To get into the nuts and bolts of global action (and inaction) on plastic waste, I spoke with Niko Urho, a former senior officer specializing in hazardous chemicals and waste at the Ministry of the Environment in Finland. Last year, the Nordic Council of Ministers commissioned Niko and Dr. Karen Raubenheimer at the University of Wollongong, Australia, to lead a project sketching out elements for a possible global agreement to tackle marine plastic pollution.

Meg: Why does the world need a global agreement for plastic?

Niko: Plastic pollution falls predominantly between the cracks of international agreements, as land-based sources rely on soft instruments at the global level. Existing efforts to address plastic pollution are sporadic and inefficient because at the international level there does not exist an international authority to guide and coordinate action nor to measure progress systematically. Coordinating and monitoring action play a critical role in implementing and tracking the agreement’s effectiveness. A global plastics agreement would provide a place to collect data and set up an institution with expertise and technical support specific to the plastic waste. It will become the one-stop shop for marine plastic information.

Meg: What would a global plastics agreement address?

Niko: The world needs a holistic and comprehensive agreement that broadens the focus from sea-based sources of plastic pollution to include land-based sources, as well as reframes the focus of plastic waste from strictly downstream (waste management) to include upstream and midstream activities (production and consumption). Furthermore, the scope of the agreement could also benefit from broadening from marine plastic litter to linking the problem to other environmental issues such as soil, atmosphere, and freshwater, as well as making linkages to socioeconomic issues and benefits.

Meg: What opportunities exist with a global marine plastic agreement?

Niko: An agreement must go beyond focusing solely on the marine environment because plastics are pervasive throughout the entire economy. Like the Paris Agreement, a plastics agreement can catalyze a transformative shift across the plastic production value chain that engages industry and consumers using market-based instruments and creating opportunities for jobs. It could incentivize collection, sorting, or recycling of plastics and create a level playing field for the industry, nationally and across global markets. In addition, flexibility to address national priorities through national action plans can allow countries to set targets and measures. All in all, an agreement could help to reap benefits across the Transforming our World: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda).

Backstory: A Patchwork of Plastic Action

In 1972, scientists reported finding small pieces of plastic in the ocean and warned of potential chemical leaching from plastic into the ocean. In the same year, 15 countries ratified the London Convention, the first global marine pollution agreement, which did not address plastic waste specifically. Today 87 countries are parties to the agreement. International conventions and regional agreements that emerged in the 80s and 90s built out more comprehensive protection of ocean ecosystems and focused predominantly on marine-based pollution and ecosystem threats. Plastic wastes began to enter the conversation but were not yet a priority. Over the past decade groundbreaking scientific studies on plastic waste—such The Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean published in Science Magazine in 2015 that first calculated the rate of plastic flowing into the ocean—have helped to catalyze more agenda-setting discussions at the UN on plastic pollution as an issue area. Such studies also have built momentum for alliances of industry, nonprofits, and foundations to find solutions to the marine plastic waste crisis. (See Timeline).

Meg: The U.S. Senate passed Save our Seas 2.0 Act in January 2020 while the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act of 2020 was introduced in the House. The United States seems focused on domestic policy. What is the global political climate to address this issue?

Niko: During the past decade, the political interest to tackle plastic pollution has heightened as the problem has literally stranded itself on beaches all around the globe and, consequently, surfaced in international fora. In 2012, the outcome document The Future We Want of the Rio+20 Conference recognized the need to adopt a life-cycle approach to manage plastics and committed, by 2025, to achieve significant reductions in marine debris. In 2015, the 2030 Agenda outlined a commitment for 2025 to “prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.” Furthermore, the UN Environment Assembly has, in its four consecutive sessions, adopted resolutions on marine plastic litter and microplastics, including committing to the long-term elimination of all discharge of plastic litter into the ocean.

Niko: I am happy to see that there is a global movement calling for putting an end to plastic pollution. The message continuously grows stronger, becomes more uniform, and continues to build momentum. Addressing governance is the most important thing to do now because it provides efficiency and directions to action, both in terms of implementation and follow-up. It is difficult to imagine that this problem could ever be properly tackled without a concerted effort led by governments, who are ultimately responsible for ensuring a safe and healthy environment for their citizens. The risks of inaction are simply too significant to be ignored in light of current scientific knowledge. An agreement can mobilize a catalytic international response that pulls together the work of all stakeholders and coordinates plastic efforts.