Plastic Pollution in Soils: The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to Develop an International Legally Binding Instrument on Plastic Pollution, Including in the Marine Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Set against the backdrop of continuous evolutions in scientific knowledge regarding the impacts of plastics, and particularly of plastic pollution, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee process for the establishment of an international legally binding instrument to address plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, has unfolded as an effort to create a legally binding treaty amidst multiple geopolitical challenges and shifts. While much of the focus of the INC process and attention has been on the marine environment, this should not take away from the many avenues through which concerns regarding the impacts of plastic pollution on land and soil resources have been raised in the treaty negotiation process. Indeed, as many states and official observers have emphasized, the full lifecycle of plastics and, necessarily, plastic pollution, starts on land and has some of its most immediate impacts in terrestrial ecosystems and soil resources. This negotiation process has contained a number of lessons and points which will be dissected as efforts to determine the future of multilateralism in the multilateral environmental agreement context are made. This chapter contributes by providing an overview of the INC process that is informed by the documents generated as well as the author’s first-hand participation in the INC process as a legal advisor and delegation member. It then reviews how land, soil, terrestrial ecosystems, and agriculture have been included in the various iterations of documents and national positions taken throughout the INC process to date.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".