- Email: [email protected]
Rethinking global governance of plastics – The role of industry
Marine Policy 113 (2020) 103802
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Rethinking global governance of plastics – The role of industry Karen Raubenheimer a, *, Niko Urho b a b
Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia Center for Governance and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, 02125, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Plastic pollution Marine litter Microplastics Polluter pays principle Extended producer responsibility Circular economy
Options for addressing plastic pollution at the global level have been a topic of discussion in many international fora with some countries voicing support for a new global agreement. Traditional approaches have been used to describe such an agreement in the context of preventing marine litter, but do not discuss in detail the financial mechanisms possible for funding national implementation and, in particular, sustainable waste management. We conceptualise a global extended producer responsibility scheme (global EPR scheme) as a core component of an envisaged new global agreement to reduce residual plastic waste. The global EPR scheme is implemented through global design standards and the development of voluntary National Finance Plans. The Polluter Pays Principle is thereby applied to the management of plastic pollution at the global level.
1. Introduction – the call for a new global agreement In recent years, there has been much discussion about how to address plastic pollution at a global level and, more recently, some countries have voiced their support for a new global agreement [1]. Many articles discuss possibilities to amend existing international instruments in order to strengthen their ability to address plastics, or call for a new, targeted agreement that would specifically address ocean plastics [2,3]. How ever, existing literature rely on traditional approaches and do not explore innovative ways of expanding international environmental law. This paper outlines some of the concepts and considerations such a design would need to factor in, in particular for rethinking the role of industry. Plastic enters the oceans along various pathways, but the vast ma jority derives from land-based sources. Lack of waste management is at the core of the problem. An estimated 2 billion people have no access to adequate waste collection systems [4]. It is therefore clear that local governments in many regions have struggled to provide environmen tally sound management systems for the growing issue of plastic and other waste. Waste management is regulated at a national or sub-national level and the design of a new agreement would need to consider what is appropriate to control at the international level in this regard. The development of a new global agreement to manage plastics must address three fundamental questions:
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Raubenheimer). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103802 Received 20 December 2019; Accepted 21 December 2019 Available online 27 December 2019 0308-597X/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1) What should be governed at the global level? 2) What should be funded through the agreement from international sources? 3) How can the role of industry be strengthened? The potential for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to serve as a model for a global plastics agreement has been discussed [5]. From the outset, the Montreal Protocol had the advantage of market-ready substances to replace those in use that depleted the ozone. However, there are no market-ready replacements yet that can scale for all plastic applications. The marginal costs of conversion from ozone depleting substances to the alternatives agreed under the Mon treal Protocol could also be calculated and the resulting cost-benefit analysis was highly favourable for subsidising conversion in countries that needed assistance. However, these costs were relatively low compared to the unknown and potentially vast costs of bringing global waste management systems to a minimum standard where plastic leakage is reduced to an acceptable threshold. Developing a new agreement requires careful design and grouping of essential elements can help to conceptualise its content and structure. A global framework agreement for plastics would contain the traditional elements of a vision, objective, scope, guiding principles and approaches and definitions for the interpretation of the agreement, ideally sup ported by strategic goals and timebound targets. Other elements that need consideration include functional elements (e.g. science and knowledge, measuring progress), operational elements (e.g. general
K. Raubenheimer and N. Urho
Marine Policy 113 (2020) 103802
commitments and national implementation plans) and institutional el ements (e.g. governing body and secretariat). Plastics are entrenched in all areas of our daily lives and, given the complexity of governing the wide range of plastics and applications, a framework agreement would seem the most suited option. Where further elaboration is required, the framework agreement could lay the foundations for future development of protocols, annexes and guidelines to deal explicitly with issues requiring more complex measures. This paper conceptualizes a holistic approach for a new global agreement focusing on 1) the objective and scope, 2) the strategic goals and targets to guide work, 3) the operational elements to achieve those goals and targets, as well as 4) international funding and capacity building required for implementation by countries in need of assistance. Finally, to make the new agreement domestically viable, an approach for a global extended producer responsibility plan (a ‘global EPR’) is out lined. This approach links the global plastics agreement with national action plans and a potential funding model, while building on the principles of Polluter Pays and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
that new and recycled products placed on the market are non-toxic and recyclable. Reduction of microplastic releases is a crosscutting issue covered within the proposed strategic goals. 4. A global EPR approach The Polluter Pays Principle is a fundamental principle of interna tional environmental law, which has been defined in Principle 16 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development as follows: “national authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without dis torting international trade and investment” [6]. EPR is considered as an extension of the Polluter Pays Principle that, generally, requires the producer to take responsibility for their product at the end of life financially and, in some cases, physically. In practice, EPR consists of collecting products that have become waste and sorting them before treatment according to the waste hierarchy. Like waste management, industry activities are predominantly regulated at a national or sub-national level. Not all countries have the capacity to develop complex EPR schemes and provide the necessary management required to ensure transparency. Highly evolved applica tions of EPR can be found in some developed countries, most notably the EU Waste Framework Directive that has helped to make waste man agement self-financing and self-sustaining. Against this backdrop, as part of the potential new international agreement, there is a need to explore the development of a ‘global EPR scheme’. Essentially, it would make end-of-life management of plastic waste domestically viable by catalysing industry involvement for collection, sorting and recycling of plastic waste. An essential element of the global EPR scheme would be the devel opment of global design standards to facilitate sustainable end-of-life treatment of plastic products placed on the market. The global design standards would be developed by establishing an intergovernmental expert working group under the agreement. The standards could build on existing work, in particular the guidelines developed by the Associ ation of Plastics Recyclers [7]. In essence, national EPR schemes should include incentives for the smart design of plastic products that prevent the generation of residual waste within the availability and capacity of local waste management services. In a global EPR approach, design standards included in national EPR schemes would also meet or improve on the global design standards. National EPR schemes do not necessarily cover all product cate gories. Where a product does not fall under an EPR scheme, global standards could still apply through general measures within national legislation. These measures could stipulate that products from interna tional or national sources may not be placed on the domestic market, or would be financially disincentivised, unless they meet the minimum global standards.
2. The objective of a new plastics agreement It is imperative to understand the root of the problem in order to outline a transformative objective of the envisaged new agreement. To do so, the concept of residual plastic waste requires clarification. Plastics that have no value can be regarded as residual waste and are more likely to be disposed of in undesirable ways, such as burning, dumping and collecting in unsanitary landfill. Arguably, the vast quantity of residual waste that is filling our oceans, piling in landfills or turning into incin eration fumes is largely a symptom of poor design of plastics and ap plications. Whereas, end-of-life plastics that are designed to be recyclable and free from toxic chemicals have viable end-markets and are more likely to re-enter the economy. In other words, the production of high-quality plastics from the outset will provide an incentive for recycling by facilitating lucrative business and helping to close the loop of material flows. Against this backdrop, the overarching objective of a new agreement should be the reduction of residual waste, with a long-term vision of eliminating discharge of plastics to all environmental compartments (land, air, freshwater and ocean). This, in turn, would reduce the risk of harm from plastic pollution to marine environment and human health and bring other socio-economic benefits to all sectors of the community. 3. The strategic goals of a new plastics agreement Overarching goals help to guide and focus implementation activities towards the objective of an agreement. These should be sufficiently broad to address all plastic types and applications and provide for new issues as they emerge. Targets and indicators can be developed to further guide activities and to track progress. These can be defined in greater detail within annexes, protocols and guidelines. There are four overarching strategic goals suggested for a new agreement: 1) 2) 3) 4)
5. Regulating the trade of plastic products
Sustainable waste management, Elimination of problematic products, Reduction in chemical hazard, and Sustainable management of products, incorporating circular mate rials flow and resource efficiency.
The overall objective of a global EPR scheme is to provide assistance to countries in regulating the features of plastic products placed on their market based on the availability and capacity of national waste man agement services. At the national level, countries would retain flexibility in determining which methods are best suited to their context when regulating the domestic market, including producer contributions to waste management costs. For example, differential fees, bans or other economic incentives could apply if product design does not meet the global design standards. Where product design is not compatible with domestic capacity, take-back schemes could still allow entry to the market. At a global level, design standards could be applied in a similar
The four suggested strategic goals enable measures to cover the entire life cycle of plastics and cut across the value-chain in an inte grated manner. Improving waste management systems to the minimum required standard is at the core but needs to be supported by additional strategic gaols beyond waste management to be effective. The agree ment will also need to sustainably close the loop of global material flows by shrinking their volume through reduction and reuse, and by ensuring 2
K. Raubenheimer and N. Urho
Marine Policy 113 (2020) 103802
manner to the new Basel Convention amendments for plastic wastes [8]. Where product design meets the global design standards, products can be traded freely subject to national legislation. Product design that un necessarily complicates sorting and recycling processes, or are not recyclable, would trigger Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedures. Countries then have the flexibility to apply differential economic mea sures as appropriate to their circumstances. In this way, global design standards can benefit countries as well as industry. Countries are assisted in regulating products and materials that are particularly problematic or hazardous to the environment due to the domestic context. For industry, particularly where the supply chain is international, global design standards assist by harmonising global markets and reducing regional variations in design specifications. In addition, certification processes can be simplified across regions. 6. Implementation - national action plans National action plans are employed in many multilateral instruments with the view to help internalize commitments into national planning processes and mobilize stakeholders for broad-based implementation. The development of national action plans, or National Plastic Manage ment Plans (NPMPs) are proposed as a binding procedural commitment of parties to the agreement to ensure that NPMPs are developed and updated regularly. NPMPs must remain flexible so that activities can be tailored to na tional needs and circumstances. The strategic goals and targets of the agreement will guide the development of national action plans. An iterative global review will help to determine if countries are on track to meet the strategic goals and targets. At the core of NPMPs are measures to implement economic in centives to stimulate behaviour change in both production and con sumption, as well as assist with the financial burden of waste management. Global design standards would assist in developing these national strategies with the ultimate goal of regulating the features of products placed on domestic markets to suit the domestic context. If activities within countries are lagging, financial assistance can be provided on the condition that the country develops a National Finance Plan, showing a genuine commitment to mobilize financing from all sources. International assistance could include capacity building to develop a national action plan towards sustainable waste management (through reduction, design and financial contributions from all stake holders for waste management).
Fig. 1. The role of global design standards in managing plastic products placed on domestic markets.
include EPR schemes, deposit return schemes, consumer pay-as-youthrow programmes and environmental taxes. For instance, undesirable products can be phased out through higher taxes. To this end, the preparation of National Finance Plans is proposed to help countries plan needed economic instruments to fund activities to implement the agreement. The National Finance Plans would allow flexibility to determine what economic incentives are appropriate within the domestic context. Countries are likely to incorporate EPR schemes as a central component. (see Fig. 1) International funding could provide assistance for the development of National Finance Plans. The National Finance Plans could help to outline and carry out the following activities to enable the introduction of needed economic instruments: 1) Mapping of waste profiles, flows of plastics through the domestic market, and possible entry points for economic incentives; 2) Identifying regulatory & policy requirements to support economic incentives and long-term end-markets for secondary plastics; 3) Identifying capacity needs, such as customs processes; 4) Conducting socio-economic studies to evaluate the feasibility of implementing regulatory and other economic incentives; 5) Mapping transition processes for implementation; and 6) Formulating a review processes to measure progress.
7. Funding - National Finance Plans
8. Considerations for the global EPR approach
Some multilateral agreements provide financial mechanisms to assist developing countries in implementing their obligations under the agreement. However, the financial volumes of existing mechanisms rarely match the needs of developing countries. As discussed, the implementation of National Plastic Management Plans is not likely to be funded solely by traditional financial mechanisms. Instead, there is a need to balance the financial burden so that the polluter pays its fair share through the adoption of the global EPR scheme. This will be pivotal to ensure that the objective of the agreement can be met. Against this backdrop, waste management should be funded from two sources. First, initial seed-funding is needed from international funds through the agreement to help countries develop the capacity to implement self-sustaining waste management processes that rely on the use of economic instruments. Second, once initial capacity is in place, waste management systems themselves are funded from domestic sources. In essence, the goal is to reach a situation where all countries’ waste management systems are funded predominantly from domestic sources drawing revenues from the private sector using economic instruments and complemented by allocations from the national budgets. Examples of economic incentives to assist with the costs of waste management
The development of National Finance Plans may not be applicable to all countries. Developing countries and countries in transition may have varying levels of policy readiness, as well as capacity to implement economic and regulatory policies. These countries can elect to develop National Finance Plans with international assistance in order to develop or refine existing frameworks. Countries may have mature and environmentally sound waste management processes in place with sufficient resources and regulatory options for managing products placed on their market. Such countries may not elect to develop a National Finance Plan but could reflect existing strategies in a National Plastic Management Plan. Where EPR schemes are already in place, developed countries could apply global design standards to products not covered by these schemes. The benefit of a global agreement to all participating countries is the avoidance of disputes raised under the World Trade Organisation and relevant trade agreements when regulating plastic products placed on their market.
3
K. Raubenheimer and N. Urho
Marine Policy 113 (2020) 103802
9. Conclusions
References
Given that existing financial mechanisms have limitations in meeting the needs of the conventions they serve, the design of a possible new agreement must employ the Polluter Pays Principle from the outset to be effective in meeting its objective. The proposed global EPR scheme could provide a new innovative approach for employing the Polluter Pays Principle at the international level to combat plastic pollution, a pre cedent that could eventually expand to other areas. Undoubtedly, an attempt to shift the burden to cover the negative externalities of plastic production to industry will be met with some resistance. However, the global design standards will provide a tool to drive innovation as it will give a market advantage to companies that strive to meet them. At the same time, their implementation will result in minimization of residual waste, making end-of-life plastics a valuable raw material for recycling purposes. This in turn, will help to deliver the objectives of the circular economy to ensure that the use of finite re sources that contribute to climate change is minimized and, most importantly, that leakage of plastics to the environment is prevented.
[1] NCM, Nordic Ministerial Declaration on the Call for a Global Agreement to Combat Marine Plastic Litter and Microplastics Adopted on 10th April 2019, 2019. Available online: https://bit.ly/2O7P3LX. [2] N. Simon, M. Schulte, Stopping Global Plastic Pollution: the Case for an International Convention, vol. 43, Publication Series Ecology, 2017. [3] M. Haward, Plastic pollution of the world’s seas and oceans as a contemporary challenge in ocean governance, Nat. Commun. 9 (2018) 667. [4] D. Wilson, L. Rodic, P. Modak, R. Soos, A. Rogero, C. Velis, M. Iyer, O. Simonett, Global Waste Management Outlook, United Nations Environment Programme, 2015. [5] K. Raubenheimer, A. McIlgorm, Is the Montreal Protocol a model that can help solve the global marine plastic debris problem? Mar. Policy 81 (2017) 322–329. [6] UN, Report of the United Nations conference environment and development. Annex 1: Rio Declaration on environment and development, Available online: https://bit. ly/2H7Pzaw, 1992 http://www.oas.org/usde/FIDA/documents/pdf/rioeng.pdf, 1992. [7] APR, The association of plastic recyclers. https://plasticsrecycling.org/, 2019. [8] BRS, BC-14/12: Amendments to annexes II, VIII and IX to the Basel Convention, Available online: http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/ConferenceoftheParties/Re portsandDecisions/tabid/3303/Default.aspx, 2019.
4
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Rethinking global governance of plastics – The role of industry Karen Raubenheimer a, *, Niko Urho b a b
Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia Center for Governance and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, 02125, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Plastic pollution Marine litter Microplastics Polluter pays principle Extended producer responsibility Circular economy
Options for addressing plastic pollution at the global level have been a topic of discussion in many international fora with some countries voicing support for a new global agreement. Traditional approaches have been used to describe such an agreement in the context of preventing marine litter, but do not discuss in detail the financial mechanisms possible for funding national implementation and, in particular, sustainable waste management. We conceptualise a global extended producer responsibility scheme (global EPR scheme) as a core component of an envisaged new global agreement to reduce residual plastic waste. The global EPR scheme is implemented through global design standards and the development of voluntary National Finance Plans. The Polluter Pays Principle is thereby applied to the management of plastic pollution at the global level.
1. Introduction – the call for a new global agreement In recent years, there has been much discussion about how to address plastic pollution at a global level and, more recently, some countries have voiced their support for a new global agreement [1]. Many articles discuss possibilities to amend existing international instruments in order to strengthen their ability to address plastics, or call for a new, targeted agreement that would specifically address ocean plastics [2,3]. How ever, existing literature rely on traditional approaches and do not explore innovative ways of expanding international environmental law. This paper outlines some of the concepts and considerations such a design would need to factor in, in particular for rethinking the role of industry. Plastic enters the oceans along various pathways, but the vast ma jority derives from land-based sources. Lack of waste management is at the core of the problem. An estimated 2 billion people have no access to adequate waste collection systems [4]. It is therefore clear that local governments in many regions have struggled to provide environmen tally sound management systems for the growing issue of plastic and other waste. Waste management is regulated at a national or sub-national level and the design of a new agreement would need to consider what is appropriate to control at the international level in this regard. The development of a new global agreement to manage plastics must address three fundamental questions:
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Raubenheimer). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103802 Received 20 December 2019; Accepted 21 December 2019 Available online 27 December 2019 0308-597X/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1) What should be governed at the global level? 2) What should be funded through the agreement from international sources? 3) How can the role of industry be strengthened? The potential for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to serve as a model for a global plastics agreement has been discussed [5]. From the outset, the Montreal Protocol had the advantage of market-ready substances to replace those in use that depleted the ozone. However, there are no market-ready replacements yet that can scale for all plastic applications. The marginal costs of conversion from ozone depleting substances to the alternatives agreed under the Mon treal Protocol could also be calculated and the resulting cost-benefit analysis was highly favourable for subsidising conversion in countries that needed assistance. However, these costs were relatively low compared to the unknown and potentially vast costs of bringing global waste management systems to a minimum standard where plastic leakage is reduced to an acceptable threshold. Developing a new agreement requires careful design and grouping of essential elements can help to conceptualise its content and structure. A global framework agreement for plastics would contain the traditional elements of a vision, objective, scope, guiding principles and approaches and definitions for the interpretation of the agreement, ideally sup ported by strategic goals and timebound targets. Other elements that need consideration include functional elements (e.g. science and knowledge, measuring progress), operational elements (e.g. general
K. Raubenheimer and N. Urho
Marine Policy 113 (2020) 103802
commitments and national implementation plans) and institutional el ements (e.g. governing body and secretariat). Plastics are entrenched in all areas of our daily lives and, given the complexity of governing the wide range of plastics and applications, a framework agreement would seem the most suited option. Where further elaboration is required, the framework agreement could lay the foundations for future development of protocols, annexes and guidelines to deal explicitly with issues requiring more complex measures. This paper conceptualizes a holistic approach for a new global agreement focusing on 1) the objective and scope, 2) the strategic goals and targets to guide work, 3) the operational elements to achieve those goals and targets, as well as 4) international funding and capacity building required for implementation by countries in need of assistance. Finally, to make the new agreement domestically viable, an approach for a global extended producer responsibility plan (a ‘global EPR’) is out lined. This approach links the global plastics agreement with national action plans and a potential funding model, while building on the principles of Polluter Pays and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
that new and recycled products placed on the market are non-toxic and recyclable. Reduction of microplastic releases is a crosscutting issue covered within the proposed strategic goals. 4. A global EPR approach The Polluter Pays Principle is a fundamental principle of interna tional environmental law, which has been defined in Principle 16 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development as follows: “national authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without dis torting international trade and investment” [6]. EPR is considered as an extension of the Polluter Pays Principle that, generally, requires the producer to take responsibility for their product at the end of life financially and, in some cases, physically. In practice, EPR consists of collecting products that have become waste and sorting them before treatment according to the waste hierarchy. Like waste management, industry activities are predominantly regulated at a national or sub-national level. Not all countries have the capacity to develop complex EPR schemes and provide the necessary management required to ensure transparency. Highly evolved applica tions of EPR can be found in some developed countries, most notably the EU Waste Framework Directive that has helped to make waste man agement self-financing and self-sustaining. Against this backdrop, as part of the potential new international agreement, there is a need to explore the development of a ‘global EPR scheme’. Essentially, it would make end-of-life management of plastic waste domestically viable by catalysing industry involvement for collection, sorting and recycling of plastic waste. An essential element of the global EPR scheme would be the devel opment of global design standards to facilitate sustainable end-of-life treatment of plastic products placed on the market. The global design standards would be developed by establishing an intergovernmental expert working group under the agreement. The standards could build on existing work, in particular the guidelines developed by the Associ ation of Plastics Recyclers [7]. In essence, national EPR schemes should include incentives for the smart design of plastic products that prevent the generation of residual waste within the availability and capacity of local waste management services. In a global EPR approach, design standards included in national EPR schemes would also meet or improve on the global design standards. National EPR schemes do not necessarily cover all product cate gories. Where a product does not fall under an EPR scheme, global standards could still apply through general measures within national legislation. These measures could stipulate that products from interna tional or national sources may not be placed on the domestic market, or would be financially disincentivised, unless they meet the minimum global standards.
2. The objective of a new plastics agreement It is imperative to understand the root of the problem in order to outline a transformative objective of the envisaged new agreement. To do so, the concept of residual plastic waste requires clarification. Plastics that have no value can be regarded as residual waste and are more likely to be disposed of in undesirable ways, such as burning, dumping and collecting in unsanitary landfill. Arguably, the vast quantity of residual waste that is filling our oceans, piling in landfills or turning into incin eration fumes is largely a symptom of poor design of plastics and ap plications. Whereas, end-of-life plastics that are designed to be recyclable and free from toxic chemicals have viable end-markets and are more likely to re-enter the economy. In other words, the production of high-quality plastics from the outset will provide an incentive for recycling by facilitating lucrative business and helping to close the loop of material flows. Against this backdrop, the overarching objective of a new agreement should be the reduction of residual waste, with a long-term vision of eliminating discharge of plastics to all environmental compartments (land, air, freshwater and ocean). This, in turn, would reduce the risk of harm from plastic pollution to marine environment and human health and bring other socio-economic benefits to all sectors of the community. 3. The strategic goals of a new plastics agreement Overarching goals help to guide and focus implementation activities towards the objective of an agreement. These should be sufficiently broad to address all plastic types and applications and provide for new issues as they emerge. Targets and indicators can be developed to further guide activities and to track progress. These can be defined in greater detail within annexes, protocols and guidelines. There are four overarching strategic goals suggested for a new agreement: 1) 2) 3) 4)
5. Regulating the trade of plastic products
Sustainable waste management, Elimination of problematic products, Reduction in chemical hazard, and Sustainable management of products, incorporating circular mate rials flow and resource efficiency.
The overall objective of a global EPR scheme is to provide assistance to countries in regulating the features of plastic products placed on their market based on the availability and capacity of national waste man agement services. At the national level, countries would retain flexibility in determining which methods are best suited to their context when regulating the domestic market, including producer contributions to waste management costs. For example, differential fees, bans or other economic incentives could apply if product design does not meet the global design standards. Where product design is not compatible with domestic capacity, take-back schemes could still allow entry to the market. At a global level, design standards could be applied in a similar
The four suggested strategic goals enable measures to cover the entire life cycle of plastics and cut across the value-chain in an inte grated manner. Improving waste management systems to the minimum required standard is at the core but needs to be supported by additional strategic gaols beyond waste management to be effective. The agree ment will also need to sustainably close the loop of global material flows by shrinking their volume through reduction and reuse, and by ensuring 2
K. Raubenheimer and N. Urho
Marine Policy 113 (2020) 103802
manner to the new Basel Convention amendments for plastic wastes [8]. Where product design meets the global design standards, products can be traded freely subject to national legislation. Product design that un necessarily complicates sorting and recycling processes, or are not recyclable, would trigger Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedures. Countries then have the flexibility to apply differential economic mea sures as appropriate to their circumstances. In this way, global design standards can benefit countries as well as industry. Countries are assisted in regulating products and materials that are particularly problematic or hazardous to the environment due to the domestic context. For industry, particularly where the supply chain is international, global design standards assist by harmonising global markets and reducing regional variations in design specifications. In addition, certification processes can be simplified across regions. 6. Implementation - national action plans National action plans are employed in many multilateral instruments with the view to help internalize commitments into national planning processes and mobilize stakeholders for broad-based implementation. The development of national action plans, or National Plastic Manage ment Plans (NPMPs) are proposed as a binding procedural commitment of parties to the agreement to ensure that NPMPs are developed and updated regularly. NPMPs must remain flexible so that activities can be tailored to na tional needs and circumstances. The strategic goals and targets of the agreement will guide the development of national action plans. An iterative global review will help to determine if countries are on track to meet the strategic goals and targets. At the core of NPMPs are measures to implement economic in centives to stimulate behaviour change in both production and con sumption, as well as assist with the financial burden of waste management. Global design standards would assist in developing these national strategies with the ultimate goal of regulating the features of products placed on domestic markets to suit the domestic context. If activities within countries are lagging, financial assistance can be provided on the condition that the country develops a National Finance Plan, showing a genuine commitment to mobilize financing from all sources. International assistance could include capacity building to develop a national action plan towards sustainable waste management (through reduction, design and financial contributions from all stake holders for waste management).
Fig. 1. The role of global design standards in managing plastic products placed on domestic markets.
include EPR schemes, deposit return schemes, consumer pay-as-youthrow programmes and environmental taxes. For instance, undesirable products can be phased out through higher taxes. To this end, the preparation of National Finance Plans is proposed to help countries plan needed economic instruments to fund activities to implement the agreement. The National Finance Plans would allow flexibility to determine what economic incentives are appropriate within the domestic context. Countries are likely to incorporate EPR schemes as a central component. (see Fig. 1) International funding could provide assistance for the development of National Finance Plans. The National Finance Plans could help to outline and carry out the following activities to enable the introduction of needed economic instruments: 1) Mapping of waste profiles, flows of plastics through the domestic market, and possible entry points for economic incentives; 2) Identifying regulatory & policy requirements to support economic incentives and long-term end-markets for secondary plastics; 3) Identifying capacity needs, such as customs processes; 4) Conducting socio-economic studies to evaluate the feasibility of implementing regulatory and other economic incentives; 5) Mapping transition processes for implementation; and 6) Formulating a review processes to measure progress.
7. Funding - National Finance Plans
8. Considerations for the global EPR approach
Some multilateral agreements provide financial mechanisms to assist developing countries in implementing their obligations under the agreement. However, the financial volumes of existing mechanisms rarely match the needs of developing countries. As discussed, the implementation of National Plastic Management Plans is not likely to be funded solely by traditional financial mechanisms. Instead, there is a need to balance the financial burden so that the polluter pays its fair share through the adoption of the global EPR scheme. This will be pivotal to ensure that the objective of the agreement can be met. Against this backdrop, waste management should be funded from two sources. First, initial seed-funding is needed from international funds through the agreement to help countries develop the capacity to implement self-sustaining waste management processes that rely on the use of economic instruments. Second, once initial capacity is in place, waste management systems themselves are funded from domestic sources. In essence, the goal is to reach a situation where all countries’ waste management systems are funded predominantly from domestic sources drawing revenues from the private sector using economic instruments and complemented by allocations from the national budgets. Examples of economic incentives to assist with the costs of waste management
The development of National Finance Plans may not be applicable to all countries. Developing countries and countries in transition may have varying levels of policy readiness, as well as capacity to implement economic and regulatory policies. These countries can elect to develop National Finance Plans with international assistance in order to develop or refine existing frameworks. Countries may have mature and environmentally sound waste management processes in place with sufficient resources and regulatory options for managing products placed on their market. Such countries may not elect to develop a National Finance Plan but could reflect existing strategies in a National Plastic Management Plan. Where EPR schemes are already in place, developed countries could apply global design standards to products not covered by these schemes. The benefit of a global agreement to all participating countries is the avoidance of disputes raised under the World Trade Organisation and relevant trade agreements when regulating plastic products placed on their market.
3
K. Raubenheimer and N. Urho
Marine Policy 113 (2020) 103802
9. Conclusions
References
Given that existing financial mechanisms have limitations in meeting the needs of the conventions they serve, the design of a possible new agreement must employ the Polluter Pays Principle from the outset to be effective in meeting its objective. The proposed global EPR scheme could provide a new innovative approach for employing the Polluter Pays Principle at the international level to combat plastic pollution, a pre cedent that could eventually expand to other areas. Undoubtedly, an attempt to shift the burden to cover the negative externalities of plastic production to industry will be met with some resistance. However, the global design standards will provide a tool to drive innovation as it will give a market advantage to companies that strive to meet them. At the same time, their implementation will result in minimization of residual waste, making end-of-life plastics a valuable raw material for recycling purposes. This in turn, will help to deliver the objectives of the circular economy to ensure that the use of finite re sources that contribute to climate change is minimized and, most importantly, that leakage of plastics to the environment is prevented.
[1] NCM, Nordic Ministerial Declaration on the Call for a Global Agreement to Combat Marine Plastic Litter and Microplastics Adopted on 10th April 2019, 2019. Available online: https://bit.ly/2O7P3LX. [2] N. Simon, M. Schulte, Stopping Global Plastic Pollution: the Case for an International Convention, vol. 43, Publication Series Ecology, 2017. [3] M. Haward, Plastic pollution of the world’s seas and oceans as a contemporary challenge in ocean governance, Nat. Commun. 9 (2018) 667. [4] D. Wilson, L. Rodic, P. Modak, R. Soos, A. Rogero, C. Velis, M. Iyer, O. Simonett, Global Waste Management Outlook, United Nations Environment Programme, 2015. [5] K. Raubenheimer, A. McIlgorm, Is the Montreal Protocol a model that can help solve the global marine plastic debris problem? Mar. Policy 81 (2017) 322–329. [6] UN, Report of the United Nations conference environment and development. Annex 1: Rio Declaration on environment and development, Available online: https://bit. ly/2H7Pzaw, 1992 http://www.oas.org/usde/FIDA/documents/pdf/rioeng.pdf, 1992. [7] APR, The association of plastic recyclers. https://plasticsrecycling.org/, 2019. [8] BRS, BC-14/12: Amendments to annexes II, VIII and IX to the Basel Convention, Available online: http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/ConferenceoftheParties/Re portsandDecisions/tabid/3303/Default.aspx, 2019.
4