Science-policy interface for plastic pollution.

Abstract

The international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution serves as a crucial mechanism for navigating the intricacies of the global plastic pollution crisis and fostering the development of evidence-based policies to end plastic pollution. With the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee mandated to develop the plastics instrument by the end of 2024, a unique opportunity arises to establish a strong science-policy interface for plastic pollution. Key principles guiding this endeavor encompass credibility, salience, and legitimacy, widely recognised as foundational to any science-policy interface. Other important related principles include integrity, crucial for preventing conflicts of interest, and inclusivity, ensuring diverse representation across regions, genders, and disciplines, and incorporating local, traditional, and Indigenous Knowledge systems. The development of a science-policy interface for plastic pollution encompasses three main components. 1. Internalising science-policy functions and associated governance structures within the plastics instrument, drawing from UNEA Resolution 5/14. 2. Supporting and complementing the science-policy functions of the plastics instrument with those of the Science-Policy Panel on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention, as specified in UNEA Resolution 5/8. 3. Building complementarity with other sciencepolicy interfaces, especially those within multilateral environmental agreements, to reinforce certain aspects of the science-policy interface of plastic pollution. Ten key potential functions of the science-policy interface for plastic pollution, spanning across the four phases of the policy cycle – agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation – have been identified. The report advocates for a multi-faceted approach that enables seamless interlinking of the functions through cooperative arrangements and clear, established roles and responsibilities between the Science-Policy Panel and the plastics instrument. Based on the review of the functions, the report offers recommendations for developing governance arrangements across the four phases of the policy cycle, aiming to improve the sound management of chemicals and waste, and aid in preventing pollution. In the initial agenda setting phase, the focus is on proactive identification of potential threats. The Science- Policy Panel’s horizon scanning function is instrumental in identifying emerging threats linked to novel entities, including new chemicals, polymers, or engineered plastic materials, or new forms of chemicals or engineered plastic materials, that have not been assessed and monitored for safety. Recognising emerging risk related to legacy plastics and existing and new technologies and practices will also be critical. The policy formulation phase requires extensive scientific and technical support. The development of various scientific criteria for control measures is envisaged, in particular to address the recognised global governance gap in the upstream activities. They could be operationalised by establishing a subsidiary body on chemical, polymer, and product safety under the plastics instrument. This body could potentially include committees, each with their specific mandates, including a review committee for assessing chemicals, polymers, and products of concern proposed for listing. It could also assess the sustainability and technical feasibility of alternatives and non-plastic substitutes, or this task could be delegated to a separate socio-economic committee. Lastly, a design committee dedicated to formulating and updating criteria for the sustainable and safe design of plastic products is needed. It could focus on product performance – including minimisation, recyclability, durability, reusability, and non-toxicity – and transparency aspects. The subsidiary body could also undertake other tasks, even to address functions in other policy phases, if deemed necessary. In this phase, broader assessments also play an important role. Iterative global assessments are needed to inform the status and trends of plastic pollution and their impacts on ecosystems, biota, and human health. This role could potentially be accredited to the Science-Policy Panel, due to its independent role and intergovernmental nature, enabling it to provide scientifically credible information and draw strong links across the three planetary crises of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution, with plastic pollution at the forefront. If the SPP does not lead these global assessments, the plastics instrument could take on a primary role in conducting them, possibly through a subsidiary scientific and technical body. Moreover, based on specific needs, thematic assessment can be developed by both bodies, depending on the type of information needed. The implementation phase marries science and feasibility. The development of policy support tools (e.g., methodologies and toolkits) is envisaged to predominantly occur under the plastics instrument. Their development could potentially be institutionalised under a subsidiary body or rely on working groups developed on a need’s basis. Setting up a knowledge management mechanism or “data hub” is crucial for effective data management and presentation. Options vary from developing a comprehensive data repository on all chemicals and forms of pollution, including plastic pollution, under the Science-Policy Panel, to a dedicated data hub for plastic pollution under the plastics instrument. The plastics instrument can also help to catalyse knowledge generation at all levels by empowering relevant bodies and initiatives, encouraging cooperation between them. The role of the Science-Policy Panel is important in identifying gaps and directing future research. In this context, moving towards interdisciplinary data and valuing of traditional, Indigenous Peoples’, and local knowledge systems is crucial. The evaluation phase is data-centric, emphasising global monitoring of progress and evaluation of effectiveness of globally agreed goals and obligations, as well as individual response options. The plastics instrument will provide a framework for regular reporting, monitoring, and inventories supporting data collection and subsequent evaluation. Scientific and technical input is needed for crafting an indicator framework, standardising data collection methodologies, and formulating a reporting framework to evaluate performance. Institutional arrangements may include the development of a global monitoring plan and an effectiveness evaluation process overseen by regional coordination groups appointed by governments and supported by an open-ended scientific group. Beyond these stages, emphasis is on capacity building, as well as communication and outreach. Both functions underscore the involvement of developing countries, highlighting the importance of a global, inclusive approach in strengthening the science-policy interface. The Science-Policy Panel’s role could be pronounced in enhancing foundational competencies of scientists through initiatives like fellowship programs, while the plastics instrument could aim to address capacity building needs in conjunction with relevant functions. Facilitating developing country representatives’ involvement in overall work and meetings is important under both bodies. In conclusion, by outlining potential functions of the science-policy interface for plastic pollution and providing recommendations, the report will support the establishment of effective arrangements for the sciencepolicy interface within the global plastics instrument. Furthermore, it emphasises the need to enhance collaboration with the Science-Policy Panel, multilateral environmental agreements, and other relevant bodies, paving the way for a coherent and concerted effort needed to end plastic pollution.