HOW MUCH PLASTIC IS LEAKING INTO THE BALTIC SEA BASIN ?

Dr Julien Boucher – EA

October 2018, v1.1

THE MARINE PLASTIC FOOTPRINT

2

3

Guiding line

1. THE PLASTIC LEAKAGE

2. THE MARINE PLASTIC FOOTPRINT METHODOLOGY

3. INDUSTRY CASE STUDIES

4. PLASTIC FOOTPRINT OF THE BALTIC BASIN

5. WAYS FORWARD

THE PLASTIC LEAKAGEBIG PICTURE AND CHALLENGES

5

6

PLASTICS

From Mismanaged Waste

7

MICROPLASTICS

Primary

8

9

10

But LCA do not account for plastic as a pollutant

11

What about Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ?

LCA does not account for plastic as

a pollutant. Only the indirect impacts of plastic are accounted for.

Carbon

Footprint

Water

Footprint

Ecosystem

Quality

Natural

Resources

Human

Health

12

What about Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ?

LCA does not account for plastic as

a pollutant. Only the indirect impacts of plastic are accounted for.

Plastic

Footprint

Carbon

Footprint

Water

Footprint

Ecosystem

Quality

Natural

Resources

Human

Health

?

THE MARINE PLASTIC FOOTPRINTOVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY

Overview

15

16

Leakage Pathway

LOSS :

Product

dependant

RELEASE 1:

Infrastructure

dependant

RELEASE 2:

Infrastructure

dependant

1

2

3Release in

waterways and

oceans after filter

Loss from an activity /

product

Release in

transport

media to

water

Final release in

oceans

Release to

other

environmental

compartments

Product

eco-design

Plastic

Stewardship

17

Leakage from

missmanaged waste

19

Not collected

Land sources of macroplastic waste (including imports and exports)

3. WASTE

MANAGEMENT

5. TRANSFER TO

OCEAN

2. COLLECTION

4. LEAKAGE IN

THE

ENVIRONMENT

1. MASS OF

MACROPLASTIC WASTE

LEA

KA

GE

Mismanaged

Collected

Mismanaged

Collected

Well managed

Behavioural Structural

LEA

KA

GE

Increase well managed to

reduce mis-managed

100%

100%

Littering

Dumping / fly tipping

Disposal in the sewage

system

Burning

Dumping

Non-sanitary landfills

Burning

Sanitary landfills

Incineration

Recycling

Mismanaged waste index =

Mismanaged waste

Mass of macroplastic waste

The case of Mismanaged Waste (MWI calculation)

20

Land sources of macroplastic waste (including imports and exports)

- Sanitary landfills

- Incineration

- Recycling

3. WASTE

MANAGEMENT

5. TRANSFER TO

OCEAN

2. COLLECTION

4. LEAKAGE IN

THE

ENVIRONMENT

1. MASS OF

MACROPLASTIC WASTE

Not collected

25

%

tra

nsf

er

Littering –not

collected

Mismanaged

Uncontrolled dumping

/ fly tippingH

igh

re

sid

ua

l

va

lue

: 2

0%

(PE

T, H

DP

E)Medium and low

residual value: 80%

(polystyrene, PP,

LDPE, films,

composites)*

100% leakage

10

%

25

%

tra

nsf

er

100%

leakage

Dis

po

sal

in

the

se

wa

ge

syst

em

Bu

rnin

g

10

% g

oe

s th

rou

gh

th

e w

ast

ew

ate

r

tre

atm

en

t),

e.g

. d

uri

ng

th

un

de

rsto

rms

Collected through the formal waste collection system(le.g., low income country 43% to high income country 98%)

Hig

h r

esi

du

al

va

lue

: 2

0%

(P

ET

,

HD

PE

)

Medium and low residual

value: 80% (polystyrene, PP,

LDPE, films, composites)

100% leakage

10

%

25

%

tra

nsf

er

Mismanaged Leakage: in average 25% of

overall leakage Well managed

- Dumping

- Non sanitary landfills

Mis

ma

na

ge

d,

bu

rnin

g

Model approach (focus on mismanaged waste)

*Ocean Conservancy (2015) Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic - free ocean

21+

MWI and LitI calculation

Littering rate of

plastic packaging

waste

MWI = NC + D + LLMI

Missmanaged

waste index

Share of

dumps

Share of landfills in Low

Income (LI) and Lower Middle

Income countries (LMI)

Non-collected

fraction

(includes fly

tipping)

LitI

22+

Plastic loss (Mloss)

Mloss = Mw * MWI + Mpw * Liti

Missmanaged

waste index

Missmanaged

waste index

Litteringh index

Mass of plastic

wasteMass of plastic

packaging waste

26

Not collected

Land sources of macroplastic waste (including imports and exports)

3. WASTE

MANAGEMENT

5. TRANSFER TO

OCEAN

2. COLLECTION

4. LEAKAGE IN

THE

ENVIRONMENT

1. MASS OF

MACROPLASTIC WASTE

LEA

KA

GE

Mismanaged

Collected

Mismanaged

Collected

Well managed

Behavioural Structural

LEA

KA

GE

Increase well managed to

reduce mis-managed

100%

100%

Littering

Dumping / fly tipping

Disposal in the sewage

system

Burning

Dumping

Non-sanitary landfills

Burning

Sanitary landfills

Incineration

Recycling

Mismanaged waste index =

Mismanaged waste

Mass of macroplastic waste

The case of Mismanaged Waste (MWI calculation)

27

Leakage

(i) Coastal < 50 km

15% < Mout < 40%

(ii) Inland : watershed dataBased on Lebreton model (2017)

Mout =(k * Mmpw * R)a

MOUT = f(Mloss, residual value of plastic waste)

28

Circularity index

31

Circularity index (CI)

CI = 1/2 * (MR1 + MR2+ MR3 + MB1 +MB2 ) / MT

Mass of

recycled

Mass of

embedded

recycled

Mass of

composted

Mass of

biobased

Total mass of

plastic waste

Recycling in

technical cycles

Restauration in

biological cycles

Mass of re-

used

Littering

rate

32

Application to the Baltic Countries

Leakage from

primary microplastics

34

Example loss rate : textiles

35

Example loss rate : TYRES

36

Loss rates

37

Illustration of release rates

SECTORAL CASE STUDIESTEXTILE AND PACKAGING

39

Plastic footprint of a textile company

Country name MWI Share

Germany 4 60%

Russian Federation 97 20%

Estonia 15 10%

Sweden 2 10%

40

<1 kg 250 kg 7’500 kg 1’900 kg

41

Plastic footprint of a bottle (glass versus plastic)

CI

With a deposit scheme

CI CI

REGIONAL CASE STUDYPLASTIC FOOTPRINT OF THE BALTIC BASIN

47

-

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

Czech

Republic

Norway Ukraine Belarus Lithuania Finland Denmark Sweden Latvia Estonia Germany Poland Russian

Federation

Comparison micro and macroplastics

(Release into the Baltic Sea in ton/year)

(hypothesis 2% littering)

Total Leakage from mismanaged waste (tons/year) 0 Total microplastic leakage (tons/year) -

16’000 t/y

8’000 t/y

48

-

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

Slovak

Republic

Czech

Republic

Norway Ukraine Belarus Finland Denmark Lithuania Sweden Latvia Estonia Germany Poland Russian

Federation

Comparison micro and macroplastics

(Release into the Baltic Sea in ton/year)

(hypothesis 1% littering)

Total Leakage from mismanaged waste (tons/year) 0 Total microplastic leakage (tons/year) -

13’000 t/y

8’000 t/y

49

-

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

4 500

5 000

Finland Sweden Czech

Republic

Norway Slovak

Republic

Germany Ukraine Belarus Lithuania Latvia Estonia Poland Russian

Federation

Comparison micro and macroplastics

(Release into the Baltic Sea in ton/year)

(hypothesis 0% littering)

Total Leakage from mismanaged waste (tons/year) 0 Total microplastic leakage (tons/year) -

10’000 t/y

7’500 t/y

Unit : tons / year

WAYS FORWARDA COOLABORATION TOWARDS BETTER DATA

52

Benchmark with other approaches

ImpactLoss / ReleasePlastic Use & Waste

Plastic scan

Marine Plastic

Footprint

PDP

PSF footprint

Project SEA

MyLittlePlastic

Footprint

Greenpeace

R4W Plastic Scorecard

Generic

Mate

rial specific

Regio

naliz

ed

ACTIONNABLE ACCOUNTABLE

INFORMATIVE

Circularity index

ACCOUNTABILITY of the method

AC

TIO

NA

BIL

ITY

of th

e m

eth

od

Plastic Leak

Project

Company or Product footprint

Country / Region footprint

Individual footprint

Include the microplastic component

Group 1

Group 2

UNEPHotspot+action

SYSTEMIQ Roadmap

Plastic Budget

53

Elements for discussion

• Refining data IN A COLLABORATIVE MANNER

• Better understanding the leakage pathways

• Better understanding littering drivers and numbers

• Understanding the learnings from such an approach

• WARNING : the indirectccomponent of the footprint

is not accounted for