(VIC) Include Microplastics in the Environment Reference Standard

Download the 1-Page Brief Here - (VIC) Include Microplastics in the Environment Reference .

Download • 175KB

Author: Lauren Dillon, Madi Hasell, Jacinda Dixon-Rielly, Danya Douad, Melody Su, Najiha Rashid, Esme Whitehead, Nerida Munzenberger & Ruby Martin | Publish date: 9/2/2026

• P: In VIC, official water quality reports do not include microplastic levels.

• S: The VIC Minister for Environment should amend Part 5, Division 3 of the Environment Reference Standard (ERS) to explicitly reference plastics and microplastics under water quality indicators.

Problem Identification: 

The ERS is a regulatory instrument under Section 93 of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (VIC). Under Part 5, Division 3 of the ERS, benchmarks are provided to support the protection of human health and the environment from pollution and waste. The ERS lists indicators such as microbial concentrations, sediment quality, algal blooms, and metal contaminants as key indicators of surface water quality. However, it does not include an indicator for plastics or microplastics.

Lindsay et al. (2023) have suggested that emerging environmental threats like microplastics are not fully addressed by current tools used to eliminate or reduce the risks of these harms. The State of the Marine and Coastal Environment Report (2021) highlighted that ‘we do not know if the current status of litter and plastics is good, fair or poor’ within Port Phillip Bay due to an ‘absence of thresholds’ to guide water quality assessment.

Context: 

Microplastics refer to plastic particles under 5mm in size. Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) estimated that ‘2.5 billion pieces of plastic flow into Port Phillip Bay annually’ from the ‘Yarra and Maribyrnong rivers, of which over 2 billion are microplastics.’

The ERS identifies environmental indicators used by decision makers to understand the condition of the environment and how to protect it. It is known to provide a benchmark for measuring the potential impact of decisions such as granting development approvals, issuing declarations, and making decisions under the Water Act 1989 (VIC).

The General Environmental Duty (GED) is a legal obligation under Section 25 of the Environment Protection Act 2017 (VIC). The GED requires any person or body corporate to minimise ‘risks of harm to human health [and] the environment … so far as reasonably practicable.’

Arguments:

Winiarska et al. (2024) stated that exposure to microplastics in humans ‘potentially leads to serious health issues, including various cancers, respiratory disorders, and inflammatory bowel disease.’ Hoang et al. (2025) found that human exposure to microplastics from aquatic environments occurred through the ‘consumption of contaminated water and food’. A study by Koelmans et al. (2019) identified that ‘more high quality data is needed on the occurrence of microplastics in drinking water, to better understand potential exposure and to inform human health risk assessments.’ 

EJA stated that VIC's 'current regulatory approach [about not tracking microplastics] is failing to prevent risks of harm to the environment’. Research from Pal et al. (2024) emphasised that microplastics are ‘accumulating in aquatic ecosystems and posing significant environmental … risks.’ Pal et al. (2024) also found that microplastics act as carriers of heavy metals and other contaminants, ‘increasing toxicity within food webs.’ Furthermore, EJA highlighted that

microplastics ‘can remain in the environment for hundreds of years,’ resulting in ‘cumulative harm spatially … and temporally’.

As reported by EJA, ‘obligation alone to comply with the GED is currently insufficient to prevent harm to the environment’ in the absence of measurable thresholds. Although the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability mentioned that ‘industrial precincts were responsible for a large majority of microplastics’, EJA stated that ‘serial offenders continue to pollute Melbourne’s waterways with little consequence.’ A report from the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee (2016) highlighted that ‘[t]he economic costs of marine plastic pollution are immense and are being borne by all levels of government’. Willis et al. (2018) outlined that the current approaches to manage marine pollution in Australia have resulted in ‘over one billion dollars annually’ being spent on clean up, ‘with approximately 80% of those costs paid by local and state governments’.

Advice/Solution Identification:

EJA, Tangaroa Blue Foundation and the Port Phillip EcoCentre have called for plastics and microplastics to be explicitly recognised within the ERS. They jointly recommended that microplastics be incorporated ‘within the framework of indicators and objectives of water quality’.

Precedent:

There is international precedent to formally recognise microplastics as water quality indicators. In the EU, urban wastewater rules require monitoring of microplastics as part of environmental protection measures. Further, in California, microplastics monitoring and reporting requirements have been adopted under state drinking water regulations. 

---

Public Support: 

1. Environmental Justice Australia                    

2. Tangaroa Blue Foundation (see Acknowledgements) 

3. Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria 

This list reflects publicly stated positions and should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of this specific brief.

News Coverage:

• The Sydney Morning Herald - “Revenge of the nurdles: Oodles of tiny plastic ‘toxic bombs’ wash into bay”. The article reported 2.5 billion nurdle microplastics enter Port Phillip Bay through stormwater drains annually. A joint letter by environmental groups warns that the EPA’s current regulations are failing. By: Bianca Hall | 14 March 2025 - Read the article here.

• The Age - “Rising rivers of plastic polluting Port Phillip Bay”. This article reported that plastic pollution in the Maribyrnong and Yarra rivers is increasing, with microplastics posing a dangerous threat to marine life. By: Benjamin Preiss | 1 March 2021 - Read the article here.

• 9 News - “Microplastics linked to lung and colon cancer, study says”. This article reported that researchers have identified potential human health risks associated with microplastic exposure in the respiratory, digestive, and reproductive systems. By: Mikala Theocharous | 20 December 2024 - Read the article here.

• Australian Water Association - “Are microplastics a mega problem for water utilities?” This article reported that despite their prevalence and associated challenges, microplastics currently have no specific regulations or standardised testing requirements for water utilities. By: Ruth Cooper | 24 June 2019 - Read the article here.

• The Guardian - “Marine plastic pollution costs the world up to $2.5tn a year, researchers find”. This article reported that plastic pollution in the world’s oceans costs society billions of dollars every year in damaged and lost resources. By: Kate Hodal | 4 April 2019 - Read the article here. 

• The Guardian - “Microplastics could raise risk of stroke and heart attack, study says”. This article reported that doctors have warned of the potentially life-threatening effects from plastic pollution after finding a substantially raised risk of stroke, heart attack and early death in people whose blood vessels were contaminated with microscopic plastics. By: Ian Sample | 7 March 2024 - Read the article here.

Where to go to learn more: 

1. (2025) Microplastic Pollution Solutions Report | Environmental Justice Australia - The report called for regulatory reform, including explicit inclusion of microplastics in environmental standards. Read the full report here.

2. (2021) Clean Bay Blueprint | Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria - The report revealed high concentrations of tiny plastic bits in river and bay waters, especially from stormwater outflows. Read the full blueprint here.

3. (2019) Microplastics and Port Phillip Bay Report | Sustainability Victoria - A scientific assessment that documented the sources, distribution and ecological risks of microplastics in Port Phillip Bay. Read the full report here. 

4. (2021) State of the Marine and Coastal Environment Report | Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria - The report provided a comprehensive scientific assessment of VIC’s coastal and marine environment. It revealed the high volume of microplastic items flowing into Port Phillip Bay annually and called for regulatory reform. Read the full report here.

5. (2019) Microplastics in Drinking-Water | World Health Organisation - The report found that microplastics are now routinely present in tap and bottled water, and that precautionary regulation is warranted while long-term health risks are assessed. Read the full report here. 

6. Environment Reference Standard - The Standard, which this brief proposes to modify. Part 5, Division 3 established indicators and objectives of surface water quality assessments. Read the standard here.

7. Environment Protection Act 2017 (VIC) - Read the full Act here.

Human Perspective: 

For the past year, Arthur has begun every morning swimming in the local Bay, after checking the official water quality report. The online indicators consistently showed low bacteria and no visible issues – clear signs of a healthy swim environment. He has recently struggled to maintain this routine as he has been experiencing persistent fatigue. His annual check-up confirmed he was otherwise perfectly healthy, and adjusting his diet and sleep didn’t work. His answers came from a friend resharing a local NGO’s report. The report identified that microplastics weren’t being monitored in the Bay, but it estimated that billions of tiny fragments entered the Bay annually. Scientists had linked exposure to microplastics to fatigue and low-level inflammation, which could explain his recent symptoms. Arthur was angered to realise that the water quality reports he trusted were silent on this critical, invisible pollutant. He felt as though his careful efforts hadn’t failed him – the regulatory gap had. 

To protect the anonymity of those involved, this is a fictionalised account drawn from an amalgamation of real-life stories, experiences and testimonials gathered during the research process for this brief. Any resemblance to actual individuals is purely coincidental.

Conflict of interest/acknowledgment statement: 

Heidi Tait (CEO and Director of Tangaroa Blue Foundation) confirmed their support for this recommendation in a meeting with FORE Australia held on 16 Dec 2025.

Support 

If your organisation would like to add your support to this paper or suggest amendments, please email Info@foreaustralia.com. 

Disclaimers

Please review all FORE disclaimers here.

Reference list: 

Alva, P. P., & Thomas, T. A. (2025). Microplastics: A global threat to life and living. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 197, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-025-14160-w

Bates, G. (2023). Environmental law in Australia (11th ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths. https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/PublicFullRecord.aspx?p=7216448

California State Water Resources Control Board. (2025, December 26). Microplastics. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/microplastics.html

Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria. (2021). State of the marine and coastal environment 2021 report: Parts 1 and 2. https://www.ces.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/State%20of%20the%20Marine%20and%20Coastal%20Environment%202021%20Report%20Part%201%20and%202_WEB.pdf

Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria. (2021). State of the marine and coastal environment 2021 report: Part 3 scientific assessments. https://www.ces.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/State%20of%20the%20Marine%20and%20Coastal%20Environment%202021%20Report%20Part%203_WEB.pdf

Directorate-General for Environment. (2024, December 20). New rules for more thorough and cost-effective urban wastewater management enter into force. European Commission. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-rules-urban-wastewater-management-set-enter-force-2024-12-20_en

Environmental Justice Australia. (2025, March 31). Tiny plastic, big problem. https://envirojustice.org.au/the-tiny-plastic-pellets-causing-a-big-environmental-problem/

Environmental Justice Australia, Port Phillip EcoCentre, & Tangaroa Blue Foundation. (2025). Microplastic pollution in Melbourne’s waterways: Existing legal solutions (Report submitted to the Hon. S. Dimopoulos, Minister for the Environment, & L. Miezis, CEO, EPA Victoria). https://envirojustice.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Microplastic-pollution-report_Environmental-Justice-Australia_2025.pdf

Environment Protection Act 2017 (VIC). https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/17-51aa021-authorised.pdf

Environment Protection Authority Victoria. (2022). Environment reference standard (consolidated). https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-05/consolidated-ERS.pdf

Environment Protection Authority Victoria. (2025, November 14). How we monitor water quality. https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/how-we-monitor-water-quality

Hoang, H. G., Nguyen, N. S. H., Zhang, T., Tran, H.-T., Mukherjee, S., & Naidu, R. (2025). A review of microplastic pollution and human health risk assessment: Current knowledge and future outlook. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13, Article 1606332. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1606332

Jayavel, S., Govindaraju, B., Michael, J. R., & Viswanathan, B. (2024). Impacts of micro and nanoplastics on human health. Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 48, Article 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-024-01268-1

Landrigan, P. J., Dunlop, S., Treskova, M., Raps, H., Symeonides, C., Muncke, J., Spring, M., Stegeman, J., Almroth, B. C., … Woodruff, T. J. (2025). The Lancet Countdown on health and plastics. The Lancet, 406(10507). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01447-3

Lindsay, B., Marsh, D., & Nelson, R. (2023). Conceptualising and activating knowledge in environmental protection law. Melbourne University Law Review, 46(2), 422–466. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/4772747/03-Lindsay,-Marsh-and-Nelson-422.pdf

Local Government Victoria. (2019). Report on 2019–20 council budgets. Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. https://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/167731/Report_on_201920_Council_Budgets.pdf

Pal, D., Prabhakar, R., Barua, V. B., Zekker, I., Burlakovs, J., Krauklis, A., Hogland, W., & Vincevica-Gaile, Z. (2025). Microplastics in aquatic systems: A comprehensive review of its distribution, environmental interactions, and health risks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 32, 56-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-35741-1

Senate Environment and Communications References Committee. (2016). Toxic tide: The threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia. Australian Parliament. https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/environment_and_communications/marine_plastics/~/media/Committees/ec_ctte/Marine_plastics/Report/c08.pdf

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. (2021, December 2). Council waste management services. https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/council-waste-management-services

Willis, K., Maureaud, C., Wilcox, C., & Hardesty, B. D. (2018). How successful are waste abatement campaigns and government policies at reducing plastic waste into the marine environment? Marine Policy, 96, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.037