Rethinking marine plastics pollution: Science diplomacy and multi-level governance

Literature review on SD on international instruments on marine governance

The urgency and relevance of global challenges have triggered an increased demand for international cooperation in science, technology and innovation (Boekholt et al., 2009). The continuing global challenges and the role of science in solving them have continued to demand the integration of international science cooperation (Turekian, 2018). Science as a broad basis for diplomacy has significantly increased in relevance to dealing with environmental problems.

Broadly speaking, literature on SD linked to marine environmental issues can be grouped into articles dealing with marine biodiversity, conservation and protected areas (Harden-Davies, 2018; Kleinhaus et al., 2020; Teff-Seker et al., 2020), management of the polar regions, Atlantic ocean (Pan and Huntington, 2016; Polejack et al., 2021) and international instruments (Paglia, 2021; Polejack, 2021). In the literature review, only a few articles were found in which marine-related international instruments had been explicitly mentioned in connection to SD.

Polejack (2021) discussed the importance of SD to reconcile different positions driven by the gap between scientific capacities and access to research infrastructure between developed and developing countries at the negotiations in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). For instance, states were organised into clusters (e.g. the G77 plus China, the landlocked states, etc.), and trade-offs among states led to the agreement of compromises in the Convention. Yet, the author noted, research capacity and technology transfer have yet to reach a desirable level. In order to overcome historical obstacles (such as the scientific capacity gap) and progress long-awaited initiatives, such as mapping and forecasting the ocean, SD will be pivotal. Paglia (2021) acknowledges that environmental diplomacy was closely allied with science at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE). In terms of science in diplomacy, a Swedish scientist-diplomat facilitated the development of a scientific understanding of widespread environmental degradation's societal threat to inform foreign policy, while diplomacy for science emphasised the importance of mobilising knowledge and experience for developing countries through appropriate international cooperation.

Analytical framework: conceptualising the link between SD salient features and marine plastics pollution

SD has its roots in the realms of security (Turekian, 2018). After the conflict between the United States and Iraq and the 9/11 tragic events (Lord and Turekian, 2007), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) increased its focus on SD to improve its weakened foreign policy and diplomacy engagement with the Middle East and North Africa region (Turekian, 2018). In 2010 the AASS, along with the British Royal Society, defined SD as a concept in three ways: (a) science in diplomacy; (b) diplomacy for science; (c) science for diplomacy (Royal Society, 2010) (Table 1). Applying these three ways to conceptualise SD is grounded on the understanding that science and politics are the dominant elements. However, SD should be distinguished from its scientific and political context.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Science diplomacy definitions by the Royal Society (2010).

Science diplomacy concepts	Description
Science in diplomacy	Scientific advice is used to inform foreign policy.
Diplomacy for science	Political capital is used to advance scientific research.
Science for diplomacy	Scientific cooperation is used to improve international relations.

The definitions by the Royal Society have been evolving to include different features and views of SD. For instance, Fähnrich (2017) pointed out that at first glance, science for diplomacy and diplomacy for science may be seen as two sides of the same coin; however, when he examined the views of scholars from a German SD programme, not all of them are willing to follow the government views. Besides, other authors call for an extended dimension of science for diplomacy that seeks to reflect the political influence sought and exerted under the term SD in which countries in the international arena represent their interests with a base of knowledge acquired by the scientific method (Gluckman et al., 2017; Ruffini, 2020; Turekian, 2018).

Overall, all these SD dimensions represent ways in which states, or relevant actors, use scientific knowledge to help build international partnerships to address common problems (Patman and Davis, 2017), driven by a subset of public diplomacy (Copeland, 2015). However, the interaction between science, technology and international affairs is embedded in a complex combination of political, legal and cultural forces (Weiss, 2015). Our methodology was first set to apply the different mainstream definitions of SD to marine plastics governance documents. However, we examined the main salient features of SD dimensions to establish a common understanding, while acknowledging the evolving definitions of SD. SD is a broad and evolving concept representing a wide range of meanings insufficiently captured by the Royal Society dimensions. This paper does not intend to produce a new definition; rather, it intends to address what different instruments mean under the term SD.

At this point, we added extended dimensions’ features that emerged from definitions that recall the political influence sought and exerted under the term science diplomacy, in which countries in the international arena represent their own interests with a base of knowledge acquired by the scientific method (Gluckman et al., 2017; Ruffini, 2020; Turekian, 2018). We labelled the new salient feature under the science for diplomacy dimension (see Figure 1). As a starting point, the framework for analysis distinguishes the salient features of the Royal Society definitions for science for diplomacy, science in diplomacy and diplomacy for science. The features that describe the functions of scientists include: ‘scientific cooperation’, providing ‘scientific advice’ and advances in ‘scientific research’, while the features that describe the functions of diplomats can be summarised as improvement of ‘international relationships’, informing ‘foreign policy’ and use of ‘political capital’. However, those features fail to capture the use of SD to represent a country's interest using scientific knowledge (see for example descriptions from Gluckman et al., 2017; Ruffini, 2020; Turekian, 2018). In order to represent this salient feature, the dimension of SD was chosen as an umbrella. The new feature was labelled as prioritising ‘national needs’ (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Main salient features of Royal Society dimensions and extended features.

The following list includes the main salient features from the dimensions described in the second section that can be used either individually or collectively to characterise the functions of SD:

Science:

Scientific cooperation

This typology of SD dimensions somewhat concretises the salient features by listing them under the concepts of science and diplomacy, and it is used to recognise the type of collaboration of different actors, such as the main international organisations, often crucial to achieving environmental agreements, protocols, regulations recognising the establishment of the international and regional instruments would not have been possible without pre-existing diplomatic links and agreements.

Findings

Comparing the international instruments revealed similarities and differences. The similarities lie in the emphasis on the prevention and control of marine pollution as one of the key objectives of these instruments. Yet there are differences in the types of sources and the plastic materials/items covered by the regulations. As shown in Table 2, instruments cover plastic ‘waste’ or ‘garbage’ that is discarded from ships (direct disposal, ship-borne operations) (LC/LP, MARPOL) as well as plastic wastes that are subject to transboundary movements (Basel Convention), but plastics are not specifically addressed in UNCLOS. Moreover, a common point is the difficulty of complying with the instruments (e.g. garbage amounts vary by ship category, legal ambiguity persists to define hazardous or non-hazardous plastic waste, etc.). Overall, these instruments play complementary roles in preventing and controlling marine pollution, but with fragmented authority.

It is evident from Table 3 that the revised documents have used SD features to connect the best expertise (scientific cooperation and advice) of international organisations and the advanced states in plastics pollution management with developing countries and inform the foreign policy – all instruments promote scientific research and technical collaboration to address the pollution of the marine environment. International organisations such as the Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), using scientific cooperation, are best situated to provide scientific advice to inform environmental policy. The scientific communities have developed guidelines and methodologies for analysing marine macro- and micro-plastics, conducting research and providing relevant policy recommendations for member countries. Besides, support and utilisation of scientific research through international instruments are expected to indirectly advance science.

Protocols and conventions provide a platform for collaboration with the international community promoting regional and multilateral agreements which are expected to impact the international relationships and foreign policy of state parties. Moreover, establishing the international and regional instruments would not have been possible without pre-existing diplomatic links and agreements (political capital) between the participating countries, which in turn have advanced scientific research. The use of political capital is arguably not meeting all the needs of international scientific research cooperation, since the degree to which the different countries represent their own interests (prioritise national needs) is evidenced by the lack of commitment of country members to ratify the conventions, protocols and sign legally binding agreements.

Discussion

In seeking to understand whether international governance from supra-national level has contributed to the progress of solving marine pollution, many have pointed out that strengthening international mechanisms is holding the key to progressing the solving of marine plastics pollution at international levels, focusing on the improvement of the obligatory character of international mechanisms (Vince and Hardesty, 2018), and development of a harmonious policy framework and coordinated policies (Dauvergne, 2018; Hugo, 2018; Pinto da Costa et al., 2020; Raubenheimer and McIlgorm, 2017). However, it remains unclear who fills the gaps in the instruments at a time when certain international cooperation, coordination and compliance mechanisms are absent due to fragmented authority and ambiguous coverage of plastic waste types and sources.

From an SD perspective, marine plastics pollution instruments have also been shaped by forms of governance that stretch across tiers supported by features of SD. This is not to deny the importance of strengthening international mechanisms. It is, however, to provide insights into the key factors encountered that prevent progress and that, under SD, could be redefined to take a more important role: the passive role of national authorities and representatives relying on the long-term development of a legal framework from supra-national and inter-regional levels rather than an active leadership. SD features such as scientific cooperation, advice and research supported by international relationship, foreign policy and political capital, have advanced international agreements. However, the power balance and political opportunity are crucial parts of the difficulties faced by international coordination (Ferraro and Failler, 2020). It often involves complex policies and goals, and only high-level stakeholders are involved – it can neither be assumed to exist nor solely relied upon (Rüffin, 2020). The prioritisation of national needs evidenced in the lack of commitment of country members to ratify the conventions, and difficulty in compliance and control of the sources of plastics pollution, act as a barrier for strengthening those international mechanisms. For example, LC adopted the control and prevention of marine pollution, but fewer parties than expected were able to contribute, and the growth of participants in ratifying the Convention was slower than anticipated (Harrison, 2017).

The opportunity here for leader nations is to revaluate their national needs in light of the potential benefits that could accrue from leading advancements in solving the problem of marine pollution including the enhancement of international relationships and national foreign policies – features embedded in SD. This leadership could benefit both country nations and marine plastics governance. However, cross-cutting leadership, supported by international agencies, needs to be also able to drive a multi-level regulatory framework for plastics (political capital) because the broad coverage of plastics-related issues under different levels of marine governance results in a lack of focus and priority with regard to plastics pollution and substantial hurdles in assessing the international and national instruments today. Initiatives from Japan (Dickella Gamaralalage and Onogawa, 2019) and Norway (IMO, 2019b) to assist developing countries in identifying opportunities to prevent and reduce marine litter and decrease the use of plastics in industries, which integrate various features of SD (e.g. scientific advice, scientific cooperation, political capital, etc.), could help to re-imagine the powers and capabilities of nations’ actors to develop leadership across multiple tiers.

In spite of all the efforts so far, the review in Table 2 showed that there is no single treaty instrument or policy framework to deal specifically with plastics marine litter within the current global governance. For instance, UNCLOS has many gaps regarding environmental protection (Bateman, 2007) and lacks specific standards for plastics pollution from both the sea and land-based sources. Besides, a multi-level regulation for plastics pollution is imperative, considering the growing consequences of marine debris pollution on humans and the environment (Ringbom and Henriksen, 2017), with a level of commitment equal to the global magnitude of the problem (Borrelle et al., 2017).

Moreover, this cross-cutting leadership supported by international agencies should also drive resources to increase treatment capabilities in the global south to absorb the growing waste generation. Although most of the international instruments promote scientific and technical cooperation, funding and other forms of partnership with the developed states are highly required (Sarma and Andersen, 2011); it is estimated that countries in Southeast Asia could only manage the disposal and burning of 25%–75% of the imported plastics waste (Law et al., 2020). International bureaucracies may have a wider role in international climate negotiations by interacting with sub-national and non-state actors (Hickmann et al., 2021). The critical issues of waste management are faced not only by the developing world but also by the most industrialised nations that lack waste management treatment capabilities (D’Amato et al., 2019). However, in the long term, the sole improvement of treatment capabilities of waste management does not appear to provide a solution by itself; the recycling system only perpetuates the problem, driving more plastics production.

Focusing solely on the recycling system leads to a discussion about the discursive approach framing plastics in the international agreements as ‘waste’ or ‘garbage’ – fostering economic growth. The need to achieve higher economic growth (Everett et al., 2010) has shaped the debate about marine plastics, in which policies related to environmental management are often sidelined. Placing the plastics pollution issue as a national priority is challenged by mainly economic considerations (Barrowclough and Deere Birkbeck, 2020), ‘trapping’ countries in the middle of a trade-off between attaining economic development and preserving the environment. Especially as ‘extensive structural change in the economic system is required to achieve sustainable use of natural resources; it is not possible to “develop to sustainability”’ (Cumming and Von Cramon-Taubadel, 2018: 9533). For instance, this interpretation of the plastics marine problem based on economic growth has shaped the continued waste exchange from the global north to the south, the (lack of) recycling systems, and the prioritisation of corporate self-regulation. In this context, although marine plastics pollution continues to be framed under economic discourses, it will perpetuate the problem.

Theoretical implications

This paper contributes novel insights into SD literature by specifying the main salient features that can be used either individually or collectively to characterise ‘science’ and ‘diplomacy’ functions. In this context, the SD features can shed light on the opportunities and limitations facing transboundary environmental problems, particularly identifying forms of governance that are supported by SD features that can potentially emerge to be more relevant. As a newly emerging area, however, SD does not have clearly delineated legal jurisdictions. Recent attempts from Rüffin (2020), based on the theoretical notions of MLG from Marks and Hooghe (Hooghe and Marks, 2003; Marks and Hooghe, 2004), conceptualise SD as a Type II MLG system in which ‘Policies concerning SD might touch upon innumerable jurisdictions’ (Rüffin, 2020: 3).

In MLG Type I, a clear hierarchy exists between distinct tiers of governance. In theory, it seems feasible to link the established hierarchy from global spheres to individual nations concerning plastics pollution. Thus, all nation-states have the powers and capabilities to pursue an agenda for reducing and managing plastics waste within the national remit. However, in practice, the technical knowledge and financial capabilities gap, and political and economic interests within states, limit the ‘willingness’ of nations to implement the international agreements into concrete policies within their respective countries. For example, the waste management policy concerning plastics depends on funding availability. In part, this forces us to first reflect on the potential changes of responsibilities and capabilities of emergent actors of cross-level governance, leading to paying more attention to MLG Type II – which is more fluid, drawing attention to the importance of analyses of the changing nations’ collaboration level with different ‘spheres’ of authorities.

Implications for policymaking

The cost of reducing plastics pollution and the current international mechanisms generate no incentives for individual countries to tackle this urgent problem. In this context, incorporating an SD features approach may help to enhance foreign policies and national strategies, international cooperation and scientific efforts. Particularly, we argue that cross-cutting leading efforts to engage more countries in different parts of the world, specifically with developing countries, with less adequate scientific and technological capabilities to solve plastics pollution, could benefit the leaders’ foreign policy. For example, in this context, following SD-MLG could help reshape the UK's foreign policy into what has recently been envisioned as a scientific leader, thus expanding its engagement with international partners, and offering more diplomatic manoeuvres after leaving the European Union.

Limitations and future research

In advancing environmental governance, the case of plastics pollution in the ocean based on a documentary review and analysis draws attention to the link between SD salient features and international policies for marine plastics pollution. Although this methodology has its merits to accomplish the review and the analysis, it may be biased in representing a complete account of the problem. Further studies with empirical data from interviews with the main international stakeholders should investigate the subsequent question of whether the SD perspective and its application in Type II MLG are feasible, and its implications, taking into account the countries dependency on plastic production and consumption. At the same time, it would be worthwhile reviewing its implications for alternative plastic materials such as bioplastics and their supply chains issues described by Beltran et al. (2021) and Liliani et al. (2020), and comparing similar studies for transboundary problems. For instance, the battles between science and policy played out in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate change agenda.