Policy Options for an Arctic Plastic Pollution Action Plan
Written by Katie Segal
Nearly 80 percent of all the plastic waste the world has ever produced is sitting in landfills or polluting the environment, and an estimated 8 million tons of this plastic finds its way to the ocean each year. Despite its remote location and relatively small population, the Arctic region is not immune from the plague of plastic pollution infecting oceans around the world. A higher amount of plastic has been found in Arctic sea ice than in the infamous “garbage patches” polluting other areas of the world’s oceans, and research indicates that a sixth global garbage patch is forming in the Arctic’s Barents Sea. Much of the plastic in the region is thought to have originated outside of the Arctic and then been transported via ocean currents, sea ice, or by air, finding its way to the farthest reaches of the Arctic.
The problem is becoming more urgent, as global plastic production is expected to increase in the coming decades, and there is an important window of opportunity for action now. Iceland holds the Chairmanship of the Arctic Council between 2019 and 2021 and has highlighted marine plastic pollution as one of its priority action areas for the chairmanship period. Iceland will spearhead the Arctic Council’s development of a Regional Action Plan to tackle marine plastics, with a target release date of 2021. In April 2020, Iceland will host the first International Symposium on Arctic and Sub-Arctic Plastics and will draw on knowledge shared during the symposium to develop the Regional Action Plan. But what exactly should that Regional Action Plan look like, and what policy recommendations should it include? A stronger focus on circular economy principles, in addition to waste cleanup and prevention efforts, would go a long way towards helping to reduce Arctic plastic pollution.
One option is to introduce a financial mechanism to incentivize proper collection and recycling of plastic materials. The Icelandic Recycling Fund takes this approach by imposing a fee on producers and importers of recyclable material. The revenues are then used to cover appropriate recycling and disposal methods. The Fund is operated through Iceland’s Ministry for Environment and Natural Resources and was developed through discussions with major industries and other stakeholders. A similar financial mechanism could be applied in other Arctic nations or could be administered regionally to create a shared fund for all Arctic nations.
Another option is to place stronger emphasis on addressing a specific type of waste, preferably one that can be identified easily in terms of its source on land so that policy options can be appropriately targeted. Fishing gear is one example of a potential candidate for this type of focused policy option. While the Icelandic Recycling Fund covers a wide variety of waste categories, one of the most critical waste categories it tackles is fishing gear. In Iceland and around the world, discarded fishing gear contributes to a substantial amount of marine plastic pollution. Approximately ten percent of global marine plastic pollution comes from “ghost gear,” or discarded fishing equipment, according to a report from UNEP and FAO. The Icelandic Recycling Fund has made progress collecting fishing gear by enlisting the support of trawlers, who can use their expertise to gather nets, and can bring the nets to shore for further processing.
Financial mechanisms and targeted waste reduction efforts can be successfully scaled to other Arctic nations and countries around the world, but the most effective policy will require additional engagement from producers throughout the lifecycle of a product. Building on the fishing gear example, removing nets from the ocean is a critical first step to reduce marine pollution, but cleanup alone will not prevent future fishing gear from reaching the ocean. This will require additional responsibility from producers and consumers to track fishing gear and ensure that all gear is collected and disposed of safely. Additionally, fishing gear retrieved from the ocean often cannot be recycled because it is composed of multiple types of plastic. The recycling process requires different types of plastic materials to be separated (e.g., polyvinyl chloride vs. polypropylene), but nets and ropes made with combinations of plastics prevent recyclers from separating and repurposing the material.
A third policy option could address this disconnect between production and disposal by increasing the amount of producer participation at every phase of the policy discussion and at every phase of the product lifecycle. It is not enough for producers to simply pay a fee to reduce waste—a truly circular economy will require producers to increase their responsibility by modifying production practices and ensuring the product can be disposed of responsibly at the end of its useful life. Collaboration between government and specific industries throughout the lifecycle of the product could address these challenges in two ways:
At the beginning of the product lifecycle by incentivizing design modifications to enable recyclability (e.g., using plastic that can be separated to enable recycling).
At the end of the product lifecycle by incentivizing producers to maintain responsibility over products in the post-consumer phase (commonly known as extended producer responsibility, or EPR). For example, a producer take-back program would allow consumers to return used items to the manufacturer, who would then be responsible for repurposing the materials or disposing of them properly.
The Arctic Council’s forthcoming Regional Action Plan could decide to include one or more of the policy options above, or could focus on a different strategy entirely. However, the strategy will be stronger if it incentivizes producers to increase responsibility throughout their products’ lifecycle, from the design phase to eventual disposal or recycling. An effective strategy will also expand the scope of stakeholders involved by including plastic producers who operate outside the Arctic region but whose plastics eventually pollute Arctic waters. The Arctic Regional Action Plan is positioned to be the first of its kind, and therefore has an important opportunity to demonstrate bold and innovative leadership in tackling plastic pollution. Hopefully this Action Plan can set a standard that can be replicated in regions around the world.
Opinions expressed in the article are the author’s own.