Environmental consequences

The inquiry has commissioned a lifecycle analysis, LCA, with the purpose of studying the environmental impact of plastic compared to these bio-based alternatives.

The fossil plastics that were included in the study were PE and PET. As an alternative to fossil PE and PET, bio-PE (drop-in plastic), which is 100 percent bio-based, and PLA (replacement plastic), which is 100 percent bio-based and has similar qualities to PET, were se-lected. In the context, it is important to highlight that the plastic that is advertised as 100 percent bio-based often does not comprise of 100 percent bio-based raw material. The bio-based PE that was examined in this case, was produced from sugar canes while the PLA was produced from corn. Recycled PET and PE, which were modelled in the study, originate from the recycling of fossil PET and PE, not bio-based.

The results from the LCA demonstrated a clear reduction in en-vironmental impact for bio-based plastic compared to fossil plastic.

For overfertilization and acidification, the impact from the bio-based plastic was however greater than that of the fossil-bio-based.

3 www.co2-dreams.covestro.com/ (Visited 2018-11-15).

SOU 2018:84 Renewable plastic

Primarily because of the production processes as well as the cultiva-tion of corn and sugar cane. This is in line with previous LCA-reports, e.g. Braskem (2017), on bio-based vs. fossil-based.

Even if bio-based plastic, in different LCA studies, clearly high-lights an environmental benefit, it is important to also examine factors such as recyclability, life-span and the possibility of producing plastic from raw material, which is sustainable in the long-term, in order to create a sustainable bio-based plastic for the future.

5.8.2 Life-span and recycling

Since an LCA is only comprised of certain types of environmental impact, the results do not show a complete picture. The conclusion from a 2016 study (Røyne & Berlin, 2016) shows that three factors are crucial for determining how large the environmental impact will be:

1. The product’s life-span have the greatest effect – a short life-span means that more manufactures and a greater material consump-tion.

2. The possibility of recycling – the manufacturing itself for a pro-duct that is largely comprised of recycled material does not lead to a large environmental impact.

3. The share of bio-based raw material – bio-based plastic yields the greatest environmental benefit.

It is also important to note that function may vary, which can have a large environmental impact. A risk of food waste exists if the bio-based material is less suited for applications for food packaging. Bio-based material is not that resource effective if larger layers for barrier and mechanical qualities are needed.

5.8.3 Land use

When the environmental benefit is compared between bio-based and fossil-based plastic, consideration of land use needs to be made. Fre-quently, LCA studies show that the environmental benefits from a bio-based plastic are reduced when land use is considered. However,

Renewable plastic SOU 2018:84

78

on land use is not an issue. In the long-term, and if a larger amount of bio-based raw material is to be produced for plastic manufacturing, it may be difficult to avoid the issue of raw material supply. The total global arable land is approximately 1 400 million hectares, which is primarily used for food and feed (Nielsen, 2018). Presently, approx-imately one million hectares is used for plastic raw material (Euro-pean Bioplastics, 2017a), but if a complete transition to bio-based plas-tic were to happen, the demand would be 150–300 million hectares.

This highlights the need for diversifying the renewable resources to include other biomass and carbon dioxide as raw material, obviously in addition to reduced use and increased recycling.

6 Appendix 4 – Littering and degradation of plastic in the environment

Partial report from the Inquiry on sustainable plastic material (M 2017:06)

6.1 Conclusions from the partial report Littering of plastic

The inquiry has identified the following plastic objects, in no partic-ular order, that are frequently found as litter and risk causing harm to water living organisms and animals:

• Cigarette butts,

• Lost fishing equipment,

• Packaging for snacks, candy, ice cream and fast-food,

• Plastic packaging from industry and commerce including plastic tape,

• Plastic cutlery and straws,

• Plastic fragments including fragment from expanding polystyrene,

• Plastic caps and lids,

• Plastic bags, as well as

• Rope, strings and netting.

Appendix 4 – Littering and degradation of ... SOU 2018:84

80

To answer the question what plastic products are frequently found as litter, statistics were gathered from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU Aqua) and the Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation.

Apart from the need for direct actions concerning the plastic objects that the inquiry has identified, we believe that future examination of additional plastic objects, which may be harmful for marine wildlife, is needed. In the long-term, there is also a need for overarching solutions to remedy the whole range of products that end up in the marine environment. The area of marine trash is still very much in its knowledge-building phase where research is being conducted and observation is being further developed. Therefore, sum-maries that portray the current knowledge position as well as what knowledge gaps exists are continuously required.

The inquiry deems that there is a need for knowledge summaries regarding the negative impact on marine organisms from chemicals in plastic objects, negative impacts on marine organisms from ciga-rette butts, the link between macro-plastic and microplastic in the environment, negative impact from microplastic on land-based and marine organisms and potential effects on the food chain.

The inquiry also deems there to be a need for enhanced know-ledge concerning the presence of lost fishing equipment and that obser-vational programs for microplastic need to be developed. Measure-ments of trash in urban areas occur voluntarily. The inquiry believes that mandatory measurements would facilitate for the municipalities to follow up on goals and the effect of implemented actions against littering. The inquiry would like to point out that even though there exists a need for more knowledge, sufficient knowledge already exists for actions to be taken.

Degradation of plastic in the environment

The inquiry concludes that there are no plastics that are fully broken down in the environment, at least not within a time-horizon that does not risk harm to living organisms.

Conventional plastic is generally constructed to have long life-span, which means that they are difficult to break down in the natural

SOU 2018:84 Appendix 4 – Littering and degradation of ...

environment. Plastic that is manufactured to be broken down and is sold as “biodegradable” or “degradable” can only be broken down completely under certain limited environmental conditions that do not exist in the natural environment. Therefore, it is safe to say that even these plastics are difficult to break down in the natural environ-ment. Plastic products that are labelled as biodegradable generally require industrial composting to be broken down. For the sake of clarity, it is important to highlight that plastic that is based on fossil-free raw material (bio-based or renewable plastic), does not need to be degradable but can be designed to be as resistant as conventional plastic.

Therefore, we conclude that degradable plastic can never be seen as a solution to the problem of littering. Especially not for the plastic in the oceans. Degradable plastic also creates problems with the strive for circularity. However, the inquiry believes that degradable plastic may fill a valuable function in certain applications. Yet it is important that the use only is applied in cases where the quality of the degrad-able plastic is really necessary, while at the same time guaranteeing that plastic does not leave behind any by-products. One example is medicinal applications where degradable plastic can play an important part.

The inquiry highlights that there exists large confusion surround-ing terms linked to degradable plastic. Furthermore, we can state that products that are marketed as degradable, can result in a risk of increased littering amongst the public. The inquiry therefore deems that the responsibility should be place further up in the supply-chain and not on the individual consumer. Consequently, we state, similar to that of the EU Commission’s plastic strategy, that there is a need for clear rules for how the companies may use terms such as “bio-degradable”, “compostable” and similar in their marketing. To avoid misunderstandings, we recommend that the terms “bio plastic”, “de-gradable” and “biode“de-gradable” are circumvented. We believe that “in-dustrially compostable” or “degradable in the body” are more appro-priate terms since they indicate what circumstances that are needed to handle the plastic and its waste.

Appendix 4 – Littering and degradation of ... SOU 2018:84

82

6.2 Littering – a sustainability problem

Besides the fact that trash from littering risks harming animals and humans, the societal costs associated with littering are great, e.g. in the shape of the large amount municipalities need to invest annually on cleaning up urban areas and beaches. For example, the Swedish En-vironmental Protection Agency estimated that the cost for munici-palities to clean the coasts of Bohuslän was approximately 10–15 mil-lion Swedish Kronor annually. The project Ren och Attraktiv Kust (Clean and Appealing Coastline) estimated in 2016 that a complete cleaning of the coasts of Bohuslän would cost approximately 17 mil-lion Swedish Kronor annually (Naturvårdsverket, 2016).

6.2.1 The EU’s and Sweden’s export of plastic waste

The EU is the World’s largest exporter of plastic waste. The majority of the waste was up until 2017/2018 exported to China, including Hong Kong. According to the 2014 report from the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), the EU exported at least 87 percent of the weight of the plastic waste to China and Hong Kong. In 2016, Sweden exported almost 30 000 tons of plastic waste to eleven coun-tries outside of the EU. The majority (88 percent) of the plastic waste was sent to China and Hong Kong.

A comparison between the twenty countries, which are responsible for the greatest leakage of plastic waste to the marine environment and the countries that the EU and Sweden exports their plastic waste to, shows that the EU and Sweden, through these exports to countries with lacking waste management, have contributed to the global lit-tering of the World’s oceans. However, since imported plastic waste has a value, it is likely that only a small share of this plastic waste is leaking out to the marine environment. In addition, the EU, seen as one unit, ranks as number 18 on the list of countries that contributes the most to leakage of plastic waste to the oceans.

Since the end of 2017¹, China has introduced limitations for the import of 24 different types of solid waste that, apart from plastic,

1 China announced on the 15^th of November 2017 to the WTO, through a Technical Barriers to Trade Notification (TBT Notification), that the country no longer will receive, amongst others, Waste and Scrap of plastic starting from the 1^st of March 2018, which was approved on the 31^st of December 2017.

SOU 2018:84 Appendix 4 – Littering and degradation of ...

comprise of e.g. unsorted paper waste and textile waste (WTO, 2017).

In particular, it is plastic waste from complex products such as vehicles and electronics that have faced difficulties in meeting China’s new demands (Forsgren, 2018). The new demands entail that Sweden and the EU need to find new solutions for disposing of the collected plastic waste. Eventually, this may result in new business opportuni-ties and favour the recycling within the EU. However, this will demand that products that are placed on the market are made more recyclable.

For an example, the material company Plastkretsen decided during 2018 to build a new sorting facility for plastic packaging. The venture will result in Sweden obtaining the EU's most modern sorting facility for plastic packaging and that the collected plastic packaging no longer will be needed to send abroad.

6.3 Measurements of trash

In Sweden, measurements of littering on land in different environ-ment, e.g. larger cities, smaller towns and in parks and green areas are conducted. The environmental monitoring of marine trash is conducted on beaches and the ocean floor. Usually, the results are disclosed as units of trash objects rather than the weight of the trash objects. This is done since certain material categories, e.g. metal and glass, are significantly heavier than plastic as well as since individual larger objects can significantly affect the average weight. Apart from the standardised measurements, cleaning initiatives that can aid with certain littering information is also carried out. The inquiry has pri-marily chosen to use the information that is collected through the standardised measurements.

6.3.1 Methods for measuring trash on land

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has, in collaboration with the Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation, developed a guide for sup-porting municipalities in their strategic efforts for reducing littering (Naturvårdsverket, 2013). An important part of the strategic work is to map and measure the littering within municipalities. The measure-ments are conducted voluntarily by the municipalities and currently,

Appendix 4 – Littering and degradation of ... SOU 2018:84

84

Participating municipalities are offered user support by the Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation to conduct the measurements as well as follow-up and communication of the results. The municipalities shall, according to the legislation for waste planning (NFS 2017:2), estab-lish goals and introduce actions against littering. Mandatory measure-ments would facilitate follow-up for goals and the introduced actions.

6.3.2 Methods for measuring marine trash

In the EU, marine trash is included as 11 descriptors (themes) within the Marine Strategy Framework. This means that EU countries shall, amongst other actions, conduct and collaborate concerning marine trash observations. In Sweden, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management is responsible for implementation of the frame-work. At the request of the Agency, observations of macro-plastic on beaches and the ocean floor is carried out. For Swedish reference beaches, the OSPAR method is used for the coast of Bohuslän (Skagerrak) and the MARLIN method for the remaining coastline (the Baltic Sea including Kattegat and Öresund).

For measurement of trash on Swedish ocean floors, observations are carried out in conjunction with stock assessments of fish in the North Sea (International Bottom Trawl Survey, IBTS) and Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS) for trash in the Baltic Sea. Observa-tions in Skagerrak-Kattegat (IBTS) have been conducted since 2010 while observations for the Baltic Sea (BITS) have been conducted since 2011. The trawling is done by bottom trawls, which means that the trash that is collected is located either on the ocean floor or a few metres above it, and the measurements are therefore deemed as being representative for ocean floor trash.

6.3.3 Littering that end up outside of the measurements No standardised measurements of trash in other nature areas are being conducted and an abundance of facts and statistics on littering in nature is therefore missing. The Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation usually obtains information from land owners, municipalities and organisations that trash is being left in forest and land (Håll Sverige Rent, 2016). Statistics from 2015 showed a total of 2 125 reported

SOU 2018:84 Appendix 4 – Littering and degradation of ...

litter offenses concerning larger trash which was often dumped in forests but also in urban areas (Håll Sverige Rent, 2016). Abandoned cars in nature, along roads and in urban areas for an example, is a reoccurring problem.

6.3.4 Measurement results for trash on land

During 2017, 13 municipalities were measuring littering in urban areas. Cigarette butts are, for urban areas, that main type of littering and stands for approximately 60 percent of all trash. If cigarette butts and snus (a common tobacco and nicotine product used in Sweden) are excluded from the statistics, plastic and paper/cardboard stands for the most frequent littering with 34 percent each. The main part of the plastic waste is comprised of “Others” i.e. plastic bits in various sizes (54 percent), followed by packaging for candy, ice cream and snacks (26 percent). These two categories together stand for 80 per-cent of plastic trash in urban areas. The subcategory “Others” make up the largest share within each main category (material type), regard-less if one examines plastic or paper/cardboard. This is most likely due to the fact that urban areas are cleaned more often and that larger trash, which is easier to remove, is removed while the smaller frag-ments are left behind.

In six municipalities, littering in park areas were measured. Plastic objects were shown to be as common as cigarette butts with 34 per-cent each. If cigarette butts are excluded, plastic objects will stand for 56 percent of the total number of trash units followed by fraction paper/cardboard with 26 percent. In smaller towns and suburbs, the plastic category is, as in urban areas, dominated (excluding cigarette butts) by plastic bits in different sizes, followed by packaging for candy, ice cream and snacks².

Appendix 4 – Littering and degradation of ... SOU 2018:84

86

6.3.5 Measurement results for trash on beaches Summary of trash on Swedish reference beaches

On the beaches along Skagerrak, the average value for amount of trash per 100 metre is significantly higher than for the beaches along the rest of Sweden’s coastlines. Fishing-related objects, i.e. strings and lines (diameter <1 cm), are dominating the measurements along Skagerrak. Other fishing equipment such as rope (diameter >1 cm), nets and netting are found amongst the ten most frequent plastic objects on the beaches along Skagerrak. Rubber balloons is not in-cluded in the plastic category, but if it were to be inin-cluded it would be amongst the ten most frequent trash objects (33 trash objects/100 m) on the Skagerrak beaches. Neither cotton swabs are included in the plastic category, even though the object usually is made from primarily plastic. If cotton swabs are included, it would land on fourth place (170 trash objects/100 m) amongst the most common trash objects on the reference beaches in Skagerrak between 2015 and 2017.

6.3.6 Measurement results for trash on the ocean floor Summary of trash on the ocean floor

Comparisons between the test samples taken in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and coastal bottom samplings ought to be approached with caution since the different conditions that exists have not been analysed, e.g. that different types of boats and trawlers are used. How-ever, the analysis portrays a picture over what trash objects that dominates in the test samples. The Swedish measurements of plastic objects in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea between 2014 and 2015 was dominated by rope with 30–35 percent. In the Baltic Sea, plastic packaging from industry and commerce stands for the second largest category with 30 percent.

In the North Sea however, it is entangled fishing lines and plastic bags that shares the spot as the second largest category with 18 per-cent each. Plastic bags are also common in the Baltic Sea (14 perper-cent) and plastic packaging from industry and commerce (13 percent) is fre-quent in the North Sea. Fishing lines (monofilament) stand for a rela-tively large share of the plastic trash in the North Sea (13 percent)

In the North Sea however, it is entangled fishing lines and plastic bags that shares the spot as the second largest category with 18 per-cent each. Plastic bags are also common in the Baltic Sea (14 perper-cent) and plastic packaging from industry and commerce (13 percent) is fre-quent in the North Sea. Fishing lines (monofilament) stand for a rela-tively large share of the plastic trash in the North Sea (13 percent)