Senators consider federal spending on global ocean plastics fight

Washington — Key senators overseeing U.S. foreign aid spending are discussing setting up a government fund to tackle ocean plastics pollution around the world, saying they want something similar to past efforts to fight AIDS or malaria.

The plan is in its early stages and it's not clear how much money is under discussion, but it could be a big step up for Washington. At a July 21 Senate hearing to examine foreign aid programs around marine plastics, senators from both parties said the federal government should dramatically boost spending.

Some lawmakers seemed to see the U.S.-led fund as an alternative to a World Bank effort, called Problue, that State Department officials suggested is pursuing policies the agency does not like that could limit plastics production.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who called the hearing as head of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign aid spending, told other lawmakers he wanted a U.S.-led fund that others could contribute to.

"I want a global fund to be created, like we've done for AIDS and malaria and other things, to deal with plastics, that we can control," Graham said. "What I'd like to have happen is for us to start joining things or create new things for others to join that we lead [and] have the Congress more involved."

He also said he was interested in more support for the World Bank effort.

Democratic senators were supportive of either the World Bank effort or starting a U.S.-led fund.

"The United States should step up on combating ocean plastic pollution, as we traditionally have in fisheries management and in ocean conservation, both by contributing to this [World Bank] fund and perhaps by establishing our own," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. "There's no reason for the U.S. to be laggards in this space."

A senior U.S. diplomat overseeing ocean policy welcomed additional funding and interest from Congress.

But he cautioned the lawmakers that the Trump administration has concerns that the World Bank's Problue fund could work to restrict plastics production and use.

"We're a little concerned with their advocacy to reduce upstream production and use of plastics that could undermine the growing recycling market," said Jonathan Moore, the State Department's principal deputy assistant secretary in the bureau of oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs.

He suggested another multilateral organization that the U.S. government works with, the Global Environmental Facility, as a potential "strong alternative" mechanism to Problue.

GEF's website described it a donor fund set up during the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to support conservation efforts in developing countries.

"We're a member of the GEF Council," Moore told the senators. "We've had a long history of shaping its programming to advance U.S. interests."

Graham said he wanted Moore to give feedback to the committee on how a potential U.S.-led fund would work and whether the U.S. should join the Basel Convention or boost involvement in the Problue fund.

"Being left out is not a good place to be," Graham said. "We're the biggest fish in the sea, no pun intended, and we need to get in the game here.

"I really think this committee is very inclined to put some money in a global fund," Graham said. "This is a good place for this committee to lay down a new marker and put some money that would entice others."

Graham's office did not respond to a request for comment on more details on a fund.

Problue launched in 2018 with $150 million in pledged funding. It's modeled on a World Bank fisheries fund that leveraged more than $1 billion over its lifespan, according to Problue's website.

Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., supported Graham's message that the U.S. should be more involved with global efforts.

"I think the thrust of what you're saying is very important for the [Donald Trump] administration to hear," Udall said. "Thank you for that comment."

Udall believes the U.S. administration has been too supportive of development policies and trade agreements that favor petrochemical investments and has lined up against efforts by more than 80 countries for a new global agreement around the impacts of plastic.

"Despite what has been said here today, it's very clear to me that U.S. participation in all international processes to develop regulations on plastic production and impose limits on plastic waste exports have been counter to the efforts of the broader international community," Udall said.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., also said she wanted more international efforts.

"This administration has pulled the United States away from a number of international cooperative efforts," she said. "An issue like how do we get rid of plastics worldwide is something that we've got to cooperate with other countries on."

Moore said the U.S. works in many global organizations, including the U.N. Environment Assembly, on plastics issues, and he noted that U.S. aid programs are working on plastics issues in countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia.

He said the government is very concerned about the issue, and also works with private sector organizations like the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, as well as a recent partnership on ghost fishing gear.

"It is a global problem with global consequences," Moore said. "We need innovation in materials and design, changes in behavior and significant improvements in waste management systems."

Graham and Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., both said the U.S. government currently spends about $12 million a year in its foreign aid budget toward combating marine plastics. That number apparently includes a five-year, $48 million "Clean Cities, Blue Ocean" program launched last year.

And both said they wanted to increase that funding. Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the appropriations committee, suggested that $12 million figure is very small for the global scope of the problem.

Senators also questioned why the U.S. wasn't a formal member of the Basel Convention, which last year decided to limit exports of plastic waste.

Moore noted that no U.S. administration has joined Basel since it was created 30 years ago, and he said that the U.S. not being formally in the pact "will make it much more difficult for the U.S. to export plastic scrap" when the new plastics rules kick in Jan. 1.

Moore said that joining Basel "would require a tremendous amount of domestic implementing legislation. We are certainly prepared to be a part of that discussion."

Graham said he was in favor of a more robust U.S. role.

"My takeaways are that $12 million is not nearly enough," Graham said. "The problem is global in nature. A global fund would be a good start for this committee and I think the Congress and the administration [should] start leading by example."