4. Discussion and conclusions

4.1 Discussion

The discussion regarding the challenges met during the research is divided over the topics literature review and interviews.

4.1.1 Literature review

The literature research that was conducted showed that the estimates of the amounts of plastics present in the environment and the oceans differ considerably. The same applies to the estimated numbers of pellets present in the environment. Information on cases of pellet loss provided information on the magnitude of the losses and the approach to address these. The descriptions of the most important cases differed considerably leading to a difference in the presentation of the emphasis of measures taken and recommendations for the future provided. Those recommendations however, were complimentary to one another, and provide when combined information on both prevention (e.g. recommendations for adjustment of legal requirements prescribing technical measures for maritime container transport) and actions taken in the field. At UN and EU level, literature on legislation regarding pollution was rather easily retrieved. Due to the large number it was not always easy to find all treaties, policies and plans that apply. At regional and national levels legislation, practical measures and actions addressing acute pollution of oil and hazardous substances were in general easily accessible from the websites of relevant authorities. Despite the many national acts and organisations, however, not much to be found on these sites about how to deal with acute plastic pollution. An exception are the reports on lessons learned from the Trans Carrier, MSC Zoe and X-Press Pearl incidents.

4.1.2 Interviews

After consultation of the steering committee, e-mails were sent with an invitation for interviews to representatives of the regional agreements and relevant national agencies. The latter concerning all eight countries/self-governing territories and of some organisations involved in beach-cleaning. Most of these contacts led to an interview. The interviews were carried out between November 2022 and March 2023 (see annex I). Responses to the invitations for an interview often took a considerable time. Some of the potential interviewees declined or made it very clear in their answer that their organisation did not have a formal task related to acute plastic pollution nor the knowledge. Some suggested other interviewees for which the time did not always allow to follow up on. A few did not answer at all. Information in writing was also received from some of those who were not available for an interview. There was an exchange of emails with the Norwegian chair of the IMO correspondence group. He did not have the time for an interview but kindly provided some insight to the discussions in the group. The report from this group is not published at the time of writing and is therefore not quoted here. Nonetheless, in general the interviews provided valuable information and complemented the picture that was created by the literature review.

4.2 Conclusions

The main research questions assessed and the answers to those are:

4.2.1 What is the nature and magnitude of plastic pollution, emphasizing the marine environment?

Recent estimates suggest that since 2019, about 22 million tonnes of plastic materials enter the environment each year. Of this amount between 6.1–8 million tonnes of mismanaged plastic waste enters the oceans every year and there is evidence of increasing quantities over time. It is estimated that there is over 150 million tonnes of plastics in the ocean today. Sources of plastic marine litter are diverse, and can be land-based, riverine, sea-based and even airborne. However, most of the sources of plastic waste are land-based, due to the fact that its production, consumption and dumping mainly takes place on land. The main pathways of marine litter are rivers.

4.2.2 What is acute plastic pollution and what is its nature and magnitude, emphasizing the marine environment?

In this report Acute Plastic Pollution (APP) is defined as “pollution caused by the sudden and unexpected release of a large amount of small plastic items that requires immediate response to protect human health and/or the environment”. A special type of plastic pollution and especially acute plastic pollution is caused by the loss of plastic pellets. Plastic pellets are a specific group of plastic items within the overarching group of marine plastic litter. Plastic pellets are made of refined crude oil and other additives, it can be a range of plastic types like e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene (PP), polyester, polystyrene, polyethylene-vinyl acetate, polyvinyl chloride and others. It is an industrial raw material for the manufacturing of plastic products. With regard to quantities lost, it is estimated that globally 230,000 tonnes of pellets enter the environment annually. The European Union alone produces between 58‐70.6 million tonnes of plastic pellets per year. Furthermore, there is estimated that the three biggest sources of pellet losses are producers, intermediary facilities and converters/processors. The estimated total pellet losses in Europe amount annually between 16,888 to 167,431 tonnes.

4.2.3 What acute plastic pollution incidents of a relevant magnitude occurred at the Nordic countries and globally?

4.2.3.1 M/V Trans Carrier incident (Norway and Sweden)

23 February 2020 the container ship M/V Trans Carrier lost a part of 13.2 tonnes of pellets made of polypropene off the Norwegian and Swedish coast. In Sweden, an estimated 2.5 tonnes of pellets were cleaned up, while the amount in Norway was 4.2 tonnes.

4.2.3.2 Finnbirch incident (Sweden)

In November 2006, the container vessel Finnbirch sank in the Swedish part of the Baltic Sea between Öland and Gotland. The cargo consisted of hazardous goods, and 70 tonnes of polymer pellets on the main deck. No information was retrieved on the fate of the plastic pellets when the ship sunk. This case illustrates the long-time character of potential pollution from sea accidents.

4.2.3.3 MSC ZOE incident (the Netherlands and Germany)

In the evening of 1 and the morning of 2 January 2019, the Ultra Large Container Ship MSC Zoe lost 342 containers with an estimated amount of 3,257 tons north of the Dutch and German Wadden Sea Islands. The ship is one of the world’s largest container ships and has a total theoretical container capacity of 19,224 TEU. One lost container contained 22.5 tons of pellets, with a diameter of 4 millimeters. Those washed up on the beaches after the event were difficult to remove from the environment due to their small dimensions.

4.2.3.4. X-Press Pearl (Sri Lanka)

One of the largest plastic pellets spills globally recorded so far was that of the X-Press Pearl, which occurred off the Sri Lanka coast on 20 May–17 June 2021. The vessel caught fire and sank eventually. Apart from other substances like oil, nitric acid, caustic soda and methanol, an estimated 1,680 tonnes of plastic pellets were lost. Those littered 300 km of shoreline. A considerable proportion of the stranded plastics on the shoreline were burnt fragments of various sizes. They were mixed with various types of debris from the ship and its cargo. The impact of the acute plastic pollution on the environment, local communities and economy were extensive.

4.2.4 What approach was applied during clean-up operations after acute plastic pollution incidents?

All four incidents described are of a maritime nature, involving pellet loss of ships at sea. The elements of the approaches include:

Way of starting up and the organisation of clean-ups: after the event was reported by the ship’s crew or discovered by the authorities, clean-up operations started. Sometimes this was initiated by local authorities and citizens (Trans Carrier and MSC Zoe incidents) after which regional (the Netherlands, e.g. Safety Region as coordinator) and national authorities supported as well. Sometimes the military was sent to help (Netherlands). Other organisations such as companies, nature management organisations, NGOs and Academia were involved in clean-ups and research.
Attributed status to the event: some countries declared the disaster of national importance (Norway) or regarded it that way leading to regional or national coordination (Norway, the Netherlands and Sri Lanka). In Sri Lanka, the Cabinet of Ministers of Sri Lanka appointed an Inter-Ministerial Committee of senior government officials headed by the Minister of Justice for an overall coordinated response to the incident. Other countries did not regard the event of national importance (Sweden).
Notification of other countries: in some cases other countries were notified (Norway, The Netherlands) or the United Nations were asked for assistance (Sri Lanka).
Addressing multiple environmental compartments: clean-ups of the APP were conducted involving beach-clean ups (Norway, Sweden, Netherlands and Sri Lanka), collection of containers at sea (Netherlands and Sri Lanka) and measures to prevent the spread into a lagoon (Sri Lanka).
Application of various clean-up methodologies: clean-up methods of beaches involved sieving of sand, floatation in seawater, trommeling and beach graders (all in Sri Lanka), manual collection (Netherlands) and beach vacuum cleaners (Norway, Netherlands, Sri Lanka).
Proper transport and storage of pellets: transport and storage of the large amounts of pellets collected involved storage at the backshore of beaches which posed the threat of secondary pollution. This was due to losses caused during transport and at storage locations (Sri Lanka). Awareness of this could limit the issue.
Banning of fisheries practices: one country banned coastal fisheries due to the severity of the disaster and expected pollution effects on human health of fish consumption of fish caught in the affected area (Sri Lanka).
Mapping the spread of the pollution: mapping of the spread of the pollution was carried out (Norway and the Netherlands) using citizen science.
Dealing with legal and financial consequences: including liability and compensation claims (Norway, Netherlands, Sri Lanka).
Conducting environmental impact assessments: Assessment of the environmental impact and the current state of the marine and coastal environment (Norway, Netherlands, Sri Lanka).
Definition of strategies for longer term clean-ups: considering defining strategies for guiding the microplastic clean-up effort and help assess the environmental impact of clean-up techniques to determine when to stop cleaning and prevent additional environmental damage, and to develop a long-term plastic beach clean-up programme along the coastline to collect chronic beach pollution by plastic debris. This should include a community-based approach for waste collection (Sri Lanka, the Netherlands).

4.2.5 What relevant agreements and regulations are present that address acute plastic pollution?

4.2.5.1 Global level

The number of international agreements and policies at UN or international level on pollution is considerable. However, most of those do not address acute plastic pollution or are of a voluntary nature and not binding. Examples are the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) and at a smaller geographic level, G20’s “Implementation Framework for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter” which encourages to take action. More strict regulations are included in UNCLOS. Of importance to imposing rules to prevent or combat pollution is the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The organization has a regulatory framework for the shipping industry, and its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) is of importance for environmental protection. The MARPOL convention is binding, but does not apply to plastics specifically but to other pollutants. However, there is an organisational framework on the coordination of activities in the chain underway by implementation of Resolution UNEP/EA.5/Res.14 that is entitled ”End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument”. This will take time and it is not known whether acute plastic pollution will be included in the final version.

4.2.5.2 EU level

There are no existing international frameworks or laws present in the European Union that specifically address acute plastic pollution from industrial spills. It is also rare that pellet spills are directly regulated on national levels. However, the European Union has a number of Directives and Framework Directives that define how plans and measures to protect the environment have to be drafted, implemented and monitored. Important examples are the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The EU Water Framework Directive describes measures to be taken for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The Directive stipulates River Basin Management Plans and associated Plans of Measures for EU Member States. Article 3 is specifically on Coordination of administrative arrangements within river basin districts, this also includes cooperation between countries in so called River Basin Districts. There are lists of “Pollutants”, “Priority Substances” and “Hazardous Priority Substances” that need to be addressed. Plastics are not part of any of those lists, and the way to address acute plastic pollution and the stakeholders that should be involved is not included either. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive defines Marine Strategies, Plans of Measures and Monitoring Programmes, and includes a specific descriptor: “Marine Litter”. Cooperation with, or at least informing, other states is included, but this is not on addressing acute (plastic) pollution since this has no official status.

4.2.5.3 The Regional level

At regional seas level several concrete actions have been taken to address acute pollution, for example the Helsinki Convention’s Annex VII is on the Response to pollution incidents. However, this is not specific on acute plastic pollution. The same applies to HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action plan. The problem is mentioned but actions focus on investigation of the problem of plastic spillage and the development of common guidelines for accident management. OSPAR included acute plastic pollution in its Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter, where the focus is on voluntary measures such as are presented in the 2018 background document on pre-production pellet loss. The Bonn Agreement, Copenhagen Agreement and the Arctic Council, in addition to the Helsinki Agreement, have very concrete plans for preparedness, international coordination and joint action in case of acute pollution. Despite that their focus is not on acute plastic pollution, but the structure could be useful to address this. Adding one term “acute plastic pollution” to “oil spills” might almost make this work.

4.2.5.4 The National level

Every country in the Nordic Region has its own legislation on marine traffic and on pollution. Hazardous goods are defined according to international conventions. The responsibilities for preparedness and cleanup in cases of acute pollution with oil or chemicals are regulated. Several agencies are involved in each country and so are the municipalities. Acute plastic pollution is not explicitly mentioned in the legislation anywhere apart from Norway where individual incidents of plastic pollution can, after a concrete assessment, be considered acute pollution according to Section 38 of the Pollution Act. Apart from that, there is no clear responsibility defined for such situations, no preparedness, no trained staff nor funding. If a massive acute pellets pollution will take place, there is the risk that the cleanup process will be delayed because of this lack of clarity and absence of guidance.

4.2.6 What organisational structure(s) are present at regional and national level and what cooperation exists between countries to address acute plastic pollution?

At regional level, the Bonn Agreement, Copenhagen Agreement and the Arctic Council, in addition to the Helsinki Agreement, have very concrete plans for preparedness, international coordination and joint action in case of acute pollution. Despite that their focus is not on acute plastic pollution, but the structures could be very useful to address this. Within some of the agreements mentioned above, there are also joint zones of responsibility where joint exercises between two or more countries are held under bilateral or trilateral agreements. Examples of such agreements are DENGERNETH between Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands in the North Sea and SWEDENGER between Sweden, Denmark and Germany in the Baltic Sea.

4.2.7 What guidelines and measures could be considered to be used for addressing acute plastic pollution?

Use a commonly accepted definition for acute plastic pollution in any international and national pollution control acts and policies. This allows easier cooperation and to promptly designate the responsibility to the appropriate governmental agency in case of a pollution event.
Give plastic pellets a status within legislation dealing with dangerous goods. If they could be labelled as “dangerous goods” in the various UN agreements and included, like in MARPOL, The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code or International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes (IMSBC) Code or The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; it could be addressed more stringently both during production by the industry and during transport and storage. Political lobby is needed for this.
As legal framework for preparedness, international coordination and joint action in case of acute plastic pollution, the Bonn Agreement, Copenhagen Agreement and the Arctic Council, in addition to the Helsinki Agreement could be used. Despite that their focus is not on acute plastic pollution, but the structures could be very useful to address this, while incorporating acute plastic pollution. These plans contain a large number of very concrete steps, in case those are deemed not covering all, point 4 gives additional measures of importance.
Prevention is key, hence, measures that could be considered regarding prevention of acute plastic pollution by ships that transport small plastic items like pellets in bulk are:
1. Revise the existing technical and legal regulations for container ships regarding the design limits of cargo securing equipment, approved loading and stability conditions and the consideration of shallow water effects and speed on ship motions and resulting accelerations and forces.
2. Evaluate and assess possible technical solutions that can assist the captain/crew in the prevention and, if an accident happens, the detection of the loss of containers and to propose international standards for implementation of such solutions.
3. Raise awareness and develop guidelines for the Masters and Navigational Officers on risks and actions to be taken when cargo is lost when sailing with dangerous cargo near particularly sensitive areas.
Regarding preparedness and mitigating of the key risks of an acute plastic pollution spill, prepare a contingency plan including, how to:
1. Organise the clean-up operations of acute plastic pollution and possibly a combined oil and chemical spill. The clean-up of APP should be led by the same governmental agency that is responsible for handling other forms of acute marine pollution. The approach and emergency plans used when working with larger oil spills also works with this kind of pollution.
2. Use one single contact point to communicate with the responsible polluters, insurance companies and other stakeholders. This makes it easier to establish common goals for the operation, secure compensation of cost, etc.
3. Inform and acquire information from the public, for this citizen science could be used.
4. Coordinate communication with and emergency support from neighbouring countries and other countries of relevance.
5. Implement surveillance and salvage of the wreck, containers and the area affected by acute plastic pollution.
6. Assess the environmental damage over the short and longer-term.
7. Support impacted economic sectors, particularly coastal fishing communities and the tourism industry.
8. Investigate legal and financial issues associated with the incident.
9. Address filing of compensation claims.

4.2.8 What gaps are present regarding prevention, emergency response and clean-up of acute plastic pollution?

4.2.8.1 Gaps according to literature

Gaps that were identified regarding prevention, emergency response and clean-up of acute plastic pollution, after analysis of the legislation and policies at UN, EU, Nordic Region and national level include:

The amounts of material released during acute plastic pollution events are not known well. Only rough estimates are present for the Nordic region, Europe and globally.
There is no easy way of cleaning-up pellet pollution from the environment, it is very difficult and “no one size fits all” solution exists.
The current legislation for more secure stowage of containers on containerships is not sufficient to prevent loss of small plastic items like pellets.
Technical measures like electronic inclinometers, sensors to measure accelerations to provide crew of containerships with real-time information nor video recordings are often not present.
Measures to reduce high acceleration forces that could cause damage to cargo of containerships are not always applied during the construction and operation of containerships.
There is not sufficient awareness of nor guidelines for the Masters and Navigational Officers of containerships on sailing with a high stability and the hydrodynamic phenomena in specific marine areas (like the sailing routes north of the sensitive Wadden Sea).
There are no general contingency plans present for addressing acute plastic spills and their environmental and economic impact.
There are international laws and conventions on waste and plastics, but none yet that address acute plastic pollution.
Plastic pellets/nurdles are not labelled as being of a “hazardous” nature, neither internationally, regionally, at EU-level, nor nationally in the Nordic Region.
Because acute plastic pollution is not included in any legislation, preparedness, coordination internationally and nationally of clean-ups, and liability or compensation when damage is caused are not present in provisions.
There is no organization nor organizational framework that from a legal perspective deals with acute plastic pollution, internationally, regionally, at EU-level, or nationally in the Nordic Region.
There are frameworks that comprise most if not all elements needed to combat acute plastic pollution (Bonn Agreement, Copenhagen Agreement and Helsinki Convention) but focus on other pollutants, specifically oil and harmful substances/chemical discharges.
There are organisations that address pollution of other hazardous substances such as oil (for example, EMSA at EU-level and MARFO in Norway), but those do not focus on acute plastic pollution at the moment.
There are, however, concrete measures at the level of OSPAR and the plastics industry (Operation Clean Sweep) that address pellet loss, but those are voluntary and will therefore have limited effect only.

4.2.8.2 Gaps according to interviews

Two main gaps are mentioned in many of the interviews (those are not presented before, hence the reference to interviewees and dates of the interviews are presented here):

the lack of legislation and rules on international level for the transport of plastic pellets and
the lack of clarity in each country on responsibilities in a potential case of acute plastic pollution.

On the first issue, international rules, many of the interviewees indicate that IMO has a crucial role. Classifying small plastic items transported in bulk, especially pellets, as hazardous goods would lead to stricter rules for packaging and for storing containers with pellets on board ships. Pellets would also automatically be covered by national legislation, which they are not currently.

“There are gaps in legislation and policies for addressing transport of plastic pellets. We need regulations that will make sure that leakages of plastic pellets are minimized during maritime transport through improved packaging and safe stowage, recognizing the hazardous nature of plastic pellets. This could include classification of pellets as harmful substances or other type of measures leading to necessary regulatory requirements in order to minimizing the environmental risk associated with their transport at seas. Also, we need regulations that trigger improved pollution preparedness in case of accidents.” (Eriksson, Sweden).
“Work internationally to make the conventions cover this field”. (Nyland & Strömqvist, Norway)
“Allocation of resources, securing capacity to target issues of concern and having a high frequence of onboard supervison are key factors to prevention and risk reduction of cargo loss.” (Nyland & Strömqvist, Norway).
“Plastic pollution is addressed by the EU SUP Directive, which is a good approach with expectedly a good impact on the environment. However, plastic pellets are not addressed” (Pattinson, OSPAR).

The second issue, the lack of clarity around responsibility chains in each country for preparedness and control of pellet spills is connected to the fact that they are not classified as hazardous. Interviewees from many countries express similar views and concerns:

“There is no equivalent to the oil spill preparedness for plastic spills: an organisation that is ready and available and have got proper training and equipment” (Moe, Norway).
“The main gap is that we don’t know how the authorities would approach it or finance the measures. It is not regulated, so we rely on the good will of companies and authorities” (Metcalfe, KIMO-Denmark).
“No one is responsible. There is no coordinating group, no routines, no preparedness and no budget. There are several agencies who could potentially have a role, but none of them has this task. There is not even a technical solution for a national map to be used” (Lachmann, Sweden).
“There is no official gap analysis, but in our view it would be better if plastic was included in the current legislation so there will be stricter rules on containers, stricter rules on those who use the pellets. It would be easier to implement if it was part of international law” (Bjarnadóttir and Einarsdóttir, Iceland).
“The fact that plastic pellets spills are not explicitly covered by legislation also means that no agency has a budget for dealing with it” (Lindgren & Lindgren, Sweden).
“There are many agencies involved and it would for example make sense if the Coast Guard would also be responsible for the long-term issues related to marine pollution” (Genestig, Sweden).
“There is a need for better coordination between national and local authorities and between different local authorities” (Jensen, Denmark).

Other comments from the interviews include:

the need for better reporting routines when an incident takes place:
1. “The Trans Carrier incident was reported only when the ship reached its destination and, due to a misunderstanding, the place for the incident was not correctly reported. That means we were taken by surprise when the pellets reached the coast. We lost valuable time there” (Bergstrøm, Norway).
2. “The reporting system in cases of incidents needs to be evaluated. In the Trans Carrier case, the amount of lost pellets was not reported correctly.” (Nyland & Strömqvist, Norway).

the system for reporting findings and clean-up of pellets on the shore:
1. “We have stressed that the reporting system we used during the Trans Carrier incident should be available for the entire country – it is a complement to MARFO’s general marine litter maps” (Moe, Norway).
the lack of cooperation between the Nordic countries on preparedness and control:
1. “It would be good if countries could share knowledge more actively on how to deal with acute plastic pollution, on what kind of prevention we can do, on techniques for cleaning, on how important it is to clean as fast as possible, etc. It makes sense to use the same cooperation frameworks” (Bjarnadóttier and Einarsdóttir, Iceland).
2. “In the Trans Carrier case, we had close contact with Sweden, that was also affected. We had 4–5 meetings with the County Administrative Board in Västra Götaland and the Authority on Marine and Water Management. But they did not have the same approach – there was no national action in Sweden, it was only part of the ordinary beach cleaning. We asked for reports and numbers, but we never got any because they did not have that overview” (Bergstrøm, Norway).
the lack of knowledge:
1. “We do not know the amounts of lost pellets, so there is a need for better estimates to identify how big the problem is” (Nyland & Strömqvist, Norway).
difficulties regarding the liability of the polluter:
1. “Liability and compensation are restricted to the costs for the operation and do not cover long-term effects on the environment, on fisheries, on tourism, etc. There is no price tag for the environment” (Genestig, Sweden).
2. “National legislation is not always efficient when it comes to pollution from shipping. It is not easy to identify the polluter. A country can be affected by an incident or a crime taking place far away and the authorities cannot prove anything, cannot take any measures against the polluter. This is not an easy task for a municipality that is responsible for dealing with pollution on its coastline” (Lindgren & Lindgren, Sweden).
lack of ratification of international conventions:
1. “Sweden should ratify the HNS convention” (Genestig, Sweden).