• Lessons from the world’s worst marine plastic spill

In 2021, Sri Lanka’s coastline became ground zero for the largest single incident of marine plastic pollution ever recorded. The MV X-Press Pearl disaster spilled more than 1,680 tonnes of tiny plastic pellets – known as nurdles – into the ocean, contaminating beaches, killing marine life, and crippling fishing communities. 

Nearly four years later, the environmental and economic wounds remain open, worsened by new transboundary spills drifting in from beyond Sri Lanka’s waters. Yet, despite the scale of the crisis, nurdles are still not legally classified as hazardous cargo under Sri Lankan law, leaving a dangerous gap in both prevention and response.

Legal and regulatory framework challenges

Sri Lanka has national environmental laws administered by the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) under the Ministry of Environment. These laws are based on the ’Polluter Pays Principle’, which has been applied in past environmental cases. Public interest organizations, such as the Environmental Foundation Limited (EFL) and the Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ), have filed lawsuits to protect affected communities and ecosystems.

However, Sri Lanka lacks specific legislation classifying nurdles as hazardous waste or regulating their transport and spillage. While existing laws could broadly cover marine pollution, there is a legislative gap in addressing nurdle spills, cleanup protocols, and liability.

International legal context

Following the disaster, Sri Lanka submitted a proposal to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to classify plastic pellets as ’dangerous goods’. If approved, this would require stricter regulations under the IMDG Code regarding packaging, labeling, and transportation. The proposal, supported by international environmental NGOs, was discussed in IMO PPR Sub-Committee meetings in 2023.

This is a critical step, as nurdles, despite their documented harm to marine ecosystems, food chains, and coastal economies, are still treated as harmless cargo under current shipping standards.

Litigation and compensation

Sri Lanka responded aggressively through legal channels. In 2025, the Supreme Court held the ship owners and operators liable for USD 1 billion in environmental restoration and community compensation. The ruling was based on strict liability and environmental restoration principles, bypassing negligence claims. While this sets a strong precedent, enforcement remains slow, leaving affected communities struggling economically.

Persistent threats and regulatory gaps

In 2025, another nurdle spill occurred along Sri Lanka’s northern, western, and southern coastlines after a container vessel, MSC ELSA, sank off the coast of Kerala, India. Heavy nurdle pollution was observed in Jaffna, Mannar, Kalpitiya, Negombo, Colombo, Wadduwa, and Bentota, demonstrating how nurdle spills far out at sea can impact Sri Lanka’s marine ecosystems as transboundary marine litter. Environmental and civil society groups are now demanding better monitoring, regulatory reforms, and stronger cross-border pollution control.

Key legislative gaps remain, including the absence of defined regulations for nurdle transportation within and across the sea in  Sri Lanka, mandatory insurance requirements for carriers, standardised cleanup protocols, and a framework for addressing transboundary pollution.

Moving forward

The Sri Lankan Government must strengthen legislation on nurdle transport and spills while aligning with international regulations. This includes implementing risk-management plans for marine pollution, advocating for stricter IMO regulations on nurdle transportation through ships, and enhancing local enforcement and regional cooperation to combat cross-border spills.

While international efforts are crucial, local legal reforms are urgently needed. Relying solely on court rulings will not prevent future spills; proactive legislation and global collaboration are essential to mitigate this growing environmental crisis.

(The author is a volunteer writer of The Pearl Protectors)

……………………………………………………………………….………..

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication