April 4, 2022 • 46 mins
In this episode of About Sustainability…, Simon and Erin followed up with Andre and IGES colleague Amila Abeynayaka, an expert on plastics management, on some of the recent outcomes from UNEA-5.2, the second part of the fifth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA).
At this year’s UNEA, governments managed to find consensus on 14 decisions and resolutions, and we discussed a couple of these, namely on nature-based solutions (NBS) and on plastics.
First, we discussed the decision on nature-based solutions. We heard Andre’s insights on the concept, where it comes from, what it means and why it may have been difficult to agree on.
Then, Amila discussed with us the much-awaited resolution on ending plastic pollution, which was another important outcome of UNEA 5.2. Apart from the details of the resolution, we also talked about why we are getting such a resolution now, its focus and why it is difficult to get away from plastics entirely.
Throughout our conversation, we discovered that all these issues are interlinked in interesting ways.
Helpful resources:
About our guest:
Amila Abeynayaka is a Policy Researcher in the IGES Centre Collaborating with UNEP on Environmental Technologies (CCET) and part of the Sustainable Consumption and Production team at IGES.
"About Sustainability..." is a podcast brought to you by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), an environmental policy think-tank based in Hayama, Japan. IGES experts are concerned with environmental and sustainability challenges. Everything shared on the podcast will be off-the-cuff discussion, and any viewpoints expressed are those held by the speaker at the time of recording. They are not necessarily official IGES positions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Simon (00:13):
Hello and welcome to this episode
of About Sustainability...
the IGES Podcast.
Today, Erin and I followed upwith André and Amila on some of
the recentoutcomes from UNEA-5.2,
the second partof the fifth United
Nations Environment Assembly.
For a quick review onwhat UNEA is all about,
check out our episode,"What is UNEA-5.2?" At
(00:36):
this year's UNEA,governments managed to find
consensus on 14decisions and resolutions.
We can expect this to move theenvironmental agenda forward
on key issues.
We discussed three of those 14decisions and resolutions.
First, we discussed thedecision on
nature-based solutions.
We heard André's insightson the concept, where it
(00:58):
comes from, what it means,and why it may have been
difficult to agree on.
We then spoke to ourcolleague Amila Abeynayaka,
who is an experton plastic waste.
He told us about the much-awaited resolution on ending
plastic pollution, which wasanother important
outcome of UNEA-5.2.
(01:20):
Apart from the detailsof the resolution, we also
talked about why we are gettingsuch a resolution now,
its focus, and why it isdifficult to get away
from plastics entirely.
Throughout our conversation,we discovered that all these
issues are interlinkedin interesting ways.
Let's check it out.
A few weeks ago or awhile ago, we had a discussion
(01:41):
about the United NationsEnvironment Assembly 5.2,
or UNEA-5.2.
Now that has come and gone,and there has been quite a few
outcomes from the UNEA-5.2 andwe'd like to just
exchange and discuss, or talkabout some of them.
(02:01):
And to do that, today, we haveAmila Abeynayaka.
We have Amila joining ustogether with Erin and André.
And Bob is also therein the background.
And UNEA-5.2 resulted in 14decisions and resolutions,
(02:22):
which is quite a high number.
Among them, we have a decisionon ending plastic pollution and
to worktowards an international,
legally binding instrument.
And then we also have decisionson nature-based solutions.
And so for eachof those decisions - there are
several others, but we justpick a couple of them - we'll
try to explore actually whatwas being proposed,
(02:45):
what happened and why thismatters to the governance of
that particular issue inrelation to the things that we
are already working on.
So why don't we just start withthe one on nature-based
solutions?
André, on nature-based solutions, can you tell
us what are nature-based solutions and, you know,
where does theconcept derive from?
André (03:06):
The concept "nature- based solutions" has been in
the news and in UN discussionsa lot recently, but it dates
back a few years and IUCN,I think, is probably the
organisation that's mostassociated with it.
They've developed a definitionover the years.
That's- IUCN is theInternational Union for
(03:28):
Conservation of Nature.
And I won't be able to giveyou- probably not that helpful
to give you theprecise definition, but it's
basically approachesto management, I guess,
that help both society andnature and that use nature in
some or other way.
So that kind of taps into theecosystem services concept,
(03:49):
that use nature ina particular way to solve
a particular problem.
And I guess one helpful way ofthinking about it is that,
if there's an alternative,if there's a non nature-based
solution to something,then nature-based
solutions are relevant,you know, because then you're
kind of weighing up a nature-based option against an
engineered option or ahuman-made option.
Simon (04:11):
But why do we- I mean, if there are such nature-
based solutions, why aren'tthey just scaled up or used
organically where they are?
I mean, why do we need a UNEAdecision on nature-based
solutions in the first place?
André (04:26):
You know, there has actually been some opposition
to use of the concept,and I think that's part of
the reason why.
And this is notjust in the UNEA context,
but also right now,the subsidiary body meetings to
the CBD [Convention onBiological Diversity] are
ongoing and there's been someopposition there as well and
proposals to, for example,focus on a "Mother
(04:48):
Earth" based approach.
So some of the South Americancountries are more keen on
using something like that.
And there are very slightdifferences in nuance,
the different ways of seeingthings are very subtle.
But I guess the reason forhaving a united approach is
kind of for the purpose ofmaking the concept more widely
(05:10):
accepted and widely known.
You know, f there's oneparticular name that's attached
to it, then it's more likely,or it may be more likely that
it's accepted and used ingovernment plans and
subnational government plansand that kind of thing.
So I guess that's the reasonfor trying to put it
under a banner.
You know, Iguess that everything really
(05:31):
works that way.
You kind of need a brand ofsome kind, and that's the
thinking behind this, as faras I understand.
Erin (05:38):
Quick question
André (05:42):
You know, Bolivia, in particular,
in the CBD meetings, which arethe ones I'm more familiar with
- I'm much less familiar withthe UNEA discussions - but
Bolivia in particular, which isa country where the majority of
the population,the vast majority,
are indigenous peoples andlocal communities, their kind
of approach to biodiversity ismuch more, much more
(06:05):
culturally rooted, I guess,and much more, kind of,
closer to nature.
And I guess furtherfrom the more western way
of seeing things.
And so many of the proposals,this one included, are- they're
kind of, I guess,kind of more culturally rooted.
And so the idea of a more"Mother Earth" based approach
(06:28):
is just, I guess, sort of onethat's less reliant on "Western
science" - that's theterm that's used.
But it really amounts tothe same thing.
You know, I think it's justkind of taking greater
recognition or paying morerecognition to the role of
indigenous and local peoplesand their
relationship with nature.
That's really what itboils down to.
But at the local level,it might differ, but the the
(06:51):
concept is very similar.
Simon (06:53):
I think, Andre, you are also- with that explanation,
you're sort of touching uponwhat may be part of the reason
for why the concept of nature-based solutions has been
contested by some governmentsand some stakeholders, right?
André (07:08):
Yeah, that's right.
Simon (07:10):
It seems there's a difference.
I mean, the stark difference,you could say, is between
viewing something as a "nature-based solution" and then
viewing something as anintrinsic right of
like a motherhood, or-
André (07:22):
Yeah, that's right.
And I think that the idea ofrights and human rights does
come into that discussion,that sort of "Mother Earth"-
more "Mother Earth" baseddiscussion that I mentioned now.
There has been some otheropposition to the concept,
which I think is moreabout the idea that the
alternative term,ecosystem-based approaches,
has been proposed.
I'm not, to be honest, not thatfamiliar with the history of
(07:44):
this discussion, but I thinkthat some countries are just
more used tousing that terminology.
So they might notbe any fundamental difference
in definition, but they're justmore familiar with the
terminology ofecosystem-based approaches.
And there are other terms aswell that are used.
So I think that some countriesare just not comfortable with
the idea of tying down-you know, attaching a permanent
(08:06):
label to theidea, using that "nature-based
solutions" label.
They'd rather just keep it as afreer concept, I guess as you
were alluding to earlier on.
Really.
Simon (08:16):
I see.
And so now here we are with aUNEA-5.2 outcome or decision on
nature-based solutions, but notone on
ecosystem-based approaches.
So it looks like there is anemerging consensus to move
forward with this approach,nature-based solutions.
But right now, it's juston paper, right?
(08:37):
Right now, we have this sort oftacit agreement- international
agreement onnature-based solutions.
It's all good.
But then what do we do now?
How do we take this agreementfrom paper to practice,
to actually see how this canmake a concrete difference to
the general public?
What are the next steps,in your view?
André (08:56):
First of all, maybe just to mention that I think the
main purpose of- at least partof the purpose of the UNEA
discussions were to come upwith a definition.
So the definitionsexisted already, but they were-
they wanted to have one withinthe context of UNEA, I guess.
And they do have that, but it'sstill not available online.
So now, it's several weeksafter the end of UNEA now,
but the final resolution isstill not available online,
(09:18):
so I wasn't able to checkexactly what that was.
Simon (09:21):
You could ponder why there is no final resolution
out on the website.
It could be that there'sstill some, you know - what you
call it - "backroomdiscussions" around how set in
stone this really is.
André (09:32):
As far as I know, the reason for the resolutions
not being available on thewebsite yet has nothing to do
with the content.
I think that's already beenagreed on at the end of
the meeting,if I understand correctly.
But it's more just a case ofgetting the documents up,
I think.
I assume that it's purely justan administrative issue,
(09:52):
that the actual text was agreedon at the meeting itself.
So as far asI know, that's the case.
But the real specifics of thedefinition is one thing,
but the concept itselfis a fairly simple one.
And it's really just acase of, as I was
saying earlier, nature beingused as a way of achieving
objectives for both societyand for nature.
(10:13):
And I actually mentioned inan earlier podcast,
the ecosystem-based adaptationsort of group of solutions as
being a subset of those.
And I gave examples likemangroves protecting coastlines
from coastal surges, and thatkind of thing.
So there's, there's awhole long, long list of those.
But I think to get back to yourquestion about, you know,
(10:34):
the reason for having this thisdefinition and how to take it
from resolution to action,I think this goes back to what
I was saying about nature-basedsolutions being sort of a brand.
You know, I thinkthat it's a case of
having something which, at thishigh level - this UN level
- is known, so the Partiesbecome familiar with the term -
(10:55):
countries become familiarwith the term,
and implementation agencies,and NGOs and all the rest of it
become familiar with nature-based solutions as a term and
therefore are more likely toconsider it in their planning,
their sort of area-wideplanning and not
just on biodiversity,but across sustainability
issues andacross development issues.
So I think that, you know,that kind of applies almost
(11:17):
everything at this level,I think.
But I think it is relevant tothe nature-based solutions
discussion as well.
Erin (11:24):
So kind of backtracking a little bit, what did they
actually decide at UNEA withrespect to nature-based
solutions?
Was it a common definition onlyor was it like the recognition
of nature-basedsolutions as solutions, or...?
I'm a bit confused about that.
André (11:43):
Yeah, no, it was- there were a few things.
Some of the things reported onthat kind of stood out were the
proposal to compile examples ofbest practices of
nature-based solutions.
And this is also somethingthat's been done in the past,
but perhaps notunder the banner of
nature-based solutions.
And this is aimedat countries, right?
So at the country level.
There are internationalexamples of that having
(12:04):
been done already, but I thinkthe proposal is aimed at
the Parties themselves.
And then, of course, there wasthe definition- coming up with
the definition.
Specifically, there wassomething on identifying
options for supportingsustainable investments in
nature-based solutions.
And then there was alsosomething on assessing existing
and new proposals and criteriaand standards and guidelines
(12:28):
with a view to reaching acommon understanding among
Member States for theimplementation of
nature-based solutions.
Simon (12:35):
So hang on.
So actually, the way that thiscould be understood -
especially the last part thatyou just quoted from the
decision document - it couldsort of be understood as - okay.
Even though the internationalcommunity has a consensus on
what "nature-basedsolutions" means, there's still
sort of a halfway open door forcontinuing to contribute to
(12:57):
refine that definition.
That's almost what it soundslike to me, anyway.
André (13:01):
Yeah, I think that's quite possible.
And there's also this issue ofthe term being used
in different fora.
You know, I was talking aboutthe CBD meetings earlier on.
CBD is separate to UNEA and thediscussions take note of
each other, but they mightnot align perfectly.
So we'll see what comes out ofthe CBD discussions- they're
not looking at a definition ofnature-based solutions, but the
(13:24):
topic is coming up a lot,so it'll be interesting to see
how that goes andhow the UNEA definition
affects those discussions.
Erin (13:31):
You mentioned earlier that it's about kind of
branding nature-based solutions,and that's one
of the consequences of the UNEAresolution at this point.
But I guess it's important tothink about what this means for
people actually workingon these issues.
Are there any impacts?
(13:52):
Are there any, I guess,consequences for people
actually working on the ground?
André (13:57):
As far as what it means for people on the ground,
I think that, you know,my speculation about it being a
bit of a branding exercise- andI don't mean that in
a negative way, sometimes thatthe word is considered
negatively- For people on theground, I think often
what this means is thatit's a recognisable term that,
for example, if an organisationor some of the implementing
(14:18):
agency is looking for fundingand they refer to nature-
based solutions, it helps a lotif the funding agency
recognises the term and alsorecognises the term as
something which was importantenough to discuss at a recent
UN meeting or UN meetingsin this case.
So I think that'sone important thing.
And then also sort of from apublic communication point of
(14:40):
view - a mainstream point ofview - having a term
like that, even if people don'thave a detailed understanding
of it, it kind ofbrings together, you know,
different groups ofunderstandings - the public
understanding and the politicalunderstanding and the
implementingagencies' understanding.
If everyone has roughly thesame idea of what they're
talking about, then it can - itcan help a lot with planning
(15:03):
and implementing anythingrelated to those concepts.
And this is agood example - this nature-
based solutions concept.
Erin (15:09):
That makes sense.
Simon (15:10):
So Andre, I keep thinking about whether fishing
or fisheries- Is that actuallya nature-based solution?
Like I keep tryingto simplify because- okay, you,
you interact with nature or youget something from nature that
supports your family or society.
So, okay, so fisheries,that's- that must be a
nature-based solution.
Why is it not or why is it?
André (15:30):
Yeah, I think this is the- this is something which
I've only very recently startedtrying to grapple with myself.
There's an interestingcrossover and overlap and also
a difference between nature-based solutions on the one hand
and the ecosystem services onthe other hand.
So ecosystem services,which we've discussed before on
the podcast - that describeswhat nature does for us.
It's the functions of naturethat are useful to
(15:51):
human beings, right?
And there's a huge amount ofoverlap between that and nature-
based solutions, but they'renot the same thing.
So nature-based solutions isusing nature to solve
a problem, basically.
You know?
So, I mean, if the problem isthe fact that human beings need
to eat, thenfisheries is certainly a
nature-based solution.
But there's no real alternative.
(16:12):
I mean, all food is nature-based in some way or another.
It's easier to understand whatnature-based solutions are when
there is an engineeredor a non-native based
alternative to it.
In the case of fisheries,it's a little bit difficult
to imagine that.
I'm also tempted to comparewild-caught fisheries with
aquaculture in a case like this.
But again, I'm not quite surehow you bring the nature-based
(16:35):
solutions discussion into it,because if, again, if the fact
that human beings need to eatis the problem to be solved,
and if the two options are wildcaught fisheries
or aquaculture...
This is aninteresting one because,
thanks to recenttechnological advances,
aquaculture is becoming themore sustainable option there.
Wild caught fisheries is veryplainly unsustainable and it's
(16:57):
one of the greatest ecologicalproblems that we have
at the moment.
Very recently, just in the pastdecade or two, aquaculture has
become efficient enough andtechnologically advanced enough
to be more sustainablealternative to
wild caught fisheries.
Simon (17:13):
Right.
André (17:14):
Exactly how that relates to nature-based solutions
depends on how youview the problem.
Simon (17:18):
But I guess maybe sort of the the sustainability angle
could figure quite strongly.
I mean, whatever it is that youderive from nature to tackle
a problem, whether that problemis hunger or its flooding,
it's okay thatit's engineered, but it's
nature based and itshould be sustainable.
Like if you just go trawlingand you completely exhaust-
André (17:39):
Ah, right.
Yes.
For the basic definition ofnature-based solutions,
there are solutions thatbenefit both nature and
human beings, right?
So in that sense, no.
Going back to thatbasic definition, wild caught
fisheries don't benefitnature very much.
They benefit people in theshort term and medium term,
but they don't benefitnature very much.
So, yeah.
So in that sense, wild caughtfisheries are not really a
(18:02):
nature-based solution.
They're almost theopposite of one.
Simon (18:04):
Okay, great.
So thank you.
So I just wanted to ask onemore thing maybe on this issue
before we move on.
That's- if you cansay anything, Andre, about IGES
work on nature-based solutionsand what this outcome may mean
for going forwardwith IGES work.
André (18:19):
Yeah, there are a couple of projects that IGES is
working on now.
So one of themis compiling, as the resolution
suggests or requests,compiling a set of case studies
on nature-based solutions.
And the other one is actuallydrawing from that same study to
inform the Asian Parks Congresson a set of nature-based
(18:43):
solutions related to protectedareas and other effective area-
basedconservation measures (OECMs).
So there's twoongoing projects, both in
fairly early stages that arevery closely or very explicitly
related to that.
And then, in other ways,many of the other things that
we do are related, butin a less explicit way.
Simon (19:02):
Thank you, Andre.
And let's move on to anotheroutcome which was highlighted
as being the biggest outcomeof UNEA-5.2, compared to the
Paris Agreement on climatechange back in 2015.
And that is the decision to endplastic pollution or - I don't
know the exact phrasing ofthe title, but we have with
(19:22):
us Amila here.
And please, could you tell uswhat happened on plastic
pollution at UNEA-5.2?
Amila (19:28):
Yes, like, out of those 14 resolutions passed
this time, the plasticpollution resolution [was]
highlighted and received mediacoverage and attention.
And I would say, in summary,at this time, what happened was
that the heads of states,ministers and other
(19:49):
representatives from 175 UNMember States have endorsed the
evolution - so what we call the"plastic pollution resolution"
to address the full lifecycleof plastics, which includes the
three mainstages production, consumption
and disposal stages,covering all the environmental
(20:10):
compartments and not onlylimiting to the marine litter,
but also the airand terrestrial environments.
So that has been passed.
However, we would like- maybewe can a little bit think
[about how it started].
So before UNEA-5.2,there were two alternative
draft proposals.
Simon (20:30):
Okay.
Amila (20:31):
So one came from Peru and Rwanda, and there were
so many co-sponsors,including UN [Member] States
and other countries.
It calls the establishing anIntergovernmental
Negotiation Committee, which wecall INC, for a new global
agreement on the full lifecycleof plastics, based on this
(20:53):
comprehensive approach toprevent the reduction of
environmental pollutionby plastics,
including microplastics.
Simon (21:01):
Uh-huh.
Amila (21:02):
And the second one came sponsored by Japan.
Here, also theycall [for] INC, with the
mandate to prepare aninternational legal instrument
to addressmarine plastic pollution.
So here, the highlight is themarine plastic pollution,
by takinginto account respective
(21:22):
national circumstances.
Simon (21:24):
So as you are explaining, they were
quite similar, but someof the differences related to
addressing primarily the marineaspect as the Japanese proposal
and then maybe more the fulllifecycle as was the Rwanda
and Peru's proposal.
Was that it?
Amila (21:41):
Yeah, Rwanda and Peru's proposal- So they also focus on
the lifecycle and Japaneseproposal also focus on
the full lifecycle.
But the main difference isthe environmental compartment.
So they try to cover the whole-the land and marine and
the other compartments.
The one reason I see,a developed country usually has
(22:06):
developed infrastructurefor waste management.
So in that kind of situation,there maybe not that much land
pollution by plastics.
So their main concern may be-
Simon (22:19):
Oceans.
Amila (22:20):
Yeah, oceans, because the pollution
from any country can reach theother country because it's
a transboundary issue.
Simon (22:28):
Right.
Amila (22:29):
But in the case of a developing country or some
geographical regions, the wastemanagement infrastructure may
be not that developed.
So in that kind of situation,what we know at the moment [is
that] huge amounts of plasticland dump or maybe burned
- uncontrolled burn.
So in such kindof situation, pollution is not
(22:51):
limited to marine.
So more like land pollutionand air pollution.
So in that case, I feel the wecan understand that proposal
requesting to cover the landand the other compartments.
That's my understanding.
Simon (23:07):
Thank you for the explanation.
That clarified things, and italso sounds very logical.
I heard actually that, in thevery last minute there was a
third proposal on adecision to end or to
tackle plastic pollution.
And that came from India.
So it seems that the landscapebecame quite crowded and there
was a lot ofinterest to do something
(23:27):
about plastic pollution.
Amila (23:29):
Yeah, of course.
Yes, yes.
And also, like beforethese proposals,
like, there were some doubts,like some countries maybe not
agreeing to the resolutions.
Kind of.
There was some doubt.
And same time, like, I alsothink that the Indian proposal
on that recycling, kind of.
So that's very interestingand very positive.
André (23:50):
Amila, kind of a double- barrelled question
that familiar withthe resolution, but I
understand that there is eventhough pollution- plastic
pollution ingeneral is discussed,
there's still a focuson marine pollution.
So the first question is,is that the case?
Is there- is there a focus onmarine plastic pollution?
And then secondly, and relatedto that, do you think that a
(24:13):
focus on marine pollution ispartly because it's a
transboundary issue, you know,in that one one country's
pollution can beanother country's problem.
Do you think that comes into itin quite a big way?
Amila (24:25):
Yeah, of course.
Again, maybe likemy understanding is, like,
let's say the point of view[of] any country despite the
development(developed or developing),
marinepollution is transboundary.
So we need intergovernmentnegotiating committee.
It's necessary to addressbecause even though one country
(24:47):
take the measures,maybe another country will be
not taking the measures.
So then it affects everybody.
That point I can understand.
And same time, like if you gofor a non-island nation and
living like with so manyterrestrial boundaries and
large riverscrossing the countries
[that are] transboundary...
(25:08):
So in that kind of situation,maybe limiting to marine
pollution only is not enough.
And so we need to think aboutthe land pollution and the
burning of plastics - [those]kind of other issues as well.
André (25:23):
Can I also just ask about microplastics?
That was like a big deal a fewyears ago and it seems- I
don't know, I haven't beenfollowing the issue
very closely, but it seems tohave died down a little bit.
But how much are nanoplasticsor microplastics being
discussed as partof this discussion?
Amila (25:40):
Yeah, actually in the first proposal,
microplastics [were]also highlighted, and then the
outcome alsohighlights the microplastics.
Maybe I don't completely agreewith what you mentioned.
Maybe a few years ago, yes,of course, there was very high
(26:00):
concern on microplastics,especially focusing on
the marine environment.
So the scientists are measuringand citizen science and
everybody are discussing aboutmarine microplastics, but then
slowly moves to the rivers andthen now people are discussing
and scientists are working onterrestrial microplastics and
(26:23):
the microplastics in food andhow it impacts the agriculture
and the human health.
Two years ago,even the WHO- so their
report has mentioned,still there is not enough
evidence to prove the impacton human health.
But now there are scientificevidence that the human health
(26:46):
also can be affected.
So I think the people nowalready realise [that] the
pollution is there and nowslowly moving to more advanced
studies - how to quantifythe impact and,
like, the dose relationships.
It's like morescientific studies, maybe.
So that's thesituation at the moment
(27:08):
related to microplastics.
André (27:08):
Okay.
Simon (27:09):
I just wanted to add one small comment on this
distinction between the land-based and marine plastic.
I guess, also, this decision -that it now affects sort of the
whole life cycle, as youmentioned in the
beginning - Amila, you said,to address air and terrestrial
and oceans in terms of wherethe plastic was or is - that
(27:30):
also gives you a leverage toactually do something to reduce
the plastic that isproduced in the first place,
because that's- that's where welook at the land-based sources
of plastic pollution.
Amila (27:41):
Yes, of course, Simon.
The resolution also highlightsthe full lifecycle.
It means the very importantstage: the production stage.
And not onlythat: the stakeholders.
And stakeholder importance,which includes
the important sector,the producers, and
finding alternative solutions.
(28:02):
And this means not onlymanaging the waste,
but controllingthe production, plus finding
alternatives and thecircular economy approach.
Like how- even though sometimesmaybe the plastic is single-use
- but how it can be reused forother purposes or upgrade and
(28:24):
use for another purpose andmaybe repairing the plastics
and increasing the lifespan -[that] kind of stuff [are] also
mentioned in the resolution.
Simon (28:36):
Yeah, because plastic is everywhere, right?
I mean, many parts of oursociety rely on plastic
products or plastic-typeproducts and not all of them
are ones that we can justquickly get away from.
Is it?
Amila (28:47):
Yeah, exactly, I totally agree with you.
On one hand, like the humanhabits - so it's difficult to
get rid of andplus the alternatives.
So we needto think about alternatives,
whether they are worsefor the environment than the
original plastic product.
For example, like, if we triedto replace plastic straws with
(29:09):
plant based one, maybe thenumber of trees or that kind
of important plant...
So we need to removefrom the planet to produce the
replacement for the plastic andmaybe, at the end,
maybe leaking to theenvironment and creating
nitrogen-based pollution,which causes eutrophication.
So...
(29:29):
And maybe increase the climatechange and emissions.
So we have to think not onlythe plastic lifecycle, but also
the lifecycle impacts ofplastics and alternative
products to findthe better solutions.
Erin (29:43):
Amila, just on the topic of alternative products.
I've been seeing, at least inthe last ten years or so,
like this rise in so-calledbiodegradable plastics.
And I don't know if these areactually plastics or these are
something else, but are theyrelevant to this resolution?
And I mean, first of all,what are they, and if you can
(30:06):
tell us anything about,you know, whether these are
viable alternatives,that'll be great.
Amila (30:11):
Yeah.
So on the topic ofbiodegradable plastics, I would
just bring inwhat is bioplastics.
So bioplastics, I wouldlike to divide it into
four components.
So based on the raw materialand another one is based
on the biodegradability.
So first of all, plastics,there are basically two types.
(30:34):
The first one is fossil fuel-based raw materials, and the
raw material is bio-based raw materials.
So if something comes fromfossil fuel-based [materials],
plus if it isnot biodegradable, we call
it "conventional plastics".
And sometimes the sourceis fossil fuels,
but it is biodegradable.
(30:55):
So then it's akind of bioplastic and
it is biodegradable.
But the"biodegradable" term also,
I will define later.
So but first,let me clarify bioplastics
and unconventional plastics.
Then there are some rawmaterials like starch,
corn starch - So thenthe raw material is bio-
(31:15):
based polymers, so then itis also bioplastic.
But some- suchkind of bioplastics
are not biodegradable.
So then it is non-biodegradablebut bio-based.
Erin (31:26):
Okay.
Amila (31:27):
Then some of those bio-based plastics
are biodegradable, then theyare bio-
based biodegradable plastics.
Erin (31:35):
Okay.
Amila (31:35):
Okay.
Then the important part,the biodegradability.
So, some biodegradable plasticsare biodegradable in natural
conditionsor ambient conditions.
But some biodegradable plasticsneed special conditions like
special microorganisms orelevated temperature or kind of
(31:58):
special environmental conditionsto biologically degrade.
So this is very interesting andsome researchers found negative
points on so-called biodegradable plastics, like maybe
initially degrades tomicroplastic size, but then
maybe remain in the environmentfor a bit longer period.
Erin (32:20):
Oh my gosh.
Okay.
Amila (32:21):
But there are some biodegradable plastics which
degrade and become compost.
So then suchkind of bioplastics maybe
a better solution.
Simon (32:31):
That sounds very complex, right?
And I mean, if you thinkabout it, if we can imagine in
our supply chain of usingplastic in our society, I can
imagine we have all differentkinds of plastics out there,
some of which are bioplasticsand conventional ones and bio-
based and biodegradable.
And after we use them,they all become mixed up in
a colorful bunch.
(32:52):
And I could imagine that thatwould be a big headache in
terms of how you manage thosedifferent kinds of plastics.
Amila (32:58):
Yeah, indeed.
Indeed, Simon.
Like, some countries sometimesjust introduce alternative bio
degradable plastics, but theydon't have necessary facilities
to measure the compositionof those materials.
So that's one issue.
So often it is mixed with somemore toxic or harmful chemicals
and also some don't have theend-of-life treatment methods
(33:23):
to tackle all the sourceseparation and to
handle these bioplastics,then it becomes more trouble in
the recycling systems, like ifthe fossil fuel-based plastics
- with some items which can berecycled - if it is mixed with
biodegradable plastics, then itbecomes more trouble.
Yeah, and also therecycling codes, like there are
(33:44):
seven numbers at themoment - so it
doesn't define bioplastics.
So there is a discussion thatthey should use number seven
or another category.
I totally agree with you.
André (33:56):
Amila, would it be difficult to switch to purely
biodegradable plastics?
You know, I mean, the obviousthing to do, knowing that the-
I mean, the trulybiodegradable plastics, not the
ones that become microplasticsand then persist, but the ones
that are truly biodegradable,whether they're fossil fuel
based or not.
You know, why can'twe just switch to those?
(34:17):
Are they more expensive or isthe technology not ready yet or-
Amila (34:20):
There are so many concerns.
So maybe I will try tohighlight a few of those.
So one may be theplastic industry technology.
So let's say if youhave a single use plastic bag
(fossil fuel-based,non-biodegradable).
So the thickness and thestrength and the flexibility
properties for packaging.
(34:41):
So those [properties] may besometimes difficult to achieve
with onlyusing biodegradable plastic.
So for certain cases,of course, yes, [they] can
be replaced,but sometimes it's difficult.
And maybe, when youwant to improve the properties,
then you need to addmaybe some chemicals, which may
(35:02):
be more harmful.
So that's another concern.
And then, the authoritiesshould have enough facilities
to monitor and measure andevaluate those new materials.
So that's another challenge.
And that's one side-the technological issues.
Another one is, let's say,biodegradable plastic made from
(35:23):
bio-based materials.
Then how much corn, fields -which can feed people or the
animals - need to [be] divertedinto produc[ing] biodegradable
plastics?
So that's another concern.
André (35:35):
Right.
Opportunity cost, basically.
Yeah.
Simon (35:37):
I hear that we are actually quickly getting into a
very interesting but also avery complex discussion around
plastics and how it reallypermeates our society and how
tricky it will be tofind some solutions.
I think nuance is, again,also a key word here.
Just to try to pull ourdiscussion just a little bit
back to actually the UNEA-5.2outcome: I wanted to ask you
(36:01):
of your opinion.
Amila, how come countries couldactually agree on this?
Because if you want to compareto other recent success stories
and the environment recently,maybe we have
the Paris agreement, but otherthan that, it's been in dire
straits and it's been difficult.
How come governments couldagree on something like this?
Amila (36:22):
Yeah.
It's kind of - as a personresearching and working on the
field - Yeah, I'm kind of happyabout that achievement.
But same time to understand howthese become successful,
maybe we need tounderstand the process,
maybe during the last decade.
So maybe there were activitiesin the global level,
(36:43):
regional level,and national level.
And if you go to 2012, the UNGlobal Partnership on Marine
Litter and then 2014,as I remember, the UN
Environment Assembly resolutionon marine
litter and microplastics;and 2015 G7 Action Plan;
(37:04):
and 2017 the G20 Marine ActionPlan on Marine Litter and the
Ocean Plastic Charter...
Of course, the 2019 BaselConvention amendment to control
transboundary movementof plastic waste.
And also then if you go to theregional level, I think you're
well aware that ASEAN RegionalFramework on Action on Marine
(37:27):
Debris and also theAsia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Roadmap on MarineDebris and also Caribbean
community to address theplastic pollution and also
the national plans.
So many national action plans,which we were also working on,
several [of them] likeIndonesia and Sri Lanka.
So those also kindof- so many activities during
(37:47):
the past decade.
But I would not onlyhighlight that governing
body level, but in the ground,citizen science and the
big data, new dimensions, alsovery effectively contributed.
People sampling microplastics -the citizens - and collect the
ocean clean-up,the beach clean-up,
(38:08):
and counting and reportingthrough the mobile labs.
So for much of what we had likepublic awareness and the
pressure on the globalcompanies and are leaders,
national leaders.
So I think thismade more aware[ness].
And also on the other hand,the scientists: they were
(38:30):
providing evidence [of]microplastics getting into fish.
Okay, it can come toyou so it's effecting you.
And the fishermen also startedto see their fishing stocks,
so they question why.
So maybe they think, okay,maybe it has some relation with
microplastics.
Yeah.
And also what I want to say isthat it's not only certain
(38:53):
geographic regions - like eventhe richest man may be worried
about the quality ofsashimi or sushi.
So-
Simon (39:01):
That's an interesting point.
Amila (39:02):
Yeah.
So I think the combination ofboth across the global level
maybe bring a lot ofenergy to make this successful.
Simon (39:11):
Right.
So you're saying, okay, so therehas been both sort of
official level with allkinds of governmental,
inter-governmental at variousregional levels, but also from
citizens and from science andfrom all angles.
Things have been gearingup to finally do
something on plastics.
All the while, probably in thelast ten years, this problem
(39:32):
has just become moreand more visible and more
and more compounded.
So...
So it's almostimpossible to ignore.
Amila (39:38):
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly, Simon.
And also, like, maybe eventhough I saw some plastics or
microplastics when I open orcut into a fish, I will not
give my attention that much ifI think as a public citizen,
unless I have seen it in socialmedia or public media or
(39:59):
somebody talked [about it].
Then I realise.
So awareness also played avery important role.
Simon (40:05):
Wow.
So that's great.
So that's really interesting.
We can hopefully learn somelessons on what has been
happening to hopefully takeaction on the
plastics problem, to maybe alsotackle other problems that are-
that we are facing with regardsto the environment.
I wanted to ask just what'shappening at IGES in relation
to plastic waste and plasticpollution and what will the
(40:28):
creation of this intergovernmental negotiation
committee - what willthat mean for IGES' work?
Amila (40:35):
IGES was working a lot in the waste sector over,
I think, about two decades.
However, plastics became a hottopic maybe since the last five
years and IGES hasengaged in so many activities.
From IGES' side.
I see it's a reallypositive set up.
(40:56):
On one hand, the SCP ([IGES'sustainable consumption and
production team]) is theremainly to work on the plastic-
related scope, but the waterand adaptation [team],
biodiversity [team],climate change [team]...
because we know the issueincludes plastic burning plus
impacts on biodiversity and themicroplastics in water...
(41:16):
So many interconnected fieldsso IGES has a lot of the
strength to tackle ina holistic way.
So that's I think the setup in IGES is really positive.
And if you go to, in detail,the projects: previously, a lot
of UN agencies-attachedprojects IGES was
working and now, we consider-we are in several panels,
(41:41):
the G20 working [group] andERIA and ASEAN region, and also
currently we are working onPlastic Waste Management Action
Plan for Cambodia.
And recently the SriLankan National Action Plan has
been launched and now thefollow up activities, which I
am also engaging, and IndonesiaNational Action Plan and the
(42:05):
Myanmar National Action Plan...
So so many national actionplans [IGES is involved in].
And not only that, the regionaland global level committees
that IGES is representing.
And I really see the engagementis high and the impact of this
resolution is also,I see as positive.
The local or nationalgovernments - so
(42:27):
they already agreed, so thenthey need support in the policy
advice and infrastructure andthe bringing the stakeholders
and the technology so that's[where] IGES can really support.
André (42:44):
Amila, are there other multilateral environmental
agreements that dealwith this issue?
Like, you know, in the case ofnature-based solutions,
there is an entire conventiondedicated to issues like this,
and then they are alsocovered by UNEA.
So is that the case withplastic pollution as well?
Is that- is there a conventionthat deals specifically with
that or is it only at UNEA thatthis issue is discussed at
(43:07):
this level?
Amila (43:08):
In the context of plastic pollution, like there
are several working groups orassemblies - for example,
like the UNEP Basel Conventionis working their own 2019
amendments on plastic waste.
So there are ongoing projectson that and several governments
and regions workingtogether with them.
(43:30):
And sometimes I see the GlobalPartnership on Marine
Litter (GPML), so they havetheir own working group and
connecting with governments...
So it's also atthe global level.
And there is another one calledUNEP Life Cycle Initiative.
They are trying to quantify theimpact of marine plastics in
(43:51):
the lifecycle assessments,which need a
global wide collaboration.
However, like we can see thoseare like a certain area- so
they are covering certain areas.
However, this treaty tried tobring all the stakeholders and
the full lifecycle and not onlymarine - including the
(44:13):
land and air.
So that'squite significant, André.
André (44:20):
Okay.
Simon (44:20):
It's great.
What this illustrates is,there are several existing
initiatives out there thatcommit the plastic and
chemicals problem fromdifferent angles, including,
for example, also the voluntaryinitiatives such as the Osaka
Blue Ocean Vision and so on.
But I guess the aim with thisglobal treaty is to become some
sort of umbrella treaty thatthat covers all of it.
(44:43):
But the challenge will,of course, be to not cause
major redundancies and overlaps,but to make the
landscape more easy to navigatefor all the actors that are
relevant forthe plastic problem.
Amila (44:54):
Yeah.
And I think, André, like evennature-based solutions also can
be some part ofsolving plastic issues - like,
that's also included.
And the chemical sector also,like, because plastics include
chemical fillers and propertychanges for the improvements.
So the significance is,like Simon mentioned,
(45:15):
the previous resolutionsand previous treaties,
actions organised like workinggroups touch certain parts of
the plastic pollution,some maybe marine pollution or
some may be chemical componentsor maybe alternatives,
like nature-based solutions.
But this resolutionbring everybody into one
umbrella on the topicof plastic pollution,
(45:36):
considering all theenvironmental compartments and
the full lifecycle of plastics.
Simon (45:43):
We are barely beginning to scratch the surface on what
is happening on plastics andwhat we might be expecting to
be happening over the course ofthe next many months as the
governments negotiate thistreaty on plastic pollution.
Maybe we should revisit theissue of plastic pollution more
generally and also ask morein-depth questions on what
(46:06):
IGES is doing.
Well, thank you verymuch, Amila.
Amila (46:08):
Thank you so much.
Hello and welcome to this episode
of About Sustainability...
the IGES Podcast.
Today, Erin and I followed upwith André and Amila on some of
the recentoutcomes from UNEA-5.2,
the second partof the fifth United
Nations Environment Assembly.
For a quick review onwhat UNEA is all about,
check out our episode,"What is UNEA-5.2?" At
(00:36):
this year's UNEA,governments managed to find
consensus on 14decisions and resolutions.
We can expect this to move theenvironmental agenda forward
on key issues.
We discussed three of those 14decisions and resolutions.
First, we discussed thedecision on
nature-based solutions.
We heard André's insightson the concept, where it
(00:58):
comes from, what it means,and why it may have been
difficult to agree on.
We then spoke to ourcolleague Amila Abeynayaka,
who is an experton plastic waste.
He told us about the much-awaited resolution on ending
plastic pollution, which wasanother important
outcome of UNEA-5.2.
(01:20):
Apart from the detailsof the resolution, we also
talked about why we are gettingsuch a resolution now,
its focus, and why it isdifficult to get away
from plastics entirely.
Throughout our conversation,we discovered that all these
issues are interlinkedin interesting ways.
Let's check it out.
A few weeks ago or awhile ago, we had a discussion
(01:41):
about the United NationsEnvironment Assembly 5.2,
or UNEA-5.2.
Now that has come and gone,and there has been quite a few
outcomes from the UNEA-5.2 andwe'd like to just
exchange and discuss, or talkabout some of them.
(02:01):
And to do that, today, we haveAmila Abeynayaka.
We have Amila joining ustogether with Erin and André.
And Bob is also therein the background.
And UNEA-5.2 resulted in 14decisions and resolutions,
(02:22):
which is quite a high number.
Among them, we have a decisionon ending plastic pollution and
to worktowards an international,
legally binding instrument.
And then we also have decisionson nature-based solutions.
And so for eachof those decisions - there are
several others, but we justpick a couple of them - we'll
try to explore actually whatwas being proposed,
(02:45):
what happened and why thismatters to the governance of
that particular issue inrelation to the things that we
are already working on.
So why don't we just start withthe one on nature-based
solutions?
André, on nature-based solutions, can you tell
us what are nature-based solutions and, you know,
where does theconcept derive from?
André (03:06):
The concept "nature- based solutions" has been in
the news and in UN discussionsa lot recently, but it dates
back a few years and IUCN,I think, is probably the
organisation that's mostassociated with it.
They've developed a definitionover the years.
That's- IUCN is theInternational Union for
(03:28):
Conservation of Nature.
And I won't be able to giveyou- probably not that helpful
to give you theprecise definition, but it's
basically approachesto management, I guess,
that help both society andnature and that use nature in
some or other way.
So that kind of taps into theecosystem services concept,
(03:49):
that use nature ina particular way to solve
a particular problem.
And I guess one helpful way ofthinking about it is that,
if there's an alternative,if there's a non nature-based
solution to something,then nature-based
solutions are relevant,you know, because then you're
kind of weighing up a nature-based option against an
engineered option or ahuman-made option.
Simon (04:11):
But why do we- I mean, if there are such nature-
based solutions, why aren'tthey just scaled up or used
organically where they are?
I mean, why do we need a UNEAdecision on nature-based
solutions in the first place?
André (04:26):
You know, there has actually been some opposition
to use of the concept,and I think that's part of
the reason why.
And this is notjust in the UNEA context,
but also right now,the subsidiary body meetings to
the CBD [Convention onBiological Diversity] are
ongoing and there's been someopposition there as well and
proposals to, for example,focus on a "Mother
(04:48):
Earth" based approach.
So some of the South Americancountries are more keen on
using something like that.
And there are very slightdifferences in nuance,
the different ways of seeingthings are very subtle.
But I guess the reason forhaving a united approach is
kind of for the purpose ofmaking the concept more widely
(05:10):
accepted and widely known.
You know, f there's oneparticular name that's attached
to it, then it's more likely,or it may be more likely that
it's accepted and used ingovernment plans and
subnational government plansand that kind of thing.
So I guess that's the reasonfor trying to put it
under a banner.
You know, Iguess that everything really
(05:31):
works that way.
You kind of need a brand ofsome kind, and that's the
thinking behind this, as faras I understand.
Erin (05:38):
Quick question
André (05:42):
You know, Bolivia, in particular,
in the CBD meetings, which arethe ones I'm more familiar with
- I'm much less familiar withthe UNEA discussions - but
Bolivia in particular, which isa country where the majority of
the population,the vast majority,
are indigenous peoples andlocal communities, their kind
of approach to biodiversity ismuch more, much more
(06:05):
culturally rooted, I guess,and much more, kind of,
closer to nature.
And I guess furtherfrom the more western way
of seeing things.
And so many of the proposals,this one included, are- they're
kind of, I guess,kind of more culturally rooted.
And so the idea of a more"Mother Earth" based approach
(06:28):
is just, I guess, sort of onethat's less reliant on "Western
science" - that's theterm that's used.
But it really amounts tothe same thing.
You know, I think it's justkind of taking greater
recognition or paying morerecognition to the role of
indigenous and local peoplesand their
relationship with nature.
That's really what itboils down to.
But at the local level,it might differ, but the the
(06:51):
concept is very similar.
Simon (06:53):
I think, Andre, you are also- with that explanation,
you're sort of touching uponwhat may be part of the reason
for why the concept of nature-based solutions has been
contested by some governmentsand some stakeholders, right?
André (07:08):
Yeah, that's right.
Simon (07:10):
It seems there's a difference.
I mean, the stark difference,you could say, is between
viewing something as a "nature-based solution" and then
viewing something as anintrinsic right of
like a motherhood, or-
André (07:22):
Yeah, that's right.
And I think that the idea ofrights and human rights does
come into that discussion,that sort of "Mother Earth"-
more "Mother Earth" baseddiscussion that I mentioned now.
There has been some otheropposition to the concept,
which I think is moreabout the idea that the
alternative term,ecosystem-based approaches,
has been proposed.
I'm not, to be honest, not thatfamiliar with the history of
(07:44):
this discussion, but I thinkthat some countries are just
more used tousing that terminology.
So they might notbe any fundamental difference
in definition, but they're justmore familiar with the
terminology ofecosystem-based approaches.
And there are other terms aswell that are used.
So I think that some countriesare just not comfortable with
the idea of tying down-you know, attaching a permanent
(08:06):
label to theidea, using that "nature-based
solutions" label.
They'd rather just keep it as afreer concept, I guess as you
were alluding to earlier on.
Really.
Simon (08:16):
I see.
And so now here we are with aUNEA-5.2 outcome or decision on
nature-based solutions, but notone on
ecosystem-based approaches.
So it looks like there is anemerging consensus to move
forward with this approach,nature-based solutions.
But right now, it's juston paper, right?
(08:37):
Right now, we have this sort oftacit agreement- international
agreement onnature-based solutions.
It's all good.
But then what do we do now?
How do we take this agreementfrom paper to practice,
to actually see how this canmake a concrete difference to
the general public?
What are the next steps,in your view?
André (08:56):
First of all, maybe just to mention that I think the
main purpose of- at least partof the purpose of the UNEA
discussions were to come upwith a definition.
So the definitionsexisted already, but they were-
they wanted to have one withinthe context of UNEA, I guess.
And they do have that, but it'sstill not available online.
So now, it's several weeksafter the end of UNEA now,
but the final resolution isstill not available online,
(09:18):
so I wasn't able to checkexactly what that was.
Simon (09:21):
You could ponder why there is no final resolution
out on the website.
It could be that there'sstill some, you know - what you
call it - "backroomdiscussions" around how set in
stone this really is.
André (09:32):
As far as I know, the reason for the resolutions
not being available on thewebsite yet has nothing to do
with the content.
I think that's already beenagreed on at the end of
the meeting,if I understand correctly.
But it's more just a case ofgetting the documents up,
I think.
I assume that it's purely justan administrative issue,
(09:52):
that the actual text was agreedon at the meeting itself.
So as far asI know, that's the case.
But the real specifics of thedefinition is one thing,
but the concept itselfis a fairly simple one.
And it's really just acase of, as I was
saying earlier, nature beingused as a way of achieving
objectives for both societyand for nature.
(10:13):
And I actually mentioned inan earlier podcast,
the ecosystem-based adaptationsort of group of solutions as
being a subset of those.
And I gave examples likemangroves protecting coastlines
from coastal surges, and thatkind of thing.
So there's, there's awhole long, long list of those.
But I think to get back to yourquestion about, you know,
(10:34):
the reason for having this thisdefinition and how to take it
from resolution to action,I think this goes back to what
I was saying about nature-basedsolutions being sort of a brand.
You know, I thinkthat it's a case of
having something which, at thishigh level - this UN level
- is known, so the Partiesbecome familiar with the term -
(10:55):
countries become familiarwith the term,
and implementation agencies,and NGOs and all the rest of it
become familiar with nature-based solutions as a term and
therefore are more likely toconsider it in their planning,
their sort of area-wideplanning and not
just on biodiversity,but across sustainability
issues andacross development issues.
So I think that, you know,that kind of applies almost
(11:17):
everything at this level,I think.
But I think it is relevant tothe nature-based solutions
discussion as well.
Erin (11:24):
So kind of backtracking a little bit, what did they
actually decide at UNEA withrespect to nature-based
solutions?
Was it a common definition onlyor was it like the recognition
of nature-basedsolutions as solutions, or...?
I'm a bit confused about that.
André (11:43):
Yeah, no, it was- there were a few things.
Some of the things reported onthat kind of stood out were the
proposal to compile examples ofbest practices of
nature-based solutions.
And this is also somethingthat's been done in the past,
but perhaps notunder the banner of
nature-based solutions.
And this is aimedat countries, right?
So at the country level.
There are internationalexamples of that having
(12:04):
been done already, but I thinkthe proposal is aimed at
the Parties themselves.
And then, of course, there wasthe definition- coming up with
the definition.
Specifically, there wassomething on identifying
options for supportingsustainable investments in
nature-based solutions.
And then there was alsosomething on assessing existing
and new proposals and criteriaand standards and guidelines
(12:28):
with a view to reaching acommon understanding among
Member States for theimplementation of
nature-based solutions.
Simon (12:35):
So hang on.
So actually, the way that thiscould be understood -
especially the last part thatyou just quoted from the
decision document - it couldsort of be understood as - okay.
Even though the internationalcommunity has a consensus on
what "nature-basedsolutions" means, there's still
sort of a halfway open door forcontinuing to contribute to
(12:57):
refine that definition.
That's almost what it soundslike to me, anyway.
André (13:01):
Yeah, I think that's quite possible.
And there's also this issue ofthe term being used
in different fora.
You know, I was talking aboutthe CBD meetings earlier on.
CBD is separate to UNEA and thediscussions take note of
each other, but they mightnot align perfectly.
So we'll see what comes out ofthe CBD discussions- they're
not looking at a definition ofnature-based solutions, but the
(13:24):
topic is coming up a lot,so it'll be interesting to see
how that goes andhow the UNEA definition
affects those discussions.
Erin (13:31):
You mentioned earlier that it's about kind of
branding nature-based solutions,and that's one
of the consequences of the UNEAresolution at this point.
But I guess it's important tothink about what this means for
people actually workingon these issues.
Are there any impacts?
(13:52):
Are there any, I guess,consequences for people
actually working on the ground?
André (13:57):
As far as what it means for people on the ground,
I think that, you know,my speculation about it being a
bit of a branding exercise- andI don't mean that in
a negative way, sometimes thatthe word is considered
negatively- For people on theground, I think often
what this means is thatit's a recognisable term that,
for example, if an organisationor some of the implementing
(14:18):
agency is looking for fundingand they refer to nature-
based solutions, it helps a lotif the funding agency
recognises the term and alsorecognises the term as
something which was importantenough to discuss at a recent
UN meeting or UN meetingsin this case.
So I think that'sone important thing.
And then also sort of from apublic communication point of
(14:40):
view - a mainstream point ofview - having a term
like that, even if people don'thave a detailed understanding
of it, it kind ofbrings together, you know,
different groups ofunderstandings - the public
understanding and the politicalunderstanding and the
implementingagencies' understanding.
If everyone has roughly thesame idea of what they're
talking about, then it can - itcan help a lot with planning
(15:03):
and implementing anythingrelated to those concepts.
And this is agood example - this nature-
based solutions concept.
Erin (15:09):
That makes sense.
Simon (15:10):
So Andre, I keep thinking about whether fishing
or fisheries- Is that actuallya nature-based solution?
Like I keep tryingto simplify because- okay, you,
you interact with nature or youget something from nature that
supports your family or society.
So, okay, so fisheries,that's- that must be a
nature-based solution.
Why is it not or why is it?
André (15:30):
Yeah, I think this is the- this is something which
I've only very recently startedtrying to grapple with myself.
There's an interestingcrossover and overlap and also
a difference between nature-based solutions on the one hand
and the ecosystem services onthe other hand.
So ecosystem services,which we've discussed before on
the podcast - that describeswhat nature does for us.
It's the functions of naturethat are useful to
(15:51):
human beings, right?
And there's a huge amount ofoverlap between that and nature-
based solutions, but they'renot the same thing.
So nature-based solutions isusing nature to solve
a problem, basically.
You know?
So, I mean, if the problem isthe fact that human beings need
to eat, thenfisheries is certainly a
nature-based solution.
But there's no real alternative.
(16:12):
I mean, all food is nature-based in some way or another.
It's easier to understand whatnature-based solutions are when
there is an engineeredor a non-native based
alternative to it.
In the case of fisheries,it's a little bit difficult
to imagine that.
I'm also tempted to comparewild-caught fisheries with
aquaculture in a case like this.
But again, I'm not quite surehow you bring the nature-based
(16:35):
solutions discussion into it,because if, again, if the fact
that human beings need to eatis the problem to be solved,
and if the two options are wildcaught fisheries
or aquaculture...
This is aninteresting one because,
thanks to recenttechnological advances,
aquaculture is becoming themore sustainable option there.
Wild caught fisheries is veryplainly unsustainable and it's
(16:57):
one of the greatest ecologicalproblems that we have
at the moment.
Very recently, just in the pastdecade or two, aquaculture has
become efficient enough andtechnologically advanced enough
to be more sustainablealternative to
wild caught fisheries.
Simon (17:13):
Right.
André (17:14):
Exactly how that relates to nature-based solutions
depends on how youview the problem.
Simon (17:18):
But I guess maybe sort of the the sustainability angle
could figure quite strongly.
I mean, whatever it is that youderive from nature to tackle
a problem, whether that problemis hunger or its flooding,
it's okay thatit's engineered, but it's
nature based and itshould be sustainable.
Like if you just go trawlingand you completely exhaust-
André (17:39):
Ah, right.
Yes.
For the basic definition ofnature-based solutions,
there are solutions thatbenefit both nature and
human beings, right?
So in that sense, no.
Going back to thatbasic definition, wild caught
fisheries don't benefitnature very much.
They benefit people in theshort term and medium term,
but they don't benefitnature very much.
So, yeah.
So in that sense, wild caughtfisheries are not really a
(18:02):
nature-based solution.
They're almost theopposite of one.
Simon (18:04):
Okay, great.
So thank you.
So I just wanted to ask onemore thing maybe on this issue
before we move on.
That's- if you cansay anything, Andre, about IGES
work on nature-based solutionsand what this outcome may mean
for going forwardwith IGES work.
André (18:19):
Yeah, there are a couple of projects that IGES is
working on now.
So one of themis compiling, as the resolution
suggests or requests,compiling a set of case studies
on nature-based solutions.
And the other one is actuallydrawing from that same study to
inform the Asian Parks Congresson a set of nature-based
(18:43):
solutions related to protectedareas and other effective area-
basedconservation measures (OECMs).
So there's twoongoing projects, both in
fairly early stages that arevery closely or very explicitly
related to that.
And then, in other ways,many of the other things that
we do are related, butin a less explicit way.
Simon (19:02):
Thank you, Andre.
And let's move on to anotheroutcome which was highlighted
as being the biggest outcomeof UNEA-5.2, compared to the
Paris Agreement on climatechange back in 2015.
And that is the decision to endplastic pollution or - I don't
know the exact phrasing ofthe title, but we have with
(19:22):
us Amila here.
And please, could you tell uswhat happened on plastic
pollution at UNEA-5.2?
Amila (19:28):
Yes, like, out of those 14 resolutions passed
this time, the plasticpollution resolution [was]
highlighted and received mediacoverage and attention.
And I would say, in summary,at this time, what happened was
that the heads of states,ministers and other
(19:49):
representatives from 175 UNMember States have endorsed the
evolution - so what we call the"plastic pollution resolution"
to address the full lifecycleof plastics, which includes the
three mainstages production, consumption
and disposal stages,covering all the environmental
(20:10):
compartments and not onlylimiting to the marine litter,
but also the airand terrestrial environments.
So that has been passed.
However, we would like- maybewe can a little bit think
[about how it started].
So before UNEA-5.2,there were two alternative
draft proposals.
Simon (20:30):
Okay.
Amila (20:31):
So one came from Peru and Rwanda, and there were
so many co-sponsors,including UN [Member] States
and other countries.
It calls the establishing anIntergovernmental
Negotiation Committee, which wecall INC, for a new global
agreement on the full lifecycleof plastics, based on this
(20:53):
comprehensive approach toprevent the reduction of
environmental pollutionby plastics,
including microplastics.
Simon (21:01):
Uh-huh.
Amila (21:02):
And the second one came sponsored by Japan.
Here, also theycall [for] INC, with the
mandate to prepare aninternational legal instrument
to addressmarine plastic pollution.
So here, the highlight is themarine plastic pollution,
by takinginto account respective
(21:22):
national circumstances.
Simon (21:24):
So as you are explaining, they were
quite similar, but someof the differences related to
addressing primarily the marineaspect as the Japanese proposal
and then maybe more the fulllifecycle as was the Rwanda
and Peru's proposal.
Was that it?
Amila (21:41):
Yeah, Rwanda and Peru's proposal- So they also focus on
the lifecycle and Japaneseproposal also focus on
the full lifecycle.
But the main difference isthe environmental compartment.
So they try to cover the whole-the land and marine and
the other compartments.
The one reason I see,a developed country usually has
(22:06):
developed infrastructurefor waste management.
So in that kind of situation,there maybe not that much land
pollution by plastics.
So their main concern may be-
Simon (22:19):
Oceans.
Amila (22:20):
Yeah, oceans, because the pollution
from any country can reach theother country because it's
a transboundary issue.
Simon (22:28):
Right.
Amila (22:29):
But in the case of a developing country or some
geographical regions, the wastemanagement infrastructure may
be not that developed.
So in that kind of situation,what we know at the moment [is
that] huge amounts of plasticland dump or maybe burned
- uncontrolled burn.
So in such kindof situation, pollution is not
(22:51):
limited to marine.
So more like land pollutionand air pollution.
So in that case, I feel the wecan understand that proposal
requesting to cover the landand the other compartments.
That's my understanding.
Simon (23:07):
Thank you for the explanation.
That clarified things, and italso sounds very logical.
I heard actually that, in thevery last minute there was a
third proposal on adecision to end or to
tackle plastic pollution.
And that came from India.
So it seems that the landscapebecame quite crowded and there
was a lot ofinterest to do something
(23:27):
about plastic pollution.
Amila (23:29):
Yeah, of course.
Yes, yes.
And also, like beforethese proposals,
like, there were some doubts,like some countries maybe not
agreeing to the resolutions.
Kind of.
There was some doubt.
And same time, like, I alsothink that the Indian proposal
on that recycling, kind of.
So that's very interestingand very positive.
André (23:50):
Amila, kind of a double- barrelled question
that familiar withthe resolution, but I
understand that there is eventhough pollution- plastic
pollution ingeneral is discussed,
there's still a focuson marine pollution.
So the first question is,is that the case?
Is there- is there a focus onmarine plastic pollution?
And then secondly, and relatedto that, do you think that a
(24:13):
focus on marine pollution ispartly because it's a
transboundary issue, you know,in that one one country's
pollution can beanother country's problem.
Do you think that comes into itin quite a big way?
Amila (24:25):
Yeah, of course.
Again, maybe likemy understanding is, like,
let's say the point of view[of] any country despite the
development(developed or developing),
marinepollution is transboundary.
So we need intergovernmentnegotiating committee.
It's necessary to addressbecause even though one country
(24:47):
take the measures,maybe another country will be
not taking the measures.
So then it affects everybody.
That point I can understand.
And same time, like if you gofor a non-island nation and
living like with so manyterrestrial boundaries and
large riverscrossing the countries
[that are] transboundary...
(25:08):
So in that kind of situation,maybe limiting to marine
pollution only is not enough.
And so we need to think aboutthe land pollution and the
burning of plastics - [those]kind of other issues as well.
André (25:23):
Can I also just ask about microplastics?
That was like a big deal a fewyears ago and it seems- I
don't know, I haven't beenfollowing the issue
very closely, but it seems tohave died down a little bit.
But how much are nanoplasticsor microplastics being
discussed as partof this discussion?
Amila (25:40):
Yeah, actually in the first proposal,
microplastics [were]also highlighted, and then the
outcome alsohighlights the microplastics.
Maybe I don't completely agreewith what you mentioned.
Maybe a few years ago, yes,of course, there was very high
(26:00):
concern on microplastics,especially focusing on
the marine environment.
So the scientists are measuringand citizen science and
everybody are discussing aboutmarine microplastics, but then
slowly moves to the rivers andthen now people are discussing
and scientists are working onterrestrial microplastics and
(26:23):
the microplastics in food andhow it impacts the agriculture
and the human health.
Two years ago,even the WHO- so their
report has mentioned,still there is not enough
evidence to prove the impacton human health.
But now there are scientificevidence that the human health
(26:46):
also can be affected.
So I think the people nowalready realise [that] the
pollution is there and nowslowly moving to more advanced
studies - how to quantifythe impact and,
like, the dose relationships.
It's like morescientific studies, maybe.
So that's thesituation at the moment
(27:08):
related to microplastics.
André (27:08):
Okay.
Simon (27:09):
I just wanted to add one small comment on this
distinction between the land-based and marine plastic.
I guess, also, this decision -that it now affects sort of the
whole life cycle, as youmentioned in the
beginning - Amila, you said,to address air and terrestrial
and oceans in terms of wherethe plastic was or is - that
(27:30):
also gives you a leverage toactually do something to reduce
the plastic that isproduced in the first place,
because that's- that's where welook at the land-based sources
of plastic pollution.
Amila (27:41):
Yes, of course, Simon.
The resolution also highlightsthe full lifecycle.
It means the very importantstage: the production stage.
And not onlythat: the stakeholders.
And stakeholder importance,which includes
the important sector,the producers, and
finding alternative solutions.
(28:02):
And this means not onlymanaging the waste,
but controllingthe production, plus finding
alternatives and thecircular economy approach.
Like how- even though sometimesmaybe the plastic is single-use
- but how it can be reused forother purposes or upgrade and
(28:24):
use for another purpose andmaybe repairing the plastics
and increasing the lifespan -[that] kind of stuff [are] also
mentioned in the resolution.
Simon (28:36):
Yeah, because plastic is everywhere, right?
I mean, many parts of oursociety rely on plastic
products or plastic-typeproducts and not all of them
are ones that we can justquickly get away from.
Is it?
Amila (28:47):
Yeah, exactly, I totally agree with you.
On one hand, like the humanhabits - so it's difficult to
get rid of andplus the alternatives.
So we needto think about alternatives,
whether they are worsefor the environment than the
original plastic product.
For example, like, if we triedto replace plastic straws with
(29:09):
plant based one, maybe thenumber of trees or that kind
of important plant...
So we need to removefrom the planet to produce the
replacement for the plastic andmaybe, at the end,
maybe leaking to theenvironment and creating
nitrogen-based pollution,which causes eutrophication.
So...
(29:29):
And maybe increase the climatechange and emissions.
So we have to think not onlythe plastic lifecycle, but also
the lifecycle impacts ofplastics and alternative
products to findthe better solutions.
Erin (29:43):
Amila, just on the topic of alternative products.
I've been seeing, at least inthe last ten years or so,
like this rise in so-calledbiodegradable plastics.
And I don't know if these areactually plastics or these are
something else, but are theyrelevant to this resolution?
And I mean, first of all,what are they, and if you can
(30:06):
tell us anything about,you know, whether these are
viable alternatives,that'll be great.
Amila (30:11):
Yeah.
So on the topic ofbiodegradable plastics, I would
just bring inwhat is bioplastics.
So bioplastics, I wouldlike to divide it into
four components.
So based on the raw materialand another one is based
on the biodegradability.
So first of all, plastics,there are basically two types.
(30:34):
The first one is fossil fuel-based raw materials, and the
raw material is bio-based raw materials.
So if something comes fromfossil fuel-based [materials],
plus if it isnot biodegradable, we call
it "conventional plastics".
And sometimes the sourceis fossil fuels,
but it is biodegradable.
(30:55):
So then it's akind of bioplastic and
it is biodegradable.
But the"biodegradable" term also,
I will define later.
So but first,let me clarify bioplastics
and unconventional plastics.
Then there are some rawmaterials like starch,
corn starch - So thenthe raw material is bio-
(31:15):
based polymers, so then itis also bioplastic.
But some- suchkind of bioplastics
are not biodegradable.
So then it is non-biodegradablebut bio-based.
Erin (31:26):
Okay.
Amila (31:27):
Then some of those bio-based plastics
are biodegradable, then theyare bio-
based biodegradable plastics.
Erin (31:35):
Okay.
Amila (31:35):
Okay.
Then the important part,the biodegradability.
So, some biodegradable plasticsare biodegradable in natural
conditionsor ambient conditions.
But some biodegradable plasticsneed special conditions like
special microorganisms orelevated temperature or kind of
(31:58):
special environmental conditionsto biologically degrade.
So this is very interesting andsome researchers found negative
points on so-called biodegradable plastics, like maybe
initially degrades tomicroplastic size, but then
maybe remain in the environmentfor a bit longer period.
Erin (32:20):
Oh my gosh.
Okay.
Amila (32:21):
But there are some biodegradable plastics which
degrade and become compost.
So then suchkind of bioplastics maybe
a better solution.
Simon (32:31):
That sounds very complex, right?
And I mean, if you thinkabout it, if we can imagine in
our supply chain of usingplastic in our society, I can
imagine we have all differentkinds of plastics out there,
some of which are bioplasticsand conventional ones and bio-
based and biodegradable.
And after we use them,they all become mixed up in
a colorful bunch.
(32:52):
And I could imagine that thatwould be a big headache in
terms of how you manage thosedifferent kinds of plastics.
Amila (32:58):
Yeah, indeed.
Indeed, Simon.
Like, some countries sometimesjust introduce alternative bio
degradable plastics, but theydon't have necessary facilities
to measure the compositionof those materials.
So that's one issue.
So often it is mixed with somemore toxic or harmful chemicals
and also some don't have theend-of-life treatment methods
(33:23):
to tackle all the sourceseparation and to
handle these bioplastics,then it becomes more trouble in
the recycling systems, like ifthe fossil fuel-based plastics
- with some items which can berecycled - if it is mixed with
biodegradable plastics, then itbecomes more trouble.
Yeah, and also therecycling codes, like there are
(33:44):
seven numbers at themoment - so it
doesn't define bioplastics.
So there is a discussion thatthey should use number seven
or another category.
I totally agree with you.
André (33:56):
Amila, would it be difficult to switch to purely
biodegradable plastics?
You know, I mean, the obviousthing to do, knowing that the-
I mean, the trulybiodegradable plastics, not the
ones that become microplasticsand then persist, but the ones
that are truly biodegradable,whether they're fossil fuel
based or not.
You know, why can'twe just switch to those?
(34:17):
Are they more expensive or isthe technology not ready yet or-
Amila (34:20):
There are so many concerns.
So maybe I will try tohighlight a few of those.
So one may be theplastic industry technology.
So let's say if youhave a single use plastic bag
(fossil fuel-based,non-biodegradable).
So the thickness and thestrength and the flexibility
properties for packaging.
(34:41):
So those [properties] may besometimes difficult to achieve
with onlyusing biodegradable plastic.
So for certain cases,of course, yes, [they] can
be replaced,but sometimes it's difficult.
And maybe, when youwant to improve the properties,
then you need to addmaybe some chemicals, which may
(35:02):
be more harmful.
So that's another concern.
And then, the authoritiesshould have enough facilities
to monitor and measure andevaluate those new materials.
So that's another challenge.
And that's one side-the technological issues.
Another one is, let's say,biodegradable plastic made from
(35:23):
bio-based materials.
Then how much corn, fields -which can feed people or the
animals - need to [be] divertedinto produc[ing] biodegradable
plastics?
So that's another concern.
André (35:35):
Right.
Opportunity cost, basically.
Yeah.
Simon (35:37):
I hear that we are actually quickly getting into a
very interesting but also avery complex discussion around
plastics and how it reallypermeates our society and how
tricky it will be tofind some solutions.
I think nuance is, again,also a key word here.
Just to try to pull ourdiscussion just a little bit
back to actually the UNEA-5.2outcome: I wanted to ask you
(36:01):
of your opinion.
Amila, how come countries couldactually agree on this?
Because if you want to compareto other recent success stories
and the environment recently,maybe we have
the Paris agreement, but otherthan that, it's been in dire
straits and it's been difficult.
How come governments couldagree on something like this?
Amila (36:22):
Yeah.
It's kind of - as a personresearching and working on the
field - Yeah, I'm kind of happyabout that achievement.
But same time to understand howthese become successful,
maybe we need tounderstand the process,
maybe during the last decade.
So maybe there were activitiesin the global level,
(36:43):
regional level,and national level.
And if you go to 2012, the UNGlobal Partnership on Marine
Litter and then 2014,as I remember, the UN
Environment Assembly resolutionon marine
litter and microplastics;and 2015 G7 Action Plan;
(37:04):
and 2017 the G20 Marine ActionPlan on Marine Litter and the
Ocean Plastic Charter...
Of course, the 2019 BaselConvention amendment to control
transboundary movementof plastic waste.
And also then if you go to theregional level, I think you're
well aware that ASEAN RegionalFramework on Action on Marine
(37:27):
Debris and also theAsia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Roadmap on MarineDebris and also Caribbean
community to address theplastic pollution and also
the national plans.
So many national action plans,which we were also working on,
several [of them] likeIndonesia and Sri Lanka.
So those also kindof- so many activities during
(37:47):
the past decade.
But I would not onlyhighlight that governing
body level, but in the ground,citizen science and the
big data, new dimensions, alsovery effectively contributed.
People sampling microplastics -the citizens - and collect the
ocean clean-up,the beach clean-up,
(38:08):
and counting and reportingthrough the mobile labs.
So for much of what we had likepublic awareness and the
pressure on the globalcompanies and are leaders,
national leaders.
So I think thismade more aware[ness].
And also on the other hand,the scientists: they were
(38:30):
providing evidence [of]microplastics getting into fish.
Okay, it can come toyou so it's effecting you.
And the fishermen also startedto see their fishing stocks,
so they question why.
So maybe they think, okay,maybe it has some relation with
microplastics.
Yeah.
And also what I want to say isthat it's not only certain
(38:53):
geographic regions - like eventhe richest man may be worried
about the quality ofsashimi or sushi.
So-
Simon (39:01):
That's an interesting point.
Amila (39:02):
Yeah.
So I think the combination ofboth across the global level
maybe bring a lot ofenergy to make this successful.
Simon (39:11):
Right.
So you're saying, okay, so therehas been both sort of
official level with allkinds of governmental,
inter-governmental at variousregional levels, but also from
citizens and from science andfrom all angles.
Things have been gearingup to finally do
something on plastics.
All the while, probably in thelast ten years, this problem
(39:32):
has just become moreand more visible and more
and more compounded.
So...
So it's almostimpossible to ignore.
Amila (39:38):
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly, Simon.
And also, like, maybe eventhough I saw some plastics or
microplastics when I open orcut into a fish, I will not
give my attention that much ifI think as a public citizen,
unless I have seen it in socialmedia or public media or
(39:59):
somebody talked [about it].
Then I realise.
So awareness also played avery important role.
Simon (40:05):
Wow.
So that's great.
So that's really interesting.
We can hopefully learn somelessons on what has been
happening to hopefully takeaction on the
plastics problem, to maybe alsotackle other problems that are-
that we are facing with regardsto the environment.
I wanted to ask just what'shappening at IGES in relation
to plastic waste and plasticpollution and what will the
(40:28):
creation of this intergovernmental negotiation
committee - what willthat mean for IGES' work?
Amila (40:35):
IGES was working a lot in the waste sector over,
I think, about two decades.
However, plastics became a hottopic maybe since the last five
years and IGES hasengaged in so many activities.
From IGES' side.
I see it's a reallypositive set up.
(40:56):
On one hand, the SCP ([IGES'sustainable consumption and
production team]) is theremainly to work on the plastic-
related scope, but the waterand adaptation [team],
biodiversity [team],climate change [team]...
because we know the issueincludes plastic burning plus
impacts on biodiversity and themicroplastics in water...
(41:16):
So many interconnected fieldsso IGES has a lot of the
strength to tackle ina holistic way.
So that's I think the setup in IGES is really positive.
And if you go to, in detail,the projects: previously, a lot
of UN agencies-attachedprojects IGES was
working and now, we consider-we are in several panels,
(41:41):
the G20 working [group] andERIA and ASEAN region, and also
currently we are working onPlastic Waste Management Action
Plan for Cambodia.
And recently the SriLankan National Action Plan has
been launched and now thefollow up activities, which I
am also engaging, and IndonesiaNational Action Plan and the
(42:05):
Myanmar National Action Plan...
So so many national actionplans [IGES is involved in].
And not only that, the regionaland global level committees
that IGES is representing.
And I really see the engagementis high and the impact of this
resolution is also,I see as positive.
The local or nationalgovernments - so
(42:27):
they already agreed, so thenthey need support in the policy
advice and infrastructure andthe bringing the stakeholders
and the technology so that's[where] IGES can really support.
André (42:44):
Amila, are there other multilateral environmental
agreements that dealwith this issue?
Like, you know, in the case ofnature-based solutions,
there is an entire conventiondedicated to issues like this,
and then they are alsocovered by UNEA.
So is that the case withplastic pollution as well?
Is that- is there a conventionthat deals specifically with
that or is it only at UNEA thatthis issue is discussed at
(43:07):
this level?
Amila (43:08):
In the context of plastic pollution, like there
are several working groups orassemblies - for example,
like the UNEP Basel Conventionis working their own 2019
amendments on plastic waste.
So there are ongoing projectson that and several governments
and regions workingtogether with them.
(43:30):
And sometimes I see the GlobalPartnership on Marine
Litter (GPML), so they havetheir own working group and
connecting with governments...
So it's also atthe global level.
And there is another one calledUNEP Life Cycle Initiative.
They are trying to quantify theimpact of marine plastics in
(43:51):
the lifecycle assessments,which need a
global wide collaboration.
However, like we can see thoseare like a certain area- so
they are covering certain areas.
However, this treaty tried tobring all the stakeholders and
the full lifecycle and not onlymarine - including the
(44:13):
land and air.
So that'squite significant, André.
André (44:20):
Okay.
Simon (44:20):
It's great.
What this illustrates is,there are several existing
initiatives out there thatcommit the plastic and
chemicals problem fromdifferent angles, including,
for example, also the voluntaryinitiatives such as the Osaka
Blue Ocean Vision and so on.
But I guess the aim with thisglobal treaty is to become some
sort of umbrella treaty thatthat covers all of it.
(44:43):
But the challenge will,of course, be to not cause
major redundancies and overlaps,but to make the
landscape more easy to navigatefor all the actors that are
relevant forthe plastic problem.
Amila (44:54):
Yeah.
And I think, André, like evennature-based solutions also can
be some part ofsolving plastic issues - like,
that's also included.
And the chemical sector also,like, because plastics include
chemical fillers and propertychanges for the improvements.
So the significance is,like Simon mentioned,
(45:15):
the previous resolutionsand previous treaties,
actions organised like workinggroups touch certain parts of
the plastic pollution,some maybe marine pollution or
some may be chemical componentsor maybe alternatives,
like nature-based solutions.
But this resolutionbring everybody into one
umbrella on the topicof plastic pollution,
(45:36):
considering all theenvironmental compartments and
the full lifecycle of plastics.
Simon (45:43):
We are barely beginning to scratch the surface on what
is happening on plastics andwhat we might be expecting to
be happening over the course ofthe next many months as the
governments negotiate thistreaty on plastic pollution.
Maybe we should revisit theissue of plastic pollution more
generally and also ask morein-depth questions on what
(46:06):
IGES is doing.
Well, thank you verymuch, Amila.
Amila (46:08):
Thank you so much.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!