PEOPLE AND PLASTIC: THE OCEANS PLASTIC CRISIS, GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT NORMS

PAPER PRESENTED TO THE 2016 ACUNS ANNUAL MEETING, NEW YORK CITY, 2016 PETER STOETT, CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY, MONTREAL1 “We acknowledge that marine litter, in particular plastic litter, poses a global challenge, directly affecting marine and coastal life and ecosystems and potentially also human health. Accordingly, increased effectiveness and intensity of work is required to combat marine litter striving to initiate a global movement. The G7 commits to priority actions and solutions to combat marine litter as set out in the annex, stressing the need to address land- and sea-based sources, removal actions, as well as education, research and outreach.” Group of Seven (G7) Leadersʼ Declaration, Schloss Elmau, Germany, 20152 “I was horrified to learn that, according to recent research, we collectively allow as much as 8 million tonnes of plastic to enter the oceans every year. Today, almost half of all marine mammals now have plastic in their gut and I know I am not the only person haunted by the tragic images of seabirds, particularly albatrosses, that have been found dead, washed up on beaches after mistaking a piece of plastic for a meal. The fact that a recent study estimates that by 2025 there will be one tonne of plastic for every three tonnes of fish in the sea is not what I call encouraging!” The Prince of Wales to the Global Oceans Commission, Washington, D.C., 20153 INTRODUCTION While we have known for some time that plastic debris is a visible nuisance in oceans, increasing evidence suggests it is, bluntly, everywhere – from the Antarctic Ocean to the St. Lawrence Seaway – and that the problem is getting worse. We have moved from casual observations and stern warnings to sophisticated, verifiable scientific evidence and an emergent global policy imperative. I will argue that this plastic plague is not only relevant for ecological reasons but is also presents a “governance of the commons” puzzle for practitioner and theorist alike and that, further, it presents a challenge for the climate justice movement and the effort to establish development norms respectful of intergenerational equality shared but differentiated responsibilities. The global threat from aquatic plastic debris is of the first order and plastic abundance in the natural environment will have a deleterious impact on the survival of future generations.4 This evokes obligations ergo omnes related to the common heritage of humankind concept in this context. Secondly, the aquatic plastic pollution problem can be linked to climate change. Emerging science suggests that 1 Gratitude is extended to Concordia University research assistant Noelia Gravotta for her excellent contributions to this paper, and to the Faculty of Arts and Science Dean’s Office at Concordia University, Montreal, and the Hague Institute for Global Justice, Den Haag, for funding. A previous version of this paper was presented as “Marine Obligations Ergo Omnes: Reducing the Plastic Heritage of Humankind” to the Global Governance Reform Initiative: Oceans Governance Conference at the Hague Institute for Global Justice, The Hague, Netherlands, April 1, 2016. 2 Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7320LEADERS%20STATEMENT_FINAL_CLEAN.pdf https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7320LEADERS%20STATEMENT_FINAL_CLEAN.pdf 3 A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales at an event titled "Plastic in the marine environment: scaling up efforts to minimise waste" in Washington, D.C., published March 15, 2015: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/speeches/speech-hrh-the-prince-of-wales-event-titled-plastic-the-marine-environment-scaling. Jambeck et al (2105) estimated worldwide plastic waste entering the oceans at between 4.8 and 12.7 million metric tonnes per year. See also Erikson et al 2014. 4 Thus the issue impacts intergenerational justice from both an egalitarian and sufficiency perspective (see Page, 2006; Gosseries and Meyer, 2009).

Deleted: MARINE OBLIGATIONS ERGO OMNES: ON REDUCING THE PLASTIC HERITAGE OF

Deleted: HUMANKIND

Deleted: I open this paper with several interrelated assertions. Firstly, t

Formatted: Font:10 pt

ocean acidification, the potential breakdown of the ocean ecosystem food chain, rises in sea levels, invasive species, and plastic marine debris are interlinked variables. Thus there is a global imperative based on the four most widely accepted tenets of international environmental law (the precautionary principle, common but differentiated responsibilities, intergenerational equity, and the common heritage of mankind) to prevent further macroplastic, microplastic, and nanoplastic5 waste from entering rivers, lakes, and oceans. I begin with an introduction to the plastics problem at the oceanic and freshwater levels (the two are intimately connected, since much the deluge of plastic entering the oceans originates from river drainage). Next I make an explicit link between climate change and plastic waste, which gives rise to the normative imperatives explicated above. I then offer a detailed analysis of concrete measures that have been taken to control the plastics pollution problem at the multilateral level, including UNEA-2, the Honolulu Strategy, GESAMP, UNCLOS, and other efforts. If deterring plastic pollution of the oceans is an emerging obligation ergo omnes, it is imperative states collaborate on a major, multistakeholder project reflecting the urgency and long-term implications of this grave problem. Next, I examine some of the technological solutions that are being discussed, concluding that they will be futile without serious, co-ordinated prevention efforts. Policy is finally starting to catch up to science, but there is a long way to go. Some of the recommendations put forth in this paper involve accelerating this phase while enhancing further the science propelling policy change. Ultimately, this importance the international community is gradually placing on this issue is indicative of the spirit of the SDGs, which take on a much broader scope of challenges and targets than the Millennium Goals. One can be hopeful that the urgency of the various oceans crisis, all of which threaten the survival of humanity, will lead to a nuanced perspective on development that will respect human dignity alongside the ecosystems that sustain human life.

THE  SYNTHETIC  POLYMER  INVASION   Though plastic pollution has been observed for decades, the advent of our awareness of microplastic --particles under 5mm in diameter, derived from multiple sources and ubiquitous in marine ecosystems today -- is relatively new, dating back largely to the late 1990s. Microplastic has quickly emerged as the most problematic type of marine debris, threatening wildlife, human health, and entire ecosystems. An alarming European Commission report suggested that approximately ten percent of the global plastic manufactured each year (265 million tonnes) ends up in the oceans or other water systems (EC 2011). In some areas, densities have been recorded at 100,000 particles per square meter of water (Wright, Thompson, and Galloway 2013). One author sums up the wildlife impact of plastic marine debris as “entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions” (Gregory 2009; see also Desforges et al 2014). While plastic, often a petroleum and natural gas byproduct, does not biodegrade fully, it photo-degrades into tiny particles that can both release toxic chemicals and absorb other persistent organic pollutants and hydrophobic chemicals already in the water.6 Easily mistaken for food, it has entered the marine food chain (Provencher, 2014).7 Plastic debris acts as a transport system for invasive alien species and diminishes sunlight and oxygen levels, contributing to dead zones. This will only be exacerbated as climate change raises sea levels, claiming more debris from beaches and exposing more

5 Nanoplastic is 1000 times smaller than an algal cell; it is more likely to pass through biological membranes than microplastics. Research in this area is just beginning. See Koelmans et al 2015. 6 Synthetic polymers can be manufactured from fossil fuels or biomass. Complete biodegradation of plastic occurs when none of the original polymer remains, a result of microbial action breaking plastic down into carbon dioxide, methane and water. 7 Microplastics in food are not limited to marine organisms. They have have been found in ground almonds, sea salt, and oatmeal.

Deleted: the

Artic sea water to contamination (CBD 2012). Studies on Antarctic seawater are proceeding as well: a French team studying plankton found remarkably high plastic levels in the Southern Ocean in 2012. Remote Arctic sea ice has been found to contain high concentrations of microplastics, and the extent to which melting ice will release various anthropogenic particulates back into the ocean is not yet fully known (Obbard 2014). A new term has even been coined to describe the phenomenon: one article investigates “life in the plastisphere”, where entirely new microbial communities are evolving (Zettler, Mincer, and Amaral-Zettler 2013). We are as addicted to the use of plastics as ever: thus I refer to the overall problem as the plastics dilemma, part of what Peter Dauvergne (2008) laments as the “shadows of consumption” with implications for environmental justice. The diffuse nature of its origin, and the abstract nature of the oceans crisis (far removed from most citizens’ daily lives, or at least their daily consciousness), might make it a difficult subject for proponents of global governance to sell to governments. We might expect, however, that yet another alarming scientific development, the advent of new discoveries of microplastics in freshwater systems (which have an even more immediate impact on water supplies, fisheries, and other variables essential to human health), will prompt more policy action as the abstract nature of the problem is reshaped by increased proximity to citizens and politicians. That the entire record of plastic waste is vast and global (see Clapp, 2012) should not surprise us: an industry producing over 260 millions tons of product annually – and using roughly eight percent of global oil production in the process – leaves a tremendous ecological footprint (Thomson 2009; Redclift 1996). The world’s shorelines are the most obvious repository of plastic debris, from fishing material to degraded plastic bottles, and the discovery of the so-called “garbage patches” in the oceanic gyres, first in the Pacific and then elsewhere, were graphic, stunning alarm bells. The realization that the five gyres are serving as conductor belts for masses of debris, much of which is broken down plastic under the surface, should help us understand the breadth of contemporary industrial and consumptive pollution.8 Widely distributed photos of plastic products lodged in degraded bird corpses, and of other affected wildlife, also had some impact.9 There was solid scientific evidence that plastic debris, even at the micro-level, was an emerging problem in the Atlantic Ocean in the early 1970s (Carpenter et al., 1972; Colton, Knapp, and Burns, 1974). These findings, however, did not generate widespread response, and it was not until the 1990s and early 2000s that a flood of research emerged establishing beyond a doubt that there is a major plastic crisis in the oceans and, still later, in freshwater systems. In particular, the scientific move toward a focus on microplastics, which came into full swing in the early 2000s, was a vital moment in environmental science and policy. The publication of yachting captain Charles Moore’s Plastic Ocean, based largely on his first-hand 1997 observations, was seminal for public awareness. But the hard scientific work of analyzing water samples around the globe fell to thousands of scientists engaged in this new area of study. Such was their influence that we now routinely refer to larger plastic objects as “macroplastics” to distinguish them from the more prominent, yet under-surface, microplastics. Early pelagic studies even indicated a higher abundance of microplastics than zooplankton (the building block of the marine food chain) in some areas (Moore et al 2001). Plastic originates from many sources in industrial economies, which is one of the reasons a lengthy science-policy lag can be expected. Nurdles used as pre-production pellets escape the product cycle at various stages and end up in the water. Microbeads used in cosmetic cleansers and other personal

8 Ocean gyres are large systems of rotating ocean currents and are found in the North and South Pacific, the North and South Atlantic, and the Indian Ocean. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (also known as the Pacific Trash Vortex) is actually composed of an eastern and western accumulation of debris linked by the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. 9 Though we are most concerned about bioaccumulation, plastic debris also has direct impacts on wildlife and contributes to positive feedback loops: for example, plastic bags look very similar to jellyfish in a marine environment; this can lead sea turtles, which survive on jellyfish alone, to ingest the plastic bags and suffocate or starve as a consequence; the reduction in sea turtles, in turn, exacerbates the growing problem of invasive jellyfish abundance.

Deleted: will

products, even in toothpaste, are flushed into water systems undetected by filtration systems. Resilient plastic bags are ubiquitous across continents and have joined bottle caps, six-pack rings, straws, cigarette butts, and other plastic products in waterways considered pristine before the 1970s. Increasing evidence suggests polyester is one of the most abundant microplastics found on shorelines, released through the washing of clothes (Browne et al 2011). Even the synthetic rubber in car tires results in microplastic debris. New evidence suggests that the deep sea is harbouring much more plastic than was previously imagined. A 2014 study found that microplastic fibres were “up to four orders of magnitude more abundant (per unit volume) in deep sea sediments from the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean than in contaminated sea-surface waters” (Woodall, et al 2014; see also Van Cauwenberghe et al 2013). Extricating this plastic is not feasible.10 The discovery of significant levels of microplastic in lakes and rivers, which eventually drain into the ocean, demonstrate that this problem cannot be solved at the oceanic level alone. For instance, recent scientific studies found microplastic in the North American Great Lakes basin and in the sediment of the Saint Lawrence River (Johnston 2013; Driedger et al, 2015; Wagner, et al, 2014; Cataneda et al 2014)).11 This would not come as a large surprise to anyone who has walked the shores of any of the five Great Lakes or trails near the St. Lawrence, where plastic litter is a common sight. But the conclusion that much of the plastic found in the Great Lakes originates from cosmetic products, such as facial cleaners, further alerted the public to the connections between mass consumption and ecological sustainability.12 Europe’s rivers are being evaluated as well; one study found that plastic abundance in the Austrian Danube was higher than that of drifting larval fish, mostly in the form of industrial raw materials such a pellets and flakes (Lechner, et al 2014).13 Along with the identification of deep seabeds as massive repositories of microplastic, the move toward the scientific study of freshwater plastic will no doubt be seen as axiomatic in the future (see Eerkes-Medrano, Thompson and Aldridge, 2015). Further, the study of deep lake sediment is in its infancy (see Driedger, et al, 2015).14 All of this suggests we have a serious problem with plastic, but there is growing concern that this problem is acting as a multiplier for an even broader issue: climate change, and should this be

10 Indeed, “as soon as plastics become buried in sediment, submerged, or covered by organic and inorganic coatings, the rate of fragmentation declines rapidly” (UNEP-GPA 2015:21). Interestingly, the Woodall study included high detections of rayon, which “is not a plastic, but we include it in our results, because it is a man-made semi-synthetic material and widely reported as present in the marine environment. It is used in cigarette filters, personal hygiene products and clothing, and is introduced to the marine environment through sewage, including from the washing of clothes. It has been reported in fish (57.8% of synthetic particles ingested) and in ice cores (54%), in similar proportions…” (Woodall et al 2014). 11 I have included this section to demonstrate the ubiquity of the problem but also because the Great Lakes drain into the Atlantic Ocean. It would now be a colossal error to assume this problem can be solved at the oceanic level alone. 12 Note that the connection with facial cleansers in particular had been made several years before in the ocean; see Fendall and Sewell (2009) for a New Zealand study. 13 There are several bilateral institutions with a history of technocratic scientific involvement in the Great Lakes context. The International Joint Commission (IJC) retains its reputation as a model of shared resource management, and the partial success of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is encouraging. Future modifications of the Agreement will probably reflect recent discoveries about the extent of the problem. The NAFTA-based Commission on Environmental Cooperation has a Sound Management of Chemicals Working Group. Canada and the U.S. have implemented two Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategies (in 1997 and 2006). The Council of Great Lakes Governors (Ontario and Quebec sit as affiliate members), formed through the Great Lakes Charter in 1955, and other venues and groups, such as the State of the Lakes Ecosystem conferences and the International Association for Great Lakes Research, are aware of the problem but preliminary interviews suggest that it is remarkably under-researched. 14 Not all the science on microplastics leads one way. For example, a recent study indicates that concerns about plastic additives leaching into the food chain when fish and sandworms ingest plastic pellets are exaggerated (see Koelmans, Besseling, and Foekema, 2014). And there is certainly a disparity, noted above, between our knowledge of microplastics in the oceans and in freshwater. A survey of recent scientific literature concludes that “there are immense gaps in knowledge regarding freshwater microplastic … Data on the biological effects of microplastic in freshwater is completely lacking” (Wagner, et al 2014). The point is that the discourse should be a public one and it should help inform policymaking.

considered one the many factors animating calls for climate justice across and within nation-states and thus help shape the development-with-dignity agenda in the coming decades. AQUATIC PLASTIC DEBRIS AND CLIMATE CHANGE Space precludes an in-depth exposition of this relationship, but it is worth stressing that the deluge of aquatic plastics is contributing further to problems associated with climate change and indeed threatens the entire ocean food chain. The plastics industry itself has been estimated to make a 10% contribution to “global warming potential” including its relative contribution to other material groups (STAP 2011). But beyond this, microplastics and nanoplastics can be ingested by zooplankton and microzooplankton15 (Cole et al 2013), which negatively impacts algal feeding (potentially increasing algal blooms), and can disrupt zooplankton growth and fecundity. Phytoplankton use sunlight to bind water and carbon dioxide, creating oxygen and organic matter for other organisms to eat. If organisms are ingesting microplastic, or being harmed by their plastic consumption, they are ingesting less organic carbon-based matter and the carbon cycling function of ocean ecosystems may be compromised. Increased carbon levels in the oceans are already contributing to ocean acidification and other problems, but moreover, microzooplankton and zooplankton form the basis of the marine food chain, and thus their collapse would spell disaster. Ocean currents may shift due to climate change as well, and sea level rise will claim more litter from shorelines, further complicating the impact of plastic pollution. There is emerging evidence that plastic ingestion by coral reefs add to the threat climate change poses to these previous biodiverse resources (Hall et al 2015). A combination of shifting temperature zones and the use of plastic debris as transportation devices will exacerbate the problem of invasive species, including microbes (Derraik, 2002).

The overlap between plastic pollution and climate change is just beginning to receive serious investigation (personal communication, David Walsh). The political similarities are as striking, however: as with climate change, we have a range of common but differentiated responsibilities involved. For example, small island states are disproportionately affected by aquatic microplastics, similar to the climate change issue (see Costa and Barletta, 2015). This was acknowledged in the 2011 Honolulu Commitment discussed below.16 Much of the rhetoric on climate justice and intergenerational justice applies here as well. More pollution (carbon, methane, plastic) now comes from the Asian region than others, but historically plastic was a European and American innovation. According to one estimate, “20 countries, out of a total of 192 coastlines, are responsible for 83% of the plastic debris put into the world’s oceans” (Tibbetts 2015:91). Another concluded that reducing waste management by 50% in the top 20 countries would result in nearly 40% decline in inputs of plastics to the ocean (Leonard, 2015).   MULTILATERAL AND LOCAL EFFORTS: BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR ACTION The issue is wedged between several broader themes. Ocean plastic has been viewed largely as an anthropogenic marine debris issue within the international diplomatic and oceanographic community. And, of course, it is one, made painfully evident when efforts at locating the missing Air Malaysia 15 These are micro-grazers, bigger than bacteria but smaller than zooplankton. Thanks to David Walsh, Professor of Biology at Concordia University, Montreal, for discussion. 16 Parties to the Commitment “Recognised the need to address the special requirements of developing countries, in particular the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, and their need for financial and technical assistance, technology transfer, training and scientific cooperation to enhance their ability to prevent, reduce and manage marine debris as well as to implement this commitment and the Honolulu Strategy.”

Deleted:

airliner in 2014 were hampered by repeated sightings of floating plastic garbage. However, the discovery of microplastic abundance suggests we are dealing with a much less visible but more pernicious and intractable problem, moving far beyond conventional understandings of marine debris and into the biochemical realm. Lost or discarded fishing gear, lost shipping containers, non-degraded plastic bags, and many other forms of debris litter the oceans and large lakes, but they can be spotted and retrieved and even, to a limited degree, prevented at source. Nurdles and microbeads and nanoparticles are much harder to spot and almost impossible to retrieve, and their sources are so diffuse it is difficult to lay blame on any one set of actors. Yet there is an even broader theme that microplastic evinces, the perils of contemporary mass industrial production (similarly, much lake and ocean pollution comes from the consequences of modern agri-business). We will have more success fighting microplastic by changing both the production process and the consumption habits of people living in shoreline communities (and, since many major cities run their refuse through rivers into large bodies of water, inland cities as well). Of course, there are countless transnational networks encouraging such behavioral changes, and the discovery of microplastic abundance might well be an unparalleled public relations opportunity for them. It would be unfair to suggest that there has not been any action at the level of global environmental governance, though the UNCLOS has less impact here than one might expect. UNCLOS is only effective in regulating marine-based dumping; Article 207 deals with land-based pollution but it is basically just about “best efforts” (states must endeavor to prevent land-based pollution through their own laws). At UNEA-2 in Nairobi, 2016, a draft resolution on marine litter has been circulated and we expect it to be adopted. This may lead to another resolution in the General Assembly.17 Prior to this, a high level commitment came in May 2016 with the communiqué of the G7 Toyama Environment Minister’s Meeting, which states: “We are committed to implementing the following priority measures, in accordance with national circumstances, in close collaboration and cooperation within the G7 and at other fora (e.g. the G20), foremost through existing platforms and tools, in particular the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans, based on the Leaders’ Declaration of the G7 Elmau Summit and its annex the “G7 Action Plan to Combat Marine Litter” including discussions in the G7 workshops: (1) promotion of financing opportunities for environmentally sound waste management and wastewater treatment and sharing best practices among G7 members and respective priority countries, aiming for the prevention and reduction of marine litter from land-based sources; (2) promotion of reducing marine litter, particularly the environmentally sound removal actions of plastic litter as far as possible before it degrades into microplastics; (3) promotion of international collaboration working with appropriate organizations including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to address reduction of marine litter in the ocean and from sea-based sources; (4) promotion of outreach and education activities leading to individual behavior change that can prevent litter from entering the environment, internal waters, and the seas; and (5) actions towards standardizing and harmonizing monitoring methodologies for assessing the state of the marine and coastal environment with regard to litter, the progress towards its reduction and effect of microplastics on marine and coastal life, ecosystems and potentially also human health, and for promoting, actively and effectively, various research activities including scientific studies and those initiated at the grass-roots level by citizens.18 17 UNEA-2 is taking place as this paper is completed; however the author will attend the event in Nairobi and be able to report back on progress achieved. 18 This meeting went beyond the G7: participants included the G7 Ministers and high representatives, and European Commissioner responsible for the environment, heads and senior officials of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – Local Governments for Sustainability, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Global Compact, and 100 RESILIENT CITIES, representatives from the cities of Bristol, Firenze, Frankfurt am

Formatted: Font:10 ptFormatted: Font:10 ptFormatted: Font:10 pt, English (US)Formatted: Font:10 ptFormatted: Normal, No widow/orphancontrol, Don't adjust space between Latinand Asian text, Don't adjust spacebetween Asian text and numbers

As this communiqué suggests, there are many intergovernmental and transnational organizations engaged in aspects of the plastics issue, including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United National Environmental Program (UNEP) and its Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Of special importance are the UNEP’s Regional Seas Programmes, to which I return below.19 In March 2011 the Fifth Marine Debris Conference adopted the Honolulu Strategy – a Global Framework for the Prevention and Management of Marine Debris, though it did not set specific targets. It has three principal goals: Goal A: reduced amount and impact of land-based sources of marine debris. Goal B: reduced amount and impact of sea-based sources of marine debris, including solid waste, lost cargo, abandoned lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear, and abandoned vessels. Goal C: reduced amount and impact of accumulated marine debris on shorelines, in benthic habitats, and in pelagic waters. Though a vital first step at the global governance level, the Honolulu Strategy (and its attendant Commitment, signed by 35 participating states) is more about public and international education than concrete commitments and expressions of responsibility and/or liability. The next year a related Global Partnership on Marine Litter was formed, and this foundation may serve to create opportunities for more demanding, binding multilateral agreements. Other developments are equally encouraging. The International Maritime Organization (headquartered in London, England), along with other partner UN agencies and programs, established GESAMP -- the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. Working Group 40 of GESAMP is devoted specifically to a global assessment of the “Sources, fate and effects of micro-plastics in the marine environment”. It released a preliminary report in 2012 outlining the alarming extent of the plastics problem, and will release a second report soon, utilizing the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) assessment framework. The lead agency on Working Group 40, meanwhile, is the International Oceanographic Commission, a UNESCO body (UNESCO-IOC).20 Interestingly, both the American Chemistry Council and Plastics Europe, both industry associations, are financial contributors to the Working Group; the plastics industry has been quite active in the issue-area, funding initiatives such as MARLISCO (the Marine Litter in Europe Seas: Social Awareness and Co-responsibility).21 This might be seen a pre-emptive public relations, but it portends well that industry has not channeled significant energy into denying the existence of the problem, or funding counter-claim science. Another major voice is a transnational science-based NGO with strong ties to the philanthropic community: the Global Oceans Commission.22 Proposal 5 of its 2014 Summary Report (pp 28-29) recommends robust actions on plastic reduction, including “direct government intervention” to “create incentives to promote recycling, including single-use polymer products”, “achieving improved waste management” and, more gingerly, suggests “exploring taxation and other levies to establish a Global Marine Responsibility Fund.” It even implies that “time bound quantitative reduction targets” should be part of the Sustainable Development Goals, though it is nearly impossible to accurately estimate the amount of plastic in the oceans today. The SDGs include two broad goals touching on the issue, Goal 6 (on clean water and sanitation) and Goal 14 (on ocean conservation).

Main, Higashimatsushima, Kitakyushu, Toyama, Vancouver, and Vitry-le-François, and the governor of Toyama prefecture. 19 UNEP’s Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment From Land-Based Activities was adopted in 1995. 20 The IMO’s MARPOL contains an annex on the disposal of plastics and garbage at sea, strengthened by the London Protocol. 21 In North America the Ocean Conservancy established the Trash Free Seas Alliance, which includes chemical and plastics companies, economists, scientists, and conservation groups. 22 Hosted by Somerville College (Oxford) and financed by Pew, Adessium, Oceans 5, and Swire Trust.

Deleted: Yet,t

Formatted: Font:10 pt, English (US)

It could be argued, given the severity if the situation, that a new global treaty on plastic production and consumption is necessary, though convention fatigue and the diffused nature of this non-point source pollution are obstacles (Gold et al., 2013; Chen 2015). But recognition of the problem, even on a global scale, is clearly insufficient today, and we need to move toward more concrete policy solutions. Most of these will occur at the local level, spurred by discoveries of microplastic contamination closer to home. The OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (1998) adopted a “Marine Litter Regional Action Plan” in 2014, reinforcing the need to focus on land-based source prevention, and revisited the Plan at a recent conference hosted by the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.23 There are several other regional action plans in effect. The UN Regional Seas Programmes are mandated to reduce marine pollution from land sources, and may be the best pooled-action possibilities in terms of solid regional agreements to reduce source pollution. The MARLISCO programme mentioned above is quite developed and has industry support. It also helps co-ordinate various “Fishing for Litter” programmes that have sprung up across the continent (fishermen are not compensated for returning with litter, but its disposal on shore is free). Engineers are working toward the development of retrieval systems for microplastics as well; this is research worth funding since it might yield game-changing advances. None of this detracts from the centrality of prevention, however. Spurred by revelations about freshwater plastic, many sub-state actors are taking action. The most visible policy move so far has been the state of Illinois’ June 2014 ban on the manufacture and sale of personal care products containing synthetic plastic microbeads. Though the total ban does not take effect until 2020, it is a monumental step, and the cosmetics industry has quickly cooperated.24 A similar effort failed to get to the floor of the Republican controlled Senate of New York in 2014, but a renewed campaign should see a positive outcome in 2016. A ban on plastic bags for the whole of California has been overridden by a citizen request for a referendum which will take place in 2016; apparently the plastic bag industry is not as prepared to accept change, having an existential stake in the issue.25 California’s capital city, Sacramento, banned single-use plastic bags beginning in 2016, joining over 100 Californian cities.26 Similarly, large cities such as Toronto have flirted with the imposition of plastic bag bans, with limited success, but the trend toward such local actions seems inexorable now. Montreal voted in 2016 to ban single-use plastic bags by 2018, and the city of Hamburg in Germany has banned the sale of plastic bottles. Many other examples exist of significant reductions in plastic bag usage due to policy changes at the municipal level. British retail giant Tesco reported am almost-80% drop in plastic bag usage after the implementation of a 5p charge per bag in late 2015.27 Should plastic debris be classified as hazardous waste, opening more legal doors for preventive and ameliorative action? (See Rochman, 2013, for perhaps the most forceful argument in this direction; also Amaral-Zettler, 2015) The EPA has moved in this direction with carbon (subject to judicial review) and the enviable precedent with CFCs and the eventual Montreal Protocol is often raised here. This is perhaps a longer-term option at this stage. It would certainly meet with pronounced protest by the plastics and oil industries, fearful of an even more robust anti-plastic regime. Given its ubiquity and

23 We await the publication of conclusions reached at this forum. “Closing the Plastic Value Chain: Measures for Reducing Microplastic Emissions”, see: https://euccnews.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/ospar-gathers-views-on-measures-to-reduce-emissions-of-microplastics/ 24 At least three major cosmetics firms have action plans in place to eliminate their use of microbeads: Unilever, Johnson and Johnson, and L’Oreal. Cosmetics Europe issued a report in 2015 recommending all its members discontinue the use of microbeads. Crest Toothpaste, via Proctor and Gamble, eliminated microbeads in all its toothpaste in 2015. 25 This after a $3 million public relations campaign sponsored by the “American Progressive Bag Alliance”, composed mainly of out-of-state plastic bag producers. See Jim Miller, “California Plastic Bag Ban on Hold Pending 2016 Vote”, Sacramento Bee, February 25, 2015, http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article11084876.html 26 http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/04/01/sacramento-approves-plastic-bag-ban.html. 27 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/12034574/Plastic-bag-5p-charge-cuts-usage-by-almost-80-per-cent-first-data-shows.html

Deleted: s

Deleted: ?

Deleted: The City of Montreal will implement a ban on certain types of plastic bags in 2018.

Formatted: Font:10 ptFormatted: Font:10 ptFormatted: Font:10 pt, English (US)

resilience, it is unlikely plastic itself (in its thousands of forms) will be banned anytime soon, though varieties using toxic monomers (such as vinyl chloride) and toxic plasticizers should be banned internationally as soon as possible.28 One can argue that the IMO London Protocol already bans the deliberate dumping of many of these toxins. How we frame environmental problems has a significant impact on policy responses and public pressure to take action (see Litfin, 1994; Stoett, 2010; Jinnah 2011; Fischer 2003). The central argument advanced here is that there is an urgent need to frame the plastics issue in scientific terms. We need to avoid the endless debate and room for oscillation left open in the climate discourse; and we have consensus-based scientific evidence with which we can do it. The need for concerted action has begun to permeate the policy discourse, and it will be difficult to avoid if the plastics industry cannot deny the extensive damage their products are causing. It is heartening that they are not even trying to do so at present. CITIZEN SCIENCE The plastics dilemma also offers great scope for the active participation of non-scientists in the gathering of data and implementation of solutions such as salvage operations and plastic debris reduction. Perhaps it is a harbinger of an emergent “civil science” that would have inherent political legitimacy (Backstrand 2003), and that can be shared across north and south. The plastics dilemma is so fundamental to households, nation-states, and the global economy that it might offer a bridge between the “expert-lay knowledge divide” (Wynne 1996) – that is, high-level scientific work and the every-day application of sustainability ethics. The 5 Gyres Institute, for example, engages citizens with traditional beach clean ups and awareness events, but also offers the more adventurous the unique opportunity to join a research expedition and will loan “travel trawls” to vessels wishing to aid in the collection of samples. More generally, citizen science may play a key role in the monitoring and decision-making processes related to managing the plastics problem. Indeed, in a report for the European Commission, the question of how mass public participation in data collection relates to policy processes is raised (UWE 2013). Several data collection, monitoring and mitigation projects already utilize tools facilitating public participation; the European Environment Agency uses a smartphone application to gather citizen observations on marine litter for monitoring under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 25 (UWE 2013; see also Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel 2015). The use of drone technology by experts and environmentalists alike will further enhance surveillance capacities beyond the reach of government or industry. The International Coastal Cleanup (organized since 1986 by the Ocean Conservancy) mobilizes nearly 600,000 volunteers in almost 100 countries (Chen 2015:402). Partnerships with universities can be helpful here (Rutgers and the University of Wisconsin both have exciting programs). Artistic communities are also playing a role, such as Parley for the Oceans, which aims to get the fashion industry and other creative arts involved. TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS Though it is clear that multilateral diplomatic work is necessary, technological solutions are also a part of any recovery plan for our plastic planet. However, they all exhibit serious limitations, and none of 28 Rochman et al (2013:170) conclude that “[a]ccording to a hazard-ranking model on the UN’s Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals, the chemical ingredients of more than 50% of plastics are hazardous … Many of these are ‘priority pollutants’: chemicals that are regulated by … the US EPA [that can] disrupt key physiological processes, such as cell division and immunity, causing disease or reducing organisms’ ability to escape from predators or reproduce.” See also Costa and Barletta, 2015:1973 for a discussion of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in plastic pellets.

Deleted: .

Deleted: , for example,

them should form the basis of an action strategy in the future. Robotic or captained pelagic vacuum cleaners (such as the crowd-sourced SeaVax) or trailing suction hopper dredging ships (such as the Queen of the Netherlands) can no doubt make a substantive impact. It would take a virtual navy of such ships to affect significant change, given the mass of plastic in our oceans, lakes, and rivers. But this is no reason to consider plastic retrieval futile, and governments with UNCLOS EEZ’s surely have an obligation, when possible, to fund surface clean-up programmes. A multilateral fund such as that suggested by the GOC could be utilized to finance retrieval operations in the oceanic gyres, given their difficult location in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The Ocean Cleanup Project proposed conducting retrieval operations in the North Pacific Garbage Patch, while another study has indicated that more beneficial outcomes would be attained by focusing retrieval areas off the coast of East Asia, from where a majority of plastic litter now originates. Off-shore capture closer to the coast would prevent marine litter being swept into the open ocean, would reduce the amount of plastic that degrades into microplastic, and may also reduce the amount of microplastic and plankton overlap (Sherman and van Sebille, 2016). Larger-scale geoengineering designs are more problematic, however. Stimulating phytoplankton presence and activity by increasing nutrient availability in areas swamped by plastic waste is one such proposal (this would, theoretically, also increase CO2 uptake). Unfortunately, introducing iron or nitrogen to areas with especially high plastic density may cause as many problems as it solves. Stimulating plastic-bound bacteria to increase their nitrogen-fixing capacity is another idea that seems rather far-fetched to most scientists. In general, stimulating phytoplankton can lead to eutrophication and “dead zones” with low oxygen content in which anaerobic bacteria thrive; their respiration produces nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas about 265 times more potent than CO2. Biodegradable plastics, meanwhile, do not offer a solution to the aquatic plastics problem. Most biodegradable plastic products do not decompose unless a temperature of 50 degrees Celsius is reached, which – one hopes – is highly unlikely in any aquatic context. A report commissioned by the UNEP’s GPA for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities concluded that “the adoption of plastic products labeled as ‘biodegradable’ will not bring about a significant decrease either in the quantity of plastic entering the ocean or the risk of physical and chemical impacts on the marine environment” and, since the very term “biodegradable” might lessen consumer inhibitions about plastic products and their improper discard, it may even worsen the situation (UNEP GPA 2015).29 Unless placed in an industrial composter, the plastic that does biodegrade would do so anaerobically, emitting carbon dioxide and methane, contributing further to greenhouse gas emissions. Nor is there any evidence that biodegradable plastics break down once consumed by mammals such as sea turtles (Muller 2012). Technology may provide some solutions, but it also causes additional problems. As we move toward an aquaculture-based global protein regime, many observers have concluded that it is a major source of plastic pollution (Austin, 2014; Mathalon and Hill, 2014). One study found that aquaculture was a major contributor of marine litter off the coasts of Chile, South Korea, Japan, and other areas (Hinojosa and Thiel, 2009).30 Another area of future concern will be the rise of 3D printing, “using plastic ‘ink’ [which] will guarantee expanded use of polymeric feedstocks” (Moore, 2015:vii). Even the recycling industry, which is vital for plastic use reduction, comes with its own pollution and climate change issues; though exciting ideas for secondary uses, such as the construction of roads and sidewalks in the Netherlands, are surfacing (Valentine 2015). 29 The Report does refer with some hope to specialized polymers that can break down easily in seawater, which could reduce the impact of lost or discarded fishing gear, though problems remain with this expensive technology. 30 Debris includes plastic food packaging and Styrofoam fragments from aquaculture platform flotation devices (the latter was regulated by Chile in 2008).

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Though this paper has barely scratched the surface of the aquatic plastic problem, several recommendations can be presented at this juncture.

a) The Honolulu Strategy should be re-invigorated by the adoption of a global accord to curb the purposeful and incidental dispersion of plastic waste into the marine environment (Gold, et al. 2013; Chen 2015). There is a global ethical imperative to establish such a Convention, but it will be a long-term project demanding multilevel, adaptive governance. This may build on the resolution expected from UNEA-2 in late May of 2016.31

b) The potential links between climate change and plastics pollution should receive ample research funding as well as political consideration. Governments should integrate pollution limitation agendas with their climate change mitigation and adaptation plans. The Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP) can be helpful in this regard as well.

c) Linked to the above, this should be seen as a climate justice issue; and plastic pollution is a fundamental challenge to the SDG-developmental-with-dignity agenda.

d) More research is needed on the behavioral economics of marine litter (see Wyles 2014). Incentive structures need to be constructed for both governmental policy-making and for consumer and producer behavior.

e) The Global Oceans Commission’s suggestion to establish a Global Marine Responsibility Fund to help finance related retrieval and research efforts should be explored. Heavy investment in technological advancement for plastics retrieval is critical and should be partially funded by the plastics and fossil fuel industries, part of a broader regime of extended producer responsibility.

f) Though the extent of plastic in the oceans is a major problem, the main problem for future generations is the increase in land-based sources of plastic pollution. Tackling this issue demands fiscal and taxation strategies to reduce waste, updates in water treatment facilities, and harsh penalties for serious violations of dumping regulations.

g) Governments and NGOs must continue to encourage the active involvement of “citizen science” on this issue; we can learn from previous experiences with invasive species identification and wastewater management.

h) Clear indicators are necessary for tracking progress. For example, the OSPAR Commission employs three indicators of marine plastic: seabed litter, beach litter, and ingestion by Northern fulmar seabirds.32 GESAMP and others are working on operational indicators.

i) Aquaculture must be regulated to control for plastic debris. Green Certification programs must take this into account. Other emergent technologies, such as 3D printing, must be evaluated in terms of their potential contribution to the problem.

CONCLUSION The oceans crisis is broad and indeed overwhelming in scope. Overfishing, illegal fishing, coastal pollution, acidification, the inexorable spread of jellyfish and other invasive species, continued intentional oil dumping: the list of challenges is long, and global environmental governance has yet to 31 The U.S. NOAA (2011) recommends several strands of research to strengthen the Honolulu Strategy, including impact on coral reefs, ghost fishing, microbial interaction with microplastics, chemical exposure and bioaccumulation, pathogen transport, economic impacts on transportation and tourism. 32 Fulmars actually distribute plastic through their excrement; it has been estimated that fulmars “annually reshape and redistribute 6 tons of plastic” (Gold 2013).

produce a commensurate institutional response. Instead, piecemeal initiatives, within the context of UNCLOS, have surfaced across the globe. Many of these initiatives are, quite rightly, regional in scope. Fewer are truly global, and despite efforts towards agreements on conservation in areas beyond national jurisdiction and others, it is difficult to respond to the crisis as a whole. Similarly, on a national and regional level, the problems affecting freshwater lakes are typically approached from a local perspective, even in cases, such as the North American Great Lakes, where there are strong links with national security and sustainability and a bilateral international relationship is involved. The plastics issue further strains the tenuous governance networks that have evolved. This is a clear case in which science has prevailed in terms of the discovery and dissemination of vital information relaying a grave threat to ocean and lake ecosystems; with such irrefutable data, it is less likely we will enter into the endless rhetoric that clouds the policy implementation of climate science. But the links between microplastic contamination and climate change and climate justice should not be overlooked either. Indeed, the scientific work being done on this issue is also furthering our general understanding of ecosystems, climate change, invasive species, animal health, and the aquatic food chain. It challenges the legitimacy of the ubiquity of plastics in the modern global economy, itself attached inseparably to the oil and natural gas industries, as well as agri-business. It has helped galvanize local initiatives toward sustainability policies, such as the banning of the use of plastic bags in supermarkets and microbeads in cosmetic products. Few cases (the ozone layer protection regime was perhaps the most illustrative to date) so clearly demonstrate the need for continued scientific surveillance and innovation, and the need for policymakers to listen to science on a global scale. The science-policy lag – arguably the period we are now experiencing on this issue – is in itself a serious threat to the ecological integrity of earth’s life cycles. While some of the engineering solutions aimed at reducing the amount of plastic in our oceans and lakes have great promise, costs will be prohibitive to apply it on a broad scale. It is far more likely that we will have to live with this assault to our ecosystems for years to come. Plastic has emerged as the synthetic material of choice because of its durability. This is also its curse. REFERENCES Adler, Ellik, e. a. Summary Proceedings: 5th International Marine Debris Conference. Retrieved from

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/summaryproceedings.pdf Amaral-Zettler, L. A., Zettler, E. R., Slikas, B., Boyd, G. D., Melvin, D. W., Morrall, C. E., . . . Mincer,

T. J. (2015). The biogeography of the Plastisphere: implications for policy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(10), 541-546. doi:10.1890/150017

Andrady, A. 2011. “Microplastics in the Marine Environment.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:1596-

1605. Austin, B. (2014, November). The Aquaculture Industry. Microbiology Today, 41(4), 166-169.

Retrieved from http://www.microbiologysociety.org/publications/microbiology-today/past-issues.cfm/publication/water/article/7A993C5D-AE1E-4428-B8F391A1E9DBEFED.

Backstrand, K. 2003. “Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policymakers

and Citizens in Environmental Governance.” Global Environmental Politics 3(4):24-41.

Deleted: global warming

Berkman, P. et al., eds. 2011. Science Diplomacy: Antarctica, Science, and the Governance of International Spaces. Washington: Smithsonian.

Bocking, S. 2013. "Science and Society: The Structures of Scientific Advice." Review Article. Global

Environmental Politics 13(2): 154-159. Boesch, D. 1999. “The Role of Science in Ocean Governance.” Ecological Economics 31:189-198. Bolin, B. 2007. A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Botts, L. and Muldoon, P. 2005. Evolution of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. East Lansing:

Michigan State University Press. Bremer, S. and B. Glavovic. 2013. “Exploring the science–policy interface for Integrated Coastal

Management in New Zealand.” Ocean & Coastal Management 84:107-118. Brickman, R., S. Jasanoff, and T. Ilgen. 1985. Controlling Chemicals: the Politics of Regulation in

Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Browne MA, Crump P, Niven SJ, Teuten E, Tonkin A, Galloway T, Thompson RC. 2011 Accumulation

of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks. Environment, Science, and Technology 45, 9175–9179.

Bureš, O. 2006. "Regional Peacekeeping Operations: Complementing or Undermining the United

Nations Security Council?.” Global Change, Peace & Security 18 (2): 83–99. Campbell LM. 2012. “Seeing Red: Inside the Science and Politics of the IUCN Red List.” Conservation

and Society, 10:367-80. Carpenter, et al. 1972. “Polystyrene Spherules in Coastal Waters.” Science 178 (4062):749-750. Castaneda, R., S. Avlijas, M. Simard, A. Ricciardi. 2014. “Microplastic Pollution in St. Lawrence

Sediments.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71(12): 1767-1771. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2012. Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity. CBD

Technical Series No. 67. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Chen, Chung-Ling. 2015. “Regulation and Management of Marine Litter.” In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow,

and M.Klages, eds., Marine Anthropogenic Litter (New York: Springer), 395-428. Claessens, M., et al. 2013. “New Techniques for the Detection of Microplastics in Sediments and Field

Collected Organisms.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 70:1-2, 227-233. Clapp, J. 2012. “The Global Reach of Plastic Waste.” In S. Foote, ed., Histories of the Dustheap

(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press), 199-225. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., Goodhead, R., Moger, J., & Galloway, T. S. (2013).

Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ Sci Technol, 47(12), 6646-6655. doi:10.1021/es400663f

Colton, J., F. Knapp, and B. Burns. 1974. “Plastic Particles in Surface Waters of the Northwestern

Atlantic.” Science 185 (4150):491-497. Common Oceans. (2016). Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://www.commonoceans.org/home/en/. Conca, K. 2005. Governing Water: Contentious Transnational Politics and Global Institution Building.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992 (Helsinki

Convention). (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.helcom.fi/about-us/convention Cosmetics Europe Annual Report. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.cosmeticseurope.eu/publications-

cosmetics-europe-association/annual-reports.html?view=item&id=101 Cosmetics Europe. (2015, October 21). Cosmetics Europe issues a recommendation on solid plastic

particles (plastic micro particles). Retrieved from: https://www.cosmeticseurope.eu/news-a-events/news/822-cosmetics-europe-issues-a-recommendation-on-solid-plastic-particles-plastic-micro-particles.html

Costa, M. F., & Barletta, M. (2015). Microplastics in coastal and marine environments of the western

tropical and sub-tropical Atlantic Ocean. Environ Sci Process Impacts, 17(11), 1868-1879. doi:10.1039/c5em00158g

Dauvergne, P. 2005. “Cancer and Global Environmental Politics: Proposing a New Research Agenda.”

Global Environmental Politics 5:3, 6-13. Dauvergne, P. 2008. The Shadows of Consumption: Consequences for the Global Environment.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Derraik, J. 2002. “The Pollution of the Marine Environment by Plastic Debris: A Review.” Marine

Pollution Bulletin 44:9, 842-852. Desforges, J-P., et. al. 2014. “Widespread Distribution of Microplastic in Sub-surface Seawater in the

Northeast Pacific Ocean.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 79(1-2), 94-99. Di Mauro, F., S. Dees, and W. McKibbin. 2009. Globalisation, Regionalism, and Economic

Interdependence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. Stern. 2003. “The Struggle to Govern the Commons.” Science 202: 1907-

1912. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a

framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). (2008). Official Journal of the European Union. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056

Downs, A. 1972. “Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue-Attention Cycle.” Public Interest 28: 38-50.

Driedger, A., H. Durr, K. Mitchell, and P. van Cappellen. 2015. “Plastic Debris in the Great Lakes: A Review.” Journal of Great Lakes Research 41:1, 9-19.

Eerkes-Medrano, D., R. Thomspon, and D. Aldridge. 2015. “Microplastics in Freshwater Systems: A

Review of Emerging Threats, Identification of Knowledge Gaps and Prioritization of Research Needs.” Water Research 75:63-82.

Eisenberg, R. 1987. “Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology Research.” Yale

Law Journal 97:186-197. Eriksen M, Lebreton LCM, Carson HS, Thiel M, Moore CJ, Borerro JC, et al. (2014) Plastic Pollution in

the World's Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea. PLoS ONE 9(12): e111913. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111913

European Commission (EC). 2011. Plastic Waste: Ecological and Human Health Impacts, In-depth

Report. Brussels: EC Directorate-General, Environment. Fendall L., and M. Sewell (2009) “Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics

in facial cleansers.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 58:1225-1228 Fischer, F. 2003. Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Sustainable Fisheries Management

And Biodiversity Conservation In The Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). [Pamphlet]. (2011). Retrieved from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/brochure/GEF-ABNJ/GEF-ABNJ.pdf

Geiling, N. (2015, April 20). Adidas Wants To Make Shoes And Clothing Using Plastic Garbage From

The Ocean. Think Progress. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/20/3648820/adidas-marine-plastic-material/

Global Environmental Facility. (2010). Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme Open Ocean

Working Group Meeting: Summary Report. Arendal, Norway: UNEP-GRID/Arendal. Retrieved from http://ioc-unesco.org/twap-oo-2

Gold, M., et al. 2013. Stemming the Tide of Plastic Marine Litter: A Global Action Agenda. Pritzker

Policy Brief 5. https://law.ucla.edu/centers/environmental-law/emmett-institute-on-climate-change-and-the-environment/publications/stemming-the-tide-of-plastic-marine-litter/

Gosseries, A., and L. Meyer, eds. 2009. International Justice. Oxford University Press. Gough, C., and S. Shackley. 2001. “The Respectable Politics of Climate Change: The Epistemic

Communities and NGOs.” International Affairs 77(2): 329-345. Gouin, J. A., I. Brunning, K. Brzuska, J. de Graaf, J. Kaumanns, T. Koning, M. Meyberg, K. Rettinger,

H. Schlatter, J. Thomas, R. van Welie, T. Wolf. (2015). “Use of Micro-Plastic Beads in Cosmetic Products in Europe and Their Estimated Emissions to the North Sea Environment.” SOFW, 141(3), 40-46. Retrieved from

http://www.ikw.org/fileadmin/content/downloads/Sch%C3%B6nheitspflege/SOFW_Micro-Plastic_beads_in_Cosmetic_Products.pdf

Gray, N. and L. Campbell. 2009. “Science, Policy Advocacy, and Marine Protected Areas.”

Conservation Biology 23(2): 460-468. Gregory, M. 2009. “Environmental Implications of Plastic Debris in Marine Settings – entanglement,

ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1526):2013-2025.

Group of Seven (G7). (2015). Leadersʼ Declaration. Schloss Elmau, Germany. Haas, P. 1989. “Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control.”

International Organization 43: 377-403. Haas, P., and N. Kanie, eds. 2004. Dynamics of Multilateral Environmental Governance. Tokyo: United

Nations University. Hall, N. M., Berry, K. L. E., Rintoul, L., & Hoogenboom, M. O. (2015). Microplastic ingestion by

scleractinian corals. Marine Biology, 162(3), 725-732. doi:10.1007/s00227-015-2619-7 Hastings E, and T. Potts. 2013. “Marine litter: progress in developing an integrated policy approach in

Scotland.” Marine Pollution 42: 49-55 Haufler, V. 2009. “Transnational Actors and Global Environmental Governance”, in M. Delmas and O.

Young, eds., Governance for the Environment: New Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 193-143.

Heazle, M. 2006. Scientific Uncertainty and the Politics of Whaling. Seattle: University of Washington

Press. Hidalgo-Ruz, V., and M. Thiel. “The Contribution of Citizen Scientists to the Monitoring of Marine

Litter. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, and M.Klages, eds., Marine Anthropogenic Litter (New York: Springer), 429-445.

Hill, Taylor. (2016, Jan 15). “U.S. Government Opens the Door to Giant Offshore Fish Farms.” Take Part.

Retrieved from: http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/01/15/seaworld-fish-farm-environment. Hinojosa, I. A., & Thiel, M. (2009). Floating marine debris in fjords, gulfs and channels of southern

Chile. Mar Pollut Bull, 58(3), 341-350. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.10.020 International Whaling Commission (2014). Report of the IWC Workshop on Mitigation and

Management of the Threats Posed by Marine Debris to Cetaceans. Retrieved from http://healthyseas.org/assets/uploads/2014/09/FinalMarineDebrisReport.pdf

IOC-UNESCO (2011). Methodology for the GEF Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme.

Volume 6. Methodology for the Assessment of the Open Ocean, UNEP, vi + 71 pp. Retrieved from: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/TWAP-Volume-6-Methodology_for_OpenOcean-low-res.pdf.

Ivar do Sul, J. A., & Costa, M. F. (2014). The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine

environment. Environ Pollut, 185, 352-364. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.036 Jambeck, J. et al. 2015. “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land Into the Ocean.” Science 347(6223):768-771. Jasanoff, S. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. Jinnah, S. 2011. “Marketing Linkages: Secretariat Governance of the Climate-Biodiversity Interface.”

Global Environmental Politics 11:3, 23-43. Johnston, C. 2013. “Personal Grooming Products May be Harming Great Lakes Marine Life.” Scientific

American June 25: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=microplastic-pollution-in-the-great-lakes

Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP).

(2016). Retrieved from http://www.gesamp.org/ Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP).

(2015). Sources, Fate And Effects Of Microplastics In The Marine Environment: A Global Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.gesamp.org/data/gesamp/files/media/Publications/Reports_and_studies_90/gallery_2230/object_2500_large.pdf.

Kanie, N., S. Andresen, P. Haas, eds. 2013. Improving Global Environmental Governance: Best

Practices for Architecture and Agency. London: Routledge. Kershaw, P. J. (2015). Plastics & Marine Litter: Misconceptions, Concerns And Impacts On Marine

Environments. Retrieved from http://unep.org/gpa/documents/publications/BiodegradablePlastics.pdf.

Koelmans, A., E. Besseling, and E. Foekema. 2014. “Leaching of Plastic Additives to Marine

Organisms.” Environmental Pollution 187:49-54. Koelmans, A., E. Besseling and W. J. Shim, “Nanoplastics in the Aquatic Environment. Critical

Review”, Marine Anthropogenic Litter [Internet], Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015, pp. 325–40, Available from: http:// link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_12.

Koelmans, A., N. J. Diepens, I. Velzeboer, E. Besseling, J. T. K. Quik and D. van de Meent. (2015)

Guidance for the prognostic risk assessment of nanomaterials in aquatic ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ., 535: 141–149. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.032

Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon (KIMO). (2013). “Marine Litter.” Retrieved from:

http://www.kimointernational.org/MarineLitter.aspx Krantzberg, Gail. 2009. “Renegotiating the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: The process for a

sustainable outcome.” Sustainability 1 (2): 254-67.

Large Marine Ecosystems Group. n.t. (2013). IOC-UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002234/223419e.pdf.

Lechner, A., et al. 2014. “The Danube so Colourful: A potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae

in Europe’s second largest river.” Environmental Pollution 188:177-81. Leonard, G. 2015. Trashing the Ocean: New Study Provides First Estimate of How Much Plastic Flows

into the Ocean. Ocean Conservancy. Retrieved from http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2015/02/13/trashing-the-ocean-new-study-provides-first-estimate-of-how-much-plastic-flows-into-the-ocean/.

Lidskog, R., and G. Sundqvist. 2015. “When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets

Science and Technology Studies.” Global Environmental Politics 15:1, 1-20. Litfin, K. 1994. Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in International Environmental Cooperation.

New York: Columbia University Press. Longino, H. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton:

Princeton University Press. Marine Litter in European Seas – Social Awareness and Co-Responsibility (MARLISCO). (n.d.).

Retrieved February 27, 2016, from http://www.marlisco.eu/ Marine Litter Solutions. 2011. Joint Declaration. Retrieved from:

http://www.marinelittersolutions.com/who-we-are/joint-declaration.aspx Mathalon, A., & Hill, P. 2014. Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax

Harbor, Nova Scotia. Mar Pollut Bull, 81(1), 69-79. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.018 McKinsey & Company and Ocean Conservancy. 2015. Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a

plastic-free ocean. Retrieved from http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/marine-debris/mckinsey-report-files/full-report-stemming-the.pdf

Megan Herzog, A. H., Thomas Oh, Jaimini Parekh. Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the

Environment (2013). Federal Actions to Address Plastic Marine Pollution. Retrieved from https://law.ucla.edu/centers/environmental-law/emmett-institute-on-climate-change-and-the-environment/publications/federal-actions-to-address-plastic-marine-pollution/

Moore, C. 2015. Preface to M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, and M.Klages, eds., Marine Anthropogenic Litter

(New York: Springer). Moore, C., and C. Phillips. 2011. Plastic Ocean: How a Sea Captain’s Chance Discovery Launched a

Determined Quest to Save the Oceans. New York: Avery. Moore, C., S. Moore, M. Leecaster, and S. Weisberg. 2001. “A comparison of plastic and plankton in

the North Pacific Central Gyre.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 42:1297-1300.

Muller, C., K. Townsend and J. Matschullat. 2012. “Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea turtles.” Science of the Total Environment 416(0):464-467.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016. Retrieved February 5, 2016, from:

http://www.noaa.gov/ Newbold, H., ed. 2000. Life Stories: World-Renowned Scientists Reflect on Their Lives and the Future

of Life on Earth. Berkeley: University of California Press. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and UNEP (United Nations Environment

Programme) (2011). Honolulu Strategy. Retrieved from http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/solutions/honolulu-strategy.

Norman, E., A. Cohen, and K. Bakker, eds. 2013. Water Without Borders? Canada, the United States,

and Shared Waters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Obbard, R. W., Sadri, S., Wong, Y. Q., Khitun, A. A., Baker, I. and Thompson, R. C. 2014. “Global

warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in Arctic Sea ice.” Earth's Future 2: 315–320. Ocean Conservancy. 2016. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from http://www.oceanconservancy.org/ On World Oceans Day, New UN Report Recommends Ban of Microplastics in Cosmetics. (2015, June

8). UNEP News Center. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/NewsCentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=26827&ArticleID=35180

Page, E. 2006. Climate Change, Justice and Future Generations. London: Edward Elgar. Pahl-Wostl, C., J. Gupta, and D. Petry. 2008. “Governance and the Global Water System: A Theoretical

Explanation.” Global Governance 14:4, 419-435. Park, J., K. Conca, M. Finger, eds. 2008. The Crisis of Global Environmental Governance: Towards a

New Political Economy of Sustainability. London: Routledge. Parley For the Oceans. 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.parley.tv/#fortheoceans Pellow, D. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pirages, D. 1978. The New Context for International Relations: Global Ecopolitics. New York:

Duxbury Press. Provencher, J. , A.L. Bond, M.L. Mallory. 2014. “Marine birds and plastic debris in Canada: a national

synthesis, and a way forward.” Environment Review 10.1139/er-2014-0039 Redclift, M. 1996. Wasted: Counting the Costs of Global Consumption. London: Earthscan. Rochman, C. M., Browne, M. A., Halpern, B. S., Hentschel, B. T., Hoh, E., Karapanagioti, H. K., . . .

Thompson, R. C. 2013. “Policy: Classify plastic waste as hazardous.” Nature, 494(7436), 169-

171. doi:10.1038/494169a Rochman, C., et al. 2013. “Policy: Classify Plastic Waste as Hazardous.” Nature 494 (7436): 169–71.

doi:10.1038/494169a. Ryan, P. et al. 2009. “Monitoring the Abundance of Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment.”

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 364:152, 1999-2012. Ryan, P. 2015. “A Brief History of Marine Litter Research.” In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, and M.Klages,

eds., Marine Anthropogenic Litter (New York: Springer), 1-28. Sarewitz, D. 2004. “How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse.” Environmental Science

and Policy 7:385-403. Science Communication unit, University of the West of England, Bristol. 2013. Science for Environment

Policy Indepth report: Environmental Citizen Science. Report produced for the European Commission DG Environment. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy

Selin, H. 2010. Global Governance of Hazardous Chemicals: Challenges of Multilevel Management.

Cambridge: MIT Press. Selin, H., and N. Eckley. 2003. “Science, Policy, and Persistant Organic Pollutants: Scientific

Assessments and Their Role in International Environmental Negotiations.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 3:1, 17-42.

Shaxson, L. 2009. “Structuring policy problems for plastics, the environment and human health:

reflections from the UK.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 2141-2151. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873016/

Sherman, P., & van Sebille, E. 2016. Modeling marine surface microplastic transport to assess optimal

removal locations. Environmental Research Letters, 11(1), 014006. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014006

Slat, Boyan, e. a. (2014). How the Oceans Can Clean Themselves. Retrieved from

http://www.theoceancleanup.com/fileadmin/media-archive/theoceancleanup/press/downloads/TOC_Feasibility_study_lowres_V2_0.pdf.

Solomon, S., and M-L. CHanin. 2011. “The Antarctic Ozone Hole: A Unique Example of the Science

and Policy Interface.” In Berkman, et al, eds.: 189-196. Sproule-Jones, M. 2002. Restoration of the Great Lakes: Promises, Practices, Performances.

Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. STAP. 2011. Marine Debris as a Global Environmental Problem: Introducing a solutions based

framework focused on plastic. A STAP Information Document. Global Environment Facility: Washington, DC. Retrieved from: https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/publication/STAP%20MarineDebris%20-%20website.pdf

Stoett, P. 2010. “Framing Bioinvasion: Biodiversity, Climate Change, Security, Trade, and Global

Governance.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 16:1, 103-120.

Stone, D., and S. Maxwell. 2005. Global Knowledge Networks and International Development: Bridges

Across Boundaries (New York: Routledge). Stromberg, J. 2012. “High Levels of Plastic and Debris found in Waters off of Antarctica.”

Smithsonian.com, October 3rd 2012. The Global Ocean Forum. 2013. Facilitating Consensus-Building on International Issues Retrieved

from https://globaloceanforumdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/abnj.pdf The Global Ocean Forum. 2016. Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Retrieved February 20, 2016,

from http://globaloceanforum.com/areas-of-focus/areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction/ The Honolulu Commitment. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/pdf/PressReleases/Honolulu_Commitment-

FINAL.pdf The Vortex Project Transforms Ocean Plastic Into Fashion. (2014, Feb 9). Environment News Bulletin.

Retrieved from http://ens-newswire.com/2014/02/09/the-vortex-project-transforms-ocean-plastic-into-fashion/

Thompson, R., et al. 2005. “New Directions in Plastic Debris.” Science 310:1117. Thompson, R., S. Swan, C. Moore, F. Vom Saal. 2009. “Our Plastic Age.” Philosophical Transactions

of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 373-6. Tibbetts, J. H. 2015. Managing marine plastic pollution: policy initiatives to address wayward waste.

Environ Health Perspect, 123(4), A90-93. doi:10.1289/ehp.123-A90 Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP). (2014, Nov 26). Assessing transboundary

aquatic ecosystems globally through the UNEP-GEF Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP): Insights for freshwater ecosystems. [PowerPoint slides] Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/ForumBasinOrganization/twap-bilay.pdf

Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP). (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.geftwap.org/twap-project UNEP. Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based

Activities (GPA). (2014). Retrieved from: http://unep.org/gpa/default.asp. UNEP – GPA – GPML. (2015) Biodegradable Plastics and Marine Litter: Misconceptions, Concerns

and Impacts on Marine Environments. Report Commissioned by the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities. Nairobi.

United States Congress. 1999. The Role of Risk Analysis and Risk Management in Environmental

Protection: issue brief for Congress no. 94036.

Valentine, K. (2015, July 22). Netherlands Company Introduces Plastic Roads That Are More Durable, Climate Friendly Than Asphalt. Think Progress. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/22/3682552/plastic-roads-netherlands/

Valiante, M., D. Muldoon, and L. Botts. 1997. “Ecosystem Governance: Lessons from the Great Lakes.”

In Young, ed., 1997, 197-224. Van Cauwenberghe L, Vanreusel A, Mees J, Janssen CR. 2013. “Microplastic pollution in deep-sea

sediments.” Environmental Pollution 182, 495–499. VanNijnatten, D. 2004. “Canadian-American Environmental Relations: Interoperability and Politics.”

The American Review of Canadian Studies 34(4):649-664. VanNijnatten, D. 2009. “The North American Context: Canadian Environmental Policy and the

Continental Push.” In same and R. Boardman, eds., Canadian Environmental Policy and Politics: Prospects for Leadership and Innovation. London: Oxford), 92-108.

Volger, J. 2000. The Global Commons: Environmental and Technological Governance, 2nd ed. New

York: Wiley. Wagner, M., et al. 2014. “Microplastics in Freshwater Ecosystems: What We Know and What we Need

to Know.” Environmental Sciences Europe 26(12): http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/12 Weible, C. 2008. “Expert-based Information and Policy Subsystems: A Review and Synthesis.” Policy

Studies Journal 36:615-635. Winter, G., ed. 2006. Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Wirth, D. 1994. “The Role of Science in the Uruguay Round and NAFTA Trade Disciplines.” Cornell

International Law Journal 27:818-858. Woodall, L. et. al. 2014. “The Deep Sea is a Major Sink for Microplastic Debris.” Royal Society Open

Source, December: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/4/140317 Wright, S. 1991. “The Social Warp of Science: Writing the History of Genetic Engineering Policy.”

Science, Technology and Human Values 16:79-101. Wright, S.. Thompson, and T. Galloway. 2013. “The Physical Impacts of Microplastics on Marine

Organisms: A Review.” Environmental Pollution 178: 483-492. Wyles, K., S. Pahl, and R. Thompson. 2014. “Perceived risks and benefits of recreational visits to the

marine environment: integrating impacts on the environment and impacts on the visitor.” Ocean and Coastal Management 88:53-63.

Wynne, B. 1996. “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge

Divide”, in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, eds., Risk, Environment, and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (London: Thousand Oaks).

Young, O. 2004. “Institutions and the Growth of Knowledge: Evidence from International Environmental Regimes.” International Environmental Agreements 4(2): 215-228.

Young, O., ed. 1997. Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience.

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Zettler, E., T. Mincer, and L. Amaral-Zettler. 2013. “Life in the Plastisphere: Microbial Communities on

Plastic Marine Debris.” Environmental Science and Technology 47(13):7137-7146. doi:10.1021/es401288x