Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
Main Page: Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party - Life peer)Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 10 are concerned with plastics pollution. Amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to assess and respond to the risks to marine biodiversity of plastics pollution that arise from activities that are either under UK control or within UK jurisdiction. This is especially important given that the global treaty on plastics is stuck in dispute.
Plastics pollution in the oceans is subject to ocean currents and the polluter, the originator of that plastic, is often in a very different part of the world from the polluted seas and beaches that result from it. The first time this struck me with such force was when I was in Mexico in the biosphere known as Sian Ka’an, in Yucatan. There were incredibly unspoiled, amazing beaches and very little population. I could not understand why the beaches were covered in plastic, especially plastic shoes. They were sweeping up from South America on the currents.
As the BBNJ comes into effect, besides an effort to lessen what goes into the ocean, it will need, and has provision to include, remediation and removal activities. The agreement sets out the process for the submission of proposals by states and the review of the same. Does the UK yet have proposals that it intends to submit? What is the UK doing on ocean plastics and what does it need to do?
The UK is very active in the International Maritime Organization talks working towards future mandatory rules to reduce risk from nurdles—plastic pellets that are transported by sea in freight containers. The Government have also supported the global plastics pollution treaty, which I referred to earlier, are seeking commitments to reduce all sorts of plastics entering the oceans and have developed standards through the BSI.
All of that is very positive, but they have not yet introduced binding national legislation to prevent nurdle loss. This is very topical, because of that huge loss that ended up on Camber Sands from a sewage plant. The UK has no binding laws that specifically regulate the transport, storage, reporting or mandatory spill prevention of plastic pellets in the way that the EU’s new plastic pellet regulation does. I know that UK Ministers have said that there are no current plans to align UK regulations with the EU’s stricter pellet transport regulations and storage requirements, but will the Government rethink this in the light of joining this treaty? That is another example of where we could take much better action now that we are part of a treaty that concerns the oceans.
Ultimately, we have to switch from using so much fossil fuel-based plastics to using biodegradable plant-based products, and renewable energy in place of fossil fuels, so that our oceans stop warming and acidifying. The two things are incredibly linked. It is a multi- generational challenge, but this treaty is a terrific step on the road. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I very much support Amendment 6. In fact, most of the amendments in this group are sensible. Forgive my ignorance, but surely if we pass the criteria for the international treaty, what is to stop us adding things to the Bill? Is there anything? We could, could we not? It would be irrelevant for the international treaty, but relevant for our Government. Quite honestly—I am looking around the table at all these plastic bottles—our plastic use is horrendous. That is what this amendment is about. It is within the scope of the Bill and speaks directly to the aim of what we are trying to do.
The agreement’s preamble is clear. It recognises the need to address biodiversity loss in the ocean caused not just by climate change but by pollution, specifically plastic pollution. In other words, plastic is not just a side issue here; it is identified as one of the core pressures driving the destruction of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Plastic pollution is now found throughout the ocean, from the surface to the seabed, in some of the most remote parts of the seas. It causes injury and death, enters the food chain as microplastics and adds further stress to ecosystems already under strain. One floating patch of plastic out on the remote sea is three times the size of France. It is not the only giant patch. We are producing roughly the same weight of plastic each year as the weight of humans on the planet, and that is projected to keep going up. I do not know who put these plastic bottles here, but can we please complain about that? What is wrong with refilling glass bottles? I do not understand why we would add to the problem.
Amendment 6 is about making sure that, when we have a chance to make a difference and improve our sea, we can do so. The Government need to set out how they will assess and respond to the risks that plastic pollution poses and how the UK will work with international partners to reduce and monitor that harm. The amendment would help ensure that the UK takes every opportunity to lead rather than leave a recognised threat unaddressed.
Having suggested that the UK could lead on this, I feel it is rather undermined by the fact that most of our own marine protected areas are barely protected at all. There is bottom trawling, dredging and overfishing. We need to sort that out for ourselves. Signing up to international treaties is brilliant—it is good to work with other countries—but not if we cannot even manage our own resources. The five-year review is fantastic, but what about a five-year review of our own marine protected areas? The human use of plastic and fossil fuels is driving our destruction. I do not understand why the whole House cannot see that—in fact, the whole population.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 19 but very much support the amendments around plastic. When I was in the Pacific, I too found myself on a quite deserted desert island full of old fishing nets and, weirdly, a whole lot of stuff manufactured by Unilever. It is very scary.
On Amendment 19, we have had conversations about this issue and I am still completely confused as to why the Government will not adopt this incredibly simple amendment. It would strengthen our implementation of the whole BBNJ Bill by ensuring that our existing duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement that we passed in the Environment Act 2021 applies to any of our activities in the high seas.
The 2021 Act was a landmark piece of legislation, which enshrined in law five environmental principles—integration, prevention, rectification at source, the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle—and it required Ministers to embed them in all policy. However, the Act, and thus those principles, apply only to us domestically. As I understand it, there is no plan to extend them now or ever beyond our national jurisdiction. This amendment would close that gap. It would make clear that when we develop policies relating to activity on the high seas—as we are bound to do, as we may be involved in licensing, marine scientific research, environmental impact assessments or, in the future, anything to do with deep sea mining—Ministers must apply the same environmental protections and principles that guide our domestic policy in the UK. I cannot understand why the Government do not just say that that is completely fine.
I would be very happy if the Minister, in her answer, could assure me and others that this will be perfectly okay. I believe that we all want the same thing. Therefore, if she believes that this issue is already covered, can she point out how and where? How does she have absolute certainty that it cannot be legally challenged in the future without this change? Alternatively, does she think that there is another way that we can do it? I do not think that anyone wants to see a disconnect between how we behave on the high seas and how we are obliged to behave here.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
May I ask the Minister something? I am so sorry if she already responded to this; if she did, I did not catch it. We could simply pass this Bill—I understand the urgency here—but we could also add something to it. I do not accept that a lot of the things we have talked about are included anywhere else. Those things are simply put and explicit in the amendments here. I do not understand why the Government would not think about just adding them to the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right; I did not reply to that point. She will be neither surprised nor pleased to hear that that is not the Government’s intention. We want to get this Bill through in order to get on with being able to participate in the Conference of the Parties. The view of Defra Ministers is, I think, that we ought to consult on or consider any additional measures in the light of other decisions being made. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness wants to hear today—I hope that she does not interpret this as any disinclination from the Government to move forward on the things that I know matter so much to her—but that is not what we want to do with this piece of legislation.