Back to Basics – Effectiveness Evaluation and Science-Based Assessment

What happened to effectiveness evaluation and science-based assessment in the plastic treaty negotiations?

UNEA Resolution 5/14 established the mandate for a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution, grounded in a comprehensive approach based on the full lifecycle of plastic. It also explicitly called
for periodic assessment of the “effectiveness of the instrument in achieving its objectives” as well as “scientific and socio-economic assessments related to plastic pollution.” This mandate set clear expectations that regular
assessment would be an operational element, supported by science and socio-economic input, ensuring the instrument evolves over time.

Effectiveness evaluation. Effectiveness evaluations are a core feature of multilateral environmental agreements  (MEAs), containing a common set of features that work together, namely: (i) regular evaluation cycles, typically mandated in one article and then cross-referenced in others setting out the topics to be evaluated and their relevance to future policymaking; (ii) monitoring of the pollutant in the environment, measured against baselines and indicators; (iii) reporting of the measures taken by the Parties and statistical data on the pollutant, according to harmonised methodologies and formats to ensure comparability and comparison; and (iv) a science-policy interface providing policymakers with scientific and socio-economic input upon which to base decisions. The Minamata Convention, Montreal Protocol and Paris Agreement each contain these common features, operationalised across their varying structures and articles in different ways and tailored to achieve their specific objectives.

Plastic pollution context. Plastic pollution is a rapidly evolving global transboundary crisis, characterised by increasing production, multiple sectors and pathways and ever-growing evidence of impacts on ecosystems and human health. To evaluate the effectiveness in achieving the treaty’s objectives – some variation of “protecting the environment and human health from plastic pollution, including in the marine environment” – will require harmonised monitoring of plastic pollution in marine and other environments as well as reporting of both measures and statistical data to identify trends, emerging risks and systemic failures. Scientific and socio-economic assessments on plastic pollution, as the name implies, will arm policymakers with scientific and socio-economic input to inform policies and priorities. Such reviews should take place regularly and frequently enough to ensure effectiveness and responsiveness.