Two NGOs joined the increasing number of critics calling for reduced production and consumption of plastics rather than a focus on clean-up technologies said to do more harm than good to the environment.

The organisations presented their concerns during the third round of talks on the UN Global Plastics Treaty in Nairobi, Kenya, on 13-19 November.

In their report, Clean-Ups or Clean-Washing, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA, London; www.eia-international.org) and OceanCare (Waedenswil, Switzerland; www.oceancare.org) said while clean-up technologies sound appealing, they could pose a threat to marine species and ecosystems. “It’s time to get real about clean-up tech. Our concerns lie in the role clean-ups play in distracting from more decisive solutions,” EIA ocean campaigner Jacob Kean-Hammerson said.

OceanCare plastics policy expert Ewoud Lauwerier added that while clean-up projects appear attractive to the wider public, they are instead “ineffective, capital intensive, falsely seen to be a solution and can even harm marine wildlife”.

Their research said 38 clean-up technologies are trying to tackle the plastics pollution crisis, including large-scale booms, drones and robots, sand filters, surface skimmers and vacuums. But the methods do not discriminate between aquatic life plastic and organic debris, the NGOs pointed out, adding that even passive technologies such as SeaBins capture significant amounts of marine life along with the plastics. 

And plastics and marine life often accumulate in the same areas, the groups noted. For instance, in Hawaii, nearly 100% of large larval fish and more than 95% of floating plastics are concentrated in slicks, making it extremely difficult to separate them. 

Related: Dutch study finds less plastics waste entering oceans than thought 

The organisations highlighted concerns about the impact on marine wildlife from The Ocean Cleanup (TOC, Rotterdam; www.theoceancleanup.com) project to tackle the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The bycatch from TOC’s clean-ups reportedly includes sea turtles (including endangered species), sharks, diverse fish species and cephalopods. 

Additionally, the amount of plastics waste is estimated to be much lower than initially anticipated. The company was aiming to collect between nearly 1,000 to 14,900 kg of waste per week, but researchers said the volumes are 3.7-5.5 times lower.

The NGOs also mentioned the speculation surrounding TOC’s links to the plastics industry, with funders including resin makers Sabic (Riyadh; www.sabic.com), DSM (Heerlen, The Netherlands; www.dsm.com), and US drinks giant Coca-Cola (Atlanta, Georgia; www.coca-colacompany.com). 

“Clean-up projects are a wonderful tool for the industry to distracting from the real problem,” OceanCare’s Lauwerier said. “No surprise there, when you look at who the core funders are.”

According to the report, the problem with clean-up technologies is their impact on the climate because of the fuel they burn. Studies have found that 200 vessels would not be able to clean the world’s oceans in more than 100 years of continuous operation, but they would have a significant climate impact through the emission of greenhouse gases.

One new clean-up vessel currently under development is the Manta, a deep-sea processing ship proposed by NGO The SeaCleaners (www.theseacleaners.org). The ship is being designed to collect, treat, and repurpose large volumes of floating plastic debris from coasts, estuaries, and the mouths of large rivers. 

The SeaCleaners said they intend to select a shipyard and start construction next year, with the Manta due for launch in 2025. The aim is to collect 5,000-10,000 t/y of waste plastics with first commissions to take place in Southeast Asia.

According to NGOs, marine remediation activities should be considered as part of a comprehensive approach to ending plastics pollution, but they “should not include the promotion of disruptive clean technologies.

“Remediation only makes sense when upstream measures are in place to truly turn off the tap. Mopping up plastic pollution when the sources of pollution are not first fully addressed is not a sustainable solution from a financial or environmental perspective.” 

The groups added that clean-up technologies should only be directed towards areas of acute plastics pollution that pose demonstrated and significant risks and should also be subject to independent prior mandatory environmental impact assessments along with rigorous and continual monitoring. 

They also suggested the formation of a plastics pollution trust fund to provide additional financial assistance to developing countries, economies in transition and small island developing states to support remediation efforts.