Plastics’ Paris agreement is under development – we MUST succeed!

This week, delegations from approximately 170 countries, and a total of close to 4,000 delegates are gathered in Ottawa, Canada for the fourth round of negotiations towards a legally binding agreement to end the world’s plastic problem (INC-4). We, Jakob Bonnevie Cyvin at the Department of Geography, Ginevra Oertel at the Department of Ocean Operations and Civil Engineering and Martin Wagner at the Department of Biology at NTNU are all part of the Scientist Coalition, a coalition of over 300 scientists from all over the world, who work for a research-based global plastic agreement. The motivation to achieve this is great, but with the desire for global consensus, it has also been demanding. As plastic is an oil product that is used in most products, the conflicts of interest are obvious and palpable here at INC-4. The exercise of creating global solutions and legislation that will be sufficient in the years to come is difficult, especially in a world characterized by unrest and disagreement, and regardless of the outcome, it is essential to have national legislation that goes beyond the agreement’s framework. Norway has so far taken a leading role in a high-ambition coalition. This is very good and should be praised, but at the same time must not stand in the way of, or be used as an excuse against, national upstream regulations, including, but not exclusively, for single-use plastics, in the aquaculture industry, in agriculture, and the construction industries.

Solutions that aim upwards in the plastic life cycle, not downwards, are essential for success. This has proven possible in the past, and is also possible now. We have to reduce the production of plastic, we have to strengthen the regulations within the vast majority of industries, we have to cooperate with, but not go against industry, the oil industry, the fishing industry and the delta trade (to name a few) and we have to implement measures that not only correct towards picking up plastic and recycling it, but have greater ambitions, so that the plastic is not produced excessively in the first instance. The plastic contains chemicals, and we must set clear limits on what is allowed to be mixed in, rather than regulating what is not allowed to be mixed in.

Through, among other things, conversations with delegates, the Scientist Coalition tries to contribute to research-based information to anyone who asks for it, both before, during and after the UN event. This is an extensive job, especially when the work, by most of the researchers present, is done on a voluntary basis. It is also very rewarding work, as a strong legally binding agreement is absolutely necessary for all of us, and it is a privilege to be able to contribute to this.

Given that NTNU has a large number of researchers who work with plastic pollution in everything from psychology to materials technology (and in between), this is one of the forums where our research can actually, and quite concretely, lead to “a better world”. Participation in such events, whether it is the development of a plastics agreement (INC), climate agreement (IPCC) or nature agreement (IPBES), is therefore something we would encourage all NTNU academic staff to consider if their own research overlaps with the subject matter in the development of given agreements. This is to translate our research into action for “a better world”. We therefore want to encourage NTNU’s researchers to actively contribute to research coalitions of which we are now a part, so that our research is also translated into action “for a better world”. It remains to be seen how strong the agreement will be, but we believe and hope for a strong and important instrument that creates global change in the current, constantly deteriorating situation both in the sea and on land.

Cross your fingers for a strong and legally binding global plastics agreement, both now in the run-up to the current negotiation meeting, and towards the planned last meeting in Busan, South Korea in November.BS