Go to content

2. Methodo­logy and basis for selection of criteria

Development of the product criteria presented in this report was underpinned by a literature review on the issues presented by PUA products, their drivers and the solutions suggested, including relevant criteria for determination. The report was supported by an Advisory Group comprising key experts from governments, secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), UN agencies, science networks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other relevant stakeholders (see Acknowledgements). One online workshop was held with the Advisory Group, who also provided two rounds of comments on draft versions of the report. The steering group of the Nordic Council of Ministers' Vision project "The Nordics - a driving force in fighting marine plastic pollution regionally and globally" also provided multiple reviews.

2.1 Selection of classifications

Numerous voluntary instruments have been developed over recent years that include definitions and criteria of relevance for determining unnecessary, avoidable and/or problematic plastic products or groups of products.
Examples include the Plastics Pacts developed under the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO).
 It was found that most of the instruments provide criteria for only one or two of the three classifications proposed in this report - either unnecessary, avoidable or problematic products. The Zero Draft of the plastics instrument also refers only to problematic and avoidable plastic products. There is consequently a need to develop criteria sets that cover all potential PUA products in a holistic way.
The intention of including a separate classification for “unnecessary” when developing criteria is to provide distinct control measures for elimination without replacement. This is important to avoid creating new environmental problems in the attempt to address the problem of plastic pollution. In this sense, it provides the strongest classification, following a “start and strengthen” approach. This implies that products initially deemed avoidable could in the future be reclassified as unnecessary. Such an approach could effectively accelerate the transition towards the prevention, reduction and elimination of plastic pollution in line with the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 5/14.

2.2 Selection of criteria

The development of product criteria presented in this report considered existing and draft legislation, as well as voluntary initiatives containing criteria of relevance. Key research undertaken and proposals made by many stakeholders were also reviewed. These are summarised in Appendix 3.
In this report, the intention is to suggest potential criteria that can determine the classification of both existing products and products that are yet to be developed and placed on the market. Such criteria will be important in the development of control measures that ensure lasting effectiveness of the plastic instrument in years to come. To support this, a process is suggested that can assist in determining the appropriate classification of a product or group of products (refer to section 4.1).
The selection of criteria presented in this report was guided by the following principles. The criteria should:
  • Consider issues across the full life cycle of products, not only those associated with the end-of-life and leakage.
  • Be sufficiently broad to include a wide range of products beyond single-use products and packaging.
  • Provide flexibility to capture new products placed on the market in the future.
  • Differentiate the three classifications of problematic, unnecessary and avoidable to provide a clear pathway to distinguishable policy interventions for each.
  • Avoid overlap with criteria for elements of concern (e.g. hazardous chemicals) and sustainable/circular design of products, while providing entry points for these sets of criteria developed separately under the plastics instrument.
  • Not limit the control measures because of a lack of available information or current technical and economic feasibility, considering these barriers may be overcome within the lifetime of the plastics instrument.
  • Stimulate innovation and not restrict alternatives and non-plastic substitutes to those that are currently available.
  • Recognise the variations across countries in waste management services and leakage rates. A high leakage rate in one country may not apply in another and should thus not necessarily demand a listing under the plastics instrument as problematic. Instead, criteria developed under the plastics instrument can promote determination as problematic at the national level leading to national listings.
  • Be designed to act in isolation and not require more than one criterion to be met to allow determination as problematic, unnecessary or avoidable.
Nordic Council of Ministers I www.norden.org/publications I pub@norden.org