Microplastic Pollution Policy-Context

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
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
15 November 2018 3
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
4 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 5
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
6 15 November 2018
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 networks 3 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
15 November 2018 7
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%
8 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 9
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
10 15 November 2018
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.
15 November 2018 11
3. THE EUROPEAN UNION
3.1.The EU Plastics Strategy

In the EU, adressing plastic pollution is a high political proirity 6 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
12 15 November 2018
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 ongoing
determine the scope of a legislative initiative on single-use plastics
Actions to tackle sea-based sources of marine litter:
- adoption of a legislative proposal on port reception facilities for the Q1 2018
delivery of waste from ships
- development of measures to reduce loss or abandonment at sea of 2018 onwards
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)
Actions to monitor and curb marine litter more effectively:
- improved monitoring and mapping of marine litter, including 2018 onwards
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
Actions on compostable and biodegradable plastics:
- start work to develop harmonised rules on defining and labelling Q1 2018
compostable and biodegradable plastics onwards
- conduct a lifecycle assessment to identify conditions where their Q1 2018
use is beneficial, and criteria for such application onwards
- start the process to restrict the use of oxo-plastics via REACH ongoing
Actions to curb microplastics pollution:
- start the process to restrict the intentional addition of microplastics ongoing
to products via REACH
- examination of policy options for reducing unintentional release of ongoing
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. Q1 2018
certification scheme along the plastic supply chain and/or Best onwards
Available Techniques reference document under the Industrial
Emissions Directive)
- evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive: ongoing
assessing effectiveness as regards microplastics capture and
removal
12 See Annex 1 of Plastics Strategy at COM(2018)28
15 November 2018 13
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

16
The revised Waste Framework Directive adopted by Council 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
14 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 15
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)
16 15 November 2018
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
24
use of: 1. Oxo-degradable plastics and 2. Intentionally-added microplastics in
25
products (such as cosmetics, detergents, paints) . 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
15 November 2018 17
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.
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
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
18 15 November 2018
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 biocides 32 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
15 November 2018 19
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)
20 15 November 2018
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 relevant 44. 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.
42
http://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
15 November 2018 21
Furthermore, the Member States must ensure that by 2035, no more than 10% of
municipal waste is disposed of in landfills.
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 BAT 49 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
22 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 23
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.
24 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 25
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
26 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 27
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.
28 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;
Concerned MP$
Environmental Explicitly
Measure Date [A] Status & Milestones [B]
Compartments Targeted
[C] [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
$
MP - Microplastic
29 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
30 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 31
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)
32 15 November 2018
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/
15 November 2018 33
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
84Council 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)
34 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 35
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
36 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 37
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&is
Allowed=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
38 15 November 2018
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
96
UNEP: "Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers"
http://cep.unep.org/meetings/documents/cc6f8715c1e1ecf5b561c49d8358605a/@@download/en_file/Marine_Litte
r_Legislation-A_Toolkit_for_Policymakers-en.pdf
97 https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/k1801471.pdf
15 November 2018 39
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
40 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 41
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 Growth 104
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
42 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 43
 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 plans 109, 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
44 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 45
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
46 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 47
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 Litter 119 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
48 15 November 2018
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’
126
https://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
15 November 2018 49
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/
50 15 November 2018
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/
15 November 2018 51
Table III – Overview of international context

Concerned Environmental
Instrument/ initiative Type
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 Convention Soil/Water/Air
Stockholm Convention
UN - United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Convention/Action Plan
Water (Marine)
Environment Assembly
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 Advice/ Guidelines
Water (Marine)
Environmental Protection (Sponsored by nine UN agencies)
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
52 15 November 2018
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.
15 November 2018 53
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_micro
plastics_relevant_to_marine_protection_1.pdf
54 15 November 2018
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.
142
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-
databases/tris/en/index.cfm/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2018&num=258&mLang=EN
15 November 2018 55
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.
143
https://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.
56 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 57
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
58 15 November 2018
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.
15 November 2018 59
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
60 15 November 2018
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.
15 November 2018 61
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
149
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2017/0291/latest/DLM7490715.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40re
gulation%40deemedreg_microbeads_resel_25_a&p=1
150 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Legislation/RIS/RIS-microbeads-2017.pdf
62 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 63
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
64 15 November 2018
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
15 November 2018 65
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
66 15 November 2018
European Commisson’s Scientific Advice Mechanism
ec.europa.eu/research/sam
#SAMGroup_EU

Microplastic Pollution Policy-Context

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Microplastic Pollution Policy-Context

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Commission’s

Scientific Advice Mechanism

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

Unit RTD.02 - Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM)

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

© European Union, 2018.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIGURE 1 – MICROPLASTIC EMISSION PATHWAY MODEL GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION (HANN,

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

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

Figure 1 – Microplastic Emission Pathway Model Graphical Representation (Hann et

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

Figure 2 – Global releases of primary microplastics to the world oceans (Boucher et

Figure 3 - Annual Emissions of Microplastics to Surface Water (Upper and Lower

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

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

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

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

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

3. THE EUROPEAN UNION

3.1.The EU Plastics Strategy

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

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

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

Recent / forthcoming: European Parliament report on plastics strategy13; an

3.2.Waste & substance-/product-specific measures

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

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

Waste Framework Directive

13 European Parliament P8_TA(2018)0352

Single Use Plastics and Fishing Gear

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

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

Chemical Regulation and Microplastics

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

Unintentional Release from Tyres, Textiles & Paint

Packaging and Packaging Waste

Food and Drinking Water

3.2.6.1. Food Contact Materials and Biocides