadequate. This brief suggests that a more comprehensive, scientific, evidence-based, life cycle approach is needed rather than simple bans or taxes. 1. Plastics are Everywhere At the beginning of the “plastic age” 70 years ago, the benefits of plastic were widely lauded as bringing about a brighter and cleaner world (Thompson et al. 2009). There is no question that plastics have become so indispensable for modern society due to the diversity of polymers and their versatile properties, which have led them to become dominant materials in all aspects of life. Think of any sector, and you will find plastics as essential components. Of course, plastics don’t become so versatile without additions of inorganic fillers, plasticizers, thermal and ultraviolet stabilizers, flame retardants, colouring, among others some of which are potentially toxic (Thompson et al. 2009). Geyer et al. (2017) estimated that 8,300 million tonnes of virgin plastics have been produced to date, with only 9% recycled. They projected that with current trends 12,000 million tonnes of plastic waste will be either in landfills or the environment by 2050. According to the World Economic Forum (2016) plastic packaging is 26% of the total volume of plastic used and “after a short first-use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value, or $80–120 billion annually, is lost to the economy”. To illustrate the impossibility of avoiding plastics in the modern world, consider drinking water. One study found that 83% of 159 tap water samples from five continents (including the US, Uganda, Ecuador and Indonesia) were contaminated with microfibres, indicating that microplastics have penetrated tap water around world (Tyree and Morrison 2017). Bottled water (93%) is similarly contaminated with microplastics (Mason et al. 2018). This briefing note is intended to examine the adequacy of the resolutions on plastic emanating from UNEA4, as well as to highlight actions being proposed elsewhere, and some alternative approaches that could be considered by the region’s decision makers. 2. Plastics and Environmental Damage Because plastics are so ubiquitous and recycling is often poorly managed, plastics end up forming a large proportion of the waste stream. Discarded plastic can be found almost everywhere on Earth— in the depths of the oceans, on top of mountains, and in the polar ice (Browne et al. 2011; Besseling et al. 2017; Bergmann et al. 2016). The global alert of the potential environmental damage caused by plastic waste stems from the discovery of hundreds of plastic parts in the bodies of dead seabirds, turtles, and whales (Campani et al. 2013). Gruesome images of marine animals entangled in discarded fishing nets or the plastic rings of a six-pack of beer soon followed. Huge garbage patches were found floating in the open ocean gyres and oceanic convergences (Cozar et al. 2014; Desforges et al. 2014). The very properties of plastic that makes it so valuable also means that plastic will remain in the environment for a very long time, before it eventually breaks down. In much of the world, rivers and beaches are covered with plastic debris, as unthinking consumers deliberately throw away used bottles, containers, plastic bags, straws, and cigarette butts. Unfortunately, many animals view this waste as potential food. More than 260 species have been recorded as ingesting or becoming entangled in plastic waste, causing “impaired movement and feeding, reduced reproductive output, lacerations, ulcers and death” (Thompson et al. 2009). While there has been a lot of media attention on single use plastics and banning of plastic bags, microplastics may be an even bigger and more ubiquitous problem. Microscopic plastic particles may contain low concentrations of organic contaminants (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), organochlorine pesticides, polybrominated diphenylesters, alkylphenols, and bisphenol A (BpA), either added during manufacture to soften the plastic or as a flame retardant or adsorbed from seawater. Some of these chemicals can penetrate cells and may be endocrine disruptors, whereas the larger microplastic particles are excluded. Adsorption of chemicals onto microplastics may also retard their biodegradation. Multiple persistent organic pollutants (POP), PCBs, PAHs, and dioxins have been found also in plastic pellets on beaches. And microplastics are now being found in human faeces (MacMillan 2018). Safe exposure levels may not take adequate account of interactions between multiple contaminants, and especially the effects on vulnerable children or pregnant women. The cost of after-use externalities, such as clogging urban drainage systems, and greenhouse gas emissions from production of plastics, is estimated at $40 billion per year, exceeding the profits of the plastic packaging industry (World Economic Forum 2016). Plastics are notoriously difficult to recycle compared to aluminium and can only be recycled for a limited number of times. The plastics used in most consumer products are marked with a number inside the triangle logo for recycling. However, even for the same plastic number, inconsistent composition, colour, melt properties, and food contamination can make recycling problematic and highly labour intensive (Parker 2018). 3. Current Approaches to Controlling Plastics There are some approaches underway to address the problem of plastics in the environment such as the European Commission Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter. In February 2019, the European Parliament approved new rules on single-use plastics, as part of the European Union Plastics Strategy, which requires all plastic packaging in Europe to be “reusable or recyclable by 2030”. In Asia-Pacific, bans seem to be the preferred policy approach. The Republic of Korea has revised regulations on non-medicinal products to ban the importation and production of toothpaste and tooth whiteners containing plastic microbeads from July 2017 and to ban their sale from July 2018. Plastic bag, straw, styrofoam container bans are being implemented in many countries, including Korea, Vanuatu, and India (about 30 countries worldwide). Vanuatu has issued a regulation banning plastic bags and straws under the Waste Management Act 2014 (Figure 1). Research in California shows that banning shopping bags may simply be offset by purchasing trash bags (Taylor 2018). A recent review of national legislation covering plastic waste found that microbeads are largely omitted from existing legislation (UNEP/WRI u.d.). Only 4% of 192 countries had enacted bans on plastic microbeads as of mid-2018. In other countries, incineration and waste-to-energy plants are being hastily constructed, as the option of exporting the waste has dried up. In 2017, the People’s Republic of China banned the import of 24 types of solid waste, including paper and plastic. Illegal exports of waste to other countries, such as the Philippines and Malaysia, has boomed as a result. Some countries without adequate recycling facilities have simply abandoned collection of recyclables, allowing waste plastic to be dumped in landfills. Regional awareness of the need for urgent action is reflected in the 2019 Bangkok 3R Declaration: Towards Prevention of Plastic Waste Pollution through 3R and Circular Economy. Although voluntary and legally non-binding, the Declaration commits countries to (i) identify legislative gaps; (ii) develop effective policies and programmes; (iii) support innovative solutions and research on bio-based alternatives; (iv) strengthen international cooperation; (v) promote public awareness; (vi) support establishment of a regional knowledge hub on marine litter; (vii) consider mobilizing dedicated funding; (viii) promote multi-layer partnerships and strengthen regional cooperation; and (ix) harmonize monitoring approaches. The Declaration concludes with “resolve to implement necessary 3R and circular economy policy and measures in Asia and the Pacific to prevent plastic waste pollution, including marine littering”. 4. Discussion of Plastics at UN Environment Assembly (UNEA4) UNEA4 discussed the progress made by the ad hoc open-ended expert group on marine litter and microplastics, established as a result of UNEA3 in 2017. The expert group was tasked to “further examine the barriers to and options for combating marine plastic litter and microplastics from all sources…and to provide options for continued work”. The options include: (i) establishing a global knowledge hub; (ii) establishing a scientific and technical advisory group; (iii) exploring interagency examination of health and environmental aspects; (iv) preparing a compendium of industry initiatives; and (v) a range of options for enhanced coordination and governance. The expected outcome of UNEA4 was guidance on “the future direction, timing and expected outcomes of the work of the expert group”. However, the final resolutions were watered down from their initial submissions, proposed action is delayed, and policy approaches are still quite inadequate. UNEP was also tasked with compiling voluntary commitments targeting marine litter and microplastics, to support the implementation of SDG14 – life below water, specifically target SDG14