Regional Cooperation Fills the Gap Left by a Global Plastics Treaty

Through NAMC (North Atlantic Microplastic Center), an international collaboration of microplastics and policy experts has examined how five regional governance frameworks complement one another in addressing microplastic pollution in the Northeast Atlantic.

The researchers conclude that regional frameworks cannot replace a global plastics treaty. However, they can help fill the gap through regulation, coordination, and monitoring of microplastic pollution.

– Regional cooperation is currently one of the most effective ways to address marine microplastics. At the same time, there is still a need for better coordination between countries and governance systems, says Senior Researcher Helge Marius Flick at NORCE.

Examining Five Governance Systems

The study analyzes five overlapping governance frameworks that all play a role in tackling microplastic pollution in the Northeast Atlantic:

• The European Union (EU)
• The OSPAR Commission for the Northeast Atlantic
• HELCOM for the Baltic Sea
• The Barcelona Convention for the Mediterranean
• The Arctic Council

According to the researchers, this region is particularly interesting because it encompasses highly diverse marine environments, ranging from the Arctic in the north to the Mediterranean in the south, with different climatic and environmental conditions as well as varying political systems.

Complementary Rather Than Competing

One of the study’s key findings is that the five frameworks not only overlap but also complement one another.

All five governance frameworks address both primary and secondary microplastics, although their scope and level of ambition vary. Primary microplastics are small plastic particles intentionally used in products such as cosmetics, paints, and other consumer goods. Secondary microplastics are generated when larger plastic objects wear down and degrade in the environment.

The EU stands out for having the most comprehensive and legally binding regulatory framework. The other governance systems rely more heavily on a mix of binding and non-binding measures, such as cooperation, coordination, and voluntary initiatives.

– Despite differences in implementation capacity between the frameworks, we see a convergence toward a shared life-cycle approach to microplastic pollution, says Flick.

The researchers found that governance systems are increasingly adopting a whole-life-cycle perspective, covering everything from production and use to emissions and waste management. Nevertheless, the frameworks differ significantly in terms of legal strength and enforcement capacity.

All five combine regulatory, technical, and collaborative instruments. Shared initiatives include reducing emissions at the source, improving waste and wastewater management, developing regional action plans, and establishing common monitoring methods.

According to the researchers, these efforts have helped make the Northeast Atlantic one of the world’s most advanced regional governance networks for microplastics.

– The EU contributes regulatory strength, the regional sea conventions provide cooperation and coordination, and the Arctic Council offers scientific expertise and monitoring capacity. Together, they form a strong governance network, says Flick.

Valuable Lessons for a Future Global Plastics Treaty

The researchers believe that the experience gained in the Northeast Atlantic could have relevance far beyond the region. Regional frameworks can serve as testing grounds where new regulations, monitoring methods, and forms of cooperation are developed and evaluated in practice. This experience may prove valuable in shaping a future global plastics treaty.

At the same time, the researchers caution against assuming that the model can be directly replicated elsewhere.

– Different regions have different legal, political, and economic conditions. This means that solutions must be adapted to local circumstances, says Flick. In addition, other international frameworks must also be taken into account.

He also emphasizes that the microplastics problem cannot be solved in isolation from broader plastic-related challenges.

– If we are to reduce microplastic pollution in the long term, we must also focus on plastic production, product design, and waste management. We cannot focus on microplastics alone.

More Knowledge Needed on What Works

The researchers believe the study provides a strong overview of how regional governance frameworks are structured, but that important knowledge gaps remain regarding how measures perform in practice.

A key next step is to investigate what happens when regional commitments are translated into national policy.

– Regional agreements depend on individual countries actually implementing them. We still know too little about how commitments are incorporated into national legislation, how enforcement functions in practice, and why implementation varies between countries, says Flick.

The researchers also call for more knowledge about the effectiveness of individual measures. To date, much of the research has focused on mapping existing rules, plans, and institutions, but less attention has been given to assessing their actual outcomes.

– We need more quantitative studies that measure the effects of different measures. Which policy instruments reduce emissions the most? What do they cost to implement? And to what extent do they actually lead to less microplastic pollution in the environment?

Another important question is whether different governance models produce different results. The researchers point out that some systems are based on detailed and legally binding regulations, while others rely more heavily on cooperation, voluntary commitments, and shared objectives.

– We still do not know enough about which governance approaches are most effective under different conditions. This is knowledge that could become important in the development of a future global plastics treaty, says Flick.