Impacts of the Global Plastic Treaty on the Marine Environmental Protection Law of China

Abstract

This paper investigates the implications of the Global Plastic Treaty on China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL), analyzing its alignment with global standards and identifying critical gaps. While the MEPL aligns with the treaty’s goals of pollution prevention and ecosystem protection, deficiencies remain in areas such as extended producer responsibility (EPR), full-lifecycle plastic governance, and comprehensive marine plastic waste management. Drawing on international best practices from the European Union, the United States, and Asia, similarly, the study proposes actionable recommendations for enhancing the MEPL. Strengthening EPR mechanisms, improving enforcement capacities, and fostering international cooperation are essential steps for achieving treaty compliance and advancing marine environmental protection. These reforms will position China as a leader in global marine governance while addressing the urgent crisis of marine plastic pollution.

1. Introduction

The problem of marine pollution was one of the most important environmental threats at the end of the 20th century, with very far-reaching impacts on human health, marine ecosystems, and sustainable development. Plastic waste is the most severe type of pollution due to its abundance and build-up in the environment [1]. According to the United Nations’ educational, campaigning, and information agency in Paris, plastic waste leads to about 80 percent of all ocean pollution and, if the trend continues, will add up to the equivalent of the world’s fish by 2050. Local and global action in response to this alarming projection is needed to reduce marine plastic pollution [2]. In 2020, China produced almost 30 percent of the world’s total plastic production, with almost 60 million tons of plastic waste created on a yearly basis. Thus, this represents a major effort to address the global plastic pollution crisis, and it is time that China’s policies acknowledge the existing influence of international frameworks like the Global Plastic Treaty.

The major concern is that plastic debris is highly non-biodegradable and a very large portion of plastic debris is microplastics, i.e., primary microplastics sourced from commercial products and secondary microplastics generated as larger plastic pieces break down [3]. When these particles go into the marine environment, they start feeding the marine organisms and also put human health at risk. Plastic pollution also poses major transboundary environmental and economic problems, especially given that plastics are moving across national borders by way of ocean currents.

In March of 2022, the Fifth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) reached a landmark resolution and adopted a resolution entitled “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument”. This resolution signified a sea change in the way in which the oceans are governed when it comes to plastics, calling for a focus on the entire lifecycle of plastics from the material design and manufacturing to disposal and recycling [4]. The Global Plastic Treaty moves beyond the fragmented and reactive approaches by creating a system of integrated management for plastics that has its sources. It documents a maturing agreement about the coupling of marine and terrestrial systems, stressing land–sea interactions as a means to lower the origins of pollution and decrease the need for end of pipe solutions. The principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR), which refers to the making of producers responsible for waste management, as a key predecessor of the treaty, is also a crucial component in the negotiations. EPR requires producers to be responsible for their products along the entire lifecycle from design to disposal [5]. This mirrors contemporary rules which favor prevention over correction [6]. The treaty is binding, away from voluntary, soft law approaches to a greater degree of accountability and the harmonization of international efforts fending off plastic pollution.

China is one of the world’s biggest plastic producers and consumers, and its actions hold importance for the global battle to wipe out marine plastic pollution. Maximum protection of marine ecosystems is prescribed within its legal framework by its Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) [7]. Although the MEPL is being reviewed to include global environmental principles, it falls short of filling all the gaps in areas that include EPR, regulatory implementation, and the coordination of agency efforts between different government agencies. Although the MEPL is broad in terms of its coverage of pollution prevention and ecosystem protection, it is far too general, and offers no clear directions on managing the whole lifecycle of plastic production and disposal. The Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) has current limitations in terms of meeting the global plastic treaty’s ambitious goals, particularly of a comprehensive waste management and accountability mechanism [8]. There is both a national and global imperative to strengthen China’s MEPL to better meet the aims of the treaty. To increase China’s capability in better and more sustainably managing plastic pollution, it is of paramount importance to augment China’s EPR mechanisms’ integration, strengthen its enforcement capacities, and boost inter agency coordination. A result of these reforms would be to place China in the forefront of global marine environmental governance [9]. Based on this thesis, this study discusses the implications of the Global Plastic Treaty for China’s marine environmental protection framework. The objective of the article is to evaluate the correspondence between the treaty provisions and the MEPL, detect essential gaps in the regulatory and enforcement resources, and offer inspirational recommendations aimed at improving treaty compliance [10]. The contribution of this paper to the discussion on sustainable marine governance and the adaptations needed in national legal frameworks to meet global environmental goals is, therefore, made.

The key research questions addressed are:

• Under what conditions and with what impact does the Global Plastic Treaty influence marine plastic governance?
• What are the gaps in the MEPL regarding lifecycle management and EPR implementation?
• What policy reforms can align China’s MEPL with the treaty objectives?

The remainder of this paper is then organized as follows: It provides an overview of the scope and magnitude of marine plastic pollution, and the socio-economic and ecological damage it is heaping on the planet. Next, it discusses governance challenges where the limitations of existing models are outlined before the Global Plastic Treaty is identified as bridging this gap [3]. After this, the paper further examines the current state of China’s MEPL and its strengths and weaknesses. It finally provides policy recommendations for improving the MEPL based on the treaty and stipulates the importance of international cooperation and the incorporation of lifecycle management principles into national levels. Unfortunately, marine plastic pollution is a global crisis, and for solutions to be found, action needs to be taken that requires strong partnerships and cooperative efforts both locally and internationally. The Global Plastic Treaty is a turning point in international marine governance that provides the strongest type of framework on the root causes of pollution. This study addresses the urgent global challenge of marine plastic pollution within the context of the recently adopted Global Plastic Treaty. By employing a comparative legal analysis, it evaluates China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) against international standards, offering practical recommendations to better align domestic policies with global treaty obligations and enhance environmental governance. However, the treaty’s ability to succeed relies on strong national implementation in countries like China, which is key in the global plastic production sphere and consumption [11]. As both a challenge and an opportunity for China to lead the elimination of marine plastic pollution [12], the MEPL should be lined up with the treaty’s provisions. China can play a more active role today as a leader in sustainable marine governance by integrating EPR systems, strengthening regulatory enforcement, and creating international partnerships. The results of this study highlight the importance of holistic approaches to managing the plastic lifecycle and the need for collective action to ensure the protection of marine ecosystems for future generations.

2. Background

2.1. Global Plastic Treaty

The Global Plastic Treaty sets a new bar in global environmental governance on the issue of marine plastic pollution which is at accelerating levels [13]. The treaty, based on previous agreements like the Basel Convention on hazardous waste and Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants, is developed in the complementary view and puts emphasis on an overall approach to manage plastic waste from the beginning of production to the last piece of waste [14]. Its two main principles include extended producer responsibility (EPR), where producers take legal responsibility for all lifecycle aspects of the product, while, for example, producers of waste packaging would take the responsibility for waste packaging [15]. This is a systemic shift in the plastic pollution governance across national boundaries and across regulatory frameworks, and is based on the principle of lifecycle governance. The Global Plastic Treaty is grounded in lifecycle governance, which means taking on plastic pollution everywhere—from a material’s design and manufacture to waste generation, disposal, and recycling. The aim is to have a circular economy that will scrap plastic waste and maximize plastics’ reuse and recycling. In contrast to traditional plastic waste management schemes pursuing the treatment of post-consumer waste, this approach addresses a wider range of issues related to plastic pollution with much greater potential.

2.2. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Systems

On the other hand, EPR has become a cornerstone of modern plastic governance the world over. The shift in responsibility for product disposal, recycling, and environmental impacts is from governments and consumers to producers, using EPR. The responsibility is for the whole lifecycle of the product: design, use, and disposal. Under EPR, the producers finance recycling and the disposal of products from consumers, or, in some cases, they physically act as collectors, recyclers, and disposers [16]. Manufacturers are motivated by this, making it easier to recycle products, manufacture less harmful product materials, and generate less waste overall. Since the weaknesses have been effectively managed by the EPR implementation in the EU through directives such as the Waste Framework Directive and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, there seems nothing wrong in it. Producers are required to fund waste management systems (such as waste collection, recycling, and the safe disposal of products) through these directives [17]. The EU has also put in place deposit return schemes (DRSs) for beverage containers, and has significantly boosted the recycling rates in some of the member states [18]. According to these schemes, EPR schemes and innovations in plastic recycling in developed countries, such as Sweden or Germany, have developed advanced recycling infastructures and impressive cuts in plastic waste.

State level programs have been adopted by the United States to adopt a more decentralized approach to EPR [19]. California and Oregon, for example, have fully implemented comprehensive EPR systems through which producers are responsible for managing the recyclability of their packaging from product-to-product placement on retail shelves and ultimately, from production to disposal and recycling. Such programs have enabled the reduction in the quantity of plastic and to improve the sustainability of packaging materials. While these systems are incredibly successful in some states, the U.S. does not currently have a national EPR framework and as a result, EPR policies have been implemented differently in each state [20]. Eu Pr Bem will show how the international examples of EPR systems have been effective in reducing plastic pollution and inducing more sustainable production practices. The same can be achieved by China by adopting similar models, which would help it to improve its plastic waste management strategies as well as bring them in line with the Global Plastic Treaty objectives.

2.3. China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) and Gaps in EPR Implementation

The Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) has a great significance in China’s environmental governance—it serves as the legal basis for regulating marine pollution, including plastic waste [7]. The MEPL was enacted in 1982 and further revised over the course of several years, aiming to prevent marine pollution, protect the marine ecosystem, and promote sustainable development. Thus, while some progress has been made, the law remains in shortfall regarding extended producer responsibility (EPR), lifecycle governance, and in respect of waste. The most important gap in the MEPL is the absence of provisions for robust EPR [8]. Although the law encompasses general waste reduction measures, it is not mandated that producers be held responsible for all points of their product’s lifecycle. Without obvious producer liability for plastic waste, producers are not encouraged to reduce plastic waste or do so in consideration of a product’s recyclability [16]. In this plastic packaging sector, it stands out especially, because producers have been able to offload the environmental impact of their products onto government-funded waste management systems.

China’s current level of recycling infrastructure is also not capable of matching the production of plastic waste. Although China has lately stepped up its waste management efforts, it has yet to establish a systematically sustainable life governance model. Inherently, the MEPL does not possess specific provisions for managing microplastics and recycling losses, two extremely important aspects that curtail plastic waste’s overall environmental impact [7]. For instance, the plastic recycling rate is much lower in China and much of its waste is landfilled or incinerated, resulting in substantial environmental pollution [9]. Relying on incineration results in releasing harmful toxins into the atmosphere affecting air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. By implementing EPR and lifecycle governance, the MEPL would be consistent with China’s commitment to the Global Plastic Treaty and international practice [14]. Learning from the successful cases of plastic waste management in the EU and US, China could establish a comprehensive and effective plastic waste management system based on plastic products’ lifecycle.

2.4. Recommendations for Strengthening the MEPL

China’s MEPL should be reformed through EPR and lifecycle governance to comply with the principles of the Global Plastic Treaty. Since the Global Plastic Treaty supports environmental protection, China’s MEPL laws are currently being updated to include EPR and lifecycle management. Using legal measures, the government should supervise companies as they produce, use, and dispose of their goods. Imposing EPR schemes ensures that producers will be encouraged to redesign their products so that they are more efficiently recycled and protect the environment. China should introduce goals for recycling by industry and focus on improving the efficiency of separate storage and converting waste into useful forms [15]. Stronger regulation of waste-to-energy schemes is necessary to prevent harm to the environment. The plan covers ensuring the safe disposal of non-recyclable waste and achieving the proper environmental management of incineration plants. Giving greater support to the MEPL will greatly reduce the release of plastics into China’s oceans and waterways, putting China ahead in the fight against plastic pollution and helping the world meet the requirements of the Global Plastic Treaty.

3. Methodology

This study employs a comparative analysis to evaluate the alignment between China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) and the provisions of the Global Plastic Treaty. By examining the treaty’s principles, obligations, and mechanisms, alongside the regulatory framework and implementation strategies of the MEPL, this research identifies gaps, overlaps, and opportunities for integration. The comparative approach is well suited for understanding the interplay between international agreements and domestic legislation, providing a systematic framework for assessing policy coherence and effectiveness. These indices are proposed as conceptual frameworks to quantify the effectiveness of the MEPL in reducing marine plastic pollution and enforcing producer responsibility [16]. Due to the limited availability of comprehensive empirical data, we illustrate their application through hypothetical examples, highlighting their potential as tools for future policy monitoring and evaluation.

3.1. Approach

The analysis focuses on three core principles of the Global Plastic Treaty circular economy, extended producer responsibility (EPR), full-lifecycle governance, and their incorporation into the MEPL. The study evaluates the extent to which the MEPL addresses lifecycle management, holds producers accountable through EPR mechanisms, and fosters innovation in sustainable practices [17]. The key performance indicators include regulatory specificity, enforcement mechanisms, and stakeholder engagement. These criteria provide a structured basis for assessing the MEPL’s readiness to align with international obligations and its potential to contribute to the global marine plastic pollution mitigation efforts [18].

3.2. Data Sources

The research draws on a variety of primary and secondary sources, including international treaties, national legislation, policy documents, and academic literature [8]. Primary data include the text of the Global Plastic Treaty and official amendments to the MEPL, providing direct insight into the legal and regulatory frameworks under analysis. Secondary data encompass peer-reviewed journal articles, reports from international organizations such as UNEP, and case studies from jurisdictions that have implemented robust EPR systems, such as the European Union (EU) and the United States [18]. These sources offer comparative perspectives and best practices, highlighting strategies for integrating treaty principles into domestic law.

Case studies from the EU and US are particularly valuable for illustrating the operationalization of EPR mechanisms and lifecycle governance. For example, the EU’s Waste Framework Directive and its related policies demonstrate how circular economy principles can be embedded into legislation, while US state-level EPR programs provide insights into stakeholder collaboration and economic incentives [19]. By comparing these models with China’s MEPL, the study identifies actionable recommendations for enhancing its regulatory effectiveness and policy coherence. Two concepts have been proposed to measure the MEPL’s support for the Global Plastic Treaty: The Pollution Reduction Efficiency (PRE) and Producer Responsibility Index (PRI). The PRE reveals how much plastic waste from the ocean is reduced when there are efforts to recycle and reuse it. The PRI measures if producers fulfill all the obligations set by EPR legislation.

We are limited in making empirical calibrations because these metrics still rely on data that have not been fully gathered. Consequently, fictional cases are used to show how the PRE and PRI can be worked out and viewed. Future studies ought to concentrate on obtaining empirical data from official sources to support the application and evaluation of policies.

To examine this, the authors compare the components of China’s MEPL to the standards set by the Global Plastic Treaty. The articles were picked based on how relevant they are to managing plastic pollution, the credibility of their publishers, and how recent they are. Some important files are the official papers from the MEPL and the Global Plastic Treaty, academic sources, and reports issued by UNEP. Efforts were made to compare countries based on whether they support pollution prevention, biodiversity protection, EPR, full-cycle governance, and managing marine plastic waste. Analysis was conducted using each criterion to highlight where the policies need changes, and where they are in agreement. It made it easy to evaluate how consistent the policies are and what challenges would arise during implementation.

3.3. Framework for Analysis

The analytical framework consists of three steps: identifying gaps, evaluating integration potential, and proposing recommendations. First, the study identifies gaps in the MEPL’s provisions related to the Global Plastic Treaty’s requirements. These include deficiencies in lifecycle governance, the absence of robust EPR mechanisms, and challenges in enforcement and monitoring. Second, the analysis evaluates the MEPL’s potential for integrating treaty principles and considering factors such as institutional capacity, stakeholder engagement, and alignment with existing policies. Third, the study formulates policy recommendations aimed at bridging these gaps, drawing on international best practices and China’s unique regulatory context [13].

To support the evaluation of the MEPL’s alignment with the Global Plastic Treaty, the following equations are proposed:

1. Pollution Reduction Efficiency (PRE): To judge how the MEPL relates to the Global Plastic Treaty, in particular, quantitative metrics are used in this study. Two metrics to assess how well the MEPL addresses marine plastic pollution and producer responsibility are used: the Pollution Reduction Efficiency (PRE) and the Producer Responsibility Index (PRI).

The Pollution Reduction Efficiency (PRE) is defined as the amount of marine pollution minimized through handling plastics as recyclable wastes and reusable products. The metric is calculated as below. This equation assesses the effectiveness of lifecycle governance in reducing marine plastic pollution through waste management strategies.

$$PRE={\displaystyle \frac{Plastic Waste Recycledor Reused \left(kg\right)}{Total Plastic Waste Generated \left(kg\right)}}\times 100$$

The Pollution Reduction Efficiency (PRE) measures the percentage of plastic waste diverted from the marine environment through recycling or reuse. Higher (PRE) values indicate stronger implementation of the circular economy principles. This metric can be applied to compare the MEPL’s performance before and after treaty-related reforms.

2. Producer Responsibility Index (PRI): To measure the recycling rates in China and the associated pollution reduction, these data will be sourced nationally through waste management reports and internationally by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN body responsible for environment policy.

The Producer Responsibility Index (PRI) defines how much a producer is accountable towards managing the whole plastic product lifecycle. It is calculated as below. This equation quantifies the degree to which producers comply with EPR obligations, incorporating financial contributions and waste management performance.

$$PRI={\displaystyle \frac{Producer Contributions to Recycling \left(C\right)}{Total Cost of Waste Management \left(T\right)}}\times 100$$

The Producer Responsibility Index (PRI) evaluates the extent to which producers financially support waste management systems under EPR mandates. A higher PRI indicates greater producer accountability and alignment with the treaty principles. This index is particularly useful for monitoring the MEPL’s enforcement of EPR policies. Under the existing EPR policies, financial contributions and waste management will be traced using the PRI data from government records, producer reports, and industry information. This will enable the evaluation of China’s MEPL and its consistency with the treaty’s objectives for effective plastic governance.

These equations provide quantitative tools for evaluating the MEPL’s integration of the treaty principles and identifying areas for improvement [10]. The analytical framework consists of three steps: identifying gaps, evaluating the integration potential, and proposing recommendations. First, the study identifies gaps in the MEPL’s provisions related to the Global Plastic Treaty’s requirements. These include the deficiencies in lifecycle governance, the absence of robust EPR mechanisms, and challenges in enforcement and monitoring. Second, the analysis evaluates the MEPL’s potential for integrating the treaty principles, considering factors such as institutional capacity, stakeholder engagement, and alignment with the existing policies. Third, the study formulates policy recommendations aimed at bridging these gaps, drawing on international best practices and China’s unique regulatory context [14].

Gaps in identification involve an in-depth look at the MEPL provisions in relation to the core principles of the treaty. For example, while the MEPL contains general obligations on the reduction in marine pollution, it lacks any specific measures related to the producer’s responsibility along the product lifecycle. This is in contrast with the treaty’s promotion of EPR as a mechanism toward sustainable production and waste management. The effectiveness of the MEPL’s enforcement mechanisms is observed with respect to their compliance monitoring and sanctions for violations [15]. Comparative lessons obtained from both the EU and the US emphasize that what works in regulatory development is financial incentives and public–private partnerships. The assessment of the integration potential, therefore, looks at the broader policy environment in China, with its commitment to both sustainable development and international cooperation. Moreover, the study will review the chances for international collaboration regarding technology transfer and capacity-building programs as effective means to develop better implementation capability and induce innovation.

Thus, the policy recommendations emphasize what concrete measures will be implemented to integrate EPR and lifecycle governance into the MEPL. These include, among others, clear legal mandates on producer accountability, better enforcement mechanisms through technological innovation, and stakeholder collaboration in promoting compliance [16]. These measures, after adoption, will contribute to the strengthening of the marine environmental protection framework in China and to the global effort to combat marine plastic pollution. This methodology provides the template for an effective analysis of the alignment between the MEPL and the Global Plastic Treaty in highlighting gaps and recommending actionable recommendations. The incorporation of the treaty principles into the MEPL does not only improve its effectiveness but also positions China as a leader in global marine environmental governance.

4. Findings and Discussion

4.1. MEPL and the Global Plastic Treaty

China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) demonstrates significant alignment with the core objectives of the Global Plastic Treaty, particularly in areas of pollution prevention, biodiversity protection, and environmental sustainability [10]. Both frameworks emphasize the need to reduce marine plastic pollution by addressing its sources and implementing measures to protect ecosystems. The MEPL’s provisions for mandatory environmental impact assessments and controls on industrial discharges align closely with the treaty’s focus on upstream interventions to mitigate pollution. Furthermore, the MEPL incorporates biodiversity protection measures that resonate with the treaty’s goals of fostering sustainable marine ecosystems [17].

However, notable gaps remain in the MEPL’s alignment with the treaty’s principles. While the MEPL addresses general pollution control, it does not mandate producers to manage their waste, thereby missing an opportunity to incentivize eco-design and improve the recycling rates. Additionally, the MEPL lacks comprehensive provisions for full-lifecycle governance, which is central to the treaty.

As shown in

Table 1. Comparison of MEPL and Global Plastic Treaty objectives.

Objective	Global Plastic Treaty	MEPL
Pollution Prevention	Comprehensive reduction	Industrial control
Biodiversity Protection	Sustainable governance	Ecosystem protection
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)	Mandated lifecycle accountability	Lacks EPR provisions
Full-Lifecycle Governance	Lifecycle management	Focus on pollution control
Marine Plastic Waste Management	Post-consumer and microplastics	Limited waste measures

, the Global Plastic Treaty adopts a more holistic and forward-looking approach to plastic pollution governance compared to the Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) of China. The Convention stresses lowering emissions all the way, sustainable management and ensuring accountability, mostly by using EPR and full cycle management, but it stops short by not mentioning EPR very much. On this topic, the MEPL overlooks post-consumer plastics and microplastics, meaning there are important issues with China’s current policy on marine plastic waste control [18].

4.2. Gaps in the MEPL’s Alignment with the Global Plastic Treaty

Though the provisions in the Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) in China seek to reduce marine pollution, the treaty lacks alignment with the Global Plastic Treaty. Amongst the huge gaps, the absence of concrete measures for post-consumer waste generated from plastic are at the top of the list. While the MEPL does not provide enough emphasis on the producer’s role in managing waste once a product is used, this is at the core of the principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR) of the Global Plastic Treaty. The efforts that China has made to reduce China’s plastic pollution in the sea are limited without enforceable mandates for the producer to bear post-consumer plastics responsibility [19]. The major gap is also the lack of microplastics as a marine pollution issue to be addressed. There is no specific regulation or measure in the MEPL to prevent the release of microplastics, or for the full lifecycle of plastics that includes the decomposition of plastics into microplastics. China’s current legislation misses the point of holistic lifecycle governance as required by the Global Plastic Treaty. Consequently, the potential of the MEPL in managing the long-term negative environmental implication of plastics is limited [20]. Additionally, liability is not clearly defined for producers under the MEPL. The law specifies general rules for reducing waste, but makes producers non-financially and legally responsible for the lifetime impacts of products in regard to waste collection and recycle costs. The EU’s Waste Framework Directive and California’s EPR programs can provide models of how to improve the MEPL’s provisions based on international legal norms [21]. The law would be in conformity with the international standards and increase the incentive for producers to achieve better sustainable production practices and invest in waste management infrastructure. To help with upstream pollution control, the plan requires environmental assessments and limits for pollution from factories’ activities. China could apply effective EPR structures from both the EU and US to improve its MEPL policy. The main steps for improving alignment are to strengthen laws, improve government institutions, support partnerships, and collaborate with other countries. Even though the Pollution Reduction Efficiency (PRE) and Producer Responsibility Index (PRI) are effective tools, their practical application cannot be assessed with today’s data. It would be beneficial for future research to create datasets that help implement these indices.

4.3. Challenges in Implementation

The implementation of both the MEPL and Global Plastic Treaty principles in China faces significant challenges at the institutional, regulatory, and operational levels. For instance, regional marine bureaus often face resource constraints and inconsistent policy directives, leading to the uneven enforcement of pollution control measures.

Another critical challenge lies in aligning national policies with the international compliance requirements. The absence of standardized guidelines for producer accountability and waste management complicates China’s ability to meet the treaty obligations. Moreover, the discrepancies between local priorities and national strategies further exacerbate these challenges, creating a misalignment of efforts at different levels of governance.

China’s ability to collaborate with other nations on technology transfer and capacity-building initiatives is essential for enhancing its waste management infrastructure. However, the differences in technological capabilities and resource availability limit the country’s ability to adopt the global best practices. For instance, while developed nations have implemented advanced recycling systems, China’s recycling infrastructure still faces operational inefficiencies, limiting the efficacy of the EPR mechanisms [22].

The MEPL in China aims to fight marine plastic pollution, while there is a long way to go before the provisions of the Global Plastic Treaty are met. However, institutional fragmentation is a big barrier to implementation. The law may not be adapted to regional conditions, and the resources or the authority at the national or local level to enforce the law may not exist. Lacking a single strategy to implement the law, the law’s overall impact is weakened and it does not serve to help meet the treaty obligations [23]. In addition, there are political and economic aspects of the alignment of the MEPL with the treaty goals. Petrochemical and manufacturing (contribute to) plastic production, which are critical to plastic production, may not easily accept tighter regulations, in particular rules of producer responsibility and transition towards more sustainable production practices [24]. In reality, the need to handle waste and product redesign for better recyclability could increase the costs for these industries. The undertaking of more stringent waste management regulations could be met with lobbying efforts aimed at avoiding more severe economic consequences resulting from the implementation of the MEPL in correlation with international obligations. Overcoming these institutional, political, and economic barriers will require a new and strong legal framework together with better cooperation between the government agencies and industry players. To achieve coordination and overcome compliance resistance, the EPR and lifecycle governance principles can be adopted by the MEPL through public–private partnerships (PPPs) and incentives for the private sector.

4.4. Case Studies: International Practices

Examining international practices provides valuable insights into the integration of extended producer responsibility (EPR) into national frameworks. The European Union (EU) stands as a global leader in implementing EPR within its waste management systems. The Waste Framework Directive and its subsequent policies imposed financial and organizational responsibility on producers for the whole lifecycle of their products. In addition, the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste, deposit return schemes, and binding recycling targets complete the measures ensuring high compliance levels. The EU has made it mandatory for producers to share the burden of waste management costs and adhere to the principles of eco-design, which has significantly improved the waste reduction and recycling rates [24].

EPR systems also exist in federal and state variations within the United States, some of which widely differ in regard to their scope and enforcement. While federal initiatives like the National Recycling Plan provide a general framework, state-level programs, such as those in Oregon and Maine, have been more proactive in mandating producer responsibility. These programs require producers to fund waste collection and recycling efforts through producer responsibility organizations (PROs). Although less standardized than the EU’s approach, these initiatives have shown the potential for flexible and decentralized EPR implementation, especially in engaging stakeholders and leveraging public–private partnerships [25]. While the PRE and PRI provide innovative approaches for evaluating the MEPL’s performance, current data limitations restrict empirical calibration. Future research should prioritize data collection to operationalize these indices fully.

Asian countries are still in the infancy stage concerning the adoption of EPR legislation, although considerable progress is being made in countries like Vietnam and the Philippines. Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP of Vietnam includes in EPR the obligation to recycle a certain quantity of waste, either by the producers or the importers, or contribute to the recycling fund by paying fees [24]. Similarly, the Extended Producer Responsibility Act of 2022 in the Philippines requires corporate compliance to meet the targets for waste management and provides for local accountability with penalties for non-compliance [24]. These emerging frameworks represent a growing recognition of the importance of EPR in addressing the plastic pollution crisis, even as the challenges related to enforcement and infrastructure remain very significant [24]. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) and lifecycle governance are shown to have been successfully applied in the EU and the US and compared with each other in a detailed way, which can serve as a model for the performance of China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL).

The Waste Framework Directive and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive in the European Union require producers to be responsible for the recycling and disposal of the packaging. As a result of such regulations, the recycling rates in EU member states have increased, and the amounts of plastic waste have decreased. A relevant example of the German DRS (deposit return scheme) is where beverage containers are returned and recycled to considerably reduce littering and promote recycling. If these models are adapted to China by including clear EPR provisions in the MEPL, which would encourage the manufacturers to design products that are easier to recycle, there will be a chance for this model [25].

There are state-level EPR policies for packaging waste that have been implemented in the United States, namely in California and Oregon. Although the fact that there is no national framework for these policies has caused inconsistencies between them, they have positive impacts on waste reduction and recycling infrastructure [25]. China would still have to learn from these decentralized approaches to develop a flexible EPR framework at the regional level that would provide national standards for plastic waste management. These international case studies show how China could strengthen the MEPL through the looping of lifecycle governance with producer accountability.

4.5. Recommendations for MEPL Enhancements

To align China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) with the Global Plastic Treaty, several enhancements are recommended. First, the MEPL must strengthen its EPR mechanisms to meet the treaty’s requirements. This includes mandating producers to take responsibility for the full lifecycle of their products, from design to disposal. Introducing legal provisions for eco-design, mandatory recycling targets, and financial contributions to waste management systems will ensure greater accountability among producers and align the MEPL with the global best practices [26].

Second, improving the institutional capacity for enforcement and monitoring are essential. Establishing clear roles and responsibilities for local, regional, and national agencies will address the fragmentation currently observed in the MEPL’s implementation. Enhancing resource allocation, providing training programs for regulatory authorities, and leveraging digital technologies for monitoring can further strengthen enforcement mechanisms. Transparent reporting systems and public access to environmental data will also foster greater accountability and compliance.

However, fostering international cooperation and technical assistance is crucial for addressing the technological and financial constraints faced by developing nations. China should actively engage in global partnerships to access advanced recycling technologies, capacity-building programs, and funding mechanisms. Collaboration with international organizations, such as UNEP and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), can facilitate the development of harmonized EPR standards and support trans-boundary waste management initiatives. By positioning itself as a proactive participant in global environmental governance, China can enhance its MEPL framework while contributing to the collective efforts to combat marine plastic pollution [27].

To strengthen China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) and align it with the Global Plastic Treaty, several actionable policy recommendations are proposed:

• Clearer Legal Mandates on Producer Responsibility: An explicit legal provision in the MEPL should be introduced in China to oblige producers to accept full responsibility for their products from cradle to grave. This may include having extended producer responsibility (EPR) for plastic packaging, setting targets for waste collection, and the recycling of and reduction in plastic environmental impact, or it could involve a combination of the above.
• Stricter Regulations on Marine Plastic Waste Management: Given that marine plastic waste, especially microplastics and post-consumer waste, should be regulated more stringently, the MEPL should be improved. Recycling infrastructure should be supported by policies such as mandatory recycling rates and the establishment of deposit return schemes (DRSs) as has been successfully achieved within the context of the EU.
• Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs): Therefore, China ought to encourage the government and the private sector to collaborate over the course of EPR. This could be providing incentives for businesses to invest in sustainable production practices and the management of waste under EPR policies using better compliance.
• International Collaborations for Technology Transfer: It would be more appropriate for China to enter into international collaborations with organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Union for the purposes of technology transfer and capacity building. It would help to enhance China’s recycling infrastructure and improve its waste management practices through the adoption of new recycling technologies.

If these steps were to be adopted, the MEPL’s efforts at addressing marine plastic pollution would be enormously improved and would be aligned with the international best practices.

5. Conclusions

This study has examined the alignment between China’s Marine Environmental Protection Law (MEPL) and the Global Plastic Treaty, highlighting areas of coherence, gaps, and challenges. The key findings reveal that while the MEPL aligns with the treaty’s objectives in regard to pollution prevention and biodiversity protection, it falls short in implementing extended producer responsibility (EPR) mechanisms, full-lifecycle governance, and comprehensive marine plastic waste management. These gaps underline the need for targeted reforms to enhance the MEPL’s effectiveness and ensure compliance with the treaty’s principles. Strengthening EPR frameworks, fostering institutional coordination, and addressing enforcement challenges are critical to achieving these goals.

The findings also have broader implications for China’s role in the global marine governance. As a major producer and consumer of plastics, China has a unique opportunity to lead the international efforts in combating marine plastic pollution. Aligning the MEPL with global standards can position China as a proactive participant in environmental governance, strengthening its influence in shaping international norms and policies. By integrating the treaty principles into its domestic framework, China can demonstrate its commitment to sustainability and foster trust and cooperation with other nations. This leadership is particularly important in advancing the development of harmonized EPR standards and promoting capacity-building initiatives in developing countries.

Future research should focus on exploring innovative approaches to lifecycle plastic management, including the role of digital technologies in tracking and monitoring plastic waste. The key areas of study may cover socioeconomic impacts with respect to EPR implementation in China, which would help balance the environmental objectives with the need for economic development. International collaboration should be prioritized with knowledge exchange, technology transfer, and joint research initiatives to address the common challenges in the process of marine plastic governance.

By leveraging global partnerships, China can enhance its capacity to tackle marine plastic pollution and contribute to the development of a sustainable, circular economy for plastics. In conclusion, reforming the MEPL to be in line with the Global Plastic Treaty is not only essential for addressing the domestic environmental challenges but also pivotal for China’s active engagement in global marine governance. Strengthening policy frameworks, fostering collaboration, and advancing research will ensure long-term sustainability and reinforce the collective efforts to combat marine plastic pollution.