IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Implementation of Directives and Conventions takes place in a nested fashion, from

between the levels, with strong overlaps in the scope and modality of implementation (OSPAR, 2014). For example, the monitoring of marine litter takes place at the Regional Seas Convention level, but the monitoring is used to fulfil the obligations of the EU MSFD. Similarly, the programmes of measures for MSFD rely on the regional work of the sea conventions under their regional action plans on marine litter (OSPAR, 2014).

At the level of the regional seas conventions, and within their competence to reduce pollution levels, actions, monitoring and assessments are carried out periodically.

The implementation of the rules-based EU environmental acquis is carried out by the Member States and the European Commission. To ensure that the implementation is uniform, the primary Directives are supported by common implementation strategies and common understanding documents. This approach ensures that there is a level of consistency that allows for oversight and comparison of the national implementations.

The participation of sectoral and NGO observers affords a level of oversight and accountability to the process.

In the wider macro-regional approach, such as a regional seas convention or political groupings like the G20, marine litter action plans have been in place for several years.

These action plans take greater cognisance of the uncertainty and lack of knowledge around this type of pressure. The plans seek to take different modes of action from awareness raising, education and behavioural change, improved monitoring, reducing the sources and types of marine litter and developing a better understanding of the scientific understanding of harm levels, to be established before taking directed actions (OSPAR, 2014.)

EU implementation follows a timeline set out in the Directives and has different phases of action. These range from scientific assessments and development of environmental monitoring systems, to the delivery of management measures and actions designed to address the pollution pressure. Legislation includes an oversight role for the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of the actions of the Member States during the implementation cycle.

The implementation and effectiveness of the MSFD, as the only EU measure that seeks to set environmental targets for marine litter, including microplastics, is worth considering. The environmental targets reported to the EU Commission in 2012 for marine litter show that no Member State was assessed as defining adequate targets for marine litter (European Commission, 2008). Only two Member States set quantitative targets for microplastics based on existing work at a regional seas

the Directive requires the implementation of management measures to address pressures and maintain or achieve good environmental status. In July 2018, the European Commission’s assessment of the national measures highlighted strengths, weaknesses and recommendations (European Commission, 2008). In summary:

Strengths

• Measures cover both the reduction of litter inputs and the removal of existing litter, but measures are mainly directed to macro-litter (not NMPs).

• There is transboundary coordination by member states and an acknowledgement of the transboundary impacts of marine litter. They link their measures to wider macro-regional actions and they coordinate these through their relevant Regional Seas Conventions.

• Awareness-raising around the problem of marine litter is a measure adopted by most Member States (European Commission, 2018a).

• All Member States are aware of the problem of marine litter, including micro-litter such as NMPs, and most Member States have a good understanding of the main sources contributing to this problem.

Weaknesses

• Very few Member States report direct measures on micro-litter such as NMPs.

Some report indirect measures to address knowledge gaps for this type of litter, which, while not yet fully addressing the problem, will positively contribute to better characterising the pressure and its potential impact on fauna. Similarly, there are no direct measures in place to tackle degradation products.

• Due to the lack of knowledge and reporting on the effects of marine litter and NMPs on biota, it is often unclear how Member States will interpret the issue of ‘not causing damage on the marine environment’ or ‘significant impacts on the marine ecosystem’, even though these aspects have been included in many of the GES definitions or in specific targets.

• At a macro-regional level, it is too early to say if any changes are occurring in the presence of litter in the marine environment (OSPAR, 2017).

• These findings relating to implementation and effectiveness are largely consistent with the state of knowledge about the scale of harm to the marine environment from macro and micro litter such as NMPs. The absence of convergent scientific evidence or advice about reference levels and baselines and the effects of marine litter can give rise to diverging approaches to implementation of measures. The dynamic between adequate understandings of risks in order to take action, and the invoking of the precautionary principle as justification to take action, can give rise

to tension in the pace, ambition and effectiveness of the implementation process between the various institutions and administrations.

• Regarding enforcement, policy measures that aim to regulate specific production and use are specifically targeted. Upon release of reports describing damaging nature of microbeads to the environment and advocacy by conservation groups, a number of countries introduced a full ban on microbeads: these include the US (US Government, 2015), Canada (Government of Canada, 2018), France (European Parliament, 2018) and New Zealand (Ministry for the Environment, 2017; SAM, 2018).

On the other hand, some countries introduced partial manufacture and import ban to limit the pollution (European Commission, 2018b; SAM, 2018). A number of countries are currently working on their own microbeads legislation (Ministry of the Environment and Food of Denmark, 2018). In the end, a producer can only be held responsible for his share of the total environmental burden. As plastics are so abundantly used in our society, environmental exposures are the results of a plethora of different uses which are related to various producers. As microbeads a smaller source (by volume) and as covered in section 2.3.1, tracing is not possible.

Therefore, it will be difficult to really hold any single or specific producer responsible for environmental or human health risks (De Jong, 2018).