Results of the Fourth Meeting of UNEA Ad Hoc Open-Ended Expert Group on Marine Litter and Microplastics

From November 9th to 13th, 2020, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) held the 4th meeting of the ad hoc open-ended expert group on marine litter and microplastics (AHEG-4), chaired by Mr. IINO Satoru (Deputy Director, Office of Policies against Marine Plastics Pollution, Water Environment Division, Environmental Management Bureau, Ministry of the Environment, Japan). At AHEG-4, discussions were held on the stocktaking exercise of existing activities and the analysis of the effectiveness of response options. The results were summarized in a meeting report and Chair's summary. Eight response options were identified to be considered by the 5th United Nations Environmental Assembly (UNEA-5) (a. Global common vision, b. National action plans and their implementation, c. Regional and international cooperation to facilitate national actions, d. Scientific basis, e. Multi-stakeholder engagement, f. Strengthening existing instruments, g. A new global instrument, h. Enhanced coordination among instruments). AHEG experts expressed their intention to call for member states and stakeholders to seriously consider the identified options and work cooperatively toward UNEA-5. The meeting report and Chair's summary will be reported to UNEA-5 and used for international discussions on measures against marine plastic litter and microplastics. In line with the results of this meeting, the Ministry of the Environment, Japan would like to continue to take measures against plastic pollution, toward the realization of the Osaka Blue Ocean Vision, which aims to reduce additional pollution by marine plastic litter to zero by 2050.

1. Background and Purpose

At its 3rd session in 2017, UNEA decided to establish AHEG under UNEP with the mandate to further examine the barriers to and options for combating marine plastic litter and microplastics. AHEG-1 and AHEG-2 were held in 2018, and the results were reported to UNEA-4 in 2019. At UNEA-4, topics discussed included the need for scientific knowledge, strengthening international-level cooperation, and setting opportunities for information sharing. In light of the need for further consideration of future countermeasure options, UNEA decided to extend AHEG to UNEA-5.

AHEG-4 was held to take stock of existing activities and actions and summarize the results of the analysis of the effectiveness of response options, based on discussions conducted at AHEG meetings so far.

AHEG-4 was initially scheduled to be held in-person in May 2020, but due to the global outbreak of the COVID-19, it was held online in November.

2. Date and venue

Online,

9 - 13 November, 2020, from 7pm to 11:30pm (JST) (GMT+9)

3. Participating countries / institutions

• National and regional representatives (79 countries / regions)
• UNEP Secretariat
• International organizations / NGOs

4. Key Agenda

At AHEG-4, the following topics were discussed.

• Agenda 3 Multi-stakeholder platform
• Agenda 4 (a) Stocktaking of existing activities and action
• Agenda 4 (b) Identification of technical and financial resources or mechanisms
• Agenda 4 (c) Encouragement of partnerships
• Agenda 4 (d) Analysis of the effectiveness of existing and potential response options
• Agenda 5 Consideration of potential response options
• Agenda 6 Chair's summary

5. Summary of discussion

• Recognition of current situation

It was shown that legal, financial, technical and information barriers have not been fully addressed. There is an urgent need to prioritize ways to overcome these barriers through short-, medium- and long-term actions.

• Stocktaking of existing activities and actions

A total of 220 actions were submitted. The stocktaking submissions included a focus of actions addressing microplastics and lack of harmonization of monitoring. Actions described in the stock taking exercises focused on the coastal zone or urban environment. Sources of funding for reported activities included public, private and voluntary donations.

• Analysis of the effectiveness of existing and potential response options

The effectiveness of existing and potential response options and activities (as listed below) were analyzed in terms of maturity, feasibility, time frame and impact. Archetypes included:

1. Strengthening the current international framework;

2. Development of global design standards;

3. A new international framework;

4. Strengthening the regional framework;

5. Development and implementation of regional marine litter action plans;

6. National marine litter action plans;

7. Strengthening of solid waste management services using regulatory and market-based instruments;

8. National strategy to prevent microplastics.

The result shows that each analyzed option has distinctive features that may take effect differently depending on the diverse circumstances and that flexibility is required according to diverse, national circumstances. Some response option archetypes should be considered as part of other archetypes since different response options are not mutually exclusive.

• Potential options for continued work for consideration by UNEA5

Identified potential options are as follows (a. Global common vision, b. National action plans and their implementation, c. Regional and international cooperation to facilitate national actions, d. Scientific basis, e. Multi-stakeholder engagement, f. Strengthening existing instruments, g. A new global instrument, h. Enhanced coordination among instruments). All of the AHEG experts would like to call for member states and stakeholders to recognize the magnitude and urgency of marine plastic litter pollution, seriously consider these identified options and work cooperatively toward UNEA-5.

a. Global common vision

Setting new and or sharing an existing long-term vision and objective toward elimination of all discharge of plastic into the ocean. Some examples of shared visions include: SDG 14.1, G20 Osaka Blue Ocean Vision, the Ocean Plastics Charter and UNEA Resolution 3/7 on the long-term elimination of discharge of litter and microplastics to the ocean and avoidance of detriment to marine ecosystems.

b. National action plans and their implementation

Developing national action plans that could cover as far as possible all life cycle stages of plastics from upstream including sustainable production and consumption to downstream including environmentally sound waste management, as the basic framework that grounds countermeasures on marine plastic litter. It is necessary to take into consideration the diverse social, economic and environmental circumstances of each country, in particular for vulnerable countries with limited technical and financial resources and capacities. National action plans may include basic policy frameworks, related indicators to review the progress, promote transparency and reporting, and various substantial countermeasures, such as innovative solutions and awareness raising activities to reduce avoidable use of plastics and apply circular economy approaches for others.

c. Regional and international cooperation to facilitate national actions

Enhancing regional and international cooperation to support effective national responses particularly for countries with limited resources and capacities, and having difficulties in developing and implementing such plans.

1. 1. 1. Financial and technical assistance, capacity building and technology transfer, to support states with implementing countermeasures and/or national action plans.

      2. Sharing best practices for peer learning and of measuring the progress at the global level.

d. Scientific basis

Further expand, accumulate and share scientific knowledge on marine litter, especially with regard to monitoring and source inventories and impact assessment in order to facilitate the necessary evidence-based and science-based policy approach to measure the success towards achieving common vision and objectives:

1. 1. 1. Develop monitoring technology and systems in order to identify sources and flows of plastics.

      2. Standardize/harmonize monitoring and data reporting on the effect of the response measures.

      3. Establish an international scientific advisory panel

e. Multi-stakeholder engagement

Facilitating multi-stakeholder engagement in support of decision-making processes and implementation of actions to address marine litter.

Examples of model and/or possible partner of multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral framework and platform include

• A multi-stakeholder platform operated by UNEP.
• The Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) that could support efforts on chemicals and materials management.
• The Partnership under the Basel Convention.
• Online platform from the stocktaking exercise.

f. Strengthening existing instruments

Strengthen existing instruments, frameworks, partnerships, and actions such as the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML), ongoing work under the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, G20 implementation framework and the Ocean Plastics Charter. Such strengthening efforts may include collaborative efforts:

1. 1. 1. enlarge participating entities including wide range of public and private sectors

      2. more effective reviewing schemes, such as interim quantitative indicators and periodical review

      3. joint pilot projects to address the challenges in the field

      4. develop and improve the capacity of countries including to undertake environmentally sound waste management.

g. A new global instrument

Develop a new global agreement, framework or other form of instrument to provide a legal framework of global response and to facilitate national responses especially for those countries with limited resources and capacities that could contain either legally binding and/or non-binding elements, such as:

1. 1. 1. Global and national reduction targets

      2. Design standards

      3. Phasing out avoidable plastic products

      4. Facilitation of national and regional action plans

      5. Sharing of scientific knowledge through a scientific panel and utilizing globally harmonized monitoring methodology

      6. International coordination of financial and technical resources.

This option may require intergovernmental negotiating process, such as establishing an Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee, aimed to frame and coordinate such new global instrument.

h. Enhanced coordination among instruments

Enhance coordination framework amongst existing instruments and between existing and future instruments to pursue enhanced collaboration and to avoid duplication of efforts in order to work towards a common vision.

Numerous participants expressed their view that the AHEG should recommend starting negotiations on a global agreement (either legally binding or voluntary). Other participants expressed a preference for other response options or noted that the AHEG's mandate is to provide technical information to UNEA across a range of potential response options, not recommendations about what specific policy and/or policy formulation processes that UNEA should pursue. Please note that these options are not exhaustive while there are other potential options that have been discussed by some participants, and that all the identified response options are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, the Executive Director of UNEP expressed their willingness to cooperate in organizing informal preparatory consultations upon request to ensure that the work undertaken to date remains current and updated for the resumed session of UNEA-5, to be held in 2022.

For details on the Chair's summary, please refer to the attached document and/or the AHEG website.

https://environmentassembly.unenvironment.org/expert-group-on-marine-litter

6. Future plans

The meeting report and the Chair's summary will be reported to UNEA-5.

For Japanese

Attached File:

• Chair’s Summary of the UNEA AHEG-4 [PDF 222 KB]