Bank MS, Hansson SV (2019) The plastic cycle: a novel and holistic paradigm for the Anthropocene. *Environ Sci Technol* 53(13):7177-7179

Bank MS, Ok YS, Swarzenski PW (2020) Microplastic's role in antibiotic resistance. *Science* 369(6509):1315

Borrelle SB, Ringma J, Law KL, Monnahan CC, Lebreton L, McGivern A, Murphy E, Jambeck J, Leonard GH, Hilleary MA (2020) Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. *Science* 369(6510):1515-1518

Boto L (2010) Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges. *Proc Biol Sci* 277(1683):819-827

Bowley J, Baker-Austin C, Porter A, Hartnell R, Lewis C (2021) Oceanic hitchhikers-assessing pathogen risks from marine microplastic. *Trends Microbiol* 29(2):107-116

Cabello FC, Godfrey HP, Buschmann AH, Dölz HJ (2016) Aquaculture as yet another environmental gateway to the development and globalisation of antimicrobial resistance. *Lancet Infect Dis* 16(7):e127-e133

Cassini A, Högberg LD, Plachouras D, Quattrocchi A, Hoxha A, Simonsen GS, Colomb-Cotinat M, Kretzschmar ME, Devleesschauwer B, Cecchini M (2019) Attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years caused by infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the EU and the European Economic Area in 2015: a population-level modelling analysis. *Lancet Infect Dis* 19(1):56-66

Chen X, Gu X, Bao L, Ma S, Mu Y (2020) Comparison of adsorption and desorption of triclosan between microplastics and soil particles. *Chemosphere* 263:127947

Czekalski N, Díez EG, Bürgmann H (2014) Wastewater as a point source of antibiotic-resistance genes in the sediment of a freshwater lake. *ISME J* 8(7):1381-1390

Dang H, Lovell CR (2016) Microbial surface colonization and biofilm development in marine environments. *Microbiol Mol Biol Rev* 80(1):91-138

Debroas D, Mone A, Ter Halle A (2017) Plastics in the North Atlantic garbage patch: a boat-microbe for hitchhikers and plastic degraders. *Sci Total Environ* 599:1222-1232

Dong H, Chen Y, Wang J, Zhang Y, Zhang P, Li X, Zou J, Zhou A (2021) Interactions of microplastics and antibiotic resistance genes and their effects on the aquaculture environments. *J Hazard Mater* 403:123961

Donlan RM (2002) Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. *Emerg Infect Dis* 8(9):881

Dris R, Gasperi J, Rocher V, Saad M, Renault N, Tassin B (2015) Microplastic contamination in an urban area: a case study in greater Paris. *Environ Chem* 12(5):592-599

Edo C, González-Pleiter M, Leganés F, Fernández-Piñas F, Rosal R (2020) Fate of microplastics in wastewater treatment plants and their environmental dispersion with effluent and sludge. *Environ Pollut* 259:113837

Emamalipour M, Seidi K, Vahed SZ, Jahanban-Esfahlan A, Jaymand M, Majdi H, Amoozgar Z, Chitkushev L, Javaheri T, Jahanban-Esfahlan R (2020) Horizontal gene transfer: from evolutionary flexibility to disease progression. *Front Cell Dev Biol* 8:229

Francino M (2016) Antibiotics and the human gut microbiome: dysbioses and accumulation of resistances. *Front Microbiol* 6:1543

Godoy V, Blázquez G, Calero M, Quesada L, Martín-Lara M (2019) The potential of microplastics as carriers of metals. *Environ Pollut* 255:113363

GESAMP (2019) Guidelines for the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter and microplastics in the ocean (Kershaw P.J., Turra A. and Galgani F. eds), IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). *Rep. Stud. GESAMP No.* 99, 130p

Grevskott DH, Salvà-Serra F, Moore ERB, Marathe NP (2020) Nanopore sequencing reveals genomic map of CTX-M-type extended spectrum β-lactamases carried by *Escherichia coli* strains isolated from blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) in Norway. *BMC Microbiol* 20:134

Gullberg E, Albrecht LM, Karlsson C, Sandegren L, Andersson DI (2014) Selection of a multidrug resistance plasmid by sublethal levels of antibiotics and heavy metals. *MBio* 5(5):e01918-01914-e01918-01914
Gullberg E, Cao S, Berg OG, Ilback C, Sandegren L, Hughes D, Andersson DI (2011) Selection of resistant bacteria at very low antibiotic concentrations. PLoS Pathog 7(7):e1002158

Guo X-P, Sun X-L, Chen Y-R, Hou L, Liu M, Yang Y (2020) Antibiotic resistance genes in biofilms on plastic wastes in an estuarine environment. Sci Total Environ 745:140916

Guo X-P, Yang Y, Lu D-P, Niu Z-S, Feng J-N, Chen Y-R, Tou F-Y, Garner E, Xu J, Liu M (2018) Biofilms as a sink for antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) in the Yangtze Estuary. Water Res 129:277-286

Hale RC, Seeley ME, La Guardia MJ, Mai L, Zeng EY (2020) A global perspective on microplastics. J Geophys Res Oceans 125(1):e2018JC014719

Hendriksen RS, Bortolaia V, Tate H, Tyson G, Aarestrup FM, McDermott P (2019) Using genomics to track global antimicrobial resistance. Front Public Health 7:242

Hurley R, Woodward J, Rothwell JJ (2018) Microplastic contamination of river beds significantly reduced by catchment-wide flooding. Nat Geosci 11(4):251-257

Imran M, Das KR, Naik MM (2019) Co-selection of multi-antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens in metal and microplastic contaminated environments: an emerging health threat. Chemosphere 215:846-857

Jain R, Rivera MC, Moore JE, Lake JA (2003) Horizontal gene transfer accelerates genome innovation and evolution. Mol Biol Evol 20(10):1598-1602

Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R, Law KL (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347(6223):768-771

Jutkina J, Marathe N, Flach C-F, Larsson D (2018) Antibiotics and common antibacterial biocides stimulate horizontal transfer of resistance at low concentrations. Sci Total Environ 616:172-178

Karkman A, Pärnänen K, Larsson DJ (2019) Fecal pollution can explain antibiotic resistance gene abundances in anthropogenically impacted environments. Nat Commun 10(1):1-8

Khan ZA, Siddiqui MF, Park S (2019) Current and emerging methods of antibiotic susceptibility testing. Diagnostics 9(2):49

Kirstein IV, Kirmizi S, Wichels A, Garin-Fernandez A, Erler R, Löder M, Gerdts G (2016) Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp on microplastic particles. Mar Environ Res 120:1-8

Laverty AL, Primpke S, Lorenz C, Gerdts G, Dobbs FC (2020) Bacterial biofilms colonizing plastics in estuarine waters, with an emphasis on Vibrio spp. and their antibacterial resistance. PLoS One 15(8):e0237704

Le T-H, Ng C, Chen H, Yi XZ, Koh TH, Barkham TMS, Zhou Z, Gin KY-H (2016) Occurrences and characterization of antibiotic resistant bacteria and genetic determinants of hospital wastewater in a tropical country. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60(12):01556-01516

Li Q, Xu X, He C, Zheng L, Gao W, Sun C, Li J, Gao F (2019) Complete genome sequence of a quorum-sensing bacterium, Oceanicola sp. strain D3, isolated from a microplastic surface in coastal water of Qingdao. China Microbiol Resour Announc 8(40):e01022-e01019

Lloyd KG, Steen AD, Ladau J, Yin J, Crosby L (2018) Phylogenetically novel uncultured microbial cells dominate earth microbiomes. MSystems 3(5):e00055-e00018

Lu X-M, Lu P-Z, Liu X-P (2020) Fate and abundance of antibiotic resistance genes on microplastics in facility vegetable soil. Sci Total Environ 709:136276

Mammo F, Amoah I, Gani K, Pillay L, Ratha S, Bux F, Kumari S (2020) Microplastics in the environment: interactions with microbes and chemical contaminants. Sci Total Environ 743:140518

Marathe NP, Berglund F, Razavi M, Pal C, Dröge J, Samant S, Kristiansson E, Larsson DGJ (2019) Sewage effluent from an Indian hospital harbors novel carbapenemases and integron-borne antibiotic resistance genes. Microbiome 7(1):97

Marathe NP, Janzon A, Kotsakis SD, Flach C-F, Razavi M, Berglund F, Kristiansson E, Larsson DJ (2018) Functional metagenomics reveals a novel carbapenem-hydrolyzing mobile betalactamase from Indian river sediments contaminated with antibiotic production waste. Environ Int 112:279-286
Marathe NP, Pal C, Gaikwad SS, Jonsson V, Kristiansson E, Larsson DGJ (2017) Untreated urban waste contaminates Indian river sediments with resistance genes to last resort antibiotics. Water Res 1247:388–397

Marathe NP, Regina VR, Walujkar SA, Charan SS, Moore ERB, Larsson DGJ, Shouche YS (2013) A treatment plant receiving waste water from multiple bulk drug manufacturers is a reservoir for highly multi-drug resistant integron-bearing bacteria. PLoS One 8(10):e77310

McCormick A, Hoellein TJ, Mason SA, Schluep J, Kelly JJ (2014) Microplastic is an abundant and distinct microbial habitat in an urban river. Environ Sci Technol 48(20):11863–11871

Murphy F, Ewins C, Carbonnier F, Quinn B (2016) Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 50(11):5800–5808

Oberbeckmann S, Kreikemeyer B, Labrenz M (2018) Environmental factors support the formation of specific bacterial assemblages on microplastics. Front Microbiol 8:2709

Parthasarathy A, Tyler AC, Hoffman MJ, Savka MA, Hudson AO (2019) Is plastic pollution in aquatic and terrestrial environments a driver for the transmission of pathogens and the evolution of antibiotic resistance? Environ Sci Technol 53(4):2

Quainoo S, Coolen JP, van Hijum SA, Huynen MA, Melchers WJ, van Schaik W, Wertheim HF (2017) Whole-genome sequencing of bacterial pathogens: the future of nosocomial outbreak analysis. Clin Microbiol Rev 30(4):1015–1063

Radisic V, Lunestad BT, Sanden M, Bank MS, Marathe NP (2021) Draft genome sequence of multidrug-resistant *Pseudomonas protegens* strain 11HC2, isolated from marine plastic collected from the west coast of Norway. Microbiol Resour Announc 10(2):e01285–e01220

Radisic V, Nimje PS, Bienfait AM, Marathe NP (2020) Marine plastics from Norwegian west coast carry potentially virulent fish pathogens and opportunistic human pathogens harboring new variants of antibiotic resistance genes. Microorganisms 8(8):1200

Richard H, Carpenter EJ, Komada T, Palmer PT, Rochman CM (2019) Biofilm facilitates metal accumulation onto microplastics in estuarine waters. Sci Total Environ 683:600–608

Rizzo L, Manaia C, Merlin C, Schwartz T, Dagot C, Ploy MC, Michael I, Fatta-Kassinos D (2013) Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes spread into the environment: a review. Sci Total Environ 447:345–360

Roberts SC, Zembower TR (2020) Global increases in antibiotic consumption: a concerning trend for WHO targets. Lancet Infect Dis 21(1):2

Rodriguez-Mozaz S, Chamorro S, Marti E, Huerta B, Gros M, Sánchez-Melsió A, Borrego CM, Barceló D, Balcázar JL (2015) Occurrence of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in hospital and urban wastewaters and their impact on the receiving river. Water Res 69:234–242

Rummel CD, Jahnke A, Gorokhova E, Kühnel D, Schmitt-Jansen M (2017) Impacts of biofilm formation on the fate and potential effects of microplastic in the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol Lett 4(7):258–267

Seiler C, Berendonk TU (2012) Heavy metal driven co-selection of antibiotic resistance in soil and water bodies impacted by agriculture and aquaculture. Front Microbiol 3:399

Shi J, Wu D, Su Y, Xie B (2020) Selective enrichment of antibiotic resistance genes and pathogens on polystyrene microplastics in landfill leachate. Sci Total Environ 142775

Silva MM, Maldonado GC, Castro RO, de Sá Felizardo J, Cardoso RP, dos Anjos RM, de Araújo FV (2019) Dispersal of potentially pathogenic bacteria by plastic debris in Guanabara Bay, RJ, Brazil. Mar Pollut Bull 141:561–568

Simon C, Daniel R (2011) Metagenomic analyses: past and future trends. Appl Environ Microbiol 77(4):1153–1161

Song J, Jongmans-Hochschulz E, Mauder N, Imirzalioglu C, Wichels A, Gerdts G (2020) The Travelling Particles: investigating microplastics as possible transport vectors for multidrug resistant E. coli in the Weser estuary (Germany). Sci Total Environ 720:137603

Stewart EJ (2012) Growing unculturable bacteria. J Bacteriol 194(16):4151–4160

Su Y, Zhang Z, Zhu J, Shi J, Wei H, Xie B, Shi H (2020) Microplastics act as vectors for antibiotic resistance genes in landfill leachate: the enhanced roles of the long-term aging process. Environ Pollut 270:116278
Sun X, Chen B, Xia B, Li Q, Zhu L, Zhao X, Gao Y, Qu K (2020a) Impact of mariculture-derived microplastics on bacterial biofilm formation and their potential threat to mariculture: a case in situ study on the Sungo Bay, China. *Environ Pollut* 262:114336

Sun Y, Cao N, Duan C, Wang Q, Ding C, Wang J (2020b) Selection of antibiotic resistance genes on biodegradable and non-biodegradable microplastics. *J Hazard Mater* 409:124979

Talvitie J, Mikola A, Setälä O, Heinonen M, Koistinen A (2017) How well is microlitter purified from wastewater?–a detailed study on the stepwise removal of microlitter in a tertiary level wastewater treatment plant. *Water Res* 109:164–172

Thompson FL, Iida T, Swings J (2004) Biodiversity of vibrios. *Microbiol Mol Biol Rev* 68(3):403–431

van Wijnen J, Ragas AM, Kroeze C (2019) Modelling global river export of microplastics to the marine environment: sources and future trends. *Sci Total Environ* 673:392–401

Ventola CL (2015) The antibiotic resistance crisis: part 1: causes and threats. *Pharm Therapeutics* 40(4):277

Viršek MK, Lovšin MN, Koren Š, Kržan A, Peterlin M (2017) Microplastics as a vector for the transport of the bacterial fish pathogen species Aeromonas salmonicida. *Mar Pollut Bull* 125(1–2):301–309

Wang S, Xue N, Li W, Zhang D, Pan X, Luo Y (2020) Selectively enrichment of antibiotics and ARGs by microplastics in river, estuary and marine waters. *Sci Total Environ* 708:134594

WHO (2019) No time to wait: securing the future from drug-resistant infections. *World Health Organization, Geneva*

Wright RJ, Erni-Cassola G, Zadjelovic V, Latva M, Christie-Oleza JA (2020) Marine plastic debris: a new surface for microbial colonization. *Environ Sci Technol* 54(19):11657–11672

Wu X, Pan J, Li M, Li Y, Bartlam M, Wang Y (2019) Selective enrichment of bacterial pathogens by microplastic biofilm. *Water Res* 165:114979

Yang K, Chen Q-L, Chen M-L, Li H-Z, Liao H, Pu Q, Zhu Y-G, Cui L (2020) Temporal dynamics of antibiotic resistome in the plastisphere during microbial colonization. *Environ Sci Technol* 54(18):11322–11332

Yang Y, Li B, Zou S, Fang HH, Zhang T (2014) Fate of antibiotic resistance genes in sewage treatment plant revealed by metagenomic approach. *Water Res* 62:97–106

Yang Y, Liu G, Song W, Ye C, Lin H, Li Z, Liu W (2019) Plastics in the marine environment are reservoirs for antibiotic and metal resistance genes. *Environ Int* 123:79–86

Zettler ER, Mincer TJ, Amaral-Zettler LA (2013) Life in the “plastisphere”: microbial communities on plastic marine debris. *Environ Sci Technol* 47(13):7137–7146

Zhang Y, Gu AZ, Cen T, Li X, He M, Li D, Chen J (2018) Sub-inhibitory concentrations of heavy metals facilitate the horizontal transfer of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance genes in water environment. *Environ Pollut* 237:74–82

Zhang Y, Lu J, Wu J, Wang J, Luo Y (2020) Potential risks of microplastics combined with super-bugs: enrichment of antibiotic resistant bacteria on the surface of microplastics in mariculture system. *Ecotoxicol Environ Saf* 187:109852

Zhou W, Han Y, Tang Y, Shi W, Du X, Sun S, Liu G (2020) Microplastics aggravate the bioaccumulation of two waterborne veterinary antibiotics in an edible bivalve species: potential mechanisms and implications for human health. *Environ Sci Technol* 54(13):8115–8122
**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

Susan Wingfield and Melisa Lim

**Abstract** The pollution of our marine and terrestrial environment by plastic waste is one of the most pressing global environmental challenges faced today. Developing a circular plastic economy and limiting plastic pollution requires multilevel actions from different stakeholders including oil and petrochemical producers, plastic manufacturers, consumer goods companies, retailers, consumers, waste managers, waste management authorities, plastic recyclers and others. As well as cleaning up the enormous quantities of plastic waste already in our oceans and lakes, there is an urgent need to strengthen countries' capacities to prevent, minimize and properly manage this waste. The Basel Convention, the most comprehensive global environmental treaty dealing with hazardous and other wastes, offers an important part of the solution. In addition to its provisions aimed at controlling the exports and imports of hazardous wastes and other wastes generated from households and ensuring their environmentally sound management, the Convention also seeks to tackle the problem at its source through prevention and minimization. With the addition of an amendment to the Convention specifically tackling plastic waste, and

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Secretariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (BRS), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations (UN) or contributory organizations. BRS, UNEP or the UN do not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned, directly or indirectly, through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication. Mention of the names of companies and commercial products does not imply their endorsement by the UN, UNEP and BRS. The designations employed and the presentation of the materials in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BRS, UNEP or the UN, on the geopolitical situations or the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or their authorities, or concerning the delimitation of their frontiers or boundaries.

S. Wingfield (✉) · M. Lim

UNEP Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland

e-mail: susan.wingfield@un.org; melisa.lim@un.org
the establishment of a Plastic Waste Partnership, the Convention is positioned at the forefront in the fight against plastic pollution.

## 10.1 Introduction

The pollution of our marine and terrestrial environment by plastic waste is one of the most pressing global environmental challenges faced today. Over the last 10 years, we have produced more plastic than during the whole of the last century: global plastic production has increased steadily and reached 320 million tonnes a year in 2015 (Beckman 2018). Of the estimated 6.3 billion tonnes of plastic waste produced since the 1950s, only 9% has been recycled and another 12% incinerated (Parker 2018). An estimated 100 million tonnes of plastic is in our seas, 80–90% of which has come from land-based sources (Miles 2019). The good news is, since an estimated 80% of that land-based waste is due to a lack of efficient collection and management schemes, the problem is solvable (European Commission 2020).

Developing a circular plastic economy and limiting plastic pollution requires multilevel actions from different stakeholders including oil and petrochemical producers, plastic manufacturers, consumer goods companies, retailers, consumers, waste managers, waste management authorities, plastic recyclers and others (Ryberg et al. 2018).

Many governments are already taking considerable steps towards curbing plastic pollution, such as bans on the use of single-use plastic bags in at least 69 countries worldwide (United Nations Environment Programme 2018). Corporations are also taking concerted efforts to reduce their plastic footprints (Ellen Macarthur Foundation 2017). Concerned citizens are also doing their part, saying “no” to plastic straws, relying on reusable water bottles and coming equipped with their own grocery bags to the supermarket. There are also multi-million dollar efforts to clean up rivers, seas and oceans.<fnref n="1" /> However, as well as cleaning up the enormous quantities of plastic waste already in our oceans and lakes, there is an urgent need to strengthen countries’ capacities to prevent, minimize and properly manage this waste.

The Basel Convention offers an important part of the solution. In addition to its provisions aimed at controlling the exports and imports of hazardous wastes and wastes generated from households and ensuring their environmentally sound management, the Convention also seeks to tackle the problem at its source through prevention and minimization. With the addition of an amendment to the Convention specifically tackling plastic waste,<fnref n="2" /> and the establishment of a Plastic Waste

<footnote n="1">¹The Ocean Clean-up. Website. https://theoceancleanup.com/about/</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Became effective on 1 January 2021. For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwaste/PlasticWasteAmendments/Overview/tabid/8426/Default.aspx</footnote>
Partnership, the Convention is positioned at the forefront in the fight against plastic pollution.

## 10.2 The Evolution of the Basel Convention

The cross-border transport of hazardous wastes seized the public's attention in the 1980s. The misadventures of "toxic ships" such as the Katrin B and the Pelicano, sailing from port to port trying to offload their toxic cargoes made the front-page headlines around the world. These tragic incidents were motivated in good part by tighter environmental regulations in industrialized countries. As the costs of waste disposal skyrocketed, "toxic traders" searching for cheaper solutions started shipping hazardous wastes to Africa, Eastern Europe and other regions. Once on shore, these waste shipments were improperly managed, resulting in profound impacts on human health and the environment. It was against this backdrop that the Basel Convention was negotiated in the late 1980s. Its thrust at the time of its adoption was to combat the "toxic trade", as it was termed.

The Basel Convention, which entered into force in 1992, is the most comprehensive global environmental treaty dealing with hazardous and other wastes requiring special consideration. It has near universal coverage, encompassing 188 Parties as of November 2020. The central objective of the Convention is "to protect, by strict control, human health and the environment against the adverse effects which may result from the generation and management of hazardous wastes and other wastes".<fnref n="3" /> The main provisions of the Convention focus on i. the reduction of hazardous and other waste generation and the promotion of environmentally sound management of hazardous and other wastes, wherever the place of disposal; ii. the restriction of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes except where it is perceived to be in accordance with the principles of environmentally sound management; and iii. a regulatory, or prior informed consent (PIC), procedure applying to cases where transboundary movements are permissible (Krueger 1999).

Since its inception, Parties to the Convention have developed a selection of tools to aid in its implementation. Technical guidelines, guidance documents and manuals, developed under the Convention by experts from developed and developing countries, in addition to stakeholders from industry and civil society, have provided countries with practical solutions to prevent and minimize their waste, to inventorize that which is produced and to develop infrastructure and effective techniques to ensure its proper recycling and final disposal. Coupled with this extensive repository of guidance designed to assist Parties and others in implementing the Convention are technical assistance and capacity building efforts undertaken by the Secretariat

<footnote n="3">³Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention), U.N.T.S. vol. 1673, p. 57, Preambular para. 24.</footnote>
and the Basel and Stockholm Convention’s 22 regional centres worldwide.<fnref n="4" /> Added to this, a partnership programme under the Convention has a successful track record in tackling problematic waste streams such as end-of-life mobile phones,<fnref n="5" /> electrical and electronic waste or e-waste,<fnref n="6" /> household waste<fnref n="7" /> and, more recently, plastic waste.<fnref n="8" />

## 10.3 Basel Tackles Plastic Waste

Historically, China has been the largest plastic waste importer. China has imported 72.4 percent of traded plastic waste globally (Brooks et al. 2018). China’s “National Sword” policy, enacted in January 2018, banned the import of most plastics and other materials headed for recycling processors, which had handled nearly half of the world’s recyclable waste for the past quarter century (Katz 2019). The introduction of these plastic waste import restrictions by China led to an increased amount of plastic waste being sent to countries in Southeast Asia such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. These countries, faced with the same challenges that China faced, are subsequently closing their doors (Niranjan 2019).

## 10.4 The Plastic Waste Amendments

Responding to growing concern and public awareness of the issue of marine plastic litter and microplastics, the Government of Norway submitted in June 2018 a proposal to amend the annexes to the Basel Convention to address plastic waste within its provisions.

The fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP-14, 29 April–10 May 2019) adopted amendments to Annexes II,<fnref n="9" /> VIII<fnref n="10" /> and

<footnote n="4">⁴For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Partners/RegionalCentres/Overview/tabid/2334/Default.aspx and the Stockholm Convention website: http://chm.pops.int/Partners/RegionalCentres/Overview/tabid/425/Default.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalAssistance/Partnerships/MPPI/Overview/tabid/3268/Default.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalAssistance/Partnerships/PACE/Overview/tabid/3243/Default.aspx and http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalAssistance/Partnerships/FollowuptoPACE/tabid/8089/Default.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Implementation/HouseholdWastePartnership/Overview/tabid/5082/Default.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwaste/PlasticWastePartnership/tabid/8096/Default.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Categories of waste requiring special consideration.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Wastes presumed to be hazardous and therefore subject to the PIC procedure.</footnote>
IX<fnref n="11" /> to the Convention with the objectives of enhancing the control of the trans-boundary movements of plastic waste and clarifying the scope of the Convention as it applies to such waste. Starting with Annex VIII, the amendment sees insertion of a new entry, A3210, that clarifies the scope of plastic wastes presumed to be hazardous and therefore subject to the PIC procedure. The amendment to Annex IX, with a new entry B3011 replacing existing entry B3010, clarifies the types of plastic wastes that are presumed to not be hazardous and, as such, not subject to the PIC procedure. The wastes listed in entry B3011 include a group of cured resins, non-halogenated and fluorinated polymers, provided the waste is destined for recycling in an environmentally sound manner and almost free from contamination and other types of wastes, and mixtures of plastic wastes consisting of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET), provided they are destined for separate recycling of each material and in an environmentally sound manner and almost free from contamination and other types of wastes. The third amendment is the insertion of a new entry Y48 in Annex II which covers plastic waste, including mixtures of such wastes unless these are hazardous (as they would fall under A3210) or presumed to not be hazardous (as they would fall under B3011). The new entries became effective as of 1 January 2021.

Taken collectively, the ultimate result of the plastic waste amendments is the broadening of the scope of plastic wastes, including mixtures of such wastes, that could be subject to the PIC procedure, meaning that exporting countries will need to formally obtain the consent of importing countries to receive shipments of such plastic waste and ensure that the importing countries have the capacity to manage plastic waste in an environmentally sound manner. It will be up to each Party to take the necessary measures to transpose the new entries into national law, as needed and depending on its legal system. Such measures should be taken in a timely manner to ensure that, on 1 January 2021, each Party is in a position to implement the provisions of the Basel Convention with respect to the plastic wastes listed in entries A3210 and Y48. This includes applying the PIC procedure in case of a transboundary movement of such wastes but also applying the Convention's provisions with respect to minimizing waste generation and ensuring their environmentally sound management.

To assist Parties with these new undertakings, the Conference of the Parties decided on a range of additional steps to ensure that, once the entries became effective, the world would be ready to overcome the plastic waste challenge.<fnref n="12" /> To start with, the Plastic Waste Partnership was established to provide a global platform to bring together countries from all over the world, working hand in hand with stakeholders from civil society and the business community to promote the environmentally sound management of plastic waste and prevent and minimize its generation. Additional guidance on how to ensure, more generally, the environmentally sound management of waste as well as its prevention and minimization is available in an

<footnote n="11">¹¹Wastes that are presumed to not be hazardous and, as such, not subject to the PIC procedure.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Thanks to generous support from Norway, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan, Germany, Canada and the European Union, as well as from the private sector, BRS has been in a position to mobilize around 10 million US dollars over the past 2 years to support these efforts.</footnote>
ESM toolkit.<fnref n="13" /> Equally important is the launch of additional technical and legal work on how to develop an inventory of plastic wastes; on the updating of the technical guidelines on the identification and environmentally sound management of plastic wastes and for their disposal; and to consider whether any additional constituents or characteristics in relation to plastic waste should be added to Annexes I or III, respectively, to the Convention.

Along with supporting these new undertakings, the Basel Convention Secretariat is providing technical assistance to support the preparedness of countries to implement the amendments. The amendments are expected to significantly impact the way in which plastic waste is traded internationally and consequently the extent to which it is generated and how it is managed at the national level. It is also anticipated that the amendments will provide a powerful incentive not only for the private sector – but also for governments and other stakeholders – to strengthen capacities for recycling in an environmentally sound manner. Moreover, by encouraging the expansion of infrastructures for the environmentally sound management of plastic waste, the amendments should also help create jobs and economic opportunities, not least by incentivizing innovation, such as in the design of alternatives to plastic and the phase-out of hazardous additives.<fnref n="14" />

## 10.5 The Plastic Waste Partnership

The Plastic Waste Partnership, established by the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention in May 2019,<fnref n="15" /> is a platform that unites stakeholders from governments, international organizations, NGOs and industry towards the common objective of eliminating the leakage of plastic waste into our environment. The Partnership seeks to mobilize its broad stakeholder base to tackle the issue of plastic pollution on multiple fronts: from stimulating the development of strategies to strengthen policy and regulatory frameworks within countries; to developing solutions to improve the collection, separation and sound management of plastic waste; and to stimulating innovations for increasing the durability, reusability, reparability and recyclability of plastics. The Partnership creates a collaborative environment promoting the sharing of experiences, best practices and technologies towards this

<footnote n="13">¹³ For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Implementation/CountryLedInitiative/EnvironmentallySoundManagement/ESMToolkit/Overview/tabid/5839/Default.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Bartley, R. 24 November 2020. Sea of Solutions event (online) on “Tackling Plastic Waste under the Basel Convention”. For further information: https://www.unenvironment.org/cobsea/events/virtual-meeting/sea-solutions-2020</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ At its fourteenth meeting, in its decision BC-14/13, the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, among others, welcomed the proposal to establish the Basel Convention Partnership on Plastic Waste and decided to establish the Partnership and its working group; adopted the terms of reference for the Partnership; and requested the working group to implement its workplan for the biennium 2020–2021.</footnote>
common objective. Membership is open to Parties and other stakeholders dealing with the different aspects of prevention, minimization and management of plastic waste. It currently stands at 210 representatives from Parties to the Convention, its regional centres, the private sector, civil society and intergovernmental organizations.<fnref n="16" /> This robust stakeholder base is representative of all UN geographic regions, from national to local levels of government, from multinational companies to grassroots NGOs.

Adding value to an area of work rich in initiatives attempting to solve a complex problem is a particular challenge for the Partnership. Its uniqueness lies in the broad diversity of its members, the linkage to the normative work undertaken under the Basel Convention and the conduit provided to decision-makers in all 188 Parties to the Convention. Its work is thus expected to inform the work of the Conference of the Parties and could help shape the future decision-making on plastic waste under the Basel Convention. The Plastic Waste Partnership is also uniquely placed to support and prepare Parties, as well as the private sector, in implementing the Plastic Waste Amendments. The work of the Plastic Waste Partnership has been organized around the waste hierarchy, with the underlying idea that tackling sources of plastic waste is the most preferable option, while we also cannot neglect more downstream solutions, such as environmentally sound recycling. A series of pilot projects will be financed through the Plastic Waste Partnership.<fnref n="17" /> The first round of applications in 2020 saw 23 projects from 22 countries being selected for implementation. These pilot projects will operationalize the work of the Partnership on the ground and are expected to be replicated in other countries and regions.

The Partnership itself is organized into a working group and four project groups<fnref n="18" /> addressing different thematic issues. The working group is mandated by the terms of reference of the Partnership<fnref n="19" /> to oversee organizational matters pertaining to the implementation of the activities of the Partnership, including setting priorities and ensuring timely implementation of its workplan; establishing project groups, as necessary, to work on specific tasks; leading awareness raising, outreach, coordination and resource mobilization initiatives; and preparing an annual budget.

Four project groups were established under the Partnership at its first meeting. The first two groups follow the steps of the waste management hierarchy, i.e. focusing on plastic waste prevention and minimization and recycling and other recovery of plastic waste. Another group was established to bring support to the implementation of the Plastic Waste Amendments, and it was deemed important to have a final group focused on outreach, education and awareness raising.

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwaste/PlasticWastePartnership/Membership/tabid/8098/Default.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwaste/PlasticWastePartnership/CallforPWPilotprojectproposals/tabid/8494/Default.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ For further information, see the Basel Convention website: http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwaste/PlasticWastePartnership/Projectgroupsandactivities/tabid/8410/Default.aspx</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ COP document UNEP/CHW.14/INF/16/Rev.1 available at: http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/ConferenceoftheParties/Meetings/COP14/tabid/7520/Default.aspx</footnote>
The first project group focusing on plastic waste prevention and minimization is looking at issues such as reducing single-use packaging waste, improving the design of plastic products to increase durability, scaling up re-use solutions and biodegradable plastic products. As a first step, the group will compile information on best practices and identify challenges for improving the design of plastic products to increase their durability, reusability, reparability and recyclability, as well as to reduce hazardous constituents in plastic products.

The second group focuses on plastic waste collection, recycling and other recovery including financing and related markets. Topics being addressed by this group include separation, collection and recycling systems, financing schemes, such as Extended Producer Responsibility, innovative technologies, as well as regulatory and voluntary measures. The group has commenced its work by compiling information on best practices and innovative technologies for separating or eliminating hazardous substances from plastic wastes during sorting and recycling.

The third project group focuses on transboundary movements of plastic waste. Its members are exploring means to support customs authorities in their critical work and are gathering information that will help countries to implement the Plastic Waste Amendments. Such information will be presented as, for example, factsheets outlining the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders in implementing the amendments, including the role of customs in enforcing the related provisions, and a factsheet on the relevant customs codes (WCO Harmonized System codes) on plastics and plastic waste and their relation to the Plastic Waste Amendments.

The final project group, on outreach, education and awareness-raising, has commenced its work to develop a strategy which will shape the messaging, mode and frequency of the Partnership's communications. The group has also commenced development of an electronic and visually based set of materials on the prevention, minimization and ESM of plastic waste, which it intends to make available in multiple languages (subject to available resources).

## 10.6 Looking Ahead

At its second meeting set to take place in the first half of 2021, the Partnership working group will consider the progress made by its project groups to date in implementing their respective workplans and will provide direction to the work to be embarked on as a next step. In the meantime, the co-chairs of the Partnership, themselves a senior official in the Norwegian government and trade and environment director for an association representing the recycling industry, together with the Secretariat, are promoting the Partnership through their participation in global negotiating forums, conferences and other initiatives hosted by partner organizations. They are striving to strengthen the Partnership's 200-plus stakeholder base in an endeavour to cover all stages of the plastics value chain and to make the fight against plastic waste and pollution a joint success story.
## References

Beckman E (13 August 2018). The world's plastic problem in numbers. The Conversation, United Kingdom. Retrieved from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/the-world-of-plastics-in-numbers

Brooks A, Wang S, Jambeck J (20 June 2018) The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade. Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaat0131

Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2017) Global Commitment: A circular economy for plastic in which it never becomes waste. Ellen Macarthur Foundation, Cowes. Retrieved from: https://www.newplasticeconomy.org/projects/global-commitment

European Commission (2 December 2020) European Commission, Brussels. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/index_en.htm

Katz C (7 March 2019) Piling up: How China's ban on importing waste has stalled global recycling. Yale School of the Environment, New Haven. Retrieved from: https://e360.yale.edu/features/piling-up-how-chinas-ban-on-importing-waste-has-stalled-global-recycling

Krueger J (1999) International trade and the Basel Convention. Earthscan Publications, London

Miles T (10 May 2019) U.N. clinches deal to stop plastic waste ending up in the sea. Reuters, Geneva. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-plastic-idUSKCN1SG19S

Niranjan A (4 July 2019) Amid plastic deluge, Southeast Asia refuses Western waste. Bonn, Germany: Deutsche Welle. Retrieved from: https://www.dw.com/en/amid-plastic-delugesoutheast-asia-ref uses-western-waste/a-49467769

Parker L (20 December 2018) A whopping 91% of plastic isn't recycled. National Geographic, London. Retrieved from: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/07/plastic-produced-recycling-waste-ocean trash-debris-environment/

Ryberg M, Laurent A, Hauschild M (2018) Mapping of global plastics value chain and plastics losses to the environment (with a particular focus on marine environment). United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

United Nations Environment Programme (2018) Legal limits on single-use plastics and microplastics: a global review of national laws and regulations. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

# Chapter 11
## Solutions to Plastic Pollution: A Conceptual Framework to Tackle a Wicked Problem

Martin Wagner

**Abstract** There is a broad willingness to act on global plastic pollution as well as a plethora of available technological, governance, and societal solutions. However, this solution space has not been organized in a larger conceptual framework yet. In this essay, I propose such a framework, place the available solutions in it, and use it to explore the value-laden issues that motivate the diverse problem formulations and the preferences for certain solutions by certain actors. To set the scene, I argue that plastic pollution shares the key features of wicked problems, namely, scientific, political, and societal complexity and uncertainty as well as a diversity in the views of actors. To explore the latter, plastic pollution can be framed as a waste, resource, economic, societal, or systemic problem. Doing so results in different and sometimes conflicting sets of preferred solutions, including improving waste management; recycling and reuse; implementing levies, taxes, and bans as well as ethical consumerism; raising awareness; and a transition to a circular economy. Deciding which of these solutions is desirable is, again, not a purely rational choice. Accordingly, the social deliberations on these solution sets can be organized across four scales of change. At the geographic and time scales, we need to clarify where and when we want to solve the plastic problem. On the scale of responsibility, we need to clarify who is accountable, has the means to make change, and carries the costs. At the magnitude scale, we need to discuss which level of change we desire on a spectrum of status quo to revolution. All these issues are inherently linked to value judgments and worldviews that must, therefore, be part of an open and inclusive debate to facilitate solving the wicked problem of plastic pollution.

M. Wagner (✉)

Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),

Trondheim, Norway

e-mail: martin.wagner@ntnu.no
## 11.1 Premises and Aims

The scale of plastic pollution and its impacts on nature and societies has been exten-
sively described and discussed in the public and the scientific literature (including
this book). While there is much debate on the scale of the problem, the aim of this
essay is to explore the solution space for plastic pollution. Therefore, this essay is
based on the premise that the case is closed, in such that there is a board consensus
that we want to solve it. The relevant question then becomes how to achieve best
this. There is abundant literature summarizing potential solutions for plastic pollu-
tion (Auta et al. 2017; Eriksen et al. 2018; Löhr et al. 2017; Prata et al. 2019;
Sheavly and Register 2007; Tessnow-von Wysocki and Le Billon 2019; Vince and
Hardesty 2018). However, many authors focus on specific technological, gover-
nance, or economic aspects and some organize solutions in rather arbitrary ways.
Such pragmatic collections are certainly useful to get an overview of available
options. Nonetheless, they may fall short in addressing the complexity of plastic
pollution (e.g., when they present few, specific solutions), the diversity in the per-
spectives of the multiple actors involved (e.g., when they focus on technological
solutions only), and the fundamental aspects driving the preferences for certain
solutions. Therefore, the aim of this essay is not to present another collection of
technical and policy instruments. Instead, I will first explore the wickedness of the
problem because it is important to acknowledge that there is no simple solution to
problems that are difficult to define and describe. Secondly, I propose a conceptual
framework regarding how specific problem formulations result in diverse and some-
times conflicting sets of solutions. Clarifying distinct problem frames is an impor-
tant step toward understanding the actors’ diverse preferences for solution sets.
Thirdly, I lay out a framework for organizing the value judgments inherent in the
plastics discourse. Since these are mostly neglected in the public and scientific
debate, the aim of this piece is to bring to the surface the value-laden issues underly-
ing the framing of the problem and the preferences for certain solutions.

## 11.2 Plastic Pollution as Wicked Problem

To contextualize the solutions to plastic pollution, we first need to explore its wick-
edness. The concept of wicked problems has been used to characterize those prob-
lems which defy conventional solutions, including climate change, displacement of
people, terrorism, digital warfare, and biodiversity loss (Termeer et al. 2019).
Originally introduced to describe “problems which are ill-formulated, where the
information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with
conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly
confusing” (Churchman 1967), Rittel and Webber (1973) provided ten characteris-
tics that define a wicked problem, some of which are shared by plastic pollution (see
Table 11.1). Since then, the simple dichotomy of tame vs. wicked problems has
<table><caption>**Table 11.1** Characteristics of wicked problems and their applicability to the plastic pollution issue</caption><thead><tr><td>Characteristics</td><td>Applicability to plastic pollution (author's opinion)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(1) Wicked problems are difficult to define. There is no definite formulation.</td><td>Yes, there is a diversity in framing the problem.</td></tr><tr><td>(2) Wicked problems have no stopping rule.</td><td>Yes, we will not know for certain if/when we have solved plastic pollution.</td></tr><tr><td>(3) Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but good or bad.</td><td>Partly, some specific solutions (e.g., stopping pellet loss) can be true. Other solutions require value judgement.</td></tr><tr><td>(4) There is no immediate or ultimate test for solutions.</td><td>Partly, effectiveness of some local solutions may be testable but is impossible to test for global solutions.</td></tr><tr><td>(5) All attempts to solutions have effects that may not be reversible or forgettable.</td><td>Unknown but possible, especially when considering the largely unknown environmental impacts of replacements.</td></tr><tr><td>(6) These problems have no clear solution, and perhaps not even a set of possible solutions.</td><td>Unknown, a broad set of solutions is available in theory or practice, but their potential to actually solve the problem is largely unknown.</td></tr><tr><td>(7) Every wicked problem is essentially unique.</td><td>Unknown, but strong commonalties of plastic pollution with other global change issues exist.</td></tr><tr><td>(8) Every wicked problem may be a symptom of another problem.</td><td>Yes, for instance, plastic pollution can be framed as a symptom of a linear economy.</td></tr><tr><td>(9) There are multiple explanations for the wicked problem.</td><td>Yes, see (1)</td></tr><tr><td>(10) The planner (policymaker) has no right to be wrong.</td><td>No, there probably is a margin of error, in such that multiple solutions can be tested without (much) regret.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Adapted from Rittel and Webber (1973)

evolved into a view that rather considers degrees of wickedness (Termeer et al. 2019). The question, therefore, is how much wickedness we assign to plastic pollution. The key features of complexity, diversity, and uncertainty (Head and Alford 2013) can be used to do so.

Without question, the issue of plastic pollution is complex, both from a scientific and a societal perspective (SAPEA 2019). The scientific complexity arises from a number of aspects. Firstly, plastic pollution comprises a diverse suite of pollutants with very heterogeneous physicochemical properties (Lambert et al. 2017; Rochman et al. 2019). Secondly, plastics have a multitude of sources, flows, and impacts in nature and societies. Thirdly, plastic pollution is ubiquitous, yet its scale varies in time and space. The combination of these aspects results in complex exposure patterns causing a complex suite of effects on biodiversity and human health, covering all levels of biological organization, as well as on the functioning of ecosystems and societies. To further complicate the matter, these effects will probably not be linear, immediate, obvious, and overt but will be heavily interconnected and aggregate over time scales that are difficult to investigate. Thus, the complexity of plastic pollution – and its underlying causes – cannot be understood with “standard science” based on disciplinary approaches and the assumption of simple cause-effect relationships.
The societal complexity of plastic pollution arises from the fact that plastics are – besides concrete, steel, and fertilizers – one of the main building blocks of modern societies (Kuijpers 2020). They are so closely integrated with many aspects of our lives that modern societies cannot function without plastics. Accordingly, the immense societal benefits of plastics arising from their versatility, light weight, durability, and low costs are very difficult to decouple from their negative impacts caused by just the same properties. The resulting ambiguous relationship of humanity with plastics (Freinkel 2011) in combination with the complex flows of plastics through societies constitutes the societal complexity of plastic pollution.

The public, political, and scientific discourses on plastic pollution are characterized by a high degree of diversity in such that actors take divergent, and sometimes conflicting, views and approaches to the problem and its solutions. Much of that diversity emerges from the fact that the discourse on plastic pollution, just like on many other environmental problems, is a value-laden issue. In such situations, actors will frame the problem and interpret the available evidence differently based on their specific believe systems, values, and agendas.

Finally, plastic pollution is characterized by a high degree of scientific, political, and societal uncertainty. This is not only true for the glaring gaps in our scientific knowledge (SAPEA 2019) but even more so for the nonlinearity and unpredictability of the impacts that plastic pollution (and potential solutions) may have on ecosystems, humans, and societies. As an example of scientific uncertainty, there might be tipping point at which the ecological consequences of increasing pollution might become chaotic and unpredictable. Another, very concrete example of political uncertainty is the need to balance unforeseen benefits of plastics (e.g., massive demand for personal protective gear in case of a pandemic) with the negative impacts of pollution. While continuing research efforts will eventually reduce the scientific uncertainties, “better” evidence will not necessarily reduce the political and societal uncertainty surrounding plastic pollution. This is because the diversity in actors’ views and agendas routed in their individual values is unlikely to change when new scientific evidence arrives.

Taken together, plastic pollution comprises a relatively high degree of wickedness because it features scientific and societal complexity, actors with diverse and divergent problem/solution frames and goals, and a high degree of scientific and political uncertainty. Leaving aside the aspects of complexity and uncertainty here, it is worth investigating how divergent problem formulations result in a diversity in solutions and how value judgments inherent in the discourse on solution to plastic pollution can be conceptualized.

## 11.3 Problem Formulations: Consensus or Dispute?

On the surface, the problem formulation for plastic pollution seems quite straightforward. The accumulation of plastics in nature is a bad thing. Despite many scientific uncertainties, such a statement receives broad support from the scientific
community, the public, policymakers, and societal actors (e.g., interest groups) alike. Despite the absence of an overt and coordinated denialism, such as the one for climate change, a closer examination reveals that three aspects of plastic pollution are contested, namely, the risk paradigm, the scale, and the root causes of the problem.

There are two opposing views on what constitutes the risk of plastic pollution. The commonsense perspective is that the sheer presence of plastics in nature represents a risk. Such view is propelled by the attention economy (Backhaus and Wagner 2020) and the scientific uncertainties, in such that scientific ignorance (“we do not know the ecological consequences”) becomes a risk itself (Völker et al. 2020). Even though empirical data are absent, this conception of risk is probably very common in the public and is promoted by environmental interest groups. An opposing perspective poses that there are thresholds below which plastic pollution will not be a risk. That more expert view comes from toxicological and regulatory practices which are based on Paracelsus’ paradigm of “the dose makes the poison” and risk assessment frameworks to compare the exposure and hazards of synthetic chemicals. The main divergence between the two perspectives is that one claims that there is no “safe” threshold of plastics in nature whereas the other does. This is, in essence, a value-laden question because deciding whether we deem emitting plastics to nature acceptable is a moral, ethical, political, and societal issue rather than a purely scientific one. It may sound provocative, but on a systems level the actors benefiting from environmental action (e.g., environmental interest groups) pursue a “zero pollution” aim whereas the actors benefiting from continued emissions (e.g., plastic industry) push for a “threshold” view.

The scale of the problem of plastic pollution is also a matter of conflicting views, at least among academics and interest groups. This is best exemplified using microplastics as case. Some scientists consider the problem “superficial” (Burton Jr. 2017) and even “distractive” (Stafford and Jones 2019), whereas others consider it “significant” (Rochman et al. 2015) and “urgent” (Xanthos and Walker 2017). Without getting into the details of the different arguments, the main driver of the superficiality perspective is the assumption that environmental problems compete for limited attention and resources (Backhaus and Wagner 2020). Thus, we need to prioritize problems that are deemed more important (e.g., climate change). The opposing view poses that the microplastics problem is part of the larger issue of global change that cannot be viewed in isolation (Kramm et al. 2018) and argues that “we simply do not have the luxury of tackling environmental issues one at a time” (Avery-Gomm et al. 2019). Again, a value-laden question is at the heart of this dispute, namely, whether solving environmental issues is a zero-sum game that requires focusing on the few, most pressing problems or rather represents a win-win situation in which tackling multiple problems at once will yield co-benefits and synergies.

The last area of dispute is the question about the actual causes of plastic pollution. This is essentially a matter of problem framing that will have wide implications for finding solutions. For instance, framing plastic pollution predominantly as a marine litter problem will promote a completely different set of solutions (e.g.,
ocean cleanup activities) compared to a framing as consumerism problem that would require larger social changes. As with the two areas discussed above, individual values and belief systems will determine how one frames the causes of plastic pollution and which solutions one prefers, accordingly.

## 11.4 What Are We Trying to Solve?

Investigating the different conceptions of the causes of plastic pollution offers a meaningful way to organize the sets of solutions we have at hand. Importantly, that is not to say that one of the views is true or false but rather to understand why different actors prefer and promote divergent sets of solutions. To start with a commonality, the concerns about the impacts of plastic pollution on nature, human health, and societies are the drivers of all problem-solution frames. However, five different lenses can be used to focus on the problem formulation rendering plastic pollution a waste, resource, economic, societal, and systemic problem (Fig. 11.1).

Importantly, the lack of awareness about these frames can obscure the debate on plastic pollution. For instance, plastics are often used as a proxy to debate other societal issues, such as consumerism. Thus, seemingly scientific controversies become an arena to negotiate political and philosophical issues (Hicks 2017). This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, scientific debates make a poor proxy for talking about value-laden problems because they are often technical and narrow and, therefore, exclude “nonexpert” opinions and economic and cultural aspects. Secondly, as Hicks puts it “talking exclusively about the science leads us to ignore – and hence fail to address – the deeper disagreement” (Hicks 2017). To make the debate on plastic pollution productive, all involved actors should transparently delineate how they frame the problem, be open to discuss the deeper disagreements

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 11.1** Common drivers result in a diverse framing of the problem of plastic pollution and its causes. This determines the set of preferred solutions</figcaption></figure>
that may be beyond the traditional scope of hard sciences, and be receptive to other arguments and viewpoints (e.g., the cultural value of an unpolluted nature).

## 11.5 Solving the Waste Problem

The most common approach to plastic pollution is to frame it as a waste problem. From that perspective, the main cause is our inability to effectively manage the plastic waste and prevent its emissions to nature. According to this view, plastic pollution basically becomes an engineering problem that can be fixed with a set of technological solutions.

While not preventive per se, cleanup activities on beaches, rivers, in the open ocean, etc. can be considered part of the set of solutions to the waste problem. Targeted at removing plastic debris from nature, these can range from low-tech solutions involving citizens simply cleaning up polluted places (e.g., organized by Ocean Conservancy, the Nordic Coastal Cleanup, or Fishing for Litter), to medium-tech solutions that collect debris before it enters the oceans (e.g., Mr. Trash Wheel, the Great Bubble Barrier), to high-tech solutions such as the large booms deployed by the Ocean Cleanup or remotely operated underwater vehicles (see Schmaltz et al. 2020 for a comprehensive inventory). Cleanup solutions can be criticized as ineffective and inefficient basically because they represent measures that are the furthest downstream of the sources of plastic pollution. Some technological approaches, such as the Ocean Cleanup booms, might even have negative consequences on marine biota (Clarke 2015). However, these activities may also have benefits that go beyond removing plastics from nature. Engaging volunteers in cleanup activities can increase their awareness of pollution and promote pro-environmental intentions (Wyles et al. 2017, 2019) that may result in a more sustainable change in behaviors.

Improving waste management is at the center of the set of solutions associated with the framing as waste problem. The goal of these activities is to minimize the amount of mismanaged plastic waste “escaping” to nature. The waste management sector in the Global North faces serious challenges, such as infrastructural fragmentation, lack of capacity, and the inability to deal with increasingly complex plastics materials and waste streams (Crippa et al. 2019). Taking the European Union as an example, there is a need to better implement and enforce existing waste legislation, harmonize waste collection, and promote innovation regarding new business models and waste sorting technologies (Crippa et al. 2019). However, most of the worlds’ mismanaged plastic waste is emitted in the Global South (Jambeck et al. 2015) with its predominantly informal waste sector where autonomous and organized waste pickers are highly skilled participants in local circular economies. Reconciling their livelihoods with aspirations for industrial automation remains a challenge, and external intervention attempts will likely be unsuccessful without sufficient local capacity building (Velis 2017). The Global North can support such development by sourcing recycled plastics from the informal recycling sector,
thereby gradually formalizing this sector (Crippa et al. 2019) and creating socioeco-
nomic benefits for waste pickers (Gall et al. 2020).

Another dimension to look at plastic pollution is the global trade of plastic waste. More than half of the plastic waste intended for recycling has been exported to countries other than the ones producing the waste (Brooks et al. 2018). In the case of the European Union, most exports have been directed toward the Global South (Rosa 2018) with notable shifts since China restricted waste imports in 2017 (European Environment Agency 2019). The concerns over this practice arise from the fact that recipient countries often have low labor and environmental standards resulting in occupational risks and improper waste disposal or recycling (World Economic Forum 2020). In response, the 187 member countries amended the Basel Convention, an international treaty on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, to better control the global flows of contaminated, mixed, or unrecyclable plastics (Secretariat of the Basel Convention 2019). While this is promising, the Basel Convention is limited regarding its ability to enforce compliance and monitor progress (Raubenheimer and McIlgorm 2018).

A third approach to tackle the waste problem is to increase the production and use of compostable or biodegradable plastics. The expectation is that such materials will disintegrate on short time scales either in industrial and household settings or in the environment (Crippa et al. 2019; Lambert and Wagner 2017). Compostable and biodegradable plastics would, thus, contribute to decreasing the amount of persistent plastic waste and create biomass to amend soils. While a range of biodegradable plastics from fossil as well as renewable feedstocks is available, their market share remains low, making up less than 0.5% of the global plastic production (Crippa et al. 2019). This is mainly due to their high costs (compared to a limited added value) and technical challenges in scaling up production capacities. Additional challenges arise from misperceptions and misrepresentation regarding what biodegradable plastics can achieve (Crippa et al. 2019, see also the example of oxo-degradable plastics), from a low degradability of available materials in nature, and from the lack of transferability of degradation data from laboratory to field settings (Haider et al. 2019).

Importantly, when choosing to frame plastic pollution as a waste problem, the principles of the waste hierarchy apply that clearly prioritizes the prevention and reuse of waste over its recycling, recovery, or disposal (European Parliament & Council of the European Union 2008). However, contemporary solutions to the plastic waste problem mainly focus on less preferred options, especially on recovery and recycling. As an example, the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy (European Commission 2018) contains the terms “prevention” and “reuse” only 8 times, each, while it mentions “recycling” 76 times. A reason for that preference might be that the technological approaches to recycling, recovery, and disposal exist within the waste sector, whereas approaches to reduce and reuse plastics would require the inclusion of very different actors, such as social scientists and designers.
11.6 Solving the Resource Problem

Framing plastic pollution as a resource problem is based on the idea that we are losing valuable materials when using plastics in short-lived products, such as packaging and single-use items. Such framing is closely connected to the waste problem as waste management is transforming into resources management. In a broader context, however, this idea can be reformulated as a problem of extractive fossil industries in such that the cause of plastic pollution is indeed the abundance of fossil feedstocks. Both aspects of the resource framing result in divergent sets of solutions.

Approaches to solve the resource problem from a waste perspective basically cover the upper parts of the waste hierarchy, namely, recycling and reuse. The ratio-nale is, of course, to retain the material and functional value of plastics in use and extend the lifetime of materials or products. This would, in turn, reduce waste gen-eration and the need to produce new plastics. The different options fall on a spec-trum on which reuse and mechanical recycling preserve best the value of plastics because they avoid the extra costs for breaking up the materials (Fig. 11.2). In con-trast, chemical recycling uses chemical or thermal processes (e.g., depolymeriza-tion, pyrolysis, gasification) to create purified polymers, oligomers, or monomers which then can be reprocessed into new plastics. This has several advantages over mechanical recycling, such as the higher flexibility and the ability to deal with mixed and contaminated plastics. Nonetheless, chemical recycling currently requires significant improvement regarding their technical and economic feasibility as well as a thorough investigation of its environmental and social impacts (Crippa et al. 2019).

In contrast to set of solutions provided by the recycling plastics, retaining plastic products in use via sharing, repairing, and reusing comes closer to a circular econ-omy ideal. While circular business models for plastics suffer from the lack of eco-nomic incentives (see economic problem), the four current types of business models include product as a service (“pay-per-use”), circular supplies (waste of one com-pany becomes the raw material for another), product life extensions (making prod-ucts durable, repairable, upgradable), and sharing platforms (Accenture 2014).

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 11.2** Different loops for the reuse and recycling of plastics. (Source: Crippa et al. 2019)</figcaption></figure>
Such approaches face challenges not only because plastics move so fast through the value chain and are handled by multiple actors but also because they challenge the linear economy paradigm. Here, eco-design guidelines and circularity metrics can help create a more level playing field (Crippa et al. 2019).

A very different solution, namely, the shift to bio-based plastics, emerges when framing plastic pollution as a problem of fossil feedstocks. Here, the idea is to reduce the use of petroleum and natural gas to manufacture plastics and foster the transition to a bio-based economy. Bio-based plastics can be produced from natural polymers (e.g., starch, cellulose), by plants or microbes (e.g., PBS, PHA), and by synthesizing them from biological feedstocks (e.g., ethylene derived from fer-mented sugarcane) (Lambert and Wagner 2017). As with biodegradable plastics, the market share of bio-based material is rather low for economic reasons, but produc-tion capacities and demand are projected to increase in the future (Crippa et al. 2019). The main challenges of shifting to bio-based plastics are their potential envi-ronmental and social impacts associated with land and pesticide use. These can be addressed by using feedstocks derived from agricultural, forestry, and food waste as well as from algae (Lambert and Wagner 2017). Eventually, substituting fossil with renewable carbon sources is a laudable aim that can create many co-benefits. However, it is important to realize that this will not solve the problem of plastic pollution.

11.7 Solving the Economic Problem

A very different perspective on the discourses on plastic pollution is the framing as an economic problem. As discussed above, many solutions are not competitive in the marketplace due to their high costs. Accordingly, the low price of virgin plastics which is a result of the low oil and natural gas prices can be considered the major cause of plastic pollution. Taking such view implies that one major benefit of plastics – their low price – is driving consumption which, in turn, results in their emission to nature. It also dictates that solutions should address the economy of plastics.

The goal of economic solutions to plastic pollution is to reduce plastic consump-
tion either directly via financial (dis)incentives or indirectly via creating a level
playing field for other solutions, including alternative materials (e.g., bio-based
plastics), recycling, and circular business models. The simplest and most widely
adopted economic instrument is to place levies on single-use products, especially on
plastic bags. For most cases, increasing the price of carrier bag reduced the con-
sumption but the global effect of such policies remains uncertain (Nielsen et al.
2019). In addition, there may be unintended consequences and the ecological
impacts of replacements in particular often remain neglected.

Plastic taxes follow the same logic as levies and fees but target a wider range of
products. While there is no literature on the implementation of plastic taxes across
countries, the European Union, for instance, plans to implement a plastic tax on
non-recycled plastic packaging waste (European Council 2020). Similar initiatives
exist in the US State of California (Simon 2020). In principle, such taxes can be raised at the counter to change consumer behavior and/or directed toward plastic producers (see Powell 2018 for in-depth discussion). The latter aims at internalizing the external costs of plastics in such that their negative environmental impacts are reflected in their pricing, in line with the idea of extended producer responsibility. Although the actual external costs of plastics are far from clear and depend on the specific context, ecosystems services approaches, valorizing the supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services nature provides, can be used to estimate those. According to a recent assessment, plastic pollution results in an annual loss of $500–2500 billion in marine natural capital, or $3300–33,000 per ton plastic in the ocean (Beaumont et al. 2019).

The benefit of taxing plastic producers would be twofold. If targeting the sale or purchase of non-recycled plastic monomers or resins, a tax would incentivize recycling. If the tax revenue would be collected in a dedicated fund, this could be used to subsidize other solutions, such as innovation in materials, products and business models, or awareness campaigns. General plastic taxes could be modeled after carbon taxation following the polluter pays principle. However, the latter requires a value judgment regarding who the polluter indeed is, and different actors would certainly disagree where to place responsibility along the life cycle of plastics. An additional challenge can be that the taxes are absorbed by the supply chain and, thus, not achieve the desired aim (Powell 2018).

Apart from levies and taxes on specific products, broader plastic taxation has not been implemented so far. However, the price of virgin plastics is expected to decrease further due to the oil industry shifting their production away from fuels and massively increase their capacity to produce new plastics (Pooler 2020). Such technology lock-in will further decrease the pricing of virgin plastics, propel plastic consumption, and render solving the plastics problem uneconomic. At the same time, the surge in production may increase the public pressure and political willingness to implement taxation that mitigates the negative impacts on recycling (Lim 2019) and of increasing waste exports (Tabuchi et al. 2020) and aggregated greenhouse gas emissions (Gardiner 2019).

## 11.8 Solving the Societal Problem

In contrast to the techno-economic problem-solution frames discussed above, a very different perspective attributes plastic pollution to a deeper-rooted cause, namely, consumerism and capitalism. Accordingly, plastic pollution is a result of humanity's overconsumption of plastics that is, in turn, driven by our capitalist system. In this way, it becomes a societal problem. It remains unclear how pervasive such views are, but the idea that we are consuming too much is one center piece of environmentalism, arguably one of the few remaining major ideologies. The problem with this framing is that often it remains implicit in the discourse on plastic pollution. Thus, plastic becomes a proxy to debate larger, value-laden topics, such as
industrialization, economic materialism and growth, globalization, and, eventually, capitalism. The set of solutions promoted by framing plastic pollution as a societal problem are manifold. Interestingly, there is a dichotomy regarding who is responsible: When viewed as a consumption problem, solutions should motivate individuals to change their behaviors. When framed as a capitalist issue, more collective and systemic change is desired.

Plastic consumption behavior is affected by a range of factors, among others, sociodemographic variables, convenience, habits, social factors, and environmental attitudes (Heidbreder et al. 2019). The ban of plastic products, especially of single-use items, such as carrier bags, straws, cutlery, and tableware, targets the convenience and habits of consumers simply by limiting their choice. Plastic bag bans are now implemented in more than 30 countries, and bans on other single-use products are in effect in 12 countries (Schnurr et al. 2018). While generally considered effective and publicly acceptable, plastic bag bans have been criticized to disproportionately affect low-income and homeless persons. The major criticism concerns the environmental impacts of replacements made of natural materials (paper, cotton, linen) due to their higher resource demand and greenhouse gas emissions (Schnurr et al. 2018).

Social factors, including norms and identities, are the drivers for plastic avoidance, another way to reduce plastic consumption. On the one hand, social pressure and guilt can motivate individuals to not use plastics (Heidbreder et al. 2019). On the other hand, a person can practice plastic avoidance, a plastic-free lifestyle being its most intense form, to affirm their identity as environmentally conscious (Cherrier 2006). Notably, it is exactly those social norms and identities that environmental interest groups and similarly motivated actors tap into. On the business side, the marketing of “ethical” plastic products (e.g., made from ocean plastics) applies similar mechanisms, sometimes criticized as greenwashing. Interestingly, all those solutions are based on the idea of ethical consumerism, emphasizing individual responsibility, all the while staying firmly within the realm of capitalism.

As a more collective solution, activities that raise awareness regarding plastic pollution and consumption (e.g., communication campaigns) target at changing environmental attitudes and encourage pro-environmental behaviors on a wider scale. Behavior change interventions range from policies (bans, levies, see above), information campaigns, educational programs, point-of-sale interventions (e.g., asking if customers want plastic bags rather than handing them out), and the participation in cleanup activities (Heidbreder et al. 2019; Pahl et al. 2020). Importantly, Pahl et al. (2020) note that it “is advisable [to] build on personal and social norms and values, as this could lead to spillover into other pro-environmental domains and behaviours.” This goes in line with the idea that awareness of plastic pollution is a gateway to wider pro-environmental attitudes (Ives 2017).
## 11.9 Solving the Systemic Problem

In contrast to framing plastic pollution as a waste, resource, economic, or societal problem, it can be viewed as a composite of some or all of these facets; it becomes a systemic problem. The latter view acknowledges that plastic pollution is multi-causal and that the individual causes are strongly interconnected. In other words, such systems perspective takes the wickedness of plastic pollution into account. Intuitively, this seems like the most holistic approach to the problem since it is quite apparent that plastic pollution is the result of multiple failures at multiple levels of the “plastic ecosystem.”

However, the main challenge with framing this as a systemic problem is that the problem formulation becomes much less tangible compared to other perspectives. For instance, the framings as waste, resource, or economic problem are much clearer with regard to their intervention points. They also provide sets of solutions that require an engineering approach in such that technologies, processes, and functions need to be redesigned and optimized. Thus, solutions appear relatively straightforward and easy to implement. Such promises of easy wins might be one reason why the idea to engineer our way out of plastic pollution is so popular. In contrast, solutions to the systemic problem are diverse, interconnected, and at times conflicting. This makes them appear as much harder to implement. At the same time, this renders the systems view somewhat immune to criticism as individual solutions (and their limitations) will always be just a small piece of the larger approach.

Arguably, the concept of a circular economy has recently gained most momentum to tackle plastic pollution systemically. Promoted by powerful actors, including the World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey & Company, and the European Union, the vision of a circular economy is to “increase prosperity, while reducing demands on finite raw materials and minimizing negative externalities” (World Economic Forum et al. 2016). While there are multiple definitions of the meaning of circular economy (Kirchherr et al. 2017), it is basically a reincarnation of the “3Rs principle” of reduce, reuse, recycle and of the idea of sustainable design. Accordingly, a circular economy “requires innovations in the way industries produce, consumers use and policy makers legislate” (Prieto-Sandova et al. 2018). Applied to plastic pollution, the circular economy concept identifies the linear economic model as root cause of the problem.

Accordingly, it promotes designing closed loop systems that prevent plastic from becoming waste as the key solution. Whereas this seems to reiterate the solution set to the waste problem, the circular economy concept integrates the solutions supported by all other problem frames. A report by the Pew Trust and SYSTEMIQ predicts that the future plastic emissions to the ocean can only be significantly reduced with systemic change (Lau et al. 2020; The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020). Highlighting that there is no single solution to plastic pollution, such scenario requires the concurrent and global implementation of measures to reduce production and consumption and increase the substitution with compostable materials, recycling rates, and waste collection (The Pew Charitable Trusts and
SYSTEMIQ 2020). As such, the circular approach is, thus, a composite of the waste, resource, and societal framing combined with the prospect of economic co-benefits through innovation. The latter is indeed why repacking the other solution sets in a circular economy context has become so successful that it, as an example, has been rapidly adopted by the European Union (European Commission 2018). In addition to the economic angle, the focus on technological and societal innovation provides a powerful narrative of a better future that makes the circular economy ideology even more appealing. However, two important aspects need to be considered: Firstly, it is unclear whether a circular economy is able to deliver the promised environmental benefits (Manninen et al. 2018). Secondly, we need to realize that the ideology is not as radical as it claims, given that it further promotes the current model of business-led economic growth (Clube and Tennant 2020; Hobson and Lynch 2016). Thus, more radical and utopian solutions to plastic pollution remain out of sight.

## 11.10 The Four Scales of Solutions

Discussing and evaluating the solutions derived from the different problem frames outlined above requires value-based judgments regarding their relative importance, desirability, costs, and social consequences. These values should be made transparent and open in the discourse on plastic pollution to mitigate the proxy politics problem. This is important because making the debate about larger value-laden issues that remain implied can result in polarization and entrenchment and, in turn, would make solving the problem much harder.

While there is a multitude of dimensions to consider when evaluating solutions to plastic pollution, there are four basic scales of change that require value judgment and social deliberation. These cover the geography, time, responsibility, and magnitude of/for change desired by different actors (Fig. 11.3).

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 11.3** Conceptual framework to facilitate deliberation on the scales of changes needed to solve plastic pollution</figcaption></figure>
The scales of geography and time do not appear very contentious. However, the preference for local, national, regional, or global solutions to plastic pollution very much depends on which geographic unit actors most trust for developing and implementing effective measures. Some actors might be localists valuing small- over the large-scale approaches a globalist might prefer. Whereas there seems to be consensus that plastic problem is a global problem (implying a preference for global action), very focused solutions (e.g., at emission hotspots) might be very effective in a local context and much faster to implement.

The time scales desired for implementing measures and achieving their ends depends on perception of the immediacy of the problem. While a general notion of urgency to solve plastic pollution is prevailing and requires instant action, a very different standpoint may be that there is sufficient time to better understand the problem because the negative impacts are not immanent. Such view would be supported by calls for more and better research. While part of that question can be addressed scientifically, for instance, by prospective risk assessment or modeling approaches, decisions on the urgency of action remain value laden and context dependent.

At the scale of responsibility, we need to address the question who has the agency and means to implement solutions and who has to carry the burden of costs and consequences. This is as well a matter of individual vs. collective action as of which actors across the plastic life cycle have most responsibility. Some actors, especially the plastics industry, emphasize the individual consumer's responsibility. However, the systems view places much more focus on collective action. Others, especially environmental interest groups, want to hold the plastic industry accountable. However, one could also prefer to assign the burden of action to the retail or waste sectors, making it a matter of up- or downstream solutions. While it is very obvious that all actors in the plastic system share responsibility, the question of where to allocate how much accountability is open to debate.

The magnitude of desired changes is probably the most difficult aspect to agree upon because it touches not only on powerful economic interests but also on the fundamental question of whether one prefers to keep the status quo or wants to revolutionize individual lifestyles, economic sectors, or whole societies. It also covers preferences for very focused, pragmatic actions (e.g., easy wins that are sometimes tokenistic) or for systemic change. Such preferences are not only linked to perceptions of the urgency of the problem but depend on more fundamental worldviews. As with all other scales of changes, preferences will be driven by cultural context, social identity, and political orientations on the spectrum of conservative and progressive as well as libertarian and authoritarian.
## 11.11 How to Solve the Wicked Problem of Plastic Pollution?

Per definition, it is difficult or even impossible to solve wicked problems with conventional instruments and approaches. As argued above, plastic pollution is characterized by a relatively high degree of wickedness. At the same time, contemporary, mainstream solutions come from the standard toolbox, and it is rather the combination of all those instruments that is considered “transformative.” Implementing such combinatorial approach is appealing but can be complicated by the different underlying problem formulations and sometimes conflicting value judgments regarding the relative effectiveness of individual tools.

Thus, we need to organize an inclusive, open, and probably uncomfortable conversation about the scales of change we desire and the individual values that motivate those preferences. Such debate should not be reserved for the usual actors (i.e., experts, activists, and lobbyists) but must include (marginalized) groups that are most affected by plastic pollution and carry the burden of solutions (e.g., waste pickers). The debate must be open in the sense that, for instance, instead of fighting over bans of plastic straws, we should be clear on which issues these are proxies for (e.g., consumerism). Importantly, this is not to say that we need to create an all-encompassing consensus. Instead, the current plurality in problem-solution formulations is beneficial as it acknowledges that plastic pollution is multicausal, prevents a polarization and entrenchment, and enables tackling the problem from a systems perspective.

While we will have to face a multitude of technological, governance, and societal challenges on our road to solve plastic pollution, there are some conditions that will facilitate that journey. This includes robust evidence from the natural and social sciences regarding the effectiveness of different solutions, a broad willingness to solve the problem, and an acceptance of shared responsibility.

**Acknowledgments** M.W. acknowledges the support by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (02WRS1378I, 01UU1603), the Norwegian Research Council (301157), and the European Union's Horizon 2020 programme (860720).

## References

* Accenture (2014) Circular advantage – innovative business models and technologies to create value in a world without limits to growth

* Auta HS, Emenike CU, Fauziah SH (2017) Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions. Environ Int 102:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013

* Avery-Gomm S, Walker TR, Mallory ML, Provencher JF (2019) There is nothing convenient about plastic pollution. Rejoinder to Stafford and Jones “Viewpoint – ocean plastic pollution: a convenient but distracting truth?”. Marine Policy, 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103552

* Backhaus T, Wagner M (2020) Microplastics in the environment: much ado about nothing? A debate. Global Chall 4(6):1900022. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900022
Beaumont NJ, Aanesen M, Austen MC, Börger T, Clark JR, Cole M, Hooper T, Lindeque PK, Pascoe C, Wyles KJ (2019) Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. *Mar Pollut Bull* 142:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022

Brooks AL, Wang S, Jambeck JR (2018) The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade. *Sci Adv* 4(6):eaat0131. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat0131

Burton GA Jr (2017) Stressor exposures determine risk: so, why do fellow scientists continue to focus on superficial microplastics risk? *Environ Sci Technol* 51(23):13515–13516. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05463

Cherrier H (2006) Consumer identity and moral obligations in non-plastic bag consumption: a dialectical perspective. *Int J Consum Stud* 30(5):514–523

Churchman CW (1967) Wicked problems. *Manag Sci* 14(4):B141–B142

Clarke C (2015) 6 Reasons that floating ocean plastic cleanup Gizmo is a horrible idea. Retrieved 26 January 2021 from https://www.kcet.org/redefine/6-reasons-that-floating-ocean-plastic-cleanup-gizmo-is-a-horrible-idea

Clube RKM, Tennant M (2020) The circular economy and human needs satisfaction: promising the radical, delivering the familiar. *Ecol Econ* 177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106772

Crippa M, De Wilde B, Koopmans R, Leyssens J, Muncke J, Ritschkoff A-C, Van Doorsselaer K, Velis C, Wagner M (2019) A circular economy for plastics – insights from research and innovation to inform policy and funding decisions

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (2008)

Eriksen M, Thiel M, Prindiville M, Kiessling T (2018) Microplastic: what are the solutions? In: Wagner M, Lambert S (eds) Freshwater microplastics, pp 273–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5_13

European Commission (2018) A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy. Retrieved 26 February 2018 from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/plastics-strategy.pdf

European Council (2020) Special meeting of the European Council (17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 July 2020) – conclusions

European Environment Agency (2019) The plastic waste trade in the circular economy. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/resource-efficiency/the-plastic-waste-trade-in

Freinkel S (2011) Plastic: a toxic love story. *Houghton Mifflin Harcourt*

Gall M, Wiener M, Chagas de Oliveira C, Lang RW, Hansen EG (2020) Building a circular plastics economy with informal waste pickers: Recycle quality, business model, and societal impacts. *Resour Conserv Recycl* 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104685

Gardiner B (2019) The plastics pipeline: a surge of new production is on the way. *YaleEnvironment360*. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://e360.yale.edu/features/the-plastics-pipeline-a-surge-of-new-production-is-on-the-way

Haider TP, Volker C, Kramm J, Landfester K, Wurm FR (2019) Plastics of the future? The impact of biodegradable polymers on the environment and on society. *Angew Chem Int Ed* 58(1):50–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201805766

Head BW, Alford J (2013) Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. *Adm Soc* 47(6):711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601

Heidbreder LM, Bablok I, Drews S, Menzel C (2019) Tackling the plastic problem: a review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. *Sci Total Environ* 668:1077–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437

Hicks DJ (2017) Scientific controversies as proxy politics. *Issues Sci Technol* 33(2) (Winter 2017)

Hobson K, Lynch N (2016) Diversifying and de-growing the circular economy: radical social transformation in a resource-scarce world. *Futures* 82:15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.012

Ives D (2017) The gateway plastic. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.globalwildlife.org/blog/the-gateway-plastic/
Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R, Law KL (2015) Marine pollution. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347(6223):768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352

Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Kramm J, Volker C, Wagner M (2018) Superficial or substantial: why care about microplastics in the anthropocene? Environ Sci Technol 52(6):3336–3337. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00790

Kuijpers M (2020) The materials that build our world are also destroying it. What are the alternatives? The Correspondent. https://thecorrespondent.com/665/the-materials-that-build-our-world-are-also-destroying-it-what-are-the-alternatives/828687075370-d68b2d25

Lambert S, Wagner M (2017) Environmental performance of bio-based and biodegradable plastics: the road ahead. Chem Soc Rev 46(22):6855–6871. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7cs00149e

Lambert S, Scherer C, Wagner M (2017) Ecotoxicity testing of microplastics: considering the heterogeneity of physicochemical properties. Integr Environ Assess Manag 13(3):470–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1901

Lau WWY, Shiran Y, Bailey RM, Cook E, Stuchtey MR, Koskella J, Velis CA, Godfrey L, Boucher J, Murphy MB, Thompson RC, Jankowska E, Castillo AC, Pilditch TD, Dixon B, Koerselman L, Kosior E, Favoino E, Gutberlet J, Baulch S, Atreya ME, Fischer D, He KK, Petit MM, Sumaila UR, Neil E, Bernhofen MV, Lawrence K, Palardy JE (2020) Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 369(6510):1455–1461. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9475

Lim X (2019) How Fossil Fuel Companies Are Killing Plastic Recycling. HuffPost. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/plastic-recycling-oil-companies-landfill_n_5d8e4916e4b0e9e7604c832e

Löhr A, Savelli H, Beunen R, Kalz M, Ragas A, Van Belleghem F (2017) Solutions for global marine litter pollution. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 28:90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.009

Manninen K, Koskela S, Antikainen R, Bocken N, Dahlbo H, Aminoff A (2018) Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions? J Clean Prod 171:413–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.003

Nielsen TD, Holmberg K, Stripple J (2019) Need a bag? A review of public policies on plastic carrier bags – where, how and to what effect? Waste Manag 87:428–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.025

Pahl S, Richter I, Wyles K (2020) Human perceptions and behaviour determine aquatic plastic pollution. In: Stock F, Reifferscheid G, Brennholt N, Kostianaia E (eds) Plastics in the aquatic environment – Part II: Stakeholders role against pollution. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2020_672

Pooler M (2020) Surge in plastics production defies environmental backlash. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/4980ec74-4463-11ea-abea-0c7a29cd66fe

Powell D (2018) The price is right… or is it? The case for taxing plastics. Rethink Plastic Alliance

Prata JC, Silva ALP, da Costa JP, Mouneyrac C, Walker TR, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T (2019) Solutions and integrated strategies for the control and mitigation of plastic and microplastic pollution. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132411

Prieto-Sandova V, Jaca C, Ormazabal M (2018) Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J Clean Prod 179:605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.224

Raubenheimer K, McIlgorm A (2018) Can the Basel and Stockholm conventions provide a global framework to reduce the impact of marine plastic litter? Mar Policy 96:285–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.013

Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf01405730
Rochman CM, Kross SM, Armstrong JB, Bogan MT, Darling ES, Green SJ, Smyth AR, Verissimo D (2015) Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads. Environ Sci Technol 49(18):10759–10761. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03909

Rochman CM, Brookson C, Bikker J, Djuric N, Earn A, Bucci K, Athey S, Huntington A, McIlwraith H, Munno K, De Frond H, Kolomijeca A, Erdle L, Grbic J, Bayoumi M, Borrelle SB, Wu TN, Santoro S, Werbowski LM, Zhu X, Giles RK, Hamilton BM, Thaysen C, Kaura A, Klasios N, Ead L, Kim J, Sherlock C, Ho A, Hung C (2019, Apr) Rethinking microplastics as a diverse contaminant suite. Environ Toxicol Chem 38(4):703–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4371

Rosa F (2018) Europe at crossroads: after the Chinese ban on plastic waste imports, what now? Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2018/02/europe-after-chinese-plastic-ban/

SAPEA (2019) A scientific perspective on microplastics in nature and society

Schmaltz E, Melvin EC, Diana Z, Gunady EF, Rittschof D, Somarelli JA, Virdin J, Dunphy-Daly MM (2020) Plastic pollution solutions: emerging technologies to prevent and collect marine plastic pollution. Environ Int 144:106067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106067

Schnurr REJ, Alboiu V, Chaudhary M, Corbett RA, Quanz ME, Sankar K, Srain HS, Thavarajah V, Xanthos D, Walker TR (2018) Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): a review. Mar Pollut Bull 137:157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.001

Secretariat of the Basel Convention (2019) Basel convention plastic waste amendments. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwaste/PlasticWasteAmendments/Overview/tabid/8426/Default.aspx

Sheavly SB, Register KM (2007) Marine debris & plastics: environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. J Polym Environ 15(4):301–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-007-0074-3

Simon M (2020) Should governments slap a tax on plastic? Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.wired.com/story/should-governments-slap-a-tax-on-plastic/

Stafford R, Jones PJS (2019) Viewpoint – ocean plastic pollution: a convenient but distracting truth? Mar Policy 103:187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.003

Tabuchi H, Corkery M, Mureithi C (2020) Big oil is in trouble. Its plan: flood Africa with plastic. The New York Times. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/climate/oil-kenya-africa-plastics-trade.html

Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, Biesbroek R (2019) A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice. Polic Soc 38(2):167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1617971

Tessnow-von Wysocki I, Le Billon P (2019) Plastics at sea: treaty design for a global solution to marine plastic pollution. Environ Sci Pol 100:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.06.005

The Pew Charitable Trusts, & SYSTEMIQ (2020) Breaking the plastic wave: a comprehensive assessment of pathways towards stopping ocean plastic pollution

Velis C (2017) Waste pickers in Global South: informal recycling sector in a circular economy era. Waste Manag Res 35(4):329–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17702024

Vince J, Hardesty BD (2018) Governance solutions to the tragedy of the commons that marine plastics have become. Front Mar Sci 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00214

Völker C, Kramm J, Wagner M (2020) On the creation of risk: framing of microplastics risks in science and media. Global Chall 4(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900010

World Economic Forum (2020) Plastics, the circular economy and global trade

World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, & McKinsey & Company. (2016). The new plastics economy: Rethinking the future of plastics

Wyles KJ, Pahl S, Holland M, Thompson RC (2017) Can beach cleans do more than clean-up litter? Comparing beach cleans to other coastal activities. Environ Behav 49(5):509–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516649412
Wyles KJ, Pahl S, Carroll L, Thompson RC (2019) An evaluation of the Fishing For Litter (FFL) scheme in the UK in terms of attitudes, behavior, barriers and opportunities. Mar Pollut Bull 144:48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.035

Xanthos D, Walker TR (2017) International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar Pollut Bull 118(1–2):17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02.048

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>
# Index

## A

Analytical chemistry, 17–55

Antibiotic resistance, 9, 312–317

Aquaculture, 6, 89, 131, 134, 139, 144, 201, 262, 273–285, 294–296, 314, 317

Aquatic, 5, 7, 27, 70, 71, 73, 77, 79, 80, 98, 133, 139, 209, 213, 215, 217, 219, 223, 224, 238, 242, 243, 262, 272, 285, 295, 296, 312, 314, 315, 317

Aquatic organisms, 69–80, 160, 210, 217, 242, 272

## B

Basel Convention, 10, 323–330, 340

Biofilm, 6, 28, 35, 36, 43, 44, 48, 71, 73, 78, 312, 314–316

## C

Chemicals, 3, 18, 20, 21, 23, 30, 31, 36, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 70–75, 78, 79, 89, 96, 108, 114, 132, 133, 138, 140, 142, 155–191, 201–209, 211, 232, 239–244, 262, 263, 268–271, 285, 287, 288, 290, 293, 295–298, 316, 337, 341

Cycle, 1–10, 28, 70, 75, 107, 112, 113, 162, 190, 200, 212, 213, 220, 223, 237, 312, 343, 347

## E

Ecosystem, 2–8, 10, 20, 21, 54, 70, 79, 80, 88, 113, 116, 132–134, 139, 200, 201, 204, 212–216, 219, 221–226, 229, 231, 232, 237–239, 241–244, 312, 315, 317, 335, 336, 345

Ecotoxicology, 9, 98, 200, 201, 229, 237, 239

Environmental issues, 337

Experiment, 9, 20, 36, 70–75, 77–80, 161–163, 168, 174, 177, 179–184, 186–188, 202, 204, 209, 238, 241–244

Exposure, 7, 9, 24–27, 30, 38, 43, 52–54, 70–75, 77–80, 92, 93, 109–110, 116, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140–144, 156–164, 166–172, 174, 175, 177, 182–185, 187–191, 202–207, 209–213, 215–220, 222–225, 227–236, 238–244, 262, 263, 268–271, 273, 285–297, 313, 317, 335, 337

Exposure studies, 69–80, 208, 215, 219

## F

Fisheries, 105, 131, 138, 144, 201, 262, 272–285, 294–296

Flux, 2, 4, 10, 112, 115, 163, 164, 166, 177, 179–181, 183, 200

Food security, 7, 115, 131–144, 312

Freshwater, 5–6, 43, 50, 72, 88–90, 96, 98–102, 107–116, 142, 201, 203, 206, 212–217, 219, 220, 222, 225, 227, 228, 230, 232, 234–237, 243, 244, 268, 272, 279, 312
G

Global partnership, 10, 323–330

Governance, 10, 334, 348

H

Human health, 2, 7, 9, 21, 73, 133, 141–144, 200, 201, 262, 263, 287, 312, 325, 335, 338

I

Instrumentation, 17–55

M

Methods, 17–55, 75, 78, 79, 88, 89, 94, 97, 104, 108, 114, 139, 143, 144, 157, 178, 202–207, 217, 230, 237, 273, 295, 314, 315

Microbiology, 231, 317

Microplastics, 1–10, 19–55, 69–80, 88–116, 131–144, 155–191, 200–202, 204, 207–215, 217, 219, 222, 224, 229–232, 236–244, 262, 263, 269, 272–290, 292–299, 311–317, 326, 337

N

Nanoplastics, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 36, 40, 45–48, 53, 54, 91, 94, 141, 143, 201–204, 207–210, 216, 217, 223, 229, 232, 236, 238, 240, 243, 244, 272, 295–297

O

Ocean, 2, 4–8, 49, 88, 89, 99, 111–113, 132, 133, 140, 144, 162–164, 176, 190, 191, 229, 264, 266, 267, 272, 274, 312, 313, 324, 338, 339, 343–345

P

Plastic, 2–10, 17–55, 70, 71, 73, 88, 89, 91–95, 98–100, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112–115, 132, 133, 138–141, 144, 156, 158–165, 168–170, 173, 175–191, 200,

202, 203, 205, 207–213, 215, 217, 219, 222–225, 227, 228, 230, 234, 237–244, 261–272, 285, 287–290, 292–298, 312, 314–316, 323–330, 334–348

Plastosphere, 312–313, 316

Policy, 2, 10, 70, 190, 326, 328, 334, 342, 344, 345

R

Risk assessment, 52, 75, 116, 133, 142–144, 155–191, 201, 212, 232, 237, 242, 294, 295, 297, 317, 337, 347

S

Sampling, 17–55, 88, 89, 103, 104, 106, 107, 111, 114, 135, 139, 143, 157, 264, 267, 273, 274, 278, 284

Seafood, 7, 131–144, 262, 272, 273, 286, 288–291, 293, 296, 312, 313

Soils, 5, 8, 22, 24, 27, 32, 34, 91–94, 97, 99–101, 113, 115, 173, 175, 184, 203, 206, 207, 211, 213, 219, 220, 222–225, 232–237, 239, 241, 243, 244, 315, 340

T

Terrestrial, 4–6, 8, 27, 88–90, 94, 96, 98, 100, 103, 110, 112–116, 138, 142, 200, 201, 206, 212, 213, 215, 219, 220, 222–225, 228, 232, 235, 237, 238, 242–244, 312, 324

V

Vector, 75, 112, 140, 155–191, 205, 225, 239, 241, 263, 268, 294, 297, 314

W

Waste, 2, 4–6, 8, 10, 21, 34, 50, 89, 94, 99, 100, 190, 241, 262, 271, 315, 323–330, 338–343, 345–348

Wicked problems, 334, 335, 348