5. Institutional arrangements

The current lack of global regulation for plastic products highlights the urgency for broader regulatory oversight. In this context, it will be prudent to consider how the science-policy interface of the plastics instrument can support the listing of PUA products. Drawing insights from established models, notably the BRS conventions, provides understanding of how such listings can be supported by collaboration between researchers and policymakers. Examples of established institutional arrangements within MEAs that list chemicals for restriction are provided below:

The Stockholm Convention employs a meticulous three-step scientific process overseen by the POP Review Committee, encompassing screening, risk profile, and risk management evaluation, spanning at least three meetings/years. This process begins by assessing proposed POPs against criteria in Annex D (persistence, bioaccumulation, adverse effects, and long-range transport potential), followed by an evaluation of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment outlined in Annex E, and concludes with consideration of control measures and socio-economic aspects as per Annex F.
The Rotterdam Convention relies on information already compiled and regulatory actions taken by national authorities. Article 5 of the Convention stipulates that any Party that has banned or severely restricted a chemical is required to notify this to the Secretariat. Once the Secretariat has received notifications from two parties that are from two different prior informed consent (PIC) regions regarding that chemical, the notifications shall be forwarded to the Chemical Review Committee (CRC) for review and consideration for recommending the chemical for inclusion in Annex III to the Convention.

While the listing of chemicals and polymers of concern may vary from that of products of concern, they do exhibit numerous common attributes. Notably, POPs and plastic pollution share important parallels, including traits such as enduring persistence and the capacity for long-distance transportation (Chakraborty et al., 2022). Consequently, their requisite control measures and the necessary science-policy interface might inherently mirror each other.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge the pervasiveness of plastic products that have integrated into every aspect of our daily lives and adjust the necessary scientific and technical expertise accordingly within the institutional design of the science-policy interface. This adjustment might entail the establishment of multiple committees that collaborate closely to address various facets of the problem.

Moreover, a shift from a reactive approach inherent in the Stockholm Convention to a proactive approach is imperative. This strategic transition involves taking pre-emptive steps under the plastics instrument, such as the removal of products of concern from the market in their early stages to prevent adverse impacts before they materialize. Independent scientific advice plays a pivotal role in this context. Additionally, steps must be taken to ensure inclusiveness, thereby giving civil society actors a voice that is heard and reflected in the work.

Here we suggest a model where the listing of PUA products includes a step-by-step process, which is described in five steps below:

Submission and review of proposals
Proposals for the listing of PUA plastic products are initiated through submissions by Parties. These submissions are directed to the scientific and technical committee on PUA products. This will require the development of guidelines on the format and content of submissions, ensuring Parties provide sufficient information for an informed review. In parallel, the Science-Policy Panel (SPP) on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention can play a crucial role by being empowered to put forward independent scientific proposals. This proactive approach, fuelled by the horizon scanning function of the SPP, offers a more robust perspective to the listing process.
Comprehensive review by the Review Committee on PUA plastic products
The Review Committee evaluates proposals based on specific criteria detailed in Annex A (criteria for problematic plastic products), Annex B (criteria for unnecessary plastic products), and Annex C (criteria for avoidable plastic products). This process could encompass a product assessment
Risk assessment and management aspect could be addressed under criteria for ‘elements of concern’ and associated control measures.
to evaluate compliance with listing criteria, succeeded by an environmental cost and benefit analysis, incorporating life cycle assessment, carbon footprint evaluations, and investigations into pollution levels and biodiversity effects. This analysis should factor in possible impacts of alternate practices, alternate designs, and non-plastic substitutes. A more in-depth socio-economic assessment may also be considered, but it will be important to set limits on the extent and depth of analysis that can help prevent over-analysis and keep the focus on action. The review process could be designed to include two meetings, scheduled at intervals that permit thorough data collection and analysis to support informed review.
Cooperation with other possible committees and stakeholder consultation
The plastics instrument could also include other scientific and technical committees to help deliver on control measures related to the upstream phase of the plastics life cycle (Grid-Arendal, 2023). In scenarios where PUA products fall within either the avoidable or problematic classifications, collaboration with a possible committee on sustainable and safe design of plastics would be beneficial to help understand the potential for redesigning the product as a risk management option.
Also, for proposed PUA products that strictly align with the problematic classification, collaboration with a possible committee on chemicals and polymers of concern becomes important in cases where hazard is of concern. This applies specifically to two proposed criteria that address “elements of concern” currently listed under criteria for problematic products, namely:
- The product contains chemicals or polymers of concern, including those derived from secondary materials, or represents a health or environmental hazard.
- The product releases chemicals of concern during its intended use.
Moreover, conducting stakeholder consultations, such as through written submissions, will be crucial to capture a range of perspectives and insights, enhancing the comprehensiveness of the assessments. These consultations should involve experts from NGOs, industry representatives, UN agencies and MEAs.
Governing body decision
Informed by recommendations stemming from the Review Committee on PUA plastic products, the governing body is mandated to make decisions regarding the identification, classification and listing of PUA products in respective annexes. This should encompass an adaptive management approach, allowing for periodic reassessment and adjustments to listings as new information emerges or circumstances change. Figure 9 summarizes how the institutional design of a science-policy interface of the plastics instrument could support effective and inclusive listing of PUA products.

UAP Diagrams-final_redigering_Side_5.png

Figure 9. The science-policy interface of the plastics instrument.

Monitoring
Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms will be needed to assess the impact of decisions and ensure they are achieving the desired outcomes. This could include environmental measures (e.g. reduction in pollution levels), socio-economic factors (e.g. changes in employment), human health (e.g. exposure) and compliance rates.
Other considerations
It will be important to address the need for capacity building, especially for developing countries, to ensure they can effectively participate in the proposal submission and review process. This could include technical assistance, training programs, and resource sharing.