Document b5dO3w3dKE1gaEjL8nn9n98Mk

What we knew at the start Microplastics: Typically refer to solid particles (including fibres) made from synthetic polymers < 5mm in size Secondary MPs formed as larger pieces of `plastic' degrade/abrade Litter (SUPs, fishing gear, bottles, nurdles), synthetic clothing, tyre abrasion Primary MPs in various types of products added for achieving specific functionalities Beads, encapsulates, flakes, powders, crumbs 2 Sector-specific impact assessment Quantities and emissions in scope Alternatives and costs to develop them Other costs (e.g. foreseeable profit losses) Cost/effectiveness ratios (comparing substitution cost vs emissions) Sectors very diverse in terms of substitutability Different restriction proposals for sectors (ban, conditional derogations, mandatory instructions, mandatory reporting, grace periods) 5 Overall proportionality argumentation Use volumes and emissions in scope Effectiveness of emission abatement Marginal abatement cost curve Theoretical considerations 8 Marginal abatement cost curve 10 Further theoretical arguments Option value theory `first act, then learn' rather than `first learn, then act' Builds on the justified assumption that emissions are irreversible we will learn a great deal more about the harmfulness of MPs in the environment in the near term future Option value is net value resulting from the avoidance of irreversible emissions conditional on learning about the actual harmfulness of MPs 11 Conclusions Clear definition of MPs has helped us Early identification of sectors/uses has helped us Providing an analysis of restricting infill material during opinion making was tedious Focus on C/E has made impact assessment comparable across uses Benefits hard to quantify, discussed qualitatively Good to have theoretical arguments that underpin proposed actions but did not get a lot of attention 12