The European Union tries to protect the Arctic Ocean from plastic pollution

TABEL OF CONTENTS

Introduction

1. Plastic pollution in the Arctic Ocean

2. Brief review EU Arctic policy and alignment with European Green Deal

3. European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy

Conclusion

References

Resumo

Estando já na Década dos Oceanos (2021-2030, Nações Unidas) e reconhecendo a importância dos mares e oceanos para a sobrevivência do planeta e das espécies, não restam dúvidas da urgência em proteger os global common e herança comum. A vida marinha é afetada pelas diferentes atividades humanas que ocorrem em terra, sendo que existe uma poluição que perdura por mais tempo do que inicialmente previsto, o plástico. A poluição marinha do plástico tem influência negativa em todos setores da economia pela sua transversalidade associada aos mares e oceanos. A economia circular pode ser a forma de minimizar os efeitos negativos já visíveis. A União Europeia tem trabalhado no sentido de colocar em prática políticas a nível regional e local (nacional), na esperança de ser um exemplo a nível global. Estas estratégias têm como objetivo proteger o Oceano Ártico, muito afetado pela poluição do plástico.

PALAVRAS-PASSE: ABORDAGEM ECOSSITÉMICA, ECONOMIA CIRCULAR, OCEANO ÁRTICO, POLUIÇÃO MEIO AMBIENTE MARINHO, PLÁSTICO, UNIÃO EUROPEIA

Abstract

Living already in the Decade of Ocean (2021-2030, UN), knowing the importance of oceans and seas for Earth´s and species survival, it is clear the urgency of the protection of this global common and heritage. Being affected by human activity in land, oceans and marine life are affected by different types of pollution having one that is lasting for more than expected, plastic. Plastic marine pollution has negative consequences in different sectors of economy that are transversal in what concerns oceans. The circular economy can be a way to minimise the negative effects already visible. The European Union has been working on tackling the plastic pollution with different policies, at a regional and local levels, expecting to be an example at global level. Those strategies have the purpose to protect the Arctic Ocean highly affected by plastic pollution.

KEYWORDS: ARCTIC OCEAN, CIRCULAR ECONOMY, ECOSYSTEM APPROACH, EUROPEAN UNION, MARINE POLLUTION, PLASTIC

TABLES

TABLE 1

IMAGES

IMAGE 1

Introduction

Oceans are global commons and shall be protected by all. It corresponds to more than 70% of the Earth´s surface (Landrigan et al, 2020, p. 3). Climate change is evolving as a main topic in international relations at the moment, as it affects all regions in the world, being the Arctic region the sentinel of the world. This region is threatened by climate change that is also a consequence of plastic pollution produced worldwide and which gets into the Arctic. The marine pollution is produced by human activity and discarded into sea, whether due to sectorial uses or by unconscious behaviours regarding the functioning of the ecosystem in which human beings are included, as confirmed by the ecosystem approach.

In 1978, an international agreement was adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) with the goal to prevent pollution from seas and oceans with plastic from ships (Ivanova, Sokolov & Kharitonova, 2018, p.105). Though, it was not enough. The United Nations has been encouraging countries globally to act with concrete actions (goal 14).

Considering that plastic lasts for a very long time, the European Union (EU), being already aware of the importance of the Arctic at different levels, this sui generis organization had been defining politics and policies in order to protect the environment and consequently its territory, the European Arctic. Plastic is ubiquitous and oceans are at risk, as marine and human life are.

In order to tackle plastic pollution and protect marine environment, as well as the economy, that is so far linear and unsustainable, the European Union expects to act as part of the solution of a problem it also created.

That is why in this this paper the intention is to answer the following question: what is the European Union action to tackle plastic pollution?

The aim of this paper is to contribute in Arctic topics and research, enhancing its importance within climate change subjects as well as to bring higher consciousness regarding the impact plastic has in the ecosystem and how it affects the biodiversity and the economy. At the present moment, climate change has impact in our lives and it depends on us all to tackle this problem. The EU knows it has its footprint and it is its duty to be the solution that affects all countries and considering its will to lead by example in environment matters, it makes sense to reinforce its work.

Consequently, this paper will be presented within the green politics theory. The first conference about environment matters was held in the 70´s of las century at the United Nations over the recognition coming from the previous decade that humans were and are overusing resources (land, water and fish). Since then, green political parties have emerged. This theory came to be recognized within International Relations in 1990´s due to the growing impact of this issue that requires attention as it is connected with human actions and presents a growing threat at a global scale in topics such as security (in its holistic meaning) that is to say it includes food security, health security just to name a few. That is to be integrated in the “third generation” according to its interdisciplinary” (Barry, 2014, p.4). In this “new world” where it should be understood that anthropocentrism is no beneficial for mankind survival, it is expected to have a look at this environmental problem in an ecocentrism perspective. Though many different views are pointed to the green politics theory, with scholar separating “Green thought” and “Thinking green” expressions (Arı & Gokpinar, 2019, p. 167). In this paper, the view expected to be understood and presented is that all members of the community, meaning state, private sector, organizations and people are involved in the process, for good and for bad, and all need to cooperate to tackle climate change and marine plastic litter at a global scale.

This idea matches the Ecosystem Approach which considers humans as part of the natural ecosystem. It was “widely advocated during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 1992” (EC, 2018, p. 2) which was recognizes as a “policy concept in 1995” (Langlet and Rayfuse, 2019, p.1) with the Convention on Biological Diversity. In that sense, ecosystem approach should be understood as “a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way” (CBD, 2021). It is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization which encompass the essential processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems.

The article 2 of the Convention defines “"Ecosystem" as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit”. In 2000, during the 5th Conference of the Parties a Guidance for the Ecosystem Approach was adopted by the Convention. The European Union uses the Ecosystem approach and ecosystem-based approach in its policies such as Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MFSD, 2008/89/EU) and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD, 2014/89/EU) (European Commission, 2018, p. 2).

In order to develop those ideas, the methodology used is qualitative by analysing studies and articles written by Timo Koivurova, Adam Stepien, as well as authors about plastic studies, Jambeck, Lebreton, complemented with the consultation of official European such as directives, joint communications and reports, as well as of other international organisations.

The paper will be divided in three parts as follow: 1- explain what is understood as plastic, the size, how and why it is connected to climate, the sources of it as well as its impact in marine life and whole ecosystem and how it gets into Artic Ocean; 2 – this second part aims to show how the European Union Arctic Policy is aligned with the European Green Deal; 3 – it is expected to answer the question explaining the European Strategy for Plastics in Circular Economy, aligned with the Ecosystem approach.

In the conclusion it is to be stated that climate diplomacy is the support for the European Union to lead by example the rest of world through regional and national policies in reducing plastic use through recycling it as many times as possible. Actions that also aligned with UN 2030 Agenda and Integrated Maritime Policy. It will be concluded that some information, specific data about the Arctic region and the real impact from the European Union is still missing. In that sense it is expected to encourage more specific data research connecting the Arctic and European Union, as well as about the ecosystem and circular economy not only restricted to the Arctic but at a global level.

1. Plastic pollution in the arctic Ocean

“Marine environment is a precious heritage that must be protected” (European Parliament, 2008, p19). Before understanding how this heritage is being damaged, it is relevant to understand the words, concepts and expressions such as marine pollution, marine litter or debris and the types of plastic we refer to. That is why it is necessary, firstly, to get to know them better. According to the glossary of the United Nations, marine pollution means the introduction of substances into marine environment that harm living resources, difficult marine activities and have impact on quality of sea water (UN, 2021). Nonetheless, it is also necessary to distinguish marine pollution from marine litter (or marine debris). If marine pollution is defined as items that have been made or used by people that throw away those items into sea, rivers or beaches that follows the flow of winds, storms or current sea waters or that is lost then marine debris (or marine litter) is defined as any persistent manufactured or produced solid material discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment (Galgani et al., 2013). The items to be considered as “discarded into or unintentionally lost in the marine environment are items of plastic, wood, metal, glass, rubber, clothing and paper” (idem, PAME, 2021, p.10; UNEP, 2021, p.11). Studies inform that the majority of marine litter is plastic (Buhl-Mortensen, 2017; Hallanger & Gabrielsen, 2018, p.8)

Plastic production started in 1950s of last century and it is estimated that since then, nine billion tonnes have been produced. The author Jambeck (2015) considers that 2% of the waste is never collected and that 150 million tons of plastic debris have accumulated in the world´s ocean (Broder, 2016). As a consequence, oceans are being the garbage of human actions inland and in sea.

According to Rochman (2020) the first scientific publication about plastic and its impact in oceans was on Science magazine in 1972 by Carpenter and Smith in which they report findings of small particles in Sargasso Sea. Since then, studies about plastic have increased and the same author presents in his article entitled “The story of plastic pollution” specific works for each decade, which are: - 1986: counting pieces of small plastic debris in surface trawls; - 1996: Captain Charles Moore published the first account of large accumulations of plastic debris (“Great Pacific Garbage Patch); - 2006: Garbage Patch an island of floating plastic (pp. 60-61).

In what concerns specifically the Arctic region, the first publication was in the 70s of 20th century, in a 10km beach on Amchika Island, “where 2.000 to 5.300 pieces of plastic waste were observed” (Toyoshima, 2020, p.1). There is a consensus in academic field that no data is available about the quantity of plastic that goes into waters from inland.

About the plastic, researchers alleged that it is a material that can take many years to decompose, around 450 years (Hahladakis, 2019, p. 267). Though, plastic pollution is increasing and its waste and recycling process is not done correctly. Yet it must be added that plastic can also penetrate the skin and be inhaled when suspended in the air, being visible in snow and ice sampling (Halsband and Herzke, 2019). Oceans are, unfortunately, the garbage of the world and plastic is floating and circulating in oceans. It is important to understand that it affects marine life environment and the Arctic, being the less populated region is the most affected by the marine litter, nonetheless some litter is also produced there. That is to say, the pollution is produced within and outside the region. According to Tekman et al. (2017) cited by Hallanger & Gabrielsen (2018), there is an expectation of a growing density of plastic in the European Arctic. There is no data available at the moment that indicates how much plastic gets into Arctic from the EU, but due to its proximity and the transport via Gulf stream, the impact is to be higher than other regions.

Plastic has been easily discarded, being a plastic bottle of water or other volumous objects that will then become little. That is why the studies are more concerned about the size of the plastic than the chemical composition, known as polymers, that is part of the plastic production process, but the relevance here is the classification related to the size. The classification considers different sizes and are explained as below, following the report entitled From Pollution to Solution: A global assessment of marine litter and plastic pollution (2021), as indicated in the table 1:

Table 1: Definitions

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Source: From Pollution to Solution: A global assessment of marine litter and plastic pollution (2021)

Then, how does this massive litter arrive to Arctic ocean? The debris can be found everywhere in the ocean: in the surface (macroplastics), in column water, in deep sea and sea ice (micro and nanoplastics). This plastic pollution goes with the flow of current waters from North America and Europe, getting into Arctic Ocean and sub-Arctic waters. The estimation of plastic influx in the Arctic is of 62.000 to 105.000 tonnes per year (Koivurova et al, 2021, p. 66). Another reference concerns the current that bring all this litter as it is with warmer waters that microplastics circulate rather than cold, which could indicate transport of microplastic with the warmer water currents entering the Arctic Ocean (Lusher et al., 2015). The same authors inform that the abundance of those microplastics are found in the North Pacific and North Atlantic (idem). Authors as Cozar et al. (2017) state also that highest densities of plastic particles are found in these warmer water masses.

Marine pollution has been increasingly recognised as a global problem by the United Nations (UN) in 2005. The Resolution a/60/L/L.22 called for “national, regional and global actions in order to tackle marine litter matter” (Isensee & Valeds, 2015, p.1).

It is being assumed that human activity is responsible for the damage caused in the global commons that help mankind live and survive. Marine litter is linked to human activities and especially marine traffic has been identified as a major source of litter to the marine environment. In the image 1 it is possible to identify the different sources that have impact in marine pollution.

Image 1: Sources marine litter

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Source: United Nations Environment Programme, Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution Global Assessment, From Pollution to Solution a Global Assessment of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution, 2021, p.19

Plastic and climate change are connected, as the decomposition and the time it spends receiving sunlight, plastic releases greenhouse gases due to its material composition based on fossil fuel. Oceans absorb more than 90% of the excess heat and they slow planetary warming and stabilize the global climate (Landrigan et al, 2020, p.3). It is suggested that microplastics affect the ability of marine microorganisms to absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. If those little pieces of plastic capture the “food” (photosynthesis) then it consequently affects organisms that grow down the ocean as well as it provokes the loss of ocean oxygen, which contributes about half of Earth´s oxygen as mentioned by the World Economic Forum (Fleming, 2019).

Being integrated in an ecosystem, the network is affected: marine animals (entanglement or ingestion), socioeconomic costs¹, threatens human health and safety and impacts on marine organisms. Animals and plants have their house a garbage. Plastic affects not only the oceans, wildlife but also humans, “because plastic persists for a long time” (Jambeck et al, 2015, p. 768).

2. EU Arctic policy and alignment with European Green deal: Brief review

The EU is indisputably one of the key policy actors in the European Arctic, as a source of regulation and funding, and as a facilitator of networks of cooperation (Koivurova et al, 2021, p. 14) Taking into account that the Arctic region is having and gaining more importance in European Union, more precisely in its external policy, it is fair to consider European Union´s action in tackling plastic. It must be added that it is of importance as the EU expects to be the leader in environment matters.

As stated previously, in UN resolution it is asked to have actions at different levels of governance: national, regional and international. The EU is a party to the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) which covers about one-third of the Arctic ocean up to the north pole. Many other multilateral environmental agreements apply to the Arctic to some extent (where Arctic states are parties). Despite awaiting to be considered as an official observer in the Arctic Council, the EU has been investing and financing research through many projects such as Horizon 2030 or Copernicus. The application for official Observer has been reinforced in the Joint Communication in 2021 reinforcing the EU Arctic policy entitled “Joint communication on a stronger EU engagement for a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic”. The EU is also member of theBarents Euro-Arctic Council(BEAC) and of the Northern Dimension (founder).

Knowing it has its footprint² as major polluter due to high industrialisation located in the EU and consequently closed to Arctic Circle (Koivurova et al, 2021, p.5), the EU wants to be part of the solution and in order to contribute positively to behaviours it has been necessary, first, to identify the priorities in a region that is also European, and look at it this way. Second, the Arctic policies to be aligned with how it is expected to fight climate change, having a deep foundation in the European Green Deal, which serves as foundation for the implementation of different kind of actions in different areas to achieve the goals set in that document. It is all interconnected at a regional level as well as global, considering that it follows UN recommendation.

EU´s Arctic policy – historic brief

It is not until the beginning of the 21st century that the EU looks closer at this region and assumes it extension of its territory.

The year 2008 marks the turning point of EU´ s external policy regarding Arctic´s position and what can happen at many levels in the future. The EU took a step forward and defined its action and policy regarding the Arctic due to the temperatures rising that allowed the navigability in summer 2007 and Russia put its flag under waters. Those two situations awoke the institutions of the EU. So, in the year 2008 the European Commission presented a Communication (COM (2008) 763 final³ ) with proposals related to what they considered, at that time, three main policy objectives: protecting and preserving the Arctic in unison with its population; promoting sustainable use of resources; contributing to enhanced Arctic multilateral governance. This communication states the awareness of the threats knowing and transmitting that it is necessary to prevent and mitigate the negative impact of climate change giving importance to the urgency of action. Regarding the difference of perspective, the answer given about the governance in that region, the number 4 of the Communication of the Arctic region in May 2008 is clear and reiterates the Declaration of Ilulissat which reinforces the commitment of cooperation between countries of the Arctic Council.

In 2012, the European Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy elaborates a Joint Communication to the European Parliament and Council (JOIN (2012) 19 final⁴ ) that had addressed Resolutions (2011) and Conclusions (2009) respectively. The Joint Communication is entitled Developing a European Policy towards the Arctic Region: progress since 2008 and next steps and is trying to show a “pathway towards a coherent approach” (Stepien and Koivurova, 2017).

In this update there is no reference to the governance. The discourse seems to be directed to achieve the goal of being an observer member, which application has not been yet officially approved. That does not put away the EU representatives in that area to participate in the meetings at the Arctic Council as an “observer-in-principle” (Hossain, 2015). Scholars such as Osthargen (2013) and Koivurova (2017) consider that this Joint Communication lacks of clarity on EU Arctic policy.

Four years later, a new update is presented in the Joint Communication of 2016 (as a sea basin strategy – JOIN (2016) 21 final⁵ ) in which it is possible to read three pillars of EU Arctic policy, which are: 1) – climate change and safeguarding the Arctic environment; 2) – sustainable development in and around the Arctic; 3)- International Cooperation on Arctic Issues. In this document the danger of the thawing permafrost and its negative effects and consequences are explained as “this could change the Arctic as well as the global climate”. Still, it is considered vague. Nevertheless, it is aligned with the goal and objective of the Treaty of Lisbon and it looks like every item directly affected by each point shall be duly expressed so others can understand the action wanted by the European Union in climate change. This will happen in 2019 with the European Green Deal. This communication states also that the EU is a major contributor to Arctic Research over the past years and decades, as it is to be considered a priority as well as technologies (space and navigation). It also remembers that the EU is aligned with the Paris Agreement and reiterates its commitment in the reduction of greenhouse gas emission by 40% by 2030. The importance of maintaining continuous dialogue with indigenous people and local communities to make sure their rights are respected.

The new Joint Communication presented on 13th October 2021 (JOIN (2021) 27 final⁶ ), as it was expected since the public consultation held in July 2021 presented “A stronger EU engagement for a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic” as not only an update of the previous policies but enhancing the importance of multilateralism and cooperation among all actors (within and around the Arctic) for a sustainable, safe and secure Arctic’s ocean governance. We shall add that it foresees unsecure situations adapting its role according to the geopolitical changes we are assisting in the region, very quickly.

The key notes 2 and 3 are related and show the concern and will of concrete action to tackle climate change as well as accelerating the green transition: 2) – Making the Arctic more resilient to climate change and environment degradation and 3)- Stimulating an innovative green, blue and digital transition (Joint Communication, 2021).

EU expects all actors to follow its lead considering their commitment to tackle this global problem that is aligned with the European Green Deal, as described next.

European Green Deal

EU environment policy dates back to the European Council held in Paris in 1972, at which the Heads of State or Government (in the aftermath of the first UN conference on the environment) declared the need for a Community environment policy flanking economic expansion, and called for an action programme. The Single European Act of 1987 introduced a new “Environment Title”, which provided the first legal basis for a common environment policy with the aims of preserving the quality of the environment, protecting human health, and ensuring rational use of natural resources. The subsequent revisions of the treaties strengthened the Community’s commitment to environmental protection and the role of the European Parliament in its development. The Treaty of Maastricht (1993) made the environment an official EU policy area, introduced the co-decision procedure and made qualified majority voting in the Council the general rule. The Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) established the duty to integrate environmental protection into all EU sectoral policies with a view to promoting sustainable development. “Combating climate change” became a specific goal with the Treaty of Lisbon (2009). The EU is competent to act in all areas of environment policy, such as air and water pollution, waste management and climate change. Its scope for action is limited by the principle of subsidiarity and the requirement for unanimity in the Council in the fields of fiscal matters, town and country planning, land use, quantitative water resource management, choice of energy sources and structure of energy supply (European Parliament, 2021).

The European Green Deal was presented and proposed by the President of European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in December 2019, with Frans Timmermans as Executive Vice President of the European Commission for the European Green Deal. With this deal, it is expected the EU to become the world's first “climate neutral continent” by 2050. The President informs in its communication that fifty actions are defined for 2050. It is also important to understand that this deal focuses in many other areas such as: biodiversity, sustainable industry, building and renovation, sustainable mobility, food, clean energy. The objective is to have zero emission, “carbon neutrality so the aims of the Paris Agreement are achieved”. For the President of the Commission it is a triple win: “win for the climate, win for biodiversity and win for the jobs”. In that sense, the awareness and consciousness of the importance of environment and climate change has been growing and the EU is being able to show and express that more accurately. In the presentation, the message transmitted is that all is connected and that the persons (men, women, indigenous and local people) are also important in this process. It shall be remembered that it has to do with mankind survival. That is why the environment policy is also connected to people and their security. All is interconnected: environment, biodiversity and ecosystem, just as mentioned in the ecosystem approach.

3. European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy

In order to tackle the problem pollution that is affecting us all, concrete actions need to be effectively and efficiently put in practice, so the Arctic Ocean can be protected.

The Directive 94/62/EC, on packaging and packaging waste, was amended by Directive 2015/720 (EU, 2015) on lightweight plastic carrier bags. The amended Article 4 urges Member States to take measures so they achieve a sustained reduction in the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags on their territory. The strategy is part of a wider plan for the development of a circular economy and it is based on 2015 Circular Economy Action Plan which identified plastics as a priority area. This allowed the inclusion of proposals, agreed in December 2017, which modernise EU waste legislation. The amended Waste Framework Directive (EU) 2018/851 reiterated the importance of waste prevention by confirming its place as a top priority for waste legislation, according to the so called waste hierarchy. In the revised Directive, the European Commission has confirmed the strategic importance of waste prevention, also in the context of the circular economy, and has especially highlighted the field of plastic waste prevention as a specific priority (EU, 2018). The Directive provides flexibility regarding the nature of waste prevention implementation. This flexibility is reflected in countries' waste prevention programmes and requires that objectives and qualitative or quantitative benchmarks are set. The European Environment Agency (EEA) will need to publish periodic reports on waste prevention, according to Article 30 of the amended Waste Framework Directive, every 2 years. It is expected those reports to transmit information on the progress regarding the implementation of waste prevention programmes as well as the evolution in Member States and the EU in order to transit in an effective way onto a circular economy.

In 2018 the European Commission published its strategy for plastics in a circular economy in which plastic waste prevention is placed in the context of a circular economy and it is supported with specific measures and objectives targeting various aspects of plastic waste generation, such as reducing consumption of plastic bags and reducing marine litter. Overall, the main objective of separating waste generation from economic growth is emphasised. Plastic packaging is a strategy that producers have to consider with responsibility schemes, considerations about overpackaging, green public procurement, campaigns that can alert, so there is a consciousness of reusing and reducing packaging. The European Commission will take action, so that all plastic packaging is reusable or recyclable in a cost-effective manner by 2030. The Single Use Plastics Directive contains extensive elements of waste prevention. The Directive suggests also appropriate waste prevention measures to be taken against single use plastic products such as providing information to consumers, market based instruments and product design requirements (EEA, 2019; Koivurova, 2021).

During 2018-2020, it is estimated that about €100 million were allocated to projects directly related to the plastics strategy the EU's research and innovation framework programme. There are works going on to develop plastics-related systemic innovation into business models, products and materials for the next framework programme, Horizon Europe. With this policy, it is expected to use, reuse, recycle, so that fossil fuel can be substituted, as well as reinforcing the need of a new packaging design. It is clear by now that single-use does not work, it is not beneficial nor for human, nor for marine environment. So, in that sense, it is reiterated that plastic cannot be used once, new rules are necessary to reduce marine litter and by following this idea the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have reached a provisional political agreement on new EU-wide rules to target the 10 single-use plastic products most often found on Europe's beaches and seas, as well as lost and abandoned fishing gear. It is expected to change society’s behaviour and thinking of plastic as “waste”, but instead to look at it as a renewable resource that needs to be disposed of correctly (idem; idem).

Research and priorities have been identified by experts as well as policy recommendations so the transition towards a circular economy can be real, concrete and effective. It is relevant to enhance the importance of scientific research done through EU-funded projects that resulted in a report entitled “A circular economy for plastics” (2019)⁷.

In order to solve this plastic issue, and answering the question of this work, what is done and defined about the plastic marine pollution at regional level is expected to be put in practice at national level by EU Member States and have impact at a global level.

Trying to define circular economy seems complex as there is no specific definition, but it can be understood as an alternative to the current unsustainable linear economic model. It approaches a system level that integrates economic activity with environmental and social sustainability. For the protection of our oceans and our environment, we must find a way to make plastics circular. The strategy pursues an ambitious approach for plastic packaging recyclability and contains a strong response on microplastics which are a significant source of marine pollution.

Considering that land, water and living resources are connected, as emphasised by the ecosystem approach and as we have been explaining in this paper, what is done in land affects the ocean marine life. Thus, it seems that the work shall start in land to have its final visible effect on the seas and oceans. This strategy is needed as our society, economy and environment, being embedded in what is the ecosystem approach, are all negatively affected by the way plastics are currently designed, produced, used and discarded. The EU can mitigate its negative footprint through e.g. environmental regulations and support for Arctic monitoring activities (Koivurova et al, 2021, p.14)

Climate change and circular economy go side by side. So, if it is considered that a circular economy is restorative and regenerative by design, the materials will flow around as a “closed loop” system, rather than being used once and then discarded. In the case of plastic, this means simultaneously keeping the value of plastics in the economy, without leakage into the natural environment (Plastics Europe, 2019).

The EEA report (2019) demonstrates how it functions and how effective and successful the implementation of policies has been in some countries, including Portugal where the Green Taxation Reform imposed a charge on lightweight plastic bags. Thin plastic bags used as bags primarily in contact with food are excluded and charged EUR 0.10 per bag. The introduction of this tax, shows that the use of plastic bags, at stores and supermarkets, has drop more than 90 % across the country (EEA Report, 2019, p. 21).

It is clear that “EU actions on microplastic or fisheries plastics litter have a clear long-term Arctic pollution dimension” (Koivurova et al, 2021, p. 43)

The Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe insists that the EU cannot do it alone (2020). The New Action Plan thus confirms that the EU will continue to lead the way to a circular economy at the global level and use its influence, expertise and financial resources to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in the EU and beyond.

North East-Atlantic⁸ Environment Strategy 2030

Finally, it can be said that all that has been presented so far, in this second chapter, can be summarised in the Strategy of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Environment of the North-East Atlantic 2030 held in Cascais, Portugal, last October 2021.

The NEAES 2030 will implement the OSPAR Convention for the next decade in order to tackle three challenges that the oceans are facing: biodiversity loss, pollution, including marine litter, and climate change. This strategy aims to contribute to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (OSPAR Ministerial, 2021) within the Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030) proclaimed by the United Nations.

During the Ministerial meeting 12 strategic objectives were defined, being number 4 the one in accordance with the study of this paper:

Prevent inputs of and significantly reduce marine litter, including micro plastics, in the marine environment to reach levels that do not cause adverse effects to the marine and coastal environment with the ultimate aim of eliminating inputs of litter (OSPAR, 2021, p.5).

Its operational objective number 3 expects to reduce at least 50% by 2025 and by at least 75% by 2030 the single-use plastic following also the EU single Use Plastics Directive (Directive 2019/04) (idem, p.13).

Conclusion

The Arctic of the 21st century is a truly global region. Today´s Arctic is characterized by a combination of classic security challenges, with both a regional and global dimension, and new environmental and socio-economic security threats, as well as economic opportunities (Koivurova et al, 2021, p.13).

Within the holistic perspective, transversality, as expressed by the ecosystem approach, green theory and circular economy, it is expected that the latter will be understood as having an efficient and effective action in environment, society and economy. But “the EU is a key player in international environmental politics and aims to play a front runner or leadership role across many different issue areas” (Delreux, 2012, p. 302), though, as we already have mentioned, it cannot do it alone. It can be added that the Integrated Maritime Policy is interconnected to all sectors, which gives the European Green Deal a “blue dimension”⁹. It means talking about a transversal dimension.

The actions taken by the European Union have a long vision and perspective, expecting to meet the goals of the United Nations and to be able to lead at a global level in those issues. This shows the importance for the European Union, not only of the European Arctic, but of the oceans and seas as common global and heritage that need to be protected.

It seems that climate diplomacy can be a tool in order to engage, not just internal member states, but also to show the way to other global actors with dialogue, partnerships, investments and alliances so there can be a balance between jobs (green and blue jobs) and economic activity (green and blue activities) in Arctic regions and being able to have access to data, more precisely, climate data as Samantha Burgess, deputy director of the EU-funded Copernicus Climate Change Service (C35), mentioned in 2021.

In order to achieve change in society and “to complement existing legislation, there is a clear need to influencing perceptions and behaviour” as referred by the authors Isensee &Valdes (2015, p.3). The same authors add:

The scientific community has to promote greater awareness of the impacts of plastics and microplastics in the marine environment and has to include the expertise from the social sciences. But not only the legislations have to become improved, there are still several knowledge gaps, which have to be filled. (idem, p.3)

In that sense, it is expected that the European Union, matching the Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions International entitled “Ocean Governance: an agenda for the future of our ocean” (SWD (2016) 352 final), will be active in participating (as a global actor) in the elaboration of a Global Treaty on Plastic Pollution at the UN as required by many¹⁰, so far.

References

Barry, J. (2014). Green Political Theory. In V. Geoghegan, & R. Wilford (Eds.), Political Ideologies: An Introduction (4 ed., pp. 153-178). https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/files/5420698/Green_Political_Theory_John_Barry.pdf

Buhl-Mortensen L, Buhl-Mortensen P. (2017). Marine litter in the Nordic Seas: Distribution composition and abundance. Mar Pollut Bull. 125(1-2), 260-270. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.048

Bucknall, DG. (2020). Plastics as a materials system in a circular economy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.,1-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0268

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2021). https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/

Copernicus programme. (2021). https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-climate-change-service-2021

Cózar, A. et al. (2017). The Arctic Ocean as a dead end for floating plastics in the North Atlantic branch of the Thermohaline Circulation. Science Advances. 1-9, https://pame.is/document-library/desktop-study-on-marine-litter-library/transport-of-marine-litter/613-cozar-2017-the-arctic-ocean-as-a-dead-end-for/file

Delreux, T. (2012). The EU as an actor in global environmental politics. In Publisher: Routledge. Environmental Policy in the EU. Actors, institutions and processes (pp.296-305). DOI: 10.4324/9780203109823

Edmond, C. (2022, January 19). We know plastic pollution is bad – but how exactly is it linked to climate change? World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/greenhouse-gas-plastic-pollution-climate-change?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social_video&utm_term=1_1&utm_content=24983_nanoplastics_North_South_Pole&utm_campaign=social_video_2022) (Consulted 28 January 2022)

European Environment Agency (EEA). (2019). Preventing plastic waste in Europe, Report No 02/2019. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/preventing-plastic-waste-in-europe

European Union. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment. (2020). Leading the way to a global circular economy: state of play and outlook, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/02541

European Union. European Parliament and of the Council. (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC. https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/2008-56-ec

European Union. European Parliament. (2021). Environment policy: general principles and basic framework. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/71/environment-policy-general-principles-and-basic-framework

Fleming, S. (2019, Aug 29). Here are 5 reasons why the ocean is so important. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/here-are-5-reasons-why-the-ocean-is-so-important/

Galgani, F.,et al. (2013). Marine litter within the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70, 1055–1064. DOI:10.1093/icesjms/fst122

Gökpınar, F., Arı, T. (2019). Green Theory in International Relations. In Eskişehir: Anadolu University Publication, Theories of International Relations-II (pp: 161-178). ISBN: 978-975-06-3511-3

Halsbanda, C., Herzkeb, D. (2019). Plastic litter in the European Arctic: What do we know? Emerging Contaminants Volume 5, 308-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcon.2019.11.001

Hahladakis, J. N. (2020). Delineating the global plastic marine litter challenge: clarifying the misconceptions. Environ Monit Assess, 192-267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-8202-9

Hallanger, I. G. & Gabrielsen, G. W. (2018). Plastic in the European Arctic. Brief Report no. 045. Norwegian Polar Institute. ISSN: 2464-1308 (digital edition)

Hossain, K. (2015). ‘‘EU Engagement in the Arctic: Do the Policy Responses from the Arctic States Recognise the EU as a Legitimate Stakeholder?.’’ Arctic Review on Law and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 89-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.17585/arctic.v6.97

Ivanova L.V., Sokolov K.M., Kharitonova G.N. (2018). Plastic pollution tendencies in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters under the climate change. Arktika i Sever Arctic and North, no. 32, 99–118. DOI: 10.17238/issn2221-2698.2018.32.121

Jambeck, J.R. et al. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean13 February. Vol 347 Issue 6223. sciencemag.org. pp. 768-771. DOI: 10.1126/science.1260352

Koivurova, T. et al. (2021). Overview of EU actions in the Arctic and their impact. Final Report. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/international_issues/pdf/EUpolicyArcticImpactOverview-FinalReport.pdf

Landrigan PJ, et al. (2020). Human Health and Ocean Pollution. Annals of Global Health 86(1): 151, 1–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2831

Langlet, D. and Rayfuse, R. (2019). The Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance: An Introduction. Chapter 1 In The Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance, (pp.1-14). DOI:10.1163/9789004389984_002

Lebreton, L. & Andrady, A. (2019). Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Communications, 5-6 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7

Lusher, A. L., Tirelli, V., O’Connor, I. & Officer, R. (2015). Microplastics in Arctic polar waters: the first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples Scientific Reports. 5. DOI: 10.1038/srep14947

OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. (2021). Strategy of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. https://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/1200/strategy_part_1__north-east_atlantic_2030_updated.pdf

Østhagen, A. (2017). A changing maritime situation. In Utilising Local Capacities: Maritime Emergency Response across the Arctic. (pp. 5–13). Centre for Military Studies. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05275.4

PAME. (2021). Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter in the Arctic. https://www.pame.is/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-ministerial-deliverables/2021-12th-arctic-council-ministerial-meeting-reykjavik-iceland/801-regional-action-plan-on-marine-litter-in-the-arctic/file

Plastics Europe. (2019). The circular economy for plastics. https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/20191206-Circular-Economy-Study.pdf

Rochman, M.C. (2020). The story of plastic pollution. Oceanography, vol. 33, nº 3. 60-70 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26962482

Stepien, A. and Koivurova, T. (2017). Formulating a Cross-cutting Policy: Challenges and Opportunities for Effective EU Arctic Policy-making. In Nengye Liu, Elizabeth A. Kirk and Tore Henriksen (eds) The European Union and the Arctic, Brill, (pp. 11-39). https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h3gv.7.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A518bef310a1e6e3cd1a7ecca6e39f9da&ab_segments=&origin=

United Nations Environment Programme (2021). From Pollution to Solution: A global assessment of marine litter and plastic pollution. Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/resources/pollution-solution-global-assessment-marine-litter-and-plastic-pollution

United Nations. (2021). Glossary. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environmentgl/gesform.asp?getitem=738

UNEP and GRID-Arendal. (2016). Marine Litter Vital Graphics. United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal. Nairobi and Arendal. www.unep.org , www.grida.no

United Nations. (2016). Chapter 25. Marine Debris https://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RPROC/Chapter_25.pdf

[...]

---

¹ There is also a negative economic aspect of marine litter which is not easy to evaluate. Plastic litter in the environment is perceived as esthetically unpleasant and incompatible with nature. This will decrease the recreational values of areas with marine litter, which could reduce income to the travel and tourism industries. Further, derelict fishing gear or rope can entangle in propellers and rudders of vessels, which would lead to lost cruising time and a cost for removal of entangled objects. (Hallanger, I. G. & Gabrielsen, G. W. (2018). Plastic in the European Arctic. Brief Report no. 045. Norwegian Polar Institute. ISSN: 2464-1308 (digital edition), p. 13)

² The “footprint” is understood here as the extent to which the EU population and economy influence environmental and social status and changes in the Arctic, in terms of both direct pressures and the indirect influence on the drivers of Arctic changes. (…) the willingness to understand, calculate and publicize its impact on the Arctic distinguishes the EU as an actor that aims to present itself as being responsible and accountable (Koivurova, T. et al. (2021). Overview of EU actions in the Arctic and their impact Final Report June 2021 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/international_issues/pdf/EUpolicyArcticImpactOverview-FinalReport.pdf , p.15)

³ Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council the European Union and the Arctic region. (2008). https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/arctic_region/docs/com_08_763_en.pdf

⁴ Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council Developing a European Union Policy towards the Arctic Region: progress since 2008 and next steps. (2012). https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/arctic_region/docs/join_2012_19.pdf

⁵ Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council. An integrated European Union policy for the Arctic. (2016). https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/arctic_region/docs/160427_joint-communication-an-integrated-european-union-policy-for-the-arctic_en.pdf

⁶ Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A stronger EU engagement for a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic. (2021). https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2_en_act_part1_v7.pdf

⁷ A circular economy for plastics. Insights from research and innovation to inform policy and funding decisions. (2019). https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/33251cf9-3b0b-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-87705298

⁸ It covers the whole North East Atlantic Ocean, divided in five subareas (regions): Arctic waters (Greenland, Iceland, the Faeroes, Svalbard and majority of the coastline of Norway; Greater North Sea; Celtic seas; Bay of Biscay and Iberian coast; Wider Atlantic. UNEP. (2022). North East Atlantic. https://www.unep.org/fr/node/965

⁹ European Union. European Parliament. (2021). Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union. Fact sheet. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/121/integrated-maritime-policy-of-the-european-union

¹⁰ Manifesto The business call for a un treaty on plastic pollution. https://www.plasticpollutiontreaty.org/ ; WWF. (2021). A new treaty on plastic pollution perspectives from Asia. https://wwfasia.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_21_962_plastic_report_2108_08.pdf