Plastic pollution is perhaps one of the most pressing environmental emergencies the world now faces. Plastic production continues to increase exponentially (approximately 1.5 million tons of plastic were produced in 1950 and approximately 332 million tons were produced in 2015) while plastic waste management systems have not improved. The US Environmental Protection Agency reports that “every bit of plastic ever made still exists”. This means that once a piece of plastic is out in the world, it’s not going anywhere. Burning plastic waste is not a viable solution as it only releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This has resulted in a huge accumulation of plastic in the marine environment which is so significant that it has been argued to be a marker of the Anthropocene (the geological epoch in which human activity has a significant impact on the natural environment, sometimes over and above natural processes).

Marine plastic pollution (MMP) can have adverse effects on wildlife, ecosystems, biodiversity, food security, and human health. It can also negatively impact tourism, aquaculture, and navigation. A piece of plastic is a ‘microplastic’ if it is less than five millimeters long. Their size and the fact that they spread easily and quickly makes them impossible to track and remove. They have been found in seafood and table salt. Microplastic pollution is considered to be essentially irreversible. The substantial removal of all plastic pollution is considered unfeasible. Given that a significant amount of microplastics is formed as a result of the breakdown of larger plastics, and the fact that most larger plastics will remain in the ocean, the amount of microplastic pollution will inevitably increase.

Given the severity and global scale of the problem, it is clear that something needs to be done on an international level. Local and national initiatives have so far not made a large enough impact. There has been some encouraging progress, for example the ban on microbeads in the United States and Canada. However, plastic production and pollution continues to increase exponentially and shows no signs of slowing. A few international agreements that touch on MMP exist. For example, MARPOL, the United Nations Environmental Programmes’ Clean Seas Campaign, and the Honolulu Strategy. However, none of these instruments contain binding obligations. MARPOL deals only with ships. The Clean Seas Campaign is voluntary and open-ended and focuses on encouraging countries, institutions, and organisations to use existing laws to reduce MMP using their own discretion. The Honolulu Strategy is a framework document, meant to guide countries in the process of reducing marine debris and is not an international treaty with full monitoring and implementation systems.

An international agreement can set global standards for all participating countries to follow. It can allow countries to agree upon a definition of MMP, set common goals and rules, create implementation, monitoring, and conflict-resolution systems, and can include binding obligations. Even in the absence of binding agreements, it can allow countries to coordinate their policies, and facilitate communication, transparency, and resource-sharing. The creation of an international agreement also helps ground the issue in the existing global environmental policy framework, thereby opening the door to including existing norms and principles of international environmental law (e.g., the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and existing environmental agreements). It also forms the basis for the creation of international laws and standards specific to MMP, the development of which can potentially strengthen the framework and even potentially bind countries not party to the agreement through the formation of customary law.

An agreement seeking to reduce waste would have to focus on the full lifespan of plastic, not just the end of its life. Targeting plastic at every point on its journey helps reduce the amount of waste ultimately generated and distributes the cost of waste reduction more evenly. Furthermore, given that a significant amount of MMP ends up in the high seas and crosses territorial borders, coordination at an international level is required. MMP is a hugely complex, multifaceted issue. The world’s reliance on plastic products and its cross-border lifespan makes the issue of controlling MMP an unusually difficult one. The more complex the issue, the more necessary and effective an integrated approach would be.

Lastly, an important factor of any international environmental agreement is the disparity between developed nations and everyone else. The approach to differentiation taken in the Paris Agreement (PA) may be useful in this context. This approach was developed from the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities’ (CBDR). This principle takes into account the specific needs and capabilities of developing nations and least developed nations (LDCs). These nations may have less resources and ability to implement the terms of an agreement on the same scale as developed nations, even though they may be disproportionately affected by the problem. While the PA imposes its binding obligations on all parties, it recognises that developing nations and LDCs also have urgent domestic concerns such as the eradication of poverty, to which they are expected to divert significant resources in the short term. Though the PA encourages countries to be ambitious, it only expects them to do what is within their capabilities. It also provides for financial assistance, resource-sharing and capacity-building. Additionally, developing nations and LDCs may rely more heavily on plastic products as they are often cheaper than sustainable alternatives. Any regulatory framework must take all of this into account.

In conclusion, the need for a robust, comprehensive international agreement on MMP is sorely needed. Luckily, the blueprint for such a framework already exists within the sphere of international environmental law and it is possible for it to be included seamlessly within the existing body of rules. Many states and organisations have already acknowledged the severity of the problem and called for an agreement to be reached. An agreement must be reached sooner rather than later, but it remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, this can be accomplished.

Guest Writer: Candice Maharaj

Candice Maharaj studied law at the University of Edinburgh, where she obtained both her LLB (Honours) and her LLM in International Law. She specialises in international environmental law. She currently works in Trinidad and Tobago, where she works as an environmental policy advisor at a financial consultancy firm.

Edited by Prerna Deep

Marine Plastic Pollution: the Desperate Need for an International Framework