1

Meredith Braun ES242 Bates May 13th, 2015

An Evaluation of Current Policy Efforts to Reduce Plastic Pollution in the World’s Oceans

1. Introduction

1.1. The Problem In the marine environment, for years the motto for the disposal of debris – specifically

that of plastic – has been that “the solution to pollution is dilution”. In other words, the ocean’s

vast size and depth has been perceived as practically limitless in terms of ability to absorb

anthropogenic solid pollution (Laist, 1987). However, human-made debris is now found to have

permeated nearly every corner of the marine domain, “from the poles to the equator and from

shorelines, estuaries, and the sea surface to ocean floor “ (STAP, 2011). The far-reaching

capability of plastics is due in part to plastic’s buoyancy and environmental persistence – when a

plastic particle settles in sediment, it may continue to persist in that space for centuries (Derraik,

2002). This resistance to degradation is attributed to plastic’s chemical makeup as a synthetic

organic polymer – and this lack of degradation ability may very well spell disaster for the

world’s oceans. Although plastics have only been in use “for just over a century, by 1988 in the

United States alone, 30 million tons of plastic were produced annually” (Derraik, 2002).

Factoring in the prominence of plastic use among all countries, it has become the most

predominant of all marine litter types throughout the oceans, and “its proportion consistently

varies between 60% and 80% of the total marine debris” (Gregory & Ryan, 1997).

This significance in proportion of marine debris and the lack of degradable capability

renders plastic as a significant concern for marine conservation. Marine creatures are threatened

by both plastic ingestion and entanglement. At least 260 marine species are affected by marine

debris through either entanglement or ingestion (STAP, 2011). Turtles may ingest the plastic

when confusing it for a jellyfish (a staple of their diet) or be entangled in discarded rope or nets

and drown; birds may suffocate from plastic film or ingest small plastic particles (STAP, 2011).

Although turtles and birds are only two of the numerous marine inhabitants who are affected by

plastic’s insidious prevalence, they may act as significant actors to bring public attention to the

problem, as sea turtles and many marine bird species are highly migratory – they symbolize the

  2

need for far-reaching, international protection efforts so as to ensure safe travels as they

circumvent the globe. In this paper, I will address and evaluate three such efforts to reduce

plastic debris and pollution in the world’s ocean basins. This paper is not intended to act as a

comprehensive review of global policies, but as an overview of three of the most well known,

far-reaching, and well-researched regimes.

1.2. The London Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and the 1996 Protocol

The 1972 London Convention, which until 1992 was known as the London Dumping

Convention, applies to all marine waters except for internal waters of signatory parties. The

Convention restricts intentional disposal and dumping of certain materials in the ocean (Hollis,

2012). Ninety parties, half of which are developing countries, support the Convention (Sands et

al., 2012). The Convention adopted a Protocol in 1996 after review in the early 1990s, and the

Convention and the Protocol act parallel to and in tandem with each other; parties may sign on to

either the Convention or the Protocol and not the other, although the Protocol is considered to be

the more restrictive of dumping actions than the Convention (Sands et al., 2012). The 1972

Convention’s objective is to require Contracting Parties to “… protect and preserve the marine

environment from all sources of pollution and take effective measures… to prevent, reduce and

where practicable eliminate pollution caused by dumping or incineration at sea of wastes or other

matter” (London Convention, Article 2).

1.3. The International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

MARPOL is the primary international convention regulating pollution from vessels; it

was adopted at the International Conference on Marine Pollution that was convened by the IMO

in 1973 in order to replace the 1954 Oil Pollution Convention (Sands et al., 2012). The original

treaty, MARPOL 1973, was modified by the 1978 Protocol – much like the London Convention,

save for the fact that the Protocol modified the parent Convention before it ever had entered into

force (Sands et al., 2012). Because of the 1973 Convention’s modification in 1978, it is

sometimes referred to as MARPOL 73/78; for the purposes of this paper, I will refer to it simply

as MARPOL. There are six Annexes to the Convention that have the intention of detailing rules

  3

on pollution originating from ships; the last of these was added as recently as 1997 (Sands et al.,

2012). Annex V, the MARPOL Annex which I will mention specifically for the purposes of

investigating solutions to marine plastic pollution, prohibits any and all disposal of plastics into

the sea from ships (Sesini, 2011).

1.4. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

The second primary instrument for the prevention of pollution from vessels while at sea is

UNCLOS; its establishment in 1982 was, and still is, intended to “establish a legal order for the

seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful

uses of the seas and oceans… and the study, protection, and preservation of the marine

environment” (UNCLOS). UNCLOS is one of the most far-reaching, influential, and well

respected of the global environmental agreements, with 162 signatory parties (Sands et al.,

2012). One of the main objectives of UNCLOS binds parties into pursuing efforts of prevention,

reduction, and control of marine pollution – to achieve this goal, UNCLOS has established rules

set in place for the acquisition of information, scientific research, monitoring, environmental

assessment, enforcement, and liability (Sands et al., 2012). In signing the Convention, all states

acknowledge that their primary objective and obligation is the “protect[ion] and preserv[ation]

[of] the marine environment” (Sands et al., 2012; UNCLOS).

1.5. Describe Criteria for Evaluating Solutions I will evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of the London Protocol, MARPOL, and UNCLOS

in their efforts to control, reduce, and/or eradicate marine plastic pollution through multiple

criteria. The first criteria will be the number of signatory parties; the higher the number of

signatory parties to an international law or treaty, the further reaching the positive effects will be

to the environment. Secondly, the status of whether or not each possible policy solution is

binding or non-binding to signatory parties will be noted. If signatory parties are not bound to

pursue conservation efforts, then while they may appear to be effective or regulating on paper, in

reality the efforts may not be put in place. Finally, whether or not the U.S. is a signatory will be

noted. The U.S. has significant impact in the realm of international law, and if it is a signatory

for a Convention that Convention, in my opinion, has greater chances of success and impact on

the marine environment.

  4

For the purposes of this work, the relative and subjective “success” of each convention

will be ranked on a scale from one to three, taking into account the Convention’s thoroughness in

efforts towards pollution amelioration, number of signatory parties, its status as binding or non-

binding, and signatory status (or lack thereof) of the United States.

2. Solutions

In this section I aim to describe each of the preceding Conventions in thorough detail, noting

specific efforts to reduce or eliminate land- or vessel-based pollution. Components of each

Convention, as well as how it works to enforce these components and how much progress has

been made in terms of pollution reduction, will also be investigated. Finally, each Convention

will be evaluated according to the criteria noted in section 1.5 – and its “success” in pollution

regulation scaled and ranked on a scale of one to three.

2.1. London Convention

2.1.1. Components of the London Convention and Protocol The 1972 London Convention is intended to prevent the “pollution of the sea by the

dumping of waste and other matter” that originates on land upon the high seas and the territorial

sea, but not within internal waters of signatory parties (Alam et al., 2012). “Dumping” within the

Convention is defined as “any deliberate disposal into the sea of wastes or other matter from

vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea”, with “wastes” meaning

“material and substance of any kind, form, or description” (emphasis mine) (London Convention,

Article 1).

The 1996 Protocol strengthened the Convention by prohibiting the dumping of any and

all wastes into the sea, save for those listed in Annex I; it also prohibited the incineration of all

waste at sea and the export of waste to other countries for the purposes of dumping or

incineration (Alam et al., 2012). Whereas the original 1972 Convention allowed for dumping

with exceptions, the Protocol basically reversed the regulations to create a more strict and

regulatory approach using the Precautionary Principle and prohibited all waste dumping with

exceptions (Sands et al., 2012). Further, with its precautionary approach, the Protocol efforts to

increase regional cooperation and to promote the protocol through the aid of international

organizations; on a national level, every signatory “party must report on waste loaded in its

  5

territory or onto one of its flagged vessels and the administrative and legislative measures taken

to implement the Protocol, as well as their effectiveness” (Alam et al., 2012; Stokke, 1999).

The Protocol and Convention were created and implemented with the goal of bringing

“global-level commitments on par with the most advanced regional agreements and strengthen

programmatic activities with a view to improving waste management” (Stokke, 1999). The

Convention requires collaboration between parties on training, research and monitoring and

methods for disposal and treatment of waste, and the promotion of measures to protect the

marine environment against pollution from specific sources (Sands et al., 2012).

2.1.2. How Much Progress Has Been Made to Date?

Every year, Consultative Meetings are held at the International Maritime Organization

(IMO) in London. The IMO provides all of the secretariat functions – in 1975, it was designated

as the competent organization (Sands et al., 2012). At these yearly meetings in London over the

years, a number of amendments have been added to both the Convention and its Annexes; these

amendments have prohibited the dumping of industrial wastes, radioactive wastes, and the

incineration at sea of industrial wastes and sewage sludge (Sands et al., 2012). Further, at these

meetings, several subsidiary bodies have been established, such as a Scientific Group on

Dumping and an Ad Hoc Group of Legal Experts to constantly research and strive for

improvement and keeping the Convention and Protocol up-to-date (Sands et al., 2012).

The Convention and Protocol, since their respective inceptions, have successfully aided

in the reduction of illegal and unregulated dumping and incineration at sea of land-based waste

from ocean-faring vessels. They have provided an arena “ where political compromises may

evolve under the pressure of wide public attention; and, to some extent, by co-ordinating

technology transfer… when political will exists” (Stokke, 1999). However, deliberate illegal

waste dumping from vessels at sea does still remain a legislative issue, and “further issues

relating to state responsibility for dumping have not yet been determined” (Alam et al., 2012).

Stokke (1999) write that the primary deficiencies of the London Protocol regime are its inability

to sufficiently recruit worldwide far-reaching participation among countries – especially among

developing coastal states – and with this also comes an inadequate compliance system, with the

aforementioned illegal dumping at sea remaining fairly prominent. Stokke also notes that the

future survival and effectiveness of the Convention and Protocol depends upon wider

  6

participation and interest in the implementation of the written provisions. This increase in

participation requires more funding and “organization of programmatic activities which can

support the enhancement of administrative and physical waste management capabilities where

they are inadequate” (Stokke, 1999).

2.1.3. Evaluation of the London Convention and Protocol According to Noted

Criteria

Signatory Parties Binding? U.S. Party? Success Score

132 Yes Yes (Convention) 2

Table 1. An evaluation of the London Convention and Protocol according to noted criteria. Note: numbers

for signatory parties and Amendments comprise combination and addition of parties and amendments to

both parent Convention and Protocol.

2.2. MARPOL 2.2.1. Components of MARPOL

The purpose of MARPOL is to regulate pollution into the sea from ships. It is the most

comprehensive of all marine pollution conventions regarding pollutant discharge from ships

(Alam et al., 2012). When it was first adopted in 1973, it needed the ratification of 15 states; in

addition, these 15 states needed a combined fleet of no less than 50% of the world’s shipping by

gross tonnage (Louka, 2006). Three years later, only three countries had ratified, and the three

combined only represented 1% of the world’s shipping fleet. When the 1978 Protocol was

adopted and amended the Convention, it “lessen[ed] the regulatory burden imposed by the

Convention by favoring the graduated phase-in of regulatory measures (Louka, 2006). Parties

who have signed on to MARPOL desire to “… achieve the complete elimination of intentional

pollution of the marine environment … and the minimization of accidental discharge”

(MARPOL). MARPOL has established specific regulations on an international scale in order to

completely eliminate intentional pollution; while this goal has not yet been achieved, the

Convention has indeed aided on the road towards pollution elimination by providing for

  7

“substantive obligations [which are] among the most precise and comprehensive in any

international environmental agreement” (Sands et al., 2012).

Annex V of the Convention, entering into force in 1988, regards garbage pollution by

ships. It determines the distances from land that are required for a ship to dispose of its waste as

well as the methods of specific waste disposal (Louka, 2006). Particularly regarding solid debris,

all discharge is completely prohibited for ships outside of specially noted areas as well as within

special areas, and at offshore platforms and for all ships within 500m of those platforms

(MARPOL). “Special areas” includes the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the

Red Sea, and areas referred to as “Gulfs” (Derraik, 2002). For these special areas, more stringent

rules apply – such as the complete prohibition of any all and dumping or disposal of wastes of

any kind (Sands et al., 2012). Materials that float may not be disposed of within 25 nautical miles

of land, and all food waste and other garbage is prohibited within 12 nautical miles of a landform

until it has been processes through a grinder (Sands et al., 2012). When MARPOL was first

implemented in 1973, it was initially intended to simply reduce pollution from sewage garbage,

oil, etc.; however, in 1983 Annex V completely banned plastic disposal at sea (Sesini, 2011). In

1988, Annex V was amended to prohibit the discharge of all garbage from ships, and to require

governments to provide port facilities to receive garbage from arriving ships (Sesini, 2011).

2.2.2. How Much Progress Has Been Made to Date?

Upon its adoption, the MARPOL Convention made a significant impact in reducing the

deliberate dumping of numerous types of waste from ships. It has reduced oil discharges from

2.13 million tons in 1973 to 0.75 million tons in 1989 – a 75% decrease (Louka, 2006). This

reduction in pollution may be due to the extensive fines at risk if one is found to have caused

environmental damage outlined in the Convention. Even if a ship complies with MARPOL

requirements, the master and owner of a ship may still be held liable and charged under the

general environmental legislation of a state (Alam et al., 2012). However, unfortunately, vessels

are still believed to discharge up to 6.5 million tons of plastics per year into the oceans (Sesini,

2011; Derraik, 2002).

The MARPOL regime in its entirety is widely considered to be effective in its efforts

towards reducing ship pollution; it is a command-and-control form of legislation that has “…

created transparency in international law with regard to the implementation of international

  8

standards… [it] demonstrates the power of hegemonic states in imposing standards of their

choice on other states under the threat of defection or sanctions” (Louka, 2006).

2.2.3. Evaluation of MARPOL According to Noted Criteria

Signatory Parties Binding? U.S. Party? Success Score

147 Yes Yes 3

Table 2. An evaluation of MARPOL according to noted criteria.

2.3. UNCLOS

2.3.1. Components of UNCLOS UNCLOS, in place since 1982, is considered the “constitutive instrument of the law of

the seas”; to enter into force, it needed 60 ratifications, which took 14 years to accumulate

(Louka, 2006). UNCLOS is widely regarded as the framework convention that established the

basic international regulations to govern the oceans, even though the London Convention and

MARPOL both preceded it (Louka, 2006). Shearer (1993) notes “the protection of the marine

environment is the subject of a large part of [this] Convention”. In the 200-mile Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ) of a country, according to UNCLOS, that country has authority to be able

to do certain things – but the “protection and preservation of the marine environment” is

something which must be a priority, requiring countries to devise comprehensive legislation to

prevent marine pollution and the degradation of the ecosystem (Alam et al., 2012).

Article 195 of UNCLOS requires signatory parties to “prevent, reduce, and control

pollution in the marine environment”, as well as prevents nations from transferring pollution to

another nation for disposal or from converting pollution forms (for example, incineration)

(Hollis, 2013). UNCLOS’s Article 208 provides that “coastal states shall regulate to prevent,

reduce, and control pollution from seabed activities within areas of national jurisdiction. Beyond

areas of national jurisdiction seabed activities are governed by the International Seabed

Authority” (Alam et al., 2012).

For issues of waste dumping at sea, UNCLOS offers three methods of enforcement:

enforcement by a coastal nation within its territorial seas, EEZ, or continental shelf; Flag Nations

  9

which have the right to enforce their own laws against any violator on the open sea regardless of

the location of the offense; and enforcement by a third party, often “a nation in which ships take

on wastes within its territory” (Hollis, 2013).

2.3.2. How Much Progress Has Been Made to Date?

UNCLOS is an “umbrella convention” which provides guidance for the control of marine

pollution; it is comprehensive, but it doesn’t provide specifics of pollution prevention and the

restoration of degraded ecosystems (Louka, 2006). UNCLOS defines jurisdictional zones within

the marine realm, and “specifies the principles, rights and obligations that apply to various ocean

uses … obligations laid out in UNCLOS include the responsibility to … protect and preserve the

marine environment, and the obligation to cooperate in conserving living resources of the high

seas” (Alam et al., 2012). Generally, UNCLOS is a customary law, thus binding all states –

parties and non-parties alike (Alam et al., 2012). However, the United States never did sign

UNCLOS and remains a non-party.

UNCLOS is predominantly and widely held as a “monumental achievement” in the

international environmental law sphere; however, one of its weaknesses lies in the dependence

on individual nations creating legislation in order to implement its requirements (Hollis, 2013).

One of the prime examples of this weakness comes in regard to the issue of pollution – national

legislatures are depended upon to set “pollution provisions as a priority on the legislative

agenda” (Hollis, 2013). Hollis (2013) criticizes this approach, since “while the benefit of such a

scheme is that it allows the national autonomy, the weakness is that nations may not view such

legislation as a priority”.

2.3.3. Evaluation of UNCLOS According to Noted Criteria

Signatories Binding? U.S. Party? Success Score

162 Yes No 2

Table 3. An evaluation of UNCLOS according to noted criteria.

  10

3. Analysis

3.1. London Convention The London Convention and Protocol, combined, have 132 signatory parties. This is the least

number of the three Conventions investigated in this paper, and that is including the signatories

to the Convention and Protocol combined into one total figure. Since it is a Convention, and a

Convention is binding once the requisite numbers of parties sign on to enter it into force, it is a

binding agreement. Finally, the United States is a party of the Convention and not the Protocol.

Since the Protocol is the more stringent of the two sections, if the U.S. were party the

management of plastic waste and pollution in the oceans could potentially have a strong global

leader. For these reasons, the London Convention received a success score of two out of three

(Table 4). This is not to imply that the London Convention is ineffective in its efforts, but that it

is

3.2. MARPOL

MARPOL has 15 more signatory countries than the London Convention, with 147 parties

signed on to Annex V. As with the London Convention, MARPOL needed a specific number of

signatories to enter into force and become binding. Those 15 still had not signed three years later,

and in 1978 with the new MARPOL Protocol the necessary parties then signed on. Upon Annex

V’s adoption in 1988, the number of parties willing to strive for solid and plastic pollution

reduction increased notably. I consider this number to be fairly successful. MARPOL is also

binding since the 15 requisite parties signed on, adding accountability to signatories. On another,

more encouraging note, the United States is a party to MARPOL and Annex V, allowing for the

U.S. to enforce more stringent vessel-based pollution regulations. For these reasons, I gave

MARPOL a success score of three out of three (Table 4). Although MARPOL and its Annex V

has less signatories than UNCLOS, in my opinion the fact that the U.S. is party and has the

capability to enforce its regulations solidify its status as a “monumental achievement” in the

international environmental law sphere.

3.3. UNCLOS

UNCLOS has the most signatories of the three Conventions, with 162 parties signed on to

ratify. The most recent country to ratify UNCLOS is the State of Palestine, which signed on in

  11

January of 2015. Notably absent on the list of ratifiers is the United States. The U.S. signed on to

UNCLOS, but never ratified. A group of United States senators blocked U.S. ratification for

fears that UNCLOS would interfere the sovereign rights of the country (Bates lecture). However,

if the United States would sign on to UNCLOS, certain provisions could provide “new avenues

for non-United States environmental organizations to affect U.S. environmental policies (Bates

lecture). UNCLOS, if ratified by a country, is binding as well given its status as a Convention.

For these reasons, I have given UNCLOS a success score of two out of three (Table 4). While it

is held up as one of the grandfather conventions and set the pace for international environmental

policies to come, in its ranking I cannot overlook the glaring absence of the United States on the

list of ratifying countries.

3.4. Comprehensive Table

Convention Signatory Parties Binding? U.S. Party? Success Score

London Convention 132 Yes Yes (Convention) 2

MARPOL 147 Yes Yes 3 UNCLOS 162 Yes No 2

Table 4. An evaluation of the London Convention, MARPOL, and UNCLOS according to noted criteria.

4. Conclusion

Given the subjective ranking scores, I believe MARPOL is the current best solution for

ameliorating plastic and solid waste pollution in the world’s oceans. MARPOL regulates

pollution from ships, which are some of largest sources of waste pollution at sea on a consistent

basis. Regarding solid debris, all discharge is completely prohibited for ships outside of specially

noted areas as well as within special areas. Indications are that this prohibition seems to be

relatively effective compared to other policies in place. This reduction in pollution may be due to

the extensive fines and excess costs at risk to captains and owners of ships if one is found to have

caused environmental damage outlined in the Convention. MARPOL’s status as a command-

and-control form of legislation has successfully created transparency and accountability for the

action of vessels in international law, an accomplishment in international unification towards a

common goal that many other policies have failed to achieve in a significant manner.

  12

References

Alam, S., Bhuiyan, J., Chowdhury, T., & Techera, E. (2012). Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law (1st ed.). New York, New York: Routledge.

Derraik, J. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine

Pollution Bulletin, 44, 842-852. Gregory M. R., & Ryan P. G. (1997) Pelagic plastics and other seaborne persistent synthetic

debris: a revue of Southern Hemisphere perspectives. In Marine Debris, sources, impacts, and solutions, 49-66. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Hollis, D. (2012). Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (1972) and the 1996 Protocol (London Convention and London Protocol). Retrieved from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151448

Hollis, D. (2013). United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982. Retrieved from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156775

London Convention and Protocol. 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the prevention of marine

pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter, 1972. Retrieved from http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_lp.pdf

Louka, E. (2006). International Environmental Law: Fairness, Effectiveness, and World Order.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MARPOL (2013). Simplified overview of the discharge provisions of the revised MARPOL

Annex V which entered into force on 1 January 2013. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Documents/Annex%20V%20discharge%20requirements%2007-2013.pdf

MARPOL. (2011). Amendments to the annex of the protocol of 1978 relating to the international

convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973 (Revised MARPOL Annex V). Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx

Sands, P., Peel, J., Fabra, A., & MacKenzie, R. (2012). Oceans, Seas, and Marine Living

Resources. in Principles of International Environmental Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sesini, M. (2011). The Garbage Patch in the Oceans: The Problem and Possible Solutions.

Columbia University Earth Institute, 1-23.

Shearer, I. (1993). Current Law of the Sea Issues, in Maritime Change: Issues for Asia. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

  13

STAP. (2011) Marine Debris as a Global Environmental Problem: Introducing a solutions based framework focused on plastic. In A STAP Information Document. , pp. 40. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility.

Stokke, O. (1999). Beyond Dumping? The Effectiveness of the London Convention. Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, 39-49.

UNCLOS. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf