Recommended citation:

UNEP (2016). Marine plastic debris and microplastics – Global lessons and research to inspire action and guide policy change. United
Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2016

ISBN No: 978-92-807-3580-6
Job No: DEP/2010/NA

The Government of Norway is gratefully acknowledged for providing the necessary funding that made the production of this publication “Marine
plastic debris and microplastics – Global lessons and research to inspire action and guide policy change“ possible.

Acknowledgements:

Members of the Advisory Group (Government and Major Groups and Stakeholder nominated experts): Chris Wilcox (CSIRO),
Elchin Mammadov (Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, Azerbadjan), Flavia Pereira (Ministry of Environment, Brazil), Jacinthe Séguin
(Environment and Climate Change Canada), Hao Chen (Institute of Water Environment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental
Sciences, China), Gustavo Alfonso Lacera (Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Colombia), Paivi Munne (Finnish
Environment Institute, Finland), Marion Gust (Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, France), Marine Arabidze (National
Environmental Agency, Georgia), Cindy Badore (Environmental Protection Agency), Agus Sudaryanto (Technology Center for Marine Survey,
Indonesia), Porfirio Alvarez-Torres (International Affairs Coordination Unit - Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico), Felicia
Mogo (Nigeria Maritime Management and Safety Agency, Nigeria), Geir Wing Gabrielsen (Norwegian Polar Institute, Norway), Sonia Beatriz
Aranibar Tapia (Ministry of Environment, General Directorate of Environmental Quality, Peru), Maricris T Laciste (Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Philippines), Jude Bijoux (Seychelles Fishery Authority, Seychelles), Sankoh Salieu (Natural Resources Management
Specialist, Sierra Leone), Jesús Gago Piñeiro (Spanish Institute of Oceanography, Spain), Pradeep Kumara (Marine Environment Protection
Authority, Sri Lanka), Susanne Tumlin (Rya Wastewater Treatment Plant, Gryaab AB, Sweden ), Judith Wehrli (Institute of European and
International Economic Law, Switzerland), IliIssaria Mangalili (Division of Environment, Vice President’s Office, Tanzania), Nawarat Krairapanond
(Natural Resources & Environmental Management coordination Division, Thailand), Meryem Arslan (Ministry of Environment and Urbanization,
Turkey), Jenna Jambeck (University of Georgia, U.S.A), Michail Papadoyannakis (Marine Environment Unit, EC), Anthony Akpan (Gender and
Water Alliance, Nigeria), Veronique Garny (CEFIC), Semia Gharbi (Association Abel Granier, Tunisia).

Peer reviewers: Emily Grilly (CCAMLR), Julian Augusto Reyna Moreno (CPPS), Tarub Bahri (FAO), Muhammad Ilyas (Marine Environment
and Fisheries, Indonesia), Joan Fabres (Grid Arendal), Monika Stankiewicz, Marta Ruiz (HELCOM), Patrick Ten Brink (IEEP), Sara Regina
Purca Cuicapusa (Instituto del Mar del Perú - IMARPE), Stefan Micallef, Edward Kleverlaan, Fredrik Haag (IMO), Gaetano Leone, Tatjana
Hema (MAP), Kevin Victor Thomas (Norwegian Institute for Water Research), Alexander Tkalin (NOWPAP), Darius Campbell (OSPAR),
Anne-Marie Hanson ( Gender and Water Alliance), Keith Christman (American Chemistry Council), Sarah Da Silva (Environment and Climate
Change Canada), Rolph Payet (Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions) Sarah Smith, (International Whaling Commission), Heidrun
Frisch (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species), Gabriele Goettsche-Wanli, Alice Hicuburundi, Charlotte Salpin, Michele Ameri,
Shawn Stanley, Valentina Germani, Yoshinobu Takei, Lorna Joseph-Pal (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), Heidi Savelli,
Kaisa Uusimaa, Petter Malvik, Elisa Tonda, Helena Rey, Surendra Shresta, Shunichi Honda, Mushtaq Memon, Agnes Rube, Jing Zhang, Paulina
Guerrero (UNEP).

Contributors: Members of the GESAMP Working Group 40: Linda Amaral-Zettler, Anthony Andrady, Sarah Dudas, Joan Fabres, Francois
Galgani, Denise Hardesty, Valeria Hidalgo-Ruz, Sunny Hong, Peter Kershaw. Laurent Lebreton, Ramani Narayan, Sabine Pahl, James Potemra,
Chelsea Rochman, Sheck A. Sherif, Joni Seager, Won Joon Shim, Paula Sobral, Shige Takada, Patrick ten Brink, Martin Thiel, Richard
Thompson, Alexander Turra, Lisbeth Van Cauwenberghe, Erik van Sebille, Dick Vethaak, Kayleigh Wyles, Erik Zettler and Patrizia Ziveri; Tarub
Bahri, Uwe Barg, Francis Chopin, Petri Suuronen and Jogeir Toppe of FAO;Giulia Gitti, Marianne Kettunen, Konar Mutafoglu, Daniela Russi,
Jean-Pierre Schweitzer, Patrick ten Brink, Emma Watkins and Sirini Withana of IEEP; Sean Baker of ACC and employees of Tetra Tech; Britta
Denise Hardesty and Chris Wilcox of CSIRO.

Main Author: Dr Peter J Kershaw (Independent Consultant),

Design: Viola Kup Cover Design: Virginia Njoroge

Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision
or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute
endorsement.

UNEP promotes
environmentally sound practices
globally and in its own activities.
This publication is printed on recycled paper
with plant-based ink. Our distribution policy aims
to reduce UNEP’s carbon footprint.
ii
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS
& MICROPLASTICS

GLOBAL LESSONS
AND RESEARCH
TO INSPIRE ACTION
AND GUIDE
POLICY CHANGE
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY
ORGANISATIONS AND OTHER TERMS

ALDFG Abandoned Lost or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear

BAT Best Available Technique/Technology
BEP Best Environmental Practice
BoBLME Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem
CBD Convention of Biological Diversity
CCAMLR Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
CSIRO Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation
DFG Discarded Fishing Gear
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
GEF Global Environment Facility
GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Pro-tection
GGGI Global Ghost Gear Initiative
GISIS Global Integrated Shipping Information System
GPA Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Environment from Land-based Activities
GPML Global Partnership on Marine Litter
GPWM Global Partnership on Waste Management
HELCOM Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission
ICC International Coastal Clean-up
IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy
IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
IMO International Maritime Organisation
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing
IWC International Whaling Commission
LC/LP London Convention and Protocol
LME Large Marine Ecosystem
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MAP Mediterranean Action Plan
MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOWPAP Northwest Pacific Action Plan
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North-East Atlantic
PCCP Personal Care and Cosmetics Products
RSCAP Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
WACAF West and Central Africa Region (Abidjan Convention)
WAP World Animal Protection
WCR Wider Caribbean Region
WWF World Wildlife Fund

iv
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GLOSSARY

COMMON POLYMERS

ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

AC Acrylic
EP Epoxy resin (thermoset)
PA Polyamide 4, 6, 11, 66
PCL Polycaprolactone
PE Polyethylene
PE-LD Polyethylene low density
PE-LLD Polyethylene linear low density
PE-HD Polyethylene high density
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PGA Poly(glycolic acid)
PLA Poly(lactide)
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
EPS (PSE) Expanded polystyrene
PU (PUR) Polyurethane
PVA Polyvinyl alcohol
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
PU (PUR) Polyurethane
SBR Styrene-butadiene rubber
TPU Thermoplastic polyurethane

v
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................... x

Policy-relevant recommendations ................................................................................................................... xii

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. xvi

Key messages ......................................................................................................................................................... xx

1. Rationale for the report ................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Marine plastic debris is a global issue .......................................................................................................... 2
1.2 United Nations Environment Assembly
(UNEA) ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

2. Governance frameworks of relevance to marine plastic debris.................................................... 5

2.1 Agenda 2030 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals ................................................................... 5
2.2 International Legal Frameworks...................................................................................................................... 8
The United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). ............................................................................................................... 8
Litter prevention at sea...................................................................................................................................10
Litter prevention from land-based sources - GPA ...................................................................................13
Conventions for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity ................................................ 14
Regulation of harmful substances ...............................................................................................................16
Other international agreements .................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Regional Cooperation ....................................................................................................................................18
Regional seas bodies .....................................................................................................................................18
Major transboundary river basins .................................................................................................................20
Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and Arrangements (RFMO/As) ..............................20
European Union ...............................................................................................................................................20
Other examples of regional cooperation. ...................................................................................................21

3. Scope and structure of the report .........................................................................................................25

4. Plastics .............................................................................................................................................................26
4.1 Production, types, uses, trends ....................................................................................................................26
Plastic types and production ........................................................................................................................26
Applications ......................................................................................................................................................29
Microplastics and microbeads .....................................................................................................................29
Additive chemicals ..........................................................................................................................................29
4.2 Behaviour in the ocean...................................................................................................................................32
Floating or sinking ...........................................................................................................................................32
Plastic degradation .........................................................................................................................................32
Chemical characteristics ...............................................................................................................................34

vi
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

5. Sources of macro and microplastics ....................................................................................................35

5.1 Generating plastic waste ...............................................................................................................................35
5.2 Land-based sectors generating macroplastic litter .................................................................................36
Sources in brief................................................................................................................................................36
Plastic recyclers...............................................................................................................................................36
Packaging .........................................................................................................................................................38
Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................38
Construction .....................................................................................................................................................38
Coastal tourism ................................................................................................................................................38
5.3 Land-based sectors generating microplastics ..........................................................................................38
Sources in brief................................................................................................................................................38
Cosmetics and personal care products .....................................................................................................38
Textiles and clothing .......................................................................................................................................41
Terrestrial transportation ................................................................................................................................41
Plastic producers and fabricators ................................................................................................................41
Ship maintenance and ship dismantling .....................................................................................................41
5.4 Management of waste from land-based sources .....................................................................................42
Plastics in wastewater ....................................................................................................................................42
Plastics in solid waste ....................................................................................................................................42
5.5 Sea-based sectors generating macroplastic litter ...................................................................................43
Types of materials involved............................................................................................................................43
Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................................44
Aquaculture ......................................................................................................................................................44
Commercial shipping and offshore industries...........................................................................................45
Maritime–based tourism ................................................................................................................................45
Recreational activities.....................................................................................................................................45
5.6 Sea-based sectors generating microplastics ...........................................................................................45
Types of material involved ..............................................................................................................................45
5.7 Estimating land-based inputs of macro and microplastics to the ocean
– a regional perspective ................................................................................................................................47
Patterns of waste generation ........................................................................................................................47
Inputs via rivers and other waterways .........................................................................................................49
Solid waste management and the global waste trade ............................................................................53
Coastal tourism ................................................................................................................................................56
5.8 Estimating sea-based inputs of marine plastics and microplastics to the ocean
– a regional perspective ................................................................................................................................57
Shipping ............................................................................................................................................................57
Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................................59
Aquaculture ......................................................................................................................................................62
5.9 Regional case study – relative contributions of different sources ........................................................63

6. Distribution and fate ....................................................................................................................................65

6.1 Marine compartments and transport pathways.........................................................................................65
Ocean circulation ............................................................................................................................................65
Transfer between compartments .................................................................................................................65
6.2 Regional patterns and ‘hot spots’ ................................................................................................................68
Shoreline and nearshore ‘hot spots’............................................................................................................68
Coastal waters and Large Marine Ecosystems ........................................................................................69
Long-distance transport of floating litter and mid-ocean hot spots .....................................................69
Utilizing modelling techniques to simulate the distribution of macro and microplastics .................. 74
SIDS and mid-ocean island hot spots ........................................................................................................80
Water column ...................................................................................................................................................83
Seabed ..............................................................................................................................................................84
Hot spots related to fisheries and aquaculture .........................................................................................84
Biota ...................................................................................................................................................................86

vii
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

7. Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................87
7.1 Ecological impacts ..........................................................................................................................................88
Macroplastic debris and individual organisms ..........................................................................................88
Habitat damage ...............................................................................................................................................94
Impacts of ingested microplastics and associated chemicals ..............................................................96
Rafting................................................................................................................................................................97
7.2 Impact on fisheries and aquaculture ...........................................................................................................99
Macroplastics ...................................................................................................................................................99
Microplastics in commercial fish ..................................................................................................................99
Microplastics in commercial bivalves and molluscs.............................................................................. 100
Microplastics in commercial crustacea and echinoderms................................................................... 101
7.3 Social impacts............................................................................................................................................... 101
Human health and food safety ................................................................................................................... 101
Loss of income .............................................................................................................................................. 105
Loss of intrinsic value and the moral dimension .................................................................................... 106
7.4 Impacts on maritime economic sectors ................................................................................................... 108
From ecosystem impacts to economic consequences ........................................................................ 108
Fisheries and aquaculture .......................................................................................................................... 108
Tourism ........................................................................................................................................................... 108
Commercial shipping....................................................................................................................................110

8. Closing the loop .......................................................................................................................................... 111

8.1 Towards a circular economy .......................................................................................................................112
8.2 The Precautionary Approach and adaptive management .....................................................................117
8.3 Improved governance ...................................................................................................................................119
8.4 Stakeholder engagement............................................................................................................................ 122
8.5 Improving corporate responsibility and partnership .............................................................................. 125
Public private partnerships ......................................................................................................................... 125
Extended producer responsibility ............................................................................................................. 126
The role of Life-Cycle Assessment .......................................................................................................... 126
8.6 Utilising the GPML and GPWM for dissemination of good practice ................................................ 128

9. A selection of different types of measures ..................................................................................... 130

9.1 Encouraging changes in behaviour ...........................................................................................................131
Attitudes towards marine litter....................................................................................................................131
Changing behaviour..................................................................................................................................... 132
Fishing industry ............................................................................................................................................. 133
Coastal tourism ............................................................................................................................................. 133
Education and citizen science ................................................................................................................... 134
The role of special interest groups ............................................................................................................137
9.2 Reduction measures – BATs, BEPs, MBIs and legislation.................................................................. 139
Technical measures in brief ........................................................................................................................ 139
Utilising BATs to reduce loss of fishing gear .......................................................................................... 139
Using legislation to reduce the impact of fishing activities ................................................................. 139
Utilising BATs to improve solid waste management ............................................................................. 140
Provision of bins for recycling and waste collection in public spaces...............................................142
Deposit-refund schemes - MBI ................................................................................................................. 143
Payments and subsidies - MBI .................................................................................................................. 143
Taxes and fees - creating incentive while raising revenues - MBI ..................................................... 144
Taxes to meet the needs of SIDS and other small ocean islands ...................................................... 145
Port reception facilities - MBI .................................................................................................................... 145
Imposing fines – part-MBI .......................................................................................................................... 146
9.3 Removal measures – BEPs ........................................................................................................................ 148
Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing g65ear (ALDFG) ................................................... 148

viii
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fishing for litter ..............................................................................................................................................151

Rescue and recovery of trapped animals – BEP....................................................................................151
Shorelines .......................................................................................................................................................151
BATs for litter capture and removal in rivers and harbours.................................................................. 153
Removing plastics from mid-ocean .......................................................................................................... 154
9.4 Imposing product bans ............................................................................................................................... 155

10. Risk assessment and guideline for selecting measures ............................................................ 156
10.1 Defining risk ....................................................................................................................................................157
Risk perception ............................................................................................................................................. 159
10.2 Identifying intervention points - risk assessment frameworks ............................................................. 159
Risk assessment frameworks .................................................................................................................... 159
Identifying priority areas for intervention.................................................................................................. 160
10.3 Guidelines for selecting the approach ..................................................................................................... 162
Choosing the Response (DPSIR) ............................................................................................................. 162
Criteria for evaluating Best Practices ...................................................................................................... 165
Criteria for selecting Best Available Techniques ................................................................................... 165
Criteria for selecting Market-based Instruments (MBIs) ...................................................................... 165

11. Monitoring and assessment ...................................................................................................................167

11.1 Summary of monitoring methods ...............................................................................................................167
Rivers ...............................................................................................................................................................167
Shorelines .......................................................................................................................................................167
Upper ocean ...................................................................................................................................................167
Seabed observations ................................................................................................................................... 168
Sampling biota ...............................................................................................................................................170
Automated systems ......................................................................................................................................170
11.2 Setting baselines, indicators and targets .................................................................................................170
Baselines .........................................................................................................................................................170
What makes a good indicator? ..................................................................................................................171
Setting realistic targets ................................................................................................................................173
Examples of indicators and trends.............................................................................................................173
Developing an indicator framework ...........................................................................................................176
11.3 Harmonisation of approaches.....................................................................................................................178
Monitoring and assessment ........................................................................................................................178

12. Summary of key conclusions ................................................................................................................ 181

13. Summary of key research needs ......................................................................................................... 183

13.1 Governance ................................................................................................................................................... 184
13.2 Properties of plastics ................................................................................................................................... 184
13.3 Sources and pathways of plastics and microplastics .......................................................................... 184
Sources and pathways of macroplastics ................................................................................................ 184
Sources and pathways of microplastics.................................................................................................. 184
13.4 Distribution and fate..................................................................................................................................... 185
Factors controlling degradation ................................................................................................................ 185
Presence, transport and fate of plastics in the marine environment ................................................. 185
13.5 Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................... 185
Quantifying impacts on biota ..................................................................................................................... 185
Social impacts............................................................................................................................................... 186
Economic impacts ........................................................................................................................................ 186
13.6 Fisheries and aquaculture .......................................................................................................................... 186
13.7 Risk assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 187
13.8 Economic dimensions ................................................................................................................................. 187

ix
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
FOREWORD

FOREWORD
reduce our use of single-use plastic items, and phase
out microbeads in cosmetics and other products
where it can be substituted with non-harmful alterna-
tives. Unfortunately, the need for clean-up actions will
still be there, and even increase in many areas.
Clean-up of vulnerable areas needs to be prioritized.
The global production of plastics in 2014 was 311
million tonnes. It has been estimated that in 2010 Marine litter is a transboundary concern, requiring col-
alone, between 4.8-12.7 million metric tons of plastic laborative action — not simply from governments, but
found their way into our oceans. Plastic debris and from industry and consumers as well. Regional coop-
microplastics is transported by ocean currents across eration and action plans, and cooperation through the
borders. It is found everywhere, even on the remotest Global Partnership on Marine Litter, is recommended
shores of uninhabited islands, in the Arctic ice, the to prevent further pollution at all levels. Strengthened
deep ocean and in a broad array of marine organisms. International cooperation and local action are both
Whether due to poor waste and wastewater manage- necessary to follow up on the 2030 Agenda for
ment, accidental losses that could have been pre- Sustainable Development, including reaching the
vented, or illegal dumping, the “leakage” of this debris Sustainable Development Goal on Oceans.
into our oceans has serious environmental, social and
economic consequences. It harms wildlife, safety of This report is accompanied by a stand-alone set of
sea transport, fisheries, tourism, recreation, it threat- policy recommendations. They are intended to guide
ens marine ecosystems and morally should be con- decision makers to take action that can be adapted to
sidered a common concern of mankind. different local, national, regional and global contexts.
In the 60 years since its large-scale introduction, plastic
Microplastic particles are found in a large variety of has become a natural and necessary part of our daily
marine organisms, including species we consume as life. However, its negative consequences when ending
seafood. The sparse knowledge on levels and effects up in the environment can no longer be ignored.
does not indicate a health risk to humans now, but the
uncertainty is high. The smallest plastic particles – It is our hope that this report and the recommendations
the nanoplastics, are of even larger concern. They are will inspire and catalyze immediate action at all levels
so small that some can enter organs and body fluids – it is only through joint efforts that we can have an
of organisms, and due to their high surface/volume impact and improve the state of our oceans for future
ratio they can carry larger amounts of environmental generations. We need stronger international commit-
toxicants. Plastic debris breaks down very slowly in ment to combat the plastic pollution of our oceans.
the marine environment, especially under cold and The time to act is now. We have no time to lose.
dark conditions. Levels of nanoplastics in the oceans,
and how much of the plastic which is ultimately fully
degraded, is not known.

While our knowledge of the impact of plastics in our

oceans is incomplete, what we already know shows
we should not wait before taking action.

This report presents both short- and long-term

approaches to the problem of marine plastic debris Achim Steiner
and microplastics. It provides an overview of the latest
science and experiences, identifies priority areas of
action, and points out areas requiring more research.
Improved waste management is urgently needed to
reduce the flow of plastic into our oceans. We need
to spread knowledge on why and how, and change
social attitudes. Vidar Helgesen

We need to get smarter about plastic, adopting a

more circular economic model. We need to drastically

x
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
FOREWORD

Achim Steiner Vidar Helgesen

United Nations Under-Secretary-General Minister of Climate and the Environment,

and UNEP Executive Director Government of Norway

xi
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
POLICY-RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS

POLICY-RELEVANT
(c) Review existing regulatory frameworks, insti-
tutional arrangements and other instruments
related to marine litter and their enforcement to

RECOMMENDATIONS identify synergies and gaps as well as potential

solutions to address gaps globally and regionally;

(d) Strengthen and increase cooperation at all

levels, including international multi-stakeholder
initiatives such as the Global Partnership on
Marine Litter;
In the light of the evidence and findings contained in
the study entitled “Marine plastic debris and
microplastics: global lessons and research to inspire (e) Invite international bodies to address and
action and guide policy change”, and in order to take into account as emerging issues of concern
address problems related to marine litter in the most those aspects of the marine litter issues identified
efficient and effective way, it is recommended that in the report, including microplastics and nano-
States: plastics, that are of particular relevance to them.
For example:

(a) Take cognizance of the study and its main (i) The Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conven-
findings, including that: tions in relation to the sound management of
chemicals and wastes;
(i) The accumulation of plastic litter in the ocean (ii) Appropriate bodies, such as the Strategic
is a common concern for humankind owing to Approach to International Chemicals
its far-reaching environmental, social and eco- Management and the Organization for
nomic impacts; Economic Cooperation and Development,
(ii) While prevention is key, improving waste col- to consider macroplastics, microplastics
lection and management is the most urgent and nanoplastics;
short-term solution to reducing plastic inputs, (iii) World Trade Organization in relation to trade
especially in developing economies; and environment;
(iii) Long-term solutions include improved gov- (iv) Institutional financing bodies (e.g., Global
ernance at all levels as well as behavioural Environment Facility, World Bank);
and system changes, such as a more circular (v) Non-traditional groups such as trade organi-
economy and more sustainable production zations;
and consumption patterns; (vi) Organizations already addressing marine litter
(iv) Stormwater overflows and runoffs as well as such as UNEP, IMO and FAO;
inadequate waste water treatment contribute
substantially to marine plastic and microplastic
pollution, and their improvement will have addi- (f) Quantify the relative contributions of all critical
tional far-reaching socioeconomic benefits; land-based and sea-based sources and investi-
(v) Stakeholder engagement, including the pri- gate pathways of marine litter, including macrolitter
vate sector, as well as legislation, the use of and microlitter;
market-based instruments, best environmental
practices and best available techniques, play
a key role in marine plastic pollution mitigation; (g) Prioritize actions for marine litter mitigation,
including through the identification of hotspots
(b) Strengthen the implementation and enforce- and the examination of future scenarios, by the
ment of existing international and regional use of best available technologies (e.g., models
frameworks, encourage States that have not yet and simulations);
ratified such frameworks to do so and promote
compliance with frameworks and instruments,
including stringent environmental assessment (h) Develop cost-effective monitoring and assess-
practices according to national and regional cir- ment strategies with regard to marine litter at all
cumstances; levels, taking into account existing programmes,

xii
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
POLICY-RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS

especially at the regional level. In the development (l) Develop global and regional marine litter indi-
of such strategies, States: cators to guide the prioritization of targeted inter-
ventions;
(i) Promote harmonization and standardization of
methods (e.g., protocols, sampling) for marine
litter, including for assessment and monitoring (m) Using the precautionary principle and taking
of marine litter contamination; into account that there is unequivocal and quan-
(ii) Establish monitoring programmes for marine tified evidence of the degree of impact of marine
litter with a view to establishing baselines, plastic debris, reduce marine litter sources
e.g., for quantities of litter along coastlines, through measures such as market-based instru-
in water columns, on the ocean floor, in the ments and regulatory frameworks, including
upper ocean and in biota; through:
(iii) Report on actions they have taken in order to
prevent, reduce and control marine littering, (i) A drastic reduction or ban of single-use plastic
and evaluate the results thereof; products;
(iv) Strengthen international cooperation for data (ii) The promotion of measures to reduce plastic
and information exchange, including capacity- material use and of other incentives for behav-
building for States that need it; ioural change towards more sustainable pro-
(v) Improve identification, allocation and analysis duction and consumption patterns;
of material flow cost accounting; (iii) The promotion of eco-friendly and recyclable
(vi) Develop key performance indicators to track materials in industrial production;
and monitor the success of monitoring and (iv) A phase-out of non-recoverable plastic mate-
assessment; rials that potentially accumulate in marine
(vii)Share information (e.g., through a global or environments (e.g., microplastics in personal
regional platform) on marine litter on a regular care products);
basis; (v) The promotion of extended producer responsi-
bility programmes and life cycle assessments;
(vi) The promotion of technological innovation to
(i) Promote synergies with implementation and address sources;
monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals (vii) The promotion of the “6Rs” framework:
and related processes; redesign-reduce-remove-reuse-recycle-re-
cover;

(j) Promote willing and informed stakeholder par-

ticipation in marine litter prevention and reduction (n) Consider the economic, social and environmental
strategies and policies, including by: costs of marine litter in investments and the devel-
opment of waste management policies and prac-
(i) Mapping out relevant stakeholders prior to tices, and encourage:
interventions in order to ensure their inclusion;
(ii) Providing and protecting a right to access (i) Improved waste delivery, including to port
to relevant information on marine plastics, reception facilities, collection, sorting and
including microplastics and nanoplastics; recycling;
(iii) Enabling the needs and considerations of vul- (ii) Improved effectiveness of waste and
nerable groups to be taken into account; wastewater infrastructure;
(iv) Recognizing gender aspects in the generation (iii) Proper management and control of dump-
and prevention of marine litter; sites, especially when situated close to
coasts;
(iv) The promotion of integrated waste man-
(k) Assess socioeconomic and environmental agement;
costs associated with marine litter impacts (costs (v) The re-evaluation of plastic waste as a
of inaction) and enhance cost-effective and resource;
cost-benefit analysis of mitigation and clean-up (vi) Appropriate recycling activities to improve
measures (costs of action); and facilitate financing, recovery, in addition to providing economic
public-private partnerships, capacity-building and opportunities and supporting alternative live-
technology transfer; lihoods;

xiii
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
POLICY-RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS

(o) Support efforts to promote a life cycle

approach to plastic products, including the con-
sideration of the degradation of different poly-
mers and the rate of fragmentation (in the marine
environment) by:

(i) Internalizing the environmental and social

costs of products (cost internalization);
(ii) Enhancing the process of closing the loop in
product and process development and manu-
facturing as well as in life cycle chains of plastic
products;
(iii) Improving the lifespan of products;
(iv) Promoting green public and private procurement;
(v) Considering green engineering principles and
frameworks, eco-design and eco-labelling,
among others;
(vi) Strengthening the ability of private actors,
including small and medium-sized enterprises,
to shift to greener activities;

(p) Be aware that, until there is an internationally

agreed definition of biodegradability (in the marine
environment), the adoption of plastic products
labelled as “biodegradable” will not bring about a
significant decrease either in the quantity of plastic
entering the ocean or the risk of physical and
chemical impacts on the marine environment;

(q) Promote cost-effective activities and instru-

ments as well as cooperation at all levels with
regard to risk-based and environmentally sound
clean-up activities for marine litter in rivers and
coastal and marine areas, according to national
circumstances; and facilitate financing, public-
private partnerships, and capacity-building and, in
that regard, develop and utilize international criteria
for collective removal actions, clean-up and resto-
ration including with regard to quantities, popula-
tion, sensitivity of ecosystem, feasibility;

(r) Strengthen education and awareness meas-

ures on marine litter by:

(i) Introducing elements into educational curric-

ula at all educational levels;
(ii) Providing educational and outreach materials
targeted to specific interest groups and range
of ages to promote behavioural change.

xiv
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
POLICY-RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS

Photo: © Akhtar Soomro / Reuters

xv
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

xvi
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE
ing construction, transportation, household goods
and packaging. They have also been used for many
novel applications including medical. There are many

SUMMARY different varieties of polymer produced but in volume

terms the market is dominated by a handful of main
types: polyethylene (PE, high and low density), pol-
yethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP),
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS, including
expanded EPS) and polyurethane (PUR). Most plas-
Plastic debris, or litter, in the ocean is now ubiqui- tics are synthesised from fossil fuels, but biomass
tous. Society’s adoption of plastics as a substitute can also be used. Packaging accounts for about one
for traditional materials has expanded almost expo- third of production, and much of this is designed for
nentially since the 1950s, when large-scale plastic single-use. Plastics intended for more durable appli-
production began. Durability is a common feature of cations may be manufactured with additive chemicals
most plastics, and it is this property, combined with to improve the material properties. These include
an unwillingness or inability to manage end-of-life plasticisers to soften the product, colouring agents,
plastic effectively that has resulted in marine plastics UV-resistance and flame-retardation, an important
and microplastics becoming a global problem. As for property for applications in transportation and elec-
many pollutants, plastic waste is a trans-boundary, tronics. Some of these chemicals have harmful prop-
complex, social, economic and environmental prob- erties when released into the environment.
lem with few easy solutions. Warnings of what was
happening were reported in the scientific literature in Microplastics are routinely defined as small particles
the early 1970s, with little reaction from much of the or fragments of plastic measuring less than 5 mm in
scientific community. It is only in the past decade that diameter. Some microplastics are purposefully man-
the scale and importance of the problem has received ufactured for industrial and domestic purposes (‘pri-
due attention. This report was prepared at the request mary’ microplastics). These include ‘microbeads’ used
of the first United Nations Environment Assembly, in cosmetic and personal healthcare products, such
which took place 23-27 June 2014, hosted by UNEP as toothpaste. ‘Secondary’ microplastics are created
in Nairobi, Kenya (Resolution 16/1). It is intended to by the weathering and fragmentation of larger plastic
summarise the state of our knowledge on sources, objects. Weathering and fragmentation is enhanced
fate and effects of marine plastics and microplastics, by exposure to UV irradiation. The process becomes
and describe approaches and potential solutions to extremely slow once this is removed, as in much of
address this multifaceted conundrum. Plastic litter in the ocean. Plastics marked as ‘biodegradable’ do not
the ocean can be considered a ‘common concern of degrade rapidly in the ocean.
humankind’.
Sources of plastics and microplastics to the ocean
The report is divided into four main sections: are many and varied, but the actual quantities
Background, Evidence Base, Taking Action, involved remain largely unknown. Reliable quantita-
and Conclusions and Key Research Needs. The tive comparisons between the input loads of macro
Background section describes the rationale for the and microplastics, their sources, originating sectors
report, noting that marine plastic litter is a global and users are not possible at present, and this repre-
concern, and summarises the UNEA process. This sents a significant knowledge gap. Estimates of
is placed within the context of existing governance some sources, such as municipal solid waste, have
frameworks, at international and regional scales, and been made. These are useful to focus attention but
linked to the UN Sustainable Development Goals the numbers should be treated with some caution
under Agenda 2030. due to the large uncertainties involved. Some of the
most important land-based sources of larger plastic
The Evidence Base section provides the basis for objects (macroplastics) include: construction,
the later discussion of potential reduction measures. household goods, packaging, coastal tourism, and
It is divided into four chapters: Plastics, Sources, food and drink packaging. How much of this material
Distribution and fate, and Impacts. Plastics produc- enters the ocean will be dependent largely on the
tion increased rapidly from the 1950s, with global extent and effectiveness of wastewater and solid
production reaching about 311 million tonnes in waste collection and management. Land-based
2014. Plastics have been used increasingly in place sources of microplastics include: cosmetics and per-
of more traditional materials in many sectors, includ- sonal care products, textiles and clothing (synthetic

xvii
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

fibres), terrestrial transport (dust from tyres), and plastic items on shorelines, but their ultimate fate is often the
producers and fabricators (plastic resin pellets used in ocean sea floor. Most fishing gear will sink if the
plastics manufacture). A variable proportion of floatation buoys are removed. For this reason, much
microplastics will pass through wastewater treatment of the plastic debris in the ocean is out of sight, and
plants, depending on the sophistication of the equip- will remain so for the foreseeable future. It is also the
ment and procedures adopted, and regional differ- reason why no reliable estimate of the total quantity of
ences are likely to be very significant. Sea-based plastic in the ocean has been made.
sources appear to be dominated by the fisheries and
shipping sectors. Marine plastics can have significant ecological
impacts. The impacts of macroplastics on biota are
The quantities and types (size, shape, density, chem- best known. Images of a dolphin or seal entangled in
ical composition) of material, together with the entry fishing gear, or the stomach of a young dead alba-
points to the ocean, will determine to a great extent tross full of plastic objects are arresting and can be
the subsequent distribution and impact. Land-based distressing for the observer. However, some of the
inputs may be direct from shorelines or via rivers species affected are rare or endangered (IUCN red
and wastewater pipelines. Inputs at sea may be from list) so there is concern also from a conservation
normal operations, accidental losses or deliberate perspective. Macro-debris can also cause damage
discarding. There are likely to be significant regional to sensitive and at-risk habitats such as cold and
differences in inputs to the ocean from land- and warm water coral reefs. Microplastics have been
sea-based sources. Inadequate solid waste col- found in many fish and shellfish species, and some
lection and management is considered to result in cetaceans, but the impact is much more difficult to
substantial leakages of plastics to the ocean. Rivers quantify and remains a knowledge gap. All sizes of
appear to act as conduits for significant but largely plastic can provide an additional habitat for sessile
unquantified amounts of macro and microplastics, organisms. This can have important implications, for
especially where catchments serve urbanised or example, in the success of jellyfish to extend their
industrial centres. Losses from commercial shipping range. The rafting of species to a different region
correlate with busy shipping routes. Abandoned, lost provides an additional mechanism for the introduc-
or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) gear tion of non-indigenous species, most clearly demon-
tends to be concentrated in fishing grounds, but it strated on the coast of North America as a
can be transported considerable distances if floatation consequence of the Japanese tsunami in 2011.
devices remain intact. Locally, aquaculture structures
can produce significant quantities of plastic debris if Marine plastics can have direct social and eco-
damaged by storms. nomic impacts. Floating debris represents a navi-
gation hazard and has been implicated in many
Marine plastics are distributed throughout the ocean, accidents, some of which have resulted in fatalities.
from the Arctic to the Antarctic. This is due to the From the available limited evidence, it is concluded
durability of plastics, the global nature of potential that microplastics in seafood do not currently rep-
sources and the ease to which surface currents will resent a human health risk, although many uncer-
carry floating plastics. The surface circulation is well tainties remain. However, there is great uncertainty
known and is amenable to modelling. There are several about the possible effects of nano-sized plastic
persistent features such as the five sub-tropical gyres particles, which are capable of crossing cell walls.
in the Indian Ocean, North and South Atlantic, and Economic losses include the cost of non-action
North and South Pacific. These are areas with rela- (loss of income) and the cost of action (e.g. beach
tively high concentrations of floating microplastics. clean-ups). Marine plastic debris may cause a
However, higher abundances of plastics (especially reduction in income as a result of reduced fishing
macroplastics) are also found in coastal waters, par- days or reduced tourist numbers, if people are dis-
ticularly in regions with: high coastal populations with couraged from visiting by the presence of litter.
inadequate waste collection and management; inten- ‘Ghost’ fishing by derelict fishing gear results in
sive fisheries; and, high levels of coastal tourism. significant losses of potential food for human con-
Larger floating objects are also driven by winds, sumption. The extent of the social and economic
accumulating on mid-ocean islands and on shores impact, and the options for remedying losses, are
distant from the source. Many types of plastic are dependent on the social and economic context.
denser than seawater so will sink once any initial This includes better understanding perceptions
buoyancy is removed. For example, empty drinks bottles and attitudes and the economic circumstance as to
made with the plastic PET are very common litter why littering takes place.

xviii
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Improving wastewater and solid waste collection and Risk assessment is a key element in identifying
management presents the most urgent short-term appropriate intervention points and establishing
solution to reducing plastic inputs, especially in devel- which stakeholder groups need to be involved in
oping economies. This will also have other societal helping to define the problem and potential solutions
benefits in terms of human health, environmental deg- to ‘close the loop’ and prevent plastics escaping to
radation and economic development. Other priority the ocean. Criteria are presented to help select the
areas include improving wastewater treatment and most appropriate measures. Indicators of the state of
reducing ALDFG. However, a more sustainable solu- the environment are needed to establish trends, set
tion in the longer term will be moving towards a more reduction targets and evaluate the effectiveness of
circular economy, in which waste is designed out of any measures that are introduced. Harmonisation of
the production and use cycle, and society adopts monitoring and assessment approaches will help to
more sustainable consumption patterns. There is suffi- select, implement and oversee measures for marine
cient evidence that marine plastics and microplastics are plastics reduction on regional scales.
having an unacceptable impact to invoke the
Precautionary Approach. This means that society There is a great need to improve the sharing of
should not wait until there is unequivocal and quanti- knowledge and expertise, to encourage a more multi-
fied evidence of the degree of impact before acting to disciplined approach, to develop public-private part-
reduce plastic inputs to the ocean. But this needs to nerships and empower citizen-led movements. The
be accompanied by an adaptive management Global Partnerships on Marine Litter (GPML) and
approach. This should allow for sufficient flexibility to Waste Management (GPWM) should be utilised to
be built into governance frameworks, or technical this end, together with other local-, national- and
measures, to permit for adjustment as more knowl- regional-scale arrangements.
edge becomes available. In this way perverse incen-
tives and unforeseen negative consequences can be There are several areas of research that should be
removed as soon as they are recognised. pursued to gain a better understanding of the rela-
tive importance of different sources, and the fate and
Improved governance is of overarching importance, effects of marine macro and microplastics. Filling
which includes looking at the effectiveness of existing these knowledge gaps will help direct most cost-ef-
measures and the extent to which they are succeeding fectively the efforts taken to reducing further inputs
in bringing about the intended solutions. Stakeholder of plastic to the ocean and mitigate the impacts of
engagement is key to designing and agreeing more plastic debris that is already there.
sustainable production patterns, and in bringing
about and implementing effective litter reduction and
removal measures. This needs to take account of all
representatives of each community, with due account
given to gender and other demographic factors, and
build effective partnerships, including between the
public and private sectors. The private sector has an
important role in fulfilling the expectation of extended
producer responsibility (EPR) and including the envi-
ronmental impact of waste plastics when carrying out
Life-Cycle Analysis.

Examples of measures are presented to bring about

marine litter reduction and removal. These include
Best Environmental Practices (BEPs), Best
Available Techniques/Technologies (BATs), Market-
Based Instruments (MBIs), legislation or some other
intervention. These illustrate measures which have
been successful, and which may have the potential to
be replicated elsewhere. It is recognised that for most
interventions to be fully successful there needs to be
willingness by society to agree to the implementation,
which is why the areas of education and awareness
raising are important.

xix
KEY
MESSAGES

xx
KEY MESSAGES

1 6

Plastic debris/litter and microplastics are ubiquitous Stakeholder engagement is essential – partner-
in the ocean, occurring on remote shorelines, in ships are particularly useful for communities or
coastal waters, the seabed of the deep ocean and nations that may have common concerns but be
floating on the sea surface; the quantity observed geographically isolated, such as SIDS;
floating in the open ocean in mid-ocean gyres
appears to represent a small fraction of the total input;
7

2 There are many land- and sea-based sources of

plastic debris and microplastics, with significant
There is a moral argument that we should not regional differences in the relative importance of
allow the ocean to become further polluted with different sources and pathways to the ocean;
plastic waste, and that marine littering should be
considered a ‘common concern of humankind’.
8

3 ‘Leakage’ of plastics into the ocean can occur at

all stages of the production-use-disposal cycle,
There is a clear need to move towards a more especially due to inadequate wastewater and solid
circular economic model for the plastic produc- waste collection and management, but the amount
tion cycle, to minimise waste generation; this of marine plastic is so far poorly quantified;
can be summarised as Reduce (raw material
use) – Redesign (design products for re-use or
recycling) – Remove (single-use plastics when 9
practical) – Re-use (alternative uses or for refur-
bishment) – Recycle (to avoid plastics going to Marine plastics have a social, economic and eco-
waste) – Recover (re-synthesise fuels, carefully logical impact – marine litter has been shown to
controlled incineration for energy production); have significant ecological impacts, causing wel-
fare and conservation concerns, especially for
threatened or endangered species; social impacts
4 can include injury and death; and economic
losses in several sectors can be substantial;
A Precautionary Approach is justified – how-
ever the case for making an intervention should
be informed by making a risk-based assessment, 10
backed up by an adaptive management approach;
From the available limited evidence, it is con-
cluded that microplastics in seafood do not cur-
5 rently represent a human health risk, although
many uncertainties remain;
An improved governance framework is needed
- the existing governance landscape provides a
basis for an expanded governance framework, but
needs to take account of the goals and targets of
the Agenda 2030, and improved implementation
of existing arrangements is essential;

xxi
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
KEY MESSAGES

11

Social attitudes are important – they have a signif-

icant effect on littering behaviour and the accept-
ance of reduction measures;

12

Reduction measures are essential to minimise

leakage of plastic to the ocean – measures can
be based on best practice, most appropriate
technologies and techniques, education, aware-
ness raising, voluntary agreements and legislation,
but the choice must take into account the social
and economic circumstances of the community
or region, and should be guided by a risk-based
approach;

13

Improving waste collection and management pre-

sents the most urgent solution to reducing plastic
inputs, especially in developing economies. This
will also have other societal benefits in terms of
human health, environmental degradation and
economic development

14

Recovery and restoration may be justified where

there is clear, unacceptable damage or loss of an
ecosystem service;

15

There is a need to strengthen and harmonise

monitoring and assessment effects to meet global
commitments under the UN SDG targets, and to
target and gauge the effectiveness of reduction
measures;

xxii
BACKGROUND

1
1
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RATIONALE FOR THE REPORT

1. RATIONALE
Fortunately, there are initiatives in most parts of the
world that are starting to successfully reduce the
inputs of plastic to the ocean, and to recover and

FOR restore sensitive habitats, where this is practica-

ble. These provide good examples of what can be

THE REPORT
achieved. However, there are some underlying issues,
including the social and economic circumstances of
many communities, which must also be addressed for
marine litter reduction to be tackled on a global scale
(Chapter 8).

This report attempts to provide a background on

marine plastic debris, including a definition of what it
1.1 is, why it occurs, in what way it is a global problem,
and what measures can be taken to reduce its impact.
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS IS A GLOBAL ISSUE

Society has benefitted enormously from the devel- 1.2

opment of plastics (see definitions in Chapter 4).
They have become indispensable in our economic UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT ASSEMBLY
and social development, and have offered a great (UNEA)
many benefits to humanity covering every sector from
health and food preservation, through to transporta- The inaugural session of the UNEA took place in
tion and enhancing the digital age. We have become Nairobi on 23-27 June 2014 as a consequence of
very good at designing plastics for a host of appli- agreements made at Rio+20 to strengthen the role
cations, but this has been accompanied by a signif- of UNEP as the leading UN environmental and coor-
icant social, economic and ecological cost. One of dinating body. The meeting was attended by over
the more familiar aspects of any visit to the coast is 1000 delegates, representing 163 countries, NGOs,
the sight of plastic debris1 on the shoreline or floating youth groups, UN staff, stakeholders and the media.
in the sea. Plastics are now ubiquitous in the ocean, One of the intentions was for the outcome of the
found in every ocean and on every shoreline from the UNEA to inform the development of the Sustainable
Arctic through the tropics to the Antarctic. Both sea- Development Goals discussed by the UN General
and land-based activities are responsible for this con- Assembly (UNGA) in September 2015 (Chapter 2.1)2
tinuing plastic pollution of the marine environment. .

One of the best-known properties of plastic is its dura- Marine plastic debris and microplastics was one of a
bility. This is also the reason why plastics persist in the number of issues highlighted by the UNEA as being
ocean for many years after first being introduced. The of particular concern. Delegates from more than 160
large quantities of plastics now in the ocean are there countries adopted Resolution 1/6 on ‘Marine plastic
as a result of our failure to deal with plastics in a more debris and microplastics’ (Annex I). This report has been
considered and sustainable manner. It is not inevitable prepared in response to Resolution 1/6, specifically to a
that this pattern will continue, but it will require a great request at Paragraph 14 to the Executive Director:
collective effort to improve our production and use of
plastics, and to minimise the proportion of end-of-life ‘… building on existing work and taking into account
plastic that enters the waste stream. the most up-to-date studies and data, focusing on:

1 The terminology used to describe discarded plastic objects, par-

ticles and fragments in the ocean has the potential to cause confusi-
on amongst different stakeholders, and is a matter of debate. Other 2 Lee, G.E. 2014. UNEA 2014: Ground-Breaking Platform for
terms that are frequently used include marine plastic debris, marine Global Environmental Sustainability [Online]. Available at: http://
litter, marine plastic litter and ocean trash. ‘Litter’ and ‘debris’ are also climate-exchange.org/2014/07/02/unea-2014-ground-brea-
used to describe naturally-occurring material in the ocean, such as king-platform-for-global-environmental-sustainability/ [accessed 22
wood, pumice and floating vegetation. December 2015]

2
 1
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RATIONALE FOR THE REPORT

a) Identification of the key sources of marine plastic Paragraph 12 of Resolution 1/6 reads:
debris and microplastics;
b) Identification of possible measures and best ‘[The United Nations Environment Assembly] …
available techniques and environmental practices Welcomes the initiative by the Joint Group of Experts
to prevent the accumulation and minimize the on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
level of microplastics in the marine environment; Protection to produce an assessment report on
c) Recommendations for the most urgent actions; microplastics, which is scheduled to be launched
d) Specification of areas especially in need of in November 2014’. This assessment, prepared by
more research, including key impacts on the envi- GESAMP Working Group 40 (Sources, fate and
ronment and on human health; effects of microplastics in the marine environment –
e) Any other relevant priority areas identified in a global assessment), was published in April 2015
the assessment of the Joint Group of Experts on (GESAMP 2015). 3
the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection;’

The intention was to provide a basis for designing pos-

sible actions and developing policy-relevant recom-
mendations to inform discussions at UNEA-2 in May
2016. An Advisory Group was established with experts
nominated by governments and major groups and
stakeholders who served on it in their individual capac- 3 http://www.gesamp.org/publications/publicationdisplaypages/re-
ity and developed policy relevant recommendations. ports-and-studies-no.-90
Photo: © Siu Chiu / Reuters

3
2

4
2. GOVERNANCE
development agenda. It represents a plan of action
which encompasses 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs, Box 2.1) and 169 targets. Goals 11,

FRAMEWORKS 12 and 14 appear particularly relevant to the issue

of marine plastics, although all 17 goals are in some

OF RELEVANCE
way involved. The preamble of the resolution includes
this statement:

TO MARINE
‘All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collab-
orative partnership, will implement this plan. We are
resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of

PLASTIC DEBRIS poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet.
We are determined to take the bold and transform-
ative steps which are urgently needed to shift the
world on to a sustainable and resilient path. As we
embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no
one will be left behind.

2.1 … The Goals and targets will stimulate action over

the next 15 years in areas of critical importance for
AGENDA 2030 AND THE UN SUSTAINABLE humanity and the planet. ‘
DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Any collective attempt to address the multi-facetted

problem of marine plastic debris needs to take
account of regional and international frameworks,
intended to enhance marine environmental protec-
tion, that are either in place or currently under devel-
opment (Bürgi 2015). These can be considered as
part of the complex systems of governance that soci-
ety uses to ensure the effective operations of institu-
tions. In a narrow sense, governance can be defined
as ‘the exercise of authority, control, management and
power of government’ (World Bank 1991). However,
public and private sector organisations, non-govern-
mental organisations (NGOs, sometimes referred to
as not-for-profit), charitable bodies and other less
formal citizens’ groups all depend on various internal
systems of effective governance in order to achieve
their objectives. With regard to organisations con-
cerned with the production or use of plastics, govern-
ance includes producer responsibility for the
sustainable use of resources, minimising material loss
and energy usage, and effective design to reduce
end-of-life waste generation (Chapter 11).
Photo: © Cheryl Ravelo / Reuters

It is appropriate to consider the UN sustainable

development agenda as providing an overarching
framework to place other international, regional,
national and local initiatives in context. Resolution
70/1, ‘Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development’ was adopted by the
UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015.
The UNGA adopted an outcome document of
the UN summit for the adoption of the post-2015

5
2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Box 2.1

Goal 6
– ensure
availability and
sustainable
management
of water and
sanitation for all

Goal 11 Goal 12
– make cities – ensure
and human sustainable
settlements consumption
inclusive, safe, and production
resilient and patterns
sustainable

Goal 14
– conserve and
sustainably
use the oceans,
seas and marine
resources for
sustainable
development

6
 2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Under each of these overarching goals are sets of Box 2.2. A guide for stakeholders to become more
more specific targets. Eleven targets under Goals 11, aware and start to become involved in the SDG process
12 and 14 are of relevance to reducing marine plastics has been published (SDSN 2015).
with those of most relevance highlighted in bold in

Box 2.2

SDG TARGETS RELATED TO MARINE LITTER:

6.3 By 2030, the proportion of untreated wastewater should be halved

11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying
special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management

12.1 Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production,
all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the
development and capabilities of developing countries
12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes
throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly
reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human
health and the environment
12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and
reuse
12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable
tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from
land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution
14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant
adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their
restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans
14.7 By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed
countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable
management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism
14.a Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology,
taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines
on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the
contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular
small island developing States and least developed countries
14.c Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing
international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for the
conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158
of The Future We Want

15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss
of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species

(UNSDG 2014)

7
2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

2.2

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

The United Nations General Assembly and the

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS).

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS) provides the overarching framework,
within which all the activities in the oceans and the
seas must be carried out. It entered into force in
November 1994 and has 167 parties, including the
European Union. Many provisions of the Convention,
including some relevant with regard to the issue
under consideration (e.g. art. 192), reflect customary
international law which, as such, is binding also on
states that are not parties to the Convention. Photo: © NOAA CREP
UNCLOS Part XII deals with ‘Protection and preser-
vation of the marine environment’4 and requires states
to take, individually or jointly as appropriate, all meas-
ures consistent with UNCLOS which are necessary
to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine
environment from any source, using for this purpose
the best practicable means at their disposal and in
accordance with their capabilities, and to endeavour
to harmonize their policies in this connection. These
measures have to include, inter alia, those designed
to minimize to the fullest possible extent the release of
toxic, harmful or noxious substances. Part XII includes The UN General Assembly routinely has an agenda
detailed provisions on land-based sources of pollution, item on oceans and the law of the sea and on sustain-
pollution from vessels, seabed activities, dumping, and able fisheries. The work of the General Assembly was
pollution from or through the atmosphere. informed, in particular, by the consideration of the
topic ‘marine debris’ at the 6th meeting of the United
Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process
on Oceans and the Law of the Sea in 2005, which
resulted in the introduction of provisions relating to
UNCLOS Part XII Article 192 General Obligation: marine debris into the annual resolution on oceans
and the law of the sea. At the 70th session in December
‘States have the obligation to protect and 2015, resolution 70/235 was adopted which included
preserve the marine environment’ the decision (paragraph 312) that the 17th meeting
of the United Nations Informal Consultative Process
Article 194: ‘States shall take, individually on Oceans and the Law of the Sea would focus its
or jointly as appropriate, all measures within discussions on the topic ‘Marine debris, plastics and
this Convention that are necessary to prevent, microplastics’. This is due to take place in June 2016.
reduce and control pollution of the marine
environment from any source’ A provision under UNCLOS of 10 December 1982
relates to the Conservation and Management of
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement).
This includes reference to reducing the impact of
fishing gears, gear marking and the retrieval of
ALDFG (Box 2.3). This is relevant to the discussion
4 http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_ on the social, ecological and economic impact of
overview_convention.htm
ALDFG (Chapter 7).

8
 2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Box 2.3

UNITED NATIONS FISH STOCKS AGREEMENT

The Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement). The
Agreement provides, inter alia, for the conservation and sustainable use of these stocks and
mechanisms for international cooperation in this regard. In particular, it contains the obligation to:

‘minimize pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species,
both fish and non-fish species, (hereinafter referred to as non-target species) and impacts on
associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species, through measures including, to
the extent practicable, the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective
fishing gear and techniques’ (article 5(f)).

It also lists amongst the duties of flag States the taking of measures including:

‘requirements for marking of fishing vessels and fishing gear for identification in accordance with
uniform and internationally recognizable vessel and gear marking systems, such as the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Standard Specifications for the Marking and
Identification of Fishing Vessels’ (article 18(3)(d)).

Furthermore, the Agreement assigns an important role to regional fisheries management organizations
and arrangements (RFMO/As) for the conservation and management of these fish stocks and sets out,
inter alia, the functions of such RFMO/As.

The Review Conference on the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement in 2006 recommended States
individually and collectively through regional fisheries management organizations to, inter alia, “[e]
nhance efforts to address and mitigate the incidence and impacts of all kinds of lost or abandoned
gear (so-called ghost fishing), establish mechanisms for the regular retrieval of derelict gear and
adopt mechanisms to monitor and reduce discards” (A/CONF.210/2006/15, Annex, para. 18(h)). In
response, States and RFMO/As have taken action to address lost or abandoned fishing gear and
discards (see, e.g., A/CONF.210/2010/1, paras. 124-129). The resumed Review Conference to be
held from 23 to 27 May 2016 may further address this issue.

9
2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Litter prevention at sea

MARPOL Convention

MARPOL Annex V of the IMO MARPOL Convention

provides regulations for the prevention of pollution by
garbage from ships. This prohibits the discharge of gar-
bage into the ocean from all vessels of whatever type,
except as provided in specific regulations (Table 2.1).5

MARPOL Annex V:

prohibits the discharge of garbage from:

‘all vessels of any type whatsoever operating in
the marine environment, from merchant ships
to fixed or floating platforms to non-commercial
ships like pleasure craft and yachts’.

A revised version of Annex V entered into force on 1

January 2013 (Table 2.1), following a review by an
intersessional correspondence group of the Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). This
took account of resolution 60/30 of the UN General
Assembly which had invited IMO to conduct a review
in consultation with relevant organisations and
bodies, and to assess its effectiveness. The MEPC
also adopted the 2012 Guidelines for the devel-
opment of garbage management plans (resolution
MEPC.220(63)).

Under the revised MARPOL Annex V, garbage includes:

‘all kinds of food, domestic and operational waste,
all plastics, cargo residues, incinerator ashes, cook-
ing oil, fishing gear, and animal carcasses generated
during the normal operation of the ship and liable to
be disposed of continuously or periodically. Garbage
does not include fresh fish and parts thereof gener-
ated as a result of fishing activities undertaken during
the voyage, or as a result of aquaculture activities’.

5 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/
Garbage/Pages/Default.aspx

10
 2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Table 2.1

Ships outside Ships inside Offshore

special areas special areas platforms and
all ships within 500m
Type of garbage of such platforms

Food waste Discharge Discharge Discharge

comminuted or ground permitted permitted permitted

≥ 3 nm from the nearest land ≥ 12 nm from the nearest ≥ 12 nm from the nearest
and en route land and en route land

Food waste not Discharge Discharge Discharge

comminuted or ground permitted prohibited prohibited

≥ 12 nm from the nearest

land and en route

Cargo residues* Discharge Discharge Discharge

not contained in wash permitted prohibited prohibited
water
≥ 12 nm from the nearest
land and en route
Cargo residues* Discharge only Discharge
contained in wash water permitted in prohibited
specific circumstances**

and ≥ 12 nm from the near-

est land and en route

Cleaning agents Discharge Discharge only

and additives permitted permitted in specific Discharge
contained circumstances** prohibited
in cargo hold
wash water and ≥ 12 nm from the near-
est land and en route

Cleaning agents and Discharge

additives* contained in Discharge prohibited
deck and external permitted
surfaces wash water

Carcasses of animals Discharge permitted

carried on board as cargo As far away from the nearest Discharge prohibited Discharge prohibited
and which died during the land as possible and en route
voyage

All other garbage including

plastics, domestic wastes,
cooking oil, incinerator Discharge prohibited Discharge prohibited Discharge prohibited
ashes, operational wastes
and fishing gear

Mixed garbage When garbage is mixed with or contaminated by other substances prohibited from discharge or
having different discharge requirements, the more stringent requirements shall apply

Simplified overview of the discharge provisions of the revised MARPOL Annex V,

which entered into force on 1 January 2013 (www.imo.org)

* These substances must not be harmful to the environment

** According to regulation 6.1.2 of MARPOL Annex V, the discharge shall only be allowed if: (a) both the port of departure and the next port
of destination are within the special area (Box 2.4) and the ship will not transit outside the special area between these ports (regulation
6.1.2.2); and (b) if no adequate reception facilities are available at those ports (regulation 6.1.2.3).

11
2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Box 2.4
London Convention and Protocol

The ‘Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution

SPECIAL AREAS ESTABLISHED by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972’ (i.e.
UNDER MARPOL ANNEX V The London Convention, LC) came into force in
1975.6 Its objective is to provide effective control of all
sources of marine pollution and take all practical steps
to prevent pollution by dumping of wastes or other
• Mediterranean Sea area
matter at sea. Currently 87 States are Parties to the
• Baltic Sea area
Convention. The London Protocol (LP) was agreed in
• Black Sea area
1996 to modernise, and eventually replace the
• Red Sea area
Convention. It came into force in March 2006 and there
• Gulfs area
are currently 46 Parties to the Protocol (Figure 2.1).
• North Sea area
• Wider Caribbean area
Under the Convention wastes are categorised
• Antarctic area
according to a black- and grey-list approach. For
black-list, dumping is prohibited, while for grey-list a
waste, dumping is allowed provided a special permit
is issued by a designated authority, and it has to take
place under strict controls. All other non-list materials
can be dumped provided a general permit is issued.
Annex V also obliges Governments to ensure: ‘the
provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and
terminals for the reception of garbage without caus-
ing undue delay to ships, and according to the needs
of the ships using them’. This is discussed further in 6 http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/Pages/default.
Chapter 9. aspx

Figure 2.1 Parties to the London Convention and Protocol

Map showing current LC/LP Parties (as of December 2015):

green – Protocol Parties, yellow – Convention Parties, red – Non-Party States (www.imo.org).

12
 2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Under the Protocol, a precautionary approach is FAO instruments

adopted whereby all dumping is prohibited unless
explicitly permitted (the ‘reverse list’ approach). The The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries7
LC and LP prohibit disposal at sea of persistent plastic contains a series of provisions and standards, some
and other synthetic materials, for example netting and of which are relevant to marine litter. The Code is
ropes (LC annex I, paragraph 2 and LP annex 1). The voluntary and global in scope, and is directed at
export of waste for dumping and incineration at sea both members and non-members of FAO, and at all
are also prohibited. There is an obligation on States levels of governance. Provisions concerning marine
to ensure that waste disposal at sea is carried out in litter include the provision of port-reception facilities,
accordance with the LC/LP, equivalent regional storage of garbage on board and the reduction in
agreements or UNCLOS (article 210). abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear
(ALDFG) (Box 2.5).
One area of concern has been the possibly of plastics
and microplastics becoming associated with the vari-
ous waste streams under the LC/LP. Accordingly, the Litter prevention from land-based
Secretariat of the LC/LP commissioned a ‘Review sources – GPA
of the current state of knowledge regarding marine
litter in wastes dumped at sea under the London The Global Programme of Action for the Protection of
Convention and Protocol’. The work was under- the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities
taken within the framework of the UNEP-led Global (GPA) is the only global intergovernmental mecha-
Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML, Chapter 9), and nism directly addressing the connectivity between
is designed to stimulate further discussion about
the nature and extent of marine litter in the waste
streams under the LC/LP, in particular plastics and
microplastics. Sewage sludge and dredged material
were considered to be most likely to contain plastic
litter (Chapter 5.8). 7 http://www.fao.org/fishery/code/en
Photo: © NOAA Marine Debris Program

13
2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Box 2.5

FAO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES – ARTICLE 8

8.4 Fishing activities

8.4.6 States should cooperate to develop and apply technologies, materials and operational
methods that minimize the loss of fishing gear and the ghost fishing effects of lost or
abandoned fishing gear.
8.4.8 Research on the environmental and social impacts of fishing gear and, in particular, on
the impact of such gear on biodiversity and coastal fishing communities should be promoted.
8.7 Protection of the aquatic environment
8.7.1 States should introduce and enforce laws and regulations based on the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of
1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78).
8.7.2 Owners, charterers and managers of fishing vessels should ensure that their vessels are
fitted with appropriate equipment as required by MARPOL 73/78 and should consider fitting a
shipboard compactor or incinerator to relevant classes of vessels in order to treat garbage
and other shipboard wastes generated during the vessel‘s normal service.
8.7.3 Owners, charterers and managers of fishing vessels should minimize the taking aboard
of potential garbage through proper provisioning practices.
8.7.4 The crew of fishing vessels should be conversant with proper shipboard procedures in
order to ensure discharges do not exceed the levels set by MARPOL 73/78. Such procedures
should, as a minimum, include the disposal of oily waste and the handling and storage of
shipboard garbage.
8.9 Harbours and landing places for fishing vessels
8.9.1 States should take into account, inter alia, the following in the design and construction
of harbours and landing places:
c. waste disposal systems should be introduced, including for the disposal of oil, oily water and
fishing gear;

terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosys- Conventions for the conservation and sustaina-
tems. It aims to be a source of conceptual and ble use of biodiversity
practical guidance to be drawn upon by national
and/or regional authorities for devising and imple- The UN Convention on Biological Diversity
menting sustained action to prevent, reduce, con- The UN Convention on Biological Diversity came
trol and/or eliminate marine degradation from into force in December 1993. It is supported pri-
land-based activities. UNEP hosts the GPA and marily by funding from member governments and
coordinates some activities in support of the pro- operated by the Global Environment Facility
gramme. Intergovernmental Review Meetings are (GEF). Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention are
organized every five years to review the progress particularly relevant to the impact of marine plas-
made by countries in the implementation of the tic debris (Box 2.6). The Secretariat commis-
GPA through their respective National Action sioned a major review of the impacts of marine
Plans. Marine litter is wa priority source category litter on biodiversity, which was published in 2012
under the GPA. (SCBD 2012).

14
 2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Box 2.6

UN CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Article 6 General measures for conservation and sustainable use

Each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with its particular conditions and capabilities:

(a) Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programmes
which shall reflect, inter alia, the measures set out in this Convention relevant to the
Contracting Party concerned; and
(b) Integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies.
Article 8 In-situ conservation
Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate:
(a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken
to conserve biological diversity;
d) Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable
populations of species in natural surroundings;
(e) Promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected
areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas;
(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of threatened
species, inter alia, through the development and implementation of plans or other
management strategies;

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Based on the recommendations in these reports, the
Species of Wild Animals CMS adopted resolution 11.30 in November 2014 on
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory the ‘Management of marine debris’8 that referred to:
Species of Wild Animals (CMS or the Bonn
Convention) was adopted in June 1979. It addresses i identifying knowledge gaps in the management
the conservation of species or populations that cross of marine debris (paragraphs 5-13)
national jurisdictional boundaries, as well as of their ii commercial marine vessel Best Practice
habitats. (paragraphs 14-17)
iii public awareness and education campaigns
In 2014, upon a request contained in resolution 10.4 on (paragraphs 18-23)
‘Marine Debris’, CMS published three comprehensive
reports, now available as UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.27 This is very relevant to the identification and imple-
Report I: Migratory Species, Marine Debris and its mentation of litter reduction measures discussed in
Management, giving an overview of the issue and Chapter 9.
identifying knowledge gaps relevant to species
conservation, UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.28 Report II:
Marine Debris and Commercial Marine Vessel Best
Practice, and UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.29 Report
III: Marine Debris: Public Awareness and Education 8 http://www.cms.int/en/news/marine-debris-%E2%80%93-cms-
Campaigns. and-ascobans-point-out-some-local-solutions-global-problem

15
2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs) was adopted in 2001 and came
The IWC was set up in 1946 under the auspices into force in May 200410. It was established to pro-
of the International Convention for the Regulation tect human life and the environment from chemicals
of Whaling (ICRW). The Commission has a mem- that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in
bership of 88 Contracting Governments. The ICRW humans and wildlife, have harmful effects and have
contains an integral Schedule which sets out spe- the potential for long-range environmental transport.
cific measures that the IWC has collectively decided Chemicals classified as POPs under the Convention
are necessary in order to regulate whaling and other have a number of undesirable effects, including dis-
methods/mechanisms to conserve whale stocks. In ruption of the endocrine system, carcinogenicity and
addition, the IWC undertakes co-ordinates and funds damage to the central and peripheral nervous system.
conservation work on many species of cetacean. POPs are widespread in the environment, but tend to
Through its Scientific Committee it undertakes exten- be more concentrated in organic matter, for example
sive study and research on cetacean populations, in seabed sediments. Many are lipophilic, meaning
develops and maintains scientific databases, and they are readily absorbed by oils and fats, hence con-
publishes its own peer-reviewed scientific journal, centrations tend to be higher in oily fish than non-
the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. oily fish, in the same waters. For this reason, plastic
tends to absorb organic contaminants, and POPs are
The IWC began formally to consider marine debris routinely found in plastic particles. Some of the addi-
in 2011 following its endorsement of the United tive chemicals that were used several years ago to
Nations Environment Programme’s Honolulu modify the properties of plastics, (e.g. to make the
Commitment. Subsequent work has shown that plastic resistant to fire, see Chapter 4.1), are now
marine debris, such as ALDFG and plastics, includ- classified as POPs. This means that plastics have
ing microplastics, can be a conservation and welfare become carriers of POPs in the ocean. A system is
concern for cetaceans throughout the oceans. In in place to periodically review and add new chemi-
addition to regular work by its Scientific Committee, cals to the Annexes of the Convention as appropriate.
the IWC has held two expert workshops on marine A global monitoring plan has been designed to pro-
debris (IWC 2014 and IWC/65/CCRep04)9 vide comparable datasets on a regional and global
, and three on large whale entanglement in all fish- basis. Clearly there is a potential synergy between
ing gear, including ALDFG (IWC, 2012; IWC, POPs monitoring under the Stockholm Convention
2013 and SC/66a/COMM2); established a global and monitoring the occurrence of plastic particles
network for disentanglement of whales from gear, (Chapter 9). An annual meeting takes place to ensure
including a training and support programme for new cooperation and coordination between regional cen-
teams around the world; and increased its efforts to tres under the Basel and Stockholm Conventions11.
strengthen international collaboration.
The Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
Regulation of harmful substances and their Disposal was adopted in March 1989
and came into force in 1992 (Box 2.7). One of the
Several International Conventions and Multilateral main drivers for doing so was the realisation in the
Environmental Agreements (MEAs) have been intro- 1970s and 1980s of the extent of the traffic in toxic
duced to control the release of harmful substances wastes to Africa and other developing regions12.
into the environment. These are only relevant inso- The trade was driven by a desire to reduce disposal
far as some plastics are produced containing com- costs, against a background of a lower level of envi-
pounds known to have toxic properties, and most ronmental awareness and a lack of regulation and
plastics have a tendency to absorb organic pollutants enforcement in countries in Eastern Europe and the
and hence have the potential to impart a chemical
impact if ingested or otherwise brought into close
contact with marine organisms or people.

10 http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/Overview/tabid/3351/Default.
aspx
11 http://www.brsmeas.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4624
12 http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/tabid/1271/Default.
9 https://iwc.int/marine-debris aspx

16
 2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Box 2.7
developing world. The Basel Convention is of rele-
vance, as much of the waste trade involves plastics,
and some of these contain relatively high levels of
additive chemicals which are in Annex I or II of the BASEL CONVENTION ON THE
Convention. These have known toxicological effects, CONTROL OF TRANSBOUNDARY
with serious human health implications. This is dis- MOVEMENTS OF HAZARDOUS
cussed later in the report (Chapters 5.6 and 7.3). WASTES AND THEIR DISPOSAL
The Convention also requires Parties to: ‘ensure that
the generation of hazardous wastes and other wastes
are minimised.’ The Rotterdam Convention covers
the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Principal aims:
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International
Trade13, and forms another important restraint on the i. the reduction of hazardous waste
unregulated trade in waste. Again, plastics may be generation and the promotion of
included if they contain substances listed within the environmentally sound management
Convention Annexes. of hazardous wastes, wherever the
place of disposal;

Other international agreements ii. the restriction of transboundary

movements of hazardous wastes
Where measures are introduced (e.g. labelling, except where it is perceived to be
market-based instruments – see Chapter 11) they in accordance with the principles
have to be consistent with existing legal arrange- of environmentally sound
ments, including World Trade Organisation law. management; and

iii. a regulatory system applying to cases

SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action Pathway where transboundary movements are
(SAMOA Pathway) permissible
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) experience
particular pressures and vulnerabilities, includ-
ing the generation and management of waste and
the presence of marine plastic debris, often orig-
inating from distant waters. The third conference
on SIDS was held in Samoa in September 2014.
The theme was “The sustainable development of
small island developing States through genuine
and durable partnerships”. Nearly 300 partnerships
were agreed. The SIDS Accelerated Modalities of
Action Pathway (SAMOA Pathway) was adopted
to address priority areas for SIDS14. This provides
a key avenue for multi-stakeholder engagement
when considering marine litter reduction meas-
ures (Chapter 11). There are three groupings
of SIDS: the Caribbean Community, the Pacific
Islands Forum and AIMS (Africa, Indian Ocean,
Mediterranean and South China Sea).

13 http://www.pic.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/
tabid/1048/language/en-US/Default.aspx
14 http://www.sids2014.org/

17
2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

2.3

REGIONAL COOPERATION

Regional seas bodies

Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans

(RSCAPs) play a critical role in encouraging coop-
eration and coordination amongst countries sharing
a common resource. There are 18 Regional Seas
Conventions and Action Plans, six of which are admin-
istered directly by UNEP: Mediterranean (Barcelona
Convention), Wider Caribbean (WCR), East Asia
Seas, Eastern Africa (Nairobi Convention), Northwest
Pacific (NOWPAP), and West and Central Africa
(WACAF). The RSCAPs are instrumental in support-
ing the implementation of the Global Programme of
Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities (GPA) at regional levels.
Several RSCAPs have developed or are in the pro-
cess of developing regional action plans on marine
litter (see Box 2.8, Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Regional action plan for marine litter

Regional action plans on marine litter

Baltic Sea
North-East
Atlantic

Black Sea

Mediterranean North West

Sea Pacific
Wider Caribbean
ROPME
Sea

East Asian
Seas

Pacific

Action plan in place

Action plan in
development
Source: UNEP, Marine Plastic Debris And Microplastics, document in preparation.

Regions developing Action Plans for marine litter. Taken from Marine Litter Vital Graphics (in preparation)

18
 2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

Box 2.8

REGIONAL ACTION PLANS ON MARINE LITTER

• Strategic framework on the management of marine litter in the Mediterranean, adopted

in 2012; Regional Plan on the Management of Marine litter in the Mediterranean, adopted
in 2013, entered into force in June 2014; Barcelona Convention for the protection of the
marine environment and the coastal region of the Mediterranean.

• Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter for the OSPAR Convention: Convention for the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic. Marine litter also forms
a key part of OSPAR’s regional action, monitoring and assessment programme. A specific
Action Plan for marine litter was agreed in 2014. The initiative ‘fishing for litter’ forms
part of OSPAR’s Regional Action Plan, mostly as a process to highlight the issue to fisheries
stakeholders, although in the process, litter is being removed from the seabed when it is
brought up in nets.
(www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/marine_litter_unep_ospar.pdf)

• Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter for the Helsinki Convention: Convention on the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area. The Action Plan was adopted
in March 2015. The Helsinki Commission has adopted several recommendations directly
or indirectly related to marine litter. www.helcom.fi

• Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter for the Wider Caribbean Region (RAPMaLi), approved
in 2008 and revised in 2014.

• Northwest Pacific Action Plan on Marine Litter (2008).

• South Pacific: CLEANER PACIFIC 2025: Pacific Regional Waste and Pollution Management
Strategy 2016-2025. Marine debris has been identified as a priority area in this strategy.

19
2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

The regional action plans have been developed taking a mechanism which, potentially, could be utilised to
account of the specific environmental, social and reduce the introduction of plastic and microplastics
economic context of each region. They vary in the to waterways and hence reduce their introduction to
degree of detail and the extent to which actions are the ocean. For example, the International Commission
required or recommended by States. For example, for the Protection of the Danube (ICPDR) provides
the strategic framework adopted on the management an overall legal instrument for cooperation and trans-
of marine litter in the Mediterranean contains legally- boundary management of the Danube16. It covers a
binding obligations to take measures to prevent and range of issues including water quality and the trans-
reduce the impacts of litter in the Mediterranean from boundary transport of hazardous substances, and has
land and sea sources. In contrast, HELCOM has been ratified by 15 contracting parties. The ICPDR
adopted several specific recommendations directly or Joint Action Plan includes measures to reduce water
indirectly related to marine litter: pollution.

i. Recommendation 28E/10 on application of the

No-special-fee system to ship-generated wastes Regional Fisheries Management Organisations
and marine litter caught in fishing nets in the Baltic and Arrangements (RFMO/As)
Sea Area and agreement to raise public awareness
on the negative environmental and socio-economic RFMO/As have a responsibility to sustainably
effects of marine litter in the marine environment; manage living resources, either for a specific highly
ii. Recommendations 10/5 concerning guidelines migratory species (e.g. bluefin tuna) or for resources
for the establishment of adequate reception facil- more generally in a particular geographic region. The
ities in ports (1989); Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
iii. Recommendation 10/7 concerning general Living Resources17 (CCAMLR) is an example of the
requirements for reception of wastes (1989); latter type. It was established in 1982, with the objec-
iv. Recommendation 19/14 concerning a har- tive of conserving marine life, and ensuring controlled
monized system of fines in case a ship violates harvesting is carried out within an ecosystem-based
anti-pollution regulations (1998); approach. The subject of the management of marine
v. Recommendation 19/9 (supplemented by debris, in order to monitor and minimize the impact
22/1) concerning the installation of garbage of fisheries related activities in the Convention Area,
retention appliances and toilet retention systems has been an integral part of the CCAMLR agenda
and standard connections for sewage on board since 1984. Each year since 1989, members have
fishing vessels, working vessels and pleasure collected data on beached debris, entanglement of
craft (1998); and marine mammals, marine debris associated with sea-
vi. Recommendation 31E/4 concerning proper bird colonies and animals contaminated with hydro-
handling of waste/landfilling (2010). carbons at various sites around Antarctica (Chapter
6/10). CCAMLR has also been instrumental at intro-
ducing mitigation measures to reduce the impact of
Major transboundary river basins marine debris on marine life (Chapter 9).

River systems and other types of waterway represent

a major route for carrying waste, including plastics, to European Union
the ocean (Chapter 5.6). When a waterway crosses
a national boundary it is defined as a transbound- The European Union (EU) has adopted a number of
ary waterway. Almost half the Earth’s land surface measures on waste management, packaging and envi-
(excluding Antarctica) falls within transboundary ronmental protection that are relevant to the reduc-
basins (including ground water and lakes) and there is tion in marine plastic debris. These apply to all 28
a large number of multilateral agreements dealing with Member States of the EU. An overview of European
transboundary river basins, some of which address Commission (EC) policies, legislation and initiatives
environmental concerns15. Such agreements provide

16 http://www.icpdr.org/main/
15 http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/
Trans-boundaryWaterManagement 17 https://www.ccamlr.org/en

20
 2
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS

related to marine litter was published in 2012 (EC The Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries
2012). These relate both to specific initiatives within (CPSC)
the EU and overarching international obligations. The CPSC has recognised the importance of marine
For example, the requirement for States to provide litter, highlighted the key economic and environmen-
port reception facilities, under MARPOL Annex V, is tal impacts and recommended a number of actions.
enshrined in a Directive of 2000 (EC 2000). These are contained in the CPSC Lisbon Declaration,
approved in June 201520. The CPSC consists of
One of the most relevant pieces of European leg- representatives from Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde,
islation is the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique,
(MSFD)18 in which marine litter is one of eleven Portugal, São Tome and Principe, and East Timor.
‘descriptors’ of the environmental state of European
Seas. The MSFD includes provision for setting indi-
cators, and targets for litter reduction (Chapter 9). ASCOBANS
The principal aim of the MSFD is to achieve Good Marine litter is also a concern of regional conservation
Environmental Status (GES) of EU marine waters by bodies such as the Agreement on the Conservation
2020. The Directive defines GES as: ‘The environ- of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic,
mental status of marine waters where these provide North and Irish Seas (ASCOBANS)21.
ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas
which are clean, healthy and productive’.

A ‘European Strategy on Plastic Waste in the

Environment’ was published as a Green Paper in
2013 (EC 2013). This looked at aspects of plastics
production, use, waste management, recycling and
resource efficiency, posing a series of questions to
facilitate the development of more effective waste
management guidelines and legislation. This has
been followed by revision of existing legislation, for
example on reducing the consumption of lightweight
plastic bags (< 50 μm thick), adopted in April 2015
Photo: © NOAA Marine Debris Program

(EC 2015).

The EC has commissioned several studies on the

generation of marine litter, more specifically marine
plastic litter, and potential impacts and mitigation
measures. These are referred to in the report where
appropriate (Chapters 5, 6, 9).

Other examples of regional cooperation.

The East Asia Civil Forum on Marine Litter

This is a network of non-profit organizations devoted
to addressing the marine litter issue in Asia19. The
current membership consists of organisations from
South Korea, Japan, China (mainland and Taiwan),
Bangladesh, Philippines and Brunei, and an English-
version newsletter is published twice per year.

18 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-po-
licy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htm 20 http://www.cplp.org/id-2595.aspx
19 www.osean.net 21 http://www.ascobans.org/en/publication/oceans-full-plastic

21
3

22
3. SCOPE AND
iv. Modelling component (engaging wider modelling/
oceanographic community) (UNEP in press b); and
v. Socio-economic component (engaging

STRUCTURE researchers and universities to look at social

aspects/welfare impacts and economic effects)

OF THE REPORT
(UNEP in press c), and Market-based instruments
(Gitti et al. 2015).

The author of the present report has attempted to

capture the most relevant aspects of these more
in-depth studies. However, they are being published
as separate reports to which the reader is referred.
The report has been designed to address the request
from the UNEA to the Executive Secretary ‘…to The report does not attempt to quantify the total
undertake a study on marine plastic debris and marine abundance of plastic debris in the ocean, nor of
microplastics…’. It is divided into four major sections: the overall inputs from all sources. There are too
Background (Chapters 1-3), Evidence Base many knowledge gaps about existing and emerging
(Chapters 4 - 7), Taking action (Chapters 8 - 11) and sources to provide a meaningful analysis. In addition,
Conclusions and Key Research Needs (Chapters 12 plastic debris covers an enormous size range, from
- 13). The Evidence Base section covers: the nature nanometres to several metres in diameter, and occurs
of synthetic plastics and microplastics; the main land- throughout the ocean (sea surface, water column,
and sea-based sources; the distribution and fate of shorelines, seabed, biota), presenting a number of
marine plastics and microplastics in the ocean; the challenges in terms of statistically valid sampling and
main social, economic and ecological impacts of analysis. A number of estimates have been published
plastics and microplastics; and, the social and eco- on the scale of some sources and the quantities of
nomic context of sources and impacts. The Taking debris in some categories, and these are referred to
Action section covers: monitoring and assessment, in Chapter 5 (sources) and Chapter 6. Such studies
including the use of indicators; risk-based assess- are very useful in order to focus further assessment
ment of impacts and identifying intervention points; of possible litter reduction measures, investment
and, a series of measures for ‘closing the loop’, decisions, monitoring programmes or research.
including Best Available Techniques (BATs) and Best However, all such estimates are limited by: the avail-
Environmental Practices (BEPs). The relationship ability of representative data; the range of sources
between the main sections and chapters in the report considered (sea-based, land-based); the type and
and the five elements in Resolution 1/6 Paragraph 14 location of debris included (floating and non-floating,
are indicated in Table 3.1. This also provides a guide nano- to mega-plastics); and, a reliance on modelling
to the relevant UN SDG Targets. Although the report approaches, which necessitate making assumptions
focuses on the specific UNEA requests, it also pro- about the system being modelled and the reliability
vides an introduction to marine plastics and an expla- of the data. The oft-quoted figure that 80% of marine
nation of the current state of knowledge about the plastic debris comes from land is based on remarka-
behaviour and impacts of plastics in ocean. This is to bly little evidence, as are figures for how long it takes
provide a more robust evidence base for developing various materials to degrade in the ocean. It is a rea-
and implementing cost-effective solutions to reduce sonable assumption that all the plastic macro and
the input and impact of marine plastic. microplastic debris that has entered the ocean is still
these, in one form or another. What can be said with
In addition to reviewing the extensive published lit- some certainty is that the sources, distribution and
erature on the topic, it was intended that the report impacts of marine plastic debris and microplastics
should reflect the findings of several related but sep- show great regional heterogeneity (Chapters 5 – 7),
arate studies supported principally by UNEP: and that the development of cost-effective reduction
measures will need to reflect this (Chapter 9).
i. Core study focusing on strengthening the evidence
base with regard to microplastics (GESAMP 2016);
ii. Study on the impact of microplastics on fisher-
ies and aquaculture (FAO/UNEP, in preparation);
iii. Compilation of Best Available Techniques (BATs)
(UNEP in press a);

23
3
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

Table 3.1

Report section Resolution 1/6, SDG Target

Paragraph 14

EVIDENCE BASE

4. Plastics (a) 6.3, 12.1, 12.2

5. Sources (a) 6.3, 12.1, 12.2

6. Distribution and fate (b) 12.b, 14.a, 14.2

7. Impacts (b) 14.1, 14.2, 15.5

TAKING ACTION

8. Closing the loop (b) 6.3, 11.6, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5, 14.1,
14.2, 14.7, 14.1, 14.c , 15.5

9. A selection of different types of measure (b) 6.3, 11.6, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5, 14.1,
14.2, 14.7, 14.1, 14.c , 15.5

10. Risk-based assessment of impacts and (b) 6.3, 11.6, 12.4, 12.5, 12.b, 14.1, 14.2,
interventions 15.5

11. Monitoring and assessment (b) 14.2, 14.a

CONCLUSIONS & KEY RESEARCH NEEDS

12. Conclusions (a)-(e) All of the above

13. Research needs – environmental, (d) 12.b, 14.a, 14.c, 15.5

social, economic and legal

Relationship between the main sections and chapters of the UNEA report,
the five elements of Resolution 6/1 Chapter 14, and relevant SDG Targets

24
4

25
 4. PLASTICS
and, in lay terms, has come to be the most common
use of the term. In engineering, soil mechanics,
materials science and geology, plasticity refers to
the property of a material able to deform without
fracturing. Thermoplastic is capable of being repeat-
edly moulded, or deformed plastically, when heated.
Common examples include polyethylene (PE, high
4.1 and low density), polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and pol-
PRODUCTION, TYPES, USES, TRENDS ystyrene (PS, including expanded EPS). Thermoset
plastic material, once formed, cannot be remoulded
Plastic types and production by melting. Common examples include polyurethane
(PUR) and epoxy resins or coatings. Plastics are
Large-scale production of plastics began in the commonly manufactured from fossil fuels, but bio-
1950s. Production increased rapidly responding to mass (e.g. maize, plant oils) is increasingly being
an increasing demand for manufactured goods and used. Once the polymer is synthesised, the material
packaging to contain or protect foods and goods. properties will be the same whatever the type of raw
This was accompanied by an increasing diversifica- material used.
tion of types and applications of synthetic polymer.
About 311 million tonnes of plastic were produced
The term ‘plastic’, as commonly applied, refers to a globally in 2014 (Plastics-Europe 2015). Many dif-
group of synthetic polymers (Box 4.1). There are two ferent types of plastic are produced globally, but
main classes: thermoplastic and thermoset (Figure the market is dominated by four main classes of
4.1). Thermoplastic has been shortened to ‘plastic’ plastics: PE (73 million tonnes in 2010), PET (53
million tonnes), PP (50 million tonnes) and PVC
(35 million tonnes). There are also appreciable
quantities of PS (including expanded EPS) and
Box 4.1 PUR produced. In addition to the main polymer
classes, there has been a proliferation of new pol-
ymers and co-polymers to meet new expectations
and markets, mostly driven by new combinations
DEFINITION OF POLYMERS
of existing monomers. Four regions dominate pro-
AND MONOMERS
duction: China, Asia (excluding China), Europe and
North America. If current production and use trends
continue unabated then production is estimated to
increase to approaching 2 000 million tonnes by
Polymers are large organic molecules 2050 (Figure 4.2).
composed of repeating carbon-based
units or chains that occur naturally and
can be synthesised. Common natural Bio-derived plastics
polymers include chiton (insect and
crustacean exoskeleton), lignin (cell These plastics are derived from biomass such as
walls of plants), cellulose (cell walls of organic waste material or crops grown specifically
plants), polyester (cutin) and protein for the purpose. Utilising waste material can be seen
fibre (wool, silk). as fitting into the model of the circular economy, clos-
ing a loop in the resource-manufacture-use-waste
Monomers are molecules capable stream. The latter source could be considered to be
of combining, by a process called potentially more problematic as it may require land
polymerisation, to form a polymer. For to be set aside from either growing food crops, at a
example, the monomer ethylene (C2H4) time of increasing food insecurity, or from protecting
is polymerised, using a catalyst, to form sensitive habitat, at a time of diminishing biodiversity.
polyethylene. One current feature of biomass-based polymers is
that they tend to be more expensive to produce than
those based on fossil fuels (Sekiguchi et al. 2011,
Pemba et al. 2014).

26
 4
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Figure 4.1

The production of the most common synthetic (plastic) and natural polymers,
including some typical applications (adapted from GESAMP 2015)

27
4
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Figure 4.2

Global plastic production...

Million tonnes, 2013 1 800

1 500
Commonwealth of
EU Independent States
7
50 Japan 11
49
62
North 18
America
Middle East 41 China
and Africa
12 Asia
(excluding China
Latin and Japan) 1 000
America

800

600

...and future trends

Million tonnes
400

200

1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050

Source: Ryan, A Brief History of Marine Litter Research, in M. Bergmann, L.
Gutow, M. Klages (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter, Berlin Springer, 2015;
Plastics Europe

Global plastic production trends (taken from

Marine Litter Vital Graphics in preparation)

28
 4
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

‘Biodegradable’ plastics of types and properties of common plastics has been

published recently (UNEP 2015). Examples of prod-
Some plastics have been designed to be more sus- ucts made from different polymer types are shown in
ceptible to degradation, depending on the environ- Figure 4.1, and the demand by sector in the European
mental conditions to which they are subject. These market in Figure 4.3.
can range from inside the human body to inside an
industrial composter. Such conditions do not exist in Microplastics and microbeads
the marine environment, and the fate of such materi-
als in the ocean remains unclear. Some common Microplastics have been defined as particles of plastic
non-biodegradable polymers, such as polyethylene, < 5 mm in diameter (GESAMP 2015). Primary
are sometimes manufactured with a metal-based microplastics are particles that have been manufac-
additive that results in more rapid fragmentation tured to a particular size to carry out a range of spe-
(oxo-degradable). This will increase the rate of cific functions. They are used extensively in industry
microplastic formation, but there is a lack of inde- and manufacturing, for example: as abrasives in air/
pendent scientific evidence that biodegradation will water-blasting to clean the surfaces of buildings and
occur any more rapidly than unmodified polyethylene. ships’ hulls; as powders for injection moulding; and,
more recently, for 3D printing (Figure 4.4). They are
In a recent UNEP report it was concluded that the also used in so-called personal care and cosmetic
adoption of products labelled as ‘biodegradable’ or products (PCCPs), often to improve the cleaning
‘oxo-degradable’ would not bring about a significant function or impart colour, and are sometimes referred
decrease either in the quantity of plastic entering the to as microbeads. PCCPs containing microplastics/
ocean or the risk of physical and chemical impacts microbeads include toothpaste, cosmetics, cleansing
on the marine environment, on the balance of current agents and skin exfoliators (Napper et al. 2015).
scientific evidence (UNEP 2015a). In addition, mixing
of such plastics with normal plastics in the recycling An additional important category of primary
stream may compromise the properties of the newly microplastics comprises plastic resin beads. These
synthesised polymer22. The terminology surrounding are spherical or cylindrical, a few mm in diameter,
the degradation of plastics is described in more detail and are the form ‘raw’ plastics are produced in, for
in section 4.2. transport to production facilities for further process-
ing. The influence of particles on the potential impact
Notwithstanding the comments above, there may be of microplastics on marine organisms is discussed in
marine applications where the use of biodegradable section 7.
plastics can be justified. Perhaps most obvious is the
design and construction of fish traps and pots, with
biodegradable panels or hinges, to minimise ghost Additive chemicals
fishing if the gear cannot be retrieved (Chapter 9.2).
Many plastics often contain a wide variety of addi-
Applications tional compounds that are added to modify the
properties of the finished item. For example, these
Plastics have gradually replaced more traditional may help to make the polymer more flexible, resist
materials due to their many advantages. One of the UV-degradation, add colour or impart flame retarda-
principal properties sought of many plastics is dura- tion (Table 4.1). A comprehensive guide to the occur-
bility. This allows plastics to be used for many appli- rence, uses and properties of hazardous substances
cations that formerly relied on stone, metal, concrete in plastics is provided by Hansen et al. (2013). Of
or timber. There are significant advantages, for food these, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and simi-
preservation, medical product efficacy, electrical lar compounds and Alkanes C10-13 (Short Chain
safety, improved thermal insulation and lower fuel Chlorinated Paraffins SCCP) are both proposed to
consumption in aircraft and automobiles. A summary be listed in Stockholm Convention.

22 http://www.plasticsrecycling.org/images/pdf/resources/Position_
Statements/APR_Position_Degradable_Additives.pdf

29
4
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Figure 4.3

European plastics demand by segment 2013

(data from Plastics-Europe 2014)

Figure 4.4

Primary microplastics: a) abrasive microplastics extracted from toothpaste (image courtesy of Joel Baker);
b) plastic resin pellets collected from the shoreline (image courtesy Hideshige Takada); c) scanning electron
micrographs of plastic microbeads extracted from facial scrubs (image courtesy of A. Bakir & R. Thompson)

30
 4
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Table 4.1

Short form Full name Examples of function

DBP Dibutyl phthalate Anti-cracking agents in nail varnish

DEP Diethyl phthalate Skin softeners, colour and fragrance fixers

DEHP Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Plasticizer in PVC

HBCD Hexabromocyclododecane Flame retardant in durable goods

PBDEs Polybrominated diphenyl ethers Flame retardants in durable goods

(penta, octa & deca forms) (e.g. electronics, furnishings)
nonylphenol Stabilizer in PP, PS

Phthalates Phthalate esters Improve flexibility and durability

Common additive chemicals in plastics (adapted from GESAMP 2016).

Table 4.2

Plastic type Common applications Density (kg m-3)

Polyethylene Plastic bags, storage containers 0.91–0.95

Polypropylene Rope, bottle caps, gear, strapping 0.90–0.92

Polystyrene (expanded) Cool boxes, floats, cups 1.01–1.05

Polystyrene Utensils, containers 1.04–1.09

Polyvinyl chloride Film, pipe, containers 1.16–1.30

Polyamide or Nylon Fishing nets, rope 1.13–1.15

Poly(ethylene terephthalate) Bottles, strapping, textiles 1.34–1.39

Polyester resin + glass fibre Textiles, boats >1.35

Cellulose Acetate Cigarette filters 1.22–1.24

Pure water 1.000

Seawater 1.027

Brackish water (Baltic Sea, Feistel et al. 2010) 1.005 – 1.012

Densities and common applications of plastics found in the marine environment (GESAMP 2015)

31
4
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Some of these additive chemicals are quite benign, they are subjected. Weathering-related degrada-
whereas others have been shown to have significant tion results in a progression of changes: the loss in
toxicological effects on human and non-human popu- mechanical integrity, embrittlement, further degrada-
lations through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal con- tion and fragmentation into (‘secondary’) microplas-
tact. This is discussed further in section 7. Additives tics. Further degradation by microbial action is termed
that are mixed into the plastic during manufacture biodegradation. Once biodegradation is complete
may be released into the environment over time, the plastic is said to have been mineralized; i.e. con-
especially when the plastic begins to degrade. These verted into carbon dioxide, water and other naturally
chemicals may then be re-absorbed to other plastic occurring compounds, dependent on the surround-
particles or to lipids (fats) and hence enter the food ing environmental conditions (Box 4.2). National
chain by a secondary route. The relative proportion and international standards have been developed to
of these additives varies greatly by polymer type and define terms such as ‘compostable’ and ‘biodegrad-
intended application. In addition, some monomers able’ which refer exclusively to terrestrial systems,
used in the production of certain plastics have a ten- most typically to industrial composting in which tem-
dency to desorb. The known example is bisphenol A peratures are expected to exceed 50oC for extended
(BPA), used in the production of polycarbonate and periods of weeks or months (UNEP 2015a).
some epoxy resins, for example, used to line food
containers. BPA acts as a synthetic oestrogen and
is readily absorbed by the body. Most of the popula-
tion of developed countries have detectable levels of
BPA, but the degree to which it causes health effects
is a matter of intense debate.

4.2

BEHAVIOUR IN THE OCEAN

Floating or sinking

Different types of polymers have a wide range of

properties, and this influences their behaviour in the
environment. Of these, one of the most important is
its density relative to that of seawater. Densities of
common plastics range from 0.90 to 1.39 (kg m-3)
(Table 4.2). The density of pure water is 1.00 and
for seawater approximately 1.027 (1.020 – 1029
kg m-3), depending on the temperature and salinity
which vary geographically and with water depth. On
this basis, only PE and PP would be expected to float
in freshwater, with the addition of EPS in seawater.
However, the buoyancy of a plastic particle or object
will be dependent on other factors such as entrapped
air, water currents and turbulence. This explains why
drinks bottles made of PET (density 1.34 – 1.39 kg
Photo: © Heidi Savelli / UNEP

m-3) can commonly be found both floating in coastal

waters and deposited on the seabed

Plastic degradation

Plastics will tend to degrade and start to lose their

initial properties over time, at a rate depending on the
physical, chemical and biological conditions to which

32
 4
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Box 4.2

DEGRADATION OF PLASTICS – SOME DEFINITIONS

Degradation The partial or complete breakdown of a polymer as a result of e.g. UV radiation,

oxygen attack, biological attack. This implies alteration of the properties, such
as discolouration, surface cracking, and fragmentation

Biodegradation Biological process of organic matter, which is completely or partially converted

to water, CO2/methane, energy and new biomass by microorganisms (bacteria
and fungi).

Mineralisation Defined here, in the context of polymer degradation, as the complete breakdown
of a polymer as a result of the combined abiotic and microbial activity, into CO2,
water, methane, hydrogen, ammonia and other simple inorganic compounds

Biodegradable Capable of being biodegraded

Compostable Capable of being biodegraded at elevated temperatures in soil under specified

conditions and time scales, usually only encountered in an industrial composter
(standards apply: ISO 17088, EN 13432, ASTM 6400)

Oxo-degradable Containing a pro-oxidant that induces degradation under favourable conditions.

Complete breakdown of the polymers and biodegradation still have to be proven.
UNEP 2015

Figure 4.5

Microplastic fragments from the shoreline near

Plymouth UK (image courtesy of M. Browne & R.
Thompson, Plymouth Univ.)

33
4
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Figure 4.6

Figure 4.6 Factors affecting the degradation and fragmentation of

plastic in different ocean compartments (GESAMP 2015)

In an ocean setting the principal weathering agent Chemical characteristics

is UV irradiation. This is most pronounced on
shorelines, especially in equatorial regions, and The ocean is contaminated with a wide range of
weathering is accelerated by physical abrasion organic and inorganic compounds as a legacy of dec-
due to wave activity. Secondary microplastics ades of industrial development and economic growth.
are formed from the fragmentation of larger items Transport in the ocean and atmosphere has carried
through a combination of physical, chemical and pollutants to all regions of the planet. Many organic
biological processes (Figure 4.5). For example, pollutants are lipophilic, meaning they sorb readily to
mechanical abrasion during the washing of syn- fats and oils in fish, mammals and other organisms.
thetic clothing and other textiles causes the break- This includes pollutants classified as POPs under the
down and release of plastic fibres to wastewater. Stockholm Convention, as well as other emerging
Mechanical abrasion of vehicle tyres made from Persistent, Bioaccumulating and Toxic compounds
synthetic rubber produces dust that is washed (PBTs). Plastics have similar properties to natural fats,
into drains and waterways. acting as a ‘sponge’ to remove and concentrate con-
taminants from the water column. If an animal, such
The extent to which biodegradation takes place as a fish, bird or marine mammal, ingests plastic par-
in the ocean is difficult to estimate but is consid- ticles then there is the potential for transfer of these
ered to be extremely slow. Once plastic becomes absorbed chemicals into the tissue. Because of the
buried, enters the water column or gets covered persistence of such compounds, humans and other
in biological and inorganic coatings, which hap- animals continue to be exposed long after a chemical
pens rapidly in seawater, then the rate of deg- has been withdrawn from production (e.g. PCBs).
radation becomes extremely slow (Figure 4.6).
This is due to decreased UV exposure, lower Some additive chemicals, such as PBDEs, are not
temperature and lower oxygen levels. Objects strongly bound within the matrix of the polymer. They
such as PET bottles and fishing gear observed on can be present in relatively high concentrations and
the seafloor often do not appear to be degraded can desorb out of the plastic, acting as a source of
(section 6.2). contaminants (section 7).

34
5

35
5. SOURCES
Our continuing failure to take account of the unsustain-
able nature of the present ‘plastic economy’, in terms
of the increasing levels of marine plastic debris,

OF MACRO AND appears to make it inevitable that future generations

will be deprived of at least some ecosystem services

MICROPLASTICS
we now take for granted. Clearly, this failure is not
confined to plastics production and use, but is symp-
tomatic of a more pervasive tendency, of pursuing
economic growth whilst neglecting the impact on
ecosystems and society (Turner and Fisher, 2008).

5.2

LAND-BASED SECTORS GENERATING

5.1 MACROPLASTIC LITTER

GENERATING PLASTIC WASTE Sources in brief

The drivers of plastic use include food provision, The main types of land-based sources of macroplastics,
energy demand, transport, housing provision and and the pathways by which macroplastics reach the
leisure pursuits, which will tend to vary as a function ocean, are shown in Figure 5.2. Pathways may be via
of the social and economic climate. Current eco- waterways, the atmosphere or direct into the ocean (e.g.
nomic models tend to measure economic success from shoreline littering). There are very significant
in terms of the rate of economic growth (e.g. GDP), regional differences in the degree to which waste is sub-
with less attention paid to the extent to which con- ject to collection and management, either as wastewater
sumption patterns and societal demands are sus- or solid waste. The quantities that reach the sea, on a
tainable in the longer term. This will influence, in turn, global scale, are unknown. Table 5.1 provides a summary
the direction on technological innovation, political of the main sectors involved, the types of plastic products
decisions (e.g. trade agreements), product design, or waste and the typical entry points to the ocean.
consumer demand, waste generation and treatment.
Unfortunately, there has been a failure of the market
economy to take into account environmental external- Plastic recyclers
ities, in this case the social, ecological and economic
impacts of marine litter. The current ‘plastic economy’ The plastic recycling sector regards plastic as a valu-
has been characterised by a linear pattern of produc- able resource, rather than something to be used and
tion and consumption, generating unprecedented then discarded. Losses from this sector are unquanti-
volumes of waste, which ultimately is very inefficient fied but can be expected to be relatively low, provided
economically (Figure 5.1; Defra 2011, WEF/EMF/ good waste management practices are followed.
MCKINSEY 2016). Leakage of plastic to the ocean However, losses may be much greater from poorly-
can occur at every stage in this process, and the managed municipal facilities and the informal waste
response has been generally patchy and ineffective. recycling sectors.

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1 Simplified representation of a linear approach to plastics production and

use, indicating potential leakage points to the ocean (original by P. J. Kershaw).

36
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.2

Land-based sources of macroplastics and pathways to the ocean (original by P. J. Kershaw)

Table 5.1

Sector Description Entry points Relative importance*

Retail Packaging, household goods, Rivers, coastal, High

consumer goods atmosphere

Food and drink Single-use packaging Rivers, coastal, High

atmosphere

Households Packaging, household goods, Rivers, coastal, High

consumer goods atmosphere

Tourism industry Packaging, household goods, con- Rivers, coastal, High

sumer goods, atmosphere

Plastic recyclers Packaging, household goods, Rivers, coastal, Medium

consumer goods atmosphere

Construction EPS, packaging, Rivers, coastal, Low

atmosphere

Agriculture Films/sheets, pots, pipes, Rivers, coastal, Low

atmosphere

Terrestrial End-of-life vehicles and tyres Rivers, shorelines Low

Transportation

Potential land-based sources of macroplastics by sector, examples of plastic waste, common

entry points to the ocean and probable importance (adapted from GESAMP 2016)

* qualitative estimate, likely to be regionally-dependent; variables include the extent and effectiveness
of solid waste and wastewater collection and treatment, and storm water overflow capacity

37
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Packaging Coastal tourism

Around 40% of all plastic production is used for Coastal tourism is based around a variety of sought
packaging. A substantial proportion of this is used to after amenities, such as beaches, sunshine, water,
package food and drink and there are clear benefits in marine biodiversity, food, and cultural and historic
doing so, to minimise food wastage and avoid contam- heritage. This leads to the creation of services,
ination (FAO 2011). In some regions, for example in jobs and infrastructure (e.g. hotels, resorts, res-
Sierra Leone, Ghana and Ecuador, the population taurants, ports, marinas, fishing and diving outlets).
relies on plastic bottles or bags for the provision of Unfortunately, coastal tourism has been recognised
clean drinking water. Clearly this is a case of utilising as a significant source of plastic waste, very often by
these products as a necessity, rather than casual con- direct deliberate or accidental littering of shorelines
sumer choice. Food and drink packaging is also widely (Arcadis 2012). The range of activities and facilities
used for convenience and in fast food containers, involved mean that there are multiple routes by which
often when consumers are away from home where littering can take place. Tourism continues to grow
waste disposal may be poorly developed, such as at in most countries. In 2014 the total export earnings
the beach. Such items are frequently found as marine from international tourism were estimated to be US$
litter (OSPAR 2007, Ocean Conservancy 2013). 1.5 trillion (US$ 1.5 x 1012), spread between Europe
(41%), Asia and the Pacific (30%), the Americas
(22%), the Middle East (4%) and Africa (3%). What
Agriculture proportion of this is focussed on coastal tourism is
unclear. However, countries bordering popular desti-
Plastics are used in many aspects of agriculture, nations such as the Mediterranean will have a greater
including: irrigation pipes, planting containers and proportion of coastal tourists, both international and
protective meshes and sheets. There have been internal. Some areas which feature as popular desti-
reports of such materials ending up in the ocean nations are also areas with high biodiversity or sen-
and, in at least one instance, being ingested by sitive habitats (Conservation International, 2003).
marine organisms (de Stephanis et al. 2013). Tourism is expected to expand from 940 million
In addition, synthetic polymers are being used (2010) to 1.8 billion by 2013, expressed as interna-
increasingly to encapsulate fertiliser pellets to tional tourist arrivals (UNWTO 2015).
ensure controlled release (nutrient ‘prill’, Gambash
et al. 1990), with clear benefits both for crop pro-
duction and a reduction in excessive nutrient con- 5.3
centrations in rivers and coastal waters. To what
extent more conventional and newer uses of plas- LAND-BASED SECTORS GENERATING
tics in agriculture contribute to the marine litter MICROPLASTICS
burden is unknown.
Sources in brief

Construction The main land-based sources and entry points of pri-

mary and secondary microplastics to the ocean are
The construction industry is a major user of plastics shown in Figure 5.3. The type of material involved is
(Figure 4.3), although its potential as a source of summarised in Table 5.2. There are no reliable global
marine litter has not been well defined. Construction estimates of the total quantities of microplastics
plastics will enter the solid waste stream and the entering the ocean. However, there have been several
degree to which it contributes to marine plastics will in-depth national reports published recently that pro-
depend on the effectiveness of solid waste manage- vide a useful summary of the relative proportions and
ment. Joint sealants (polymer-based) used in the absolute quantities of material involved (section 5.7).
construction industry in the 1950s-1980s used to
contain PCBs. This has been identified as a signifi-
cant diffuse source of PCBs to the environment Cosmetics and personal care products
(Kohler et al. 2005). Concentrations of PCBs in the
blubber of cetacean strandings on UK shorelines Microplastic particles are widely used as abrasive
have plateaued after declining up til the mid 1990s, agents and fillers in a wide range of cosmetic products
and it is believed this is due to this plastic-related and personal care and cosmetic products (PCCPs),
source (Law et al. 2012). such as facial scrubs and shower gels, while nano-

38
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.3

Land-based sources of macroplastics and pathways to the ocean (original by P. J. Kershaw)

Photo: © CC BY MPCA Photos

39
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.2

Sector Primary microplas- Secondary microplastics Entry points Relative

tics importance*

Tourism industry Fragmented packaging, Wastewater, rivers, High

household goods, con- coastal, atmos-
sumer goods, phere

Food and drink Fragmented single-use Wastewater, rivers, High

packaging coastal, atmos-
phere

Plastic producers Plastic Wastewater, rivers, Medium

resin pellets coastal

Retail Fragmented packaging, Wastewater, rivers, Medium

household goods, con- coastal
sumer goods

Households Fragmented packaging, Wastewater, rivers, Medium

household goods, con- coastal
sumer goods

Personal care and Wastewater Medium

cosmetic products
(PCCPs)

Terrestrial Tyres wear dust Wastewater, rivers Medium

Transportation

Cleaning ships’ Abrasive powders Wastewater, rivers, Medium

hulls, buildings coastal

Manufacturing Powders for injection Wastewater, rivers Low

moulds, powders for
3D printing

Plastic recyclers Fragmented packaging, Wastewater, rivers Low

household goods, con-
sumer goods

Construction Fragmented EPS, pack- Wastewater, rivers, Low

aging, coastal

Agriculture Fragmented films/sheets, Rivers, coastal, Low

pots, pipes, atmosphere

Potential land-based sources of microplastics by sector, examples of plastic waste,

common entry points to the ocean and probable importance (adapted from GESAMP 2016).

* qualitative estimate, likely to be regionally-dependent; variables include the

extent and effectiveness of solid waste and wastewater collection and treatment,
and storm water overflow capacity.

40
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

particles are used in sunscreens (Sherrington et al. potentially a major source of microplastic contamination
2016). They are sometimes referred to as microbeads. to the sea (NEA 2014, Verschoor 2014). Part of the
These particles will inevitably be released to waste- dust flies as particulate matter into the air, the rest lands
water systems upon washing or directly to aquatic directly on the soil around the roads, rainwater flows into
environments via recreational bathing. The total num- the sewer or ends up in surface waters and in the sea,
bers of microplastics in a typical cosmetic product or becomes incorporated with snow and may be re-dis-
can be considerable; for example, it has been esti- tributed if the snow is removed. Car tyres are largely
mated that 4 600 – 94 500 microbeads may be made of styrene-1.3-butadene rubber (SBR) and recy-
released per application of a skin exfoliant (Napper et cled products made from tyre rubber. Every year, an
al. 2015). It is considered inevitable that substantial estimated quantity of 17 000 tonnes of rubber tyre-wear
numbers of microbeads will enter waterways, depend- is released into the Dutch environment (Verschoor
ing on the existence and efficacy of wastewater treat- 2014). Annual emission estimates of tyre rubber dust
ment facilities (Magnusson and Norén 2014, Essel et for Norway, Sweden and Germany are 4 500, 10 000
al. 2015, DEPA 2015). However, some modern and 110 000 tonnes respectively (NEA 2014). Average
plants in Sweden and St Petersberg, for example, are emissions of car tyre dust for the mentioned countries
reported to retain over 96% of microplastics by filtra- range between 1 and 1.4 kg capita-1 year-1.
tion23. Although the use of microplastics in PCCPs
may appear to represent a significant source, it is rel-
atively small compared with other sources or primary Plastic producers and fabricators
and secondary microplastics in to the environment, in
terms of tonnage involved (Sundt et al. 2014). The plastics industry tends to produce and transport
plastics as circular or cylindrical resin pellets, a few
mm in diameter. These are transported to other facil-
Textiles and clothing ities where the plastic is further processed and ulti-
mately used in the manufacture of either a finished
Release of fibres from textiles and clothing is rec- product or component for a more complex product.
ognised as a major potential source of microplastic There have been many instances of accidental loss
sized pieces, especially during mechanical washing24. of resin pellets during transport, transhipment or at
As in the case of microplastics in PCCPs, a variable manufacturing facilities. Resin pellets have become
proportion will be retained by wastewater treatment widely distributed in the marine environment as a
plants, depending on the existence, design and effi- result. Examples are provided in section 5.6.
cacy of treatment facilities. However, it is apparent
that a significant number of textile fibres do enter
the marine environment, being found in relatively Ship maintenance and ship dismantling
large numbers in shoreline and nearshore sediments
close to urban population centres (Browne et al. 200, Ship hulls need to be cleaned regularly to remove
Karlsson 2015). Significant regional differences may biological growth and allow re-painting. Traditionally
be expected due to differences in choice of fabrics this would have involved air blasting with sand grains,
(synthetic vs. natural, length of spun threads), access but plastic particles are now sometimes used
to mechanical washing facilities, the type of deter- (Browne et al. 2007). They are also used to clean the
gents used and frequency of washing. inside of tanks. This gives the potential for two types
of microplastic to be released to the environment:
the original plastic abrasive powder (primary), and
Terrestrial transportation flakes of paint (secondary), which often contain a
polymer base.
The emission of plastic particle dust (mainly < 80
micrometer) from tyre wear has been recognised Approximately 70% of commercial ships are disman-
recently, in Norway, the Netherlands and Germany, as tled in South Asia (India, Bangladesh and Pakistan),
very often on exposed shorelines, with a further 19%
in China. The main materials recycled are steel and
other metals, with hazardous substances including oils
being removed. Although plastics represent a small
23 https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/MARINE LITTER CONFEREN
fraction of the total mass of material, plastics and plastic
CE-317/default.asp fragments (such as paint flakes) will occur and will
24 http://life-mermaids.eu/en/ enter the ocean unless prevented (Reddy et al. 2006).

41
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

5.4 it would be possible to introduce more effective filtra-

tion for microplastics, but the justification might be
MANAGEMENT OF WASTE FROM LAND-BASED difficult to make in terms of cost-benefit, depending
SOURCES on the social and economic context of the municipal-
ity or country. Tertiary treatment provides options to
Plastics in wastewater disinfect and remove nutrients and pharmaceuticals.
It is relatively expensive for many countries and may
Wastewater provides a pathway for dissolved chem- only be carried out when there is a sensitive habitat or
icals as well as solid particles to be transported into question of human health involved.
aquatic habitats. This includes macroplastics and
microplastics. Large solid items enter the wastewa-
ter system with sewage via toilets and can include Plastics in solid waste
nappies, tampons, contraceptives and cotton buds.
Theoretically these should be removed by primary Plastics form approximately 10% (7-13%) of munic-
sewage treatment preventing their entry to the environ- ipal solid waste globally (Hoorweg and Bhada-Tata
ment. However, in conditions of heavy rainfall sewage 2012, D-Waste 2014). Waste management options
systems can become overwhelmed by the volume of can range from open waste tips or dumps to landfill,
water passing through them and material can escape varying levels of incineration, waste to energy conver-
to water courses untreated via overflows. For example, sion and/or recycling. However, even within a waste
this happens frequently in London, a 21st Century city stream some material can escape to the environment.
with 19th Century sewers (Cadbury 2003). As a con- For example, unless dumps or landfill sites are con-
sequence, items of sewage related debris are com- tained, waste will be transported away by winds, and
monly reported in marine litter surveys. In addition to may subsequently enter rivers or the sea. In addition,
macroplastics, microplastic particles originating from there are coastal dumps where waste is deposited
cosmetics or from washing of textiles (Browne 2011, close to or directly on the shoreline and then car-
Karlsson 2015) can be carried via wastewater, and ried away by the sea. The collection of solid waste is
there is evidence (Browne 2015) that some of these often inadequate, partly due to the littering activities
small particles have the potential to pass through of individuals, even where waste collection facilities
sewage treatment into aquatic habitats. In some cities have been provided. In many countries, the informal
in areas of high winter snowfall, such as Helsinki in waste recycling community may intercept significant
Finland, accumulated snow may be dumped directly quantities of plastic packaging. For example, one
into coastal waters, bypassing the usual wastewater study estimated that recovery rates were up to 90%
treatment system and providing an additional pathway in Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco (BiPRO 2013).
for microplastics to the ocean25.
An estimate has been made of the possible contri-
There are very significant regional differences in the bution of mismanaged municipal waste to the input
extent to which wastewater is collected and in the of marine plastics by country (Jambeck et al. 2015).
degree of subsequent treatment. In some European The authors used published data from the World
countries nearly 100% of municipal wastewater is Bank (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012) on solid
collected and subject to some form of tertiary treat- waste generation, coastal population density and
ment. In contrast, it is estimated that approximately economic status to estimate the proportion of plastic
90% of all wastewater generated in developing in the waste stream, the proportion of waste that
countries is discharged without primary treatment was mismanaged and hence the quantity of plas-
(Corcoran et al. 2010). Primary wastewater treatment tic available for transport into the ocean. Inevitably
is usually designed to remove relatively large solids there are large uncertainties associated with this
and would not be expected to capture microplastics. approach, but it does serve to demonstrate the
Secondary treatment is designed to remove dis- relative importance of this source and expected
solved and suspended biological matter. At this stage regional differences. For the year 2010, the authors
estimated the generation of 275 million tonnes of
plastic waste by countries with a coastal border,
with 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes entering the ocean.
They predicted this would double by 2025, with-
out significant improvements in waste management.
25 https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/MARINE%20LITTER%20CONFE- This figure also assumes that production, use and
RENCE-317/default.aspx
discarding of plastic will continue unabated.

42
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.3

Source sector Description* Entry points Relative

importance**

Fisheries Fishing gear, strapping bands, storage boxes, Coastal, Marine High
packaging, personal goods

Aquaculture Buoys, lines, nets, structures, storage boxes, Coastal, Marine Medium
packaging, personal goods

Shipping/ Cargo, packaging, personal goods Coastal, Marine Medium

Offshore industry

Ship-based tourism Packaging, personal goods Coastal, Marine Medium

Sources of macroplastics by maritime sector

*combines waste specific to the sector and waste generated by those involved in the sector
**qualitative estimate, likely to be regionally-dependent

Figure 5.4

Sea-based sources of macroplastics and pathways

to the ocean (original by P. J. Kershaw)

5.5 fishing gear, ropes). The principal sources and

entry routes are illustrated in Figure 5.4, and the
SEA-BASED SECTORS GENERATING MAC- types of material are further described in Table 5.3.
ROPLASTIC LITTER
Sectors such as fisheries or aquaculture may use par-
Types of materials involved ticular types or quantities of plastics more than other
sectors, but a cruise ship, carrying several thousand
Maritime activities utilise a wide variety of different passengers more represents a medium-sized floating
types of plastics, both those intended for short- community or town, with a similar scale of demands for
term use (e.g. packaging) and longer-term use (e.g. goods and services and potential to generate waste.

43
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Fisheries Regional differences in the type and quantities of fish-

eries-related marine litter will be due to many factors,
The commercial fisheries sector has adopted plastics including:
widely, because of the many advantages plastics offer
over more traditional natural fibres. Losses in the fish- • The existence and effectiveness of govern-
eries sector comprise loss of fishing gear (e.g. nets, ance and management (e.g. artisanal vs. large-
ropes, floats, fishing line), loss of ancillary items (e.g. scale commercial fisheries; Illegal, Unreported
gloves, fish boxes, strapping bands), galley waste and and Unregulated (IUU) fishing)
release of fibres and other fragments due to normal • The type of fishing gear
wear and tear (e.g. use of ground ropes). Fishing • Gear conflicts
gear may be lost at sea by accident, abandonment or • Fishing environment, including seabed condi-
deliberate disposal. This is commonly referred to as tions (e.g. hard ground), water and weather con-
abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear ditions
(ALDFG), and probably represents the largest cate- • Working with very long nets or fleets of nets
gory in terms of volume and potential impact out of all • Working with more gear than can be hauled
the sea-based sources (Figure 5.5). Abandoned, lost regularly
or otherwise discarded fishing gear can have a signif- • Education and training levels of the crew
icant impact both on depleting commercial fish and
shellfish stocks and causing unnecessary impacts on
non-target species and habitats. The importance of Aquaculture
this issue was recognised formally at the 16th meet-
ing of the FAO Committee on Fisheries in 1985, and Marine-based (coastal) aquaculture includes pro-
led to publication of a key report by FAO and UNEP duction operations in the sea and intertidal zones as
(Macfadyen et al. 2009). The quantities of ALDFG well as those operated with land-based (onshore)
lost each year are not well known. A very crude esti- production facilities and structures (FAO, 2014).
mate based on Macfadyen et al. (2009) gives a global Although inland aquaculture growth has outpaced
figure of 640 000 tonnes per year. marine aquaculture growth since 1980, global

Figure 5.5

Examples of different types of derelict fishing gear

(Image: Karen Grimmer, MBNMS, NOAA)

44
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

production has continued to expand (FAO, 2014, trend in ‘eco-tourism’ has led to increasing number of
Campbell, 2013). vessels visiting more remote locations, including the
Antarctic. To what extent such tours result in contam-
Aquaculture structures are either suspended ination by macro or microplastics is unclear.
from the sea surface (generally in waters of
10-50 m depth) or placed in intertidal and shallow
subtidal zones directly on the bottom. The majority Recreational activities
of activities use lines, cages or nets suspended from
buoyant structures, often consisting of plastics (air- Many recreational users of the ocean, particularly
filled buoys), and EPS (expanded polystyrene). These those in the diving and surfing communities, take an
structures also require many lines (mostly non-buoy- environmentally responsible approach to their activi-
ant plastics) and cages of various types (thin and ties. Indeed, some have been at the forefront of lead-
thick filament net plastics, buoyant or non-buoyant). ing anti-litter and recovery campaigns (section 11.6).
Aquaculture structures are lost due to wear and tear Unfortunately, there are others with a less responsible
of anchor ropes, because of storms, and due to acci- approach. Fishing line and hooks from recreational
dents/conflicts with other maritime users. Severe fishers are commonplace in some regions, such as
weather conditions can cause widespread damage NW Europe and the Korean Peninsula, although the
to aquaculture structures, at times generating large actual quantities lost are not known.
quantities of marine debris (Lee et al. 2014).

5.6
Commercial shipping and offshore industries
SEA-BASED SECTORS GENERATING
There should be no deliberate disposal of plastics MICROPLASTICS
from ships, or offshore structures, under the terms of
Annex V of the MARPOL Convention. This includes Types of material involved
waters outside national jurisdiction. Unfortunately,
there is evidence to suggest that this practice still A number of maritime activities result in the release
continues. There is an inherent difficulty in enforcing of microplastics directly into the ocean. A summary of
regulations. In addition to illegal disposal there have the main sea-based sources of primary and second-
been many occurrences of loss of cargo, particularly ary microplastics is shown in Figure 5.6 and types of
containers which in some cases resulted in spillages material involved in Table 5.4.
of pellets. A review into the reasons for container
loss concluded that there were several contributory
factors: overloading of individual containers, fixings Primary microplastics
in poor condition, placing heavy containers on top of
lighter ones, and a lack of appreciation by crews of The main source of primary microplastics at sea is due
the additional loadings placed on container stacks in to the introduction of plastic resin beads as a result
heavy seas and winds leading to a failure to adjust of accidental loss of cargo. A more minor source is
ship speed and heading (Frey and De Vogelaere represented by the use of PCCPs, most notably by
2014; see section 5.6, shipping routes). passengers on cruise ships.

Maritime–based tourism Secondary microplastics.

A cruise ship typically houses several thousand Routine wear and tear of fishing gear and other
people. It is rather like a large floating village and gen- equipment will result in the introduction of a variety of
erates an equivalent amount of macro and microplastic secondary microplastics. The use of groundropes on
waste. Modern vessels have very sophisticated liquid some types of bottom trawls, such as otter trawls26,
and solid waste management systems, but very often
solid waste is put ashore at ports on small islands
with inadequate waste infrastructures. In addition,
some cruise companies also indulge in the dubious
practice of multiple balloon releases, despite the
clear ecological damage this can cause. A growing 26 http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/306/en

45
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.5

Sources of sea-based primary and secondary

microplastics (original by P J Kershaw)

Table 5.4

Source sector Primary Secondary microplastics Entry points Relative

microplastics importance*

Fisheries Fragments and fibres from Coastal, Marine High

operational use of fishing gear,
ropes

Aquaculture Fragments and fibres from Coastal, Marine Medium

operational use of nets, ropes
and (EPS) buoys

Shipping Accidental loss Coastal, Marine Medium

of plastic resin
pellets

Ship-based tourism PCCPs Coastal, Marine Low

Sources of microplastics by maritime sector

* qualitative estimate, likely to be regionally-dependent

46
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

to project the main fishing gear may be a significant patterns of plastic use it is reasonable to assume, to
source of synthetic fibres in some regions but robust a first approximation, that the influx of plastic to the
evidence is unavailable. ocean from urbanised communities will be in propor-
tion to the density of the population (Figure 5.7).

5.7 The absolute quantities and relative proportions of

different types of plastics and microplastics being
ESTIMATING LAND-BASED INPUTS OF generated, and the percentage that reaches the
MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS TO THE OCEAN ocean, will also depend on the nature of the indus-
– A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE trial and commercial sectors, and the social practices
of the population. There have been three compre-
Patterns of waste generation hensive studies of the generation of microplastics in
European countries, in Germany (Essel et al. 2015),
Urbanised communities Denmark (Lassen et al. 2015) and Norway (Sundt et
Approximately half the world’s population lives within al. 2014) (Box 5.1). All three studies emphasised that
60 km of the ocean, with 75% of all large cities dust from vehicle tyres represented the largest single
located on the coast (GESAMP 2016). In China and source of microplastics. This was a previously over-
Southeast Asia 260 million and 400 million people, looked contribution. It would be possible to estimate
respectively, live within 50 km of the coast. Many regional and global patterns of microplastic genera-
others live adjacent to rivers or waterways and so tion from this source by correlating with car numbers,
are connected indirectly to the sea. Given known or average mileages per vehicle.

Figure 5.7

Figure 5.7 Coastal population within 100 km of the coast

(2010 millions), displayed on an outline of Large Marine Ecosystems
(taken from TWAP 2016)

47
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.5

Source group Upstream Pathway to Probable Fraction to

source sea share to sea (tonnes)
(tonnes) sea*

Consumer products, all 40 Drain past STP Small 4

Commercial products, all 100 Drain, sea Medium 50

Transport spill 250 Sea Large 225

Production discharge 200 Drain or sea Large 180

Ship paint 330 Sea, coastal Large 297

Marinas 400 Sea, coastal Large 360

Building repair 270 Sewer, dump Medium 135

Laundries 100 Drain Medium 50

Household Laundry 600 Drain past STP Small 60

Dust 450 Drain, air Small 45

City dust outdoor Road paint 320 Sewer, air Medium 160

Exterior 130 Sewer, air Small 13

paint

Tyre dust 4500 Sewer, air Medium 2250

Indoor city Dust 130 Sewer, air Small 20

Illegal dumping, paint 100 Soil, sea Large 90

Biowaste 336 Soil, water Small 34

Paper recycle 60 Water 54

WEE and ELW 10 Air, water Medium 5

§ small = 10%, medium = 50%, large = 90%

(adapted from Sundt et al. 2014)
* Estimated sources of microplastics, pathways to the sea and fraction entering the sea in Norway
(adapted from Sundt et al. 2014)

* small = 10%, medium = 50%, large = 90%

48
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Inputs via rivers and other waterways (van der Wal et al. 2015). In contrast, seasonal fluc-
tuations in the flow rate of the Pearl River appear
Rivers represent a key entry point of macro and responsible for observed variations in plastic occur-
microplastics to the ocean. From the limited data rence in Hong Kong (Fok and Cheung 2015).
available, it would appear that river catchments,
especially those draining areas with high population A comparative study of four major European rivers
densities and industrial development, can carry a found significant variations in the quantities and char-
significant plastic load to the ocean. A summary of acteristics of plastic litter (van der Wal et al. 2015;
observed concentrations of microplastics in rivers is Box 5.2, Table 5.5). River water was sampled using a
provided in Annex III. However, there is a great lack combination of floating nets and screens and pumped
of information on the quantities entering the ocean water samples and particle numbers counted and a
globally by this entry point, which sources are most proportion were characterised chemically.
important, what measures may be effective at con-
trolling these sources and how all these aspects What is striking is that even for a catchment which
differ regionally. is relatively remote (i.e. River Dalålven), with a low
resident population density (250 000), the river
The effectiveness of wastewater and solid waste appears to contain a large number of microplastics.
management will be an important factor in modifying In this case it is thought that it may be due partly to
the input to waterways, whatever the nature of the the popularity of the region for recreational angling,
land-based sources concerned. For these reasons, supported by the higher number of nylon fibres. The
significant regional differences may be expected. composition of the particles varied between rivers,
Concentrations of microplastics reported for rivers but in each case was dominated by PE. The authors
are highly variable (up to a factor of 109, Dris 2015). estimated annual load of 530 tonnes being deliv-
This may be due partly to variations in the methodol- ered to the Black Sea is more than a factor of two
ogies used but also due to the proximity of sources below that of Lechner et al. (2014). But it is impor-
and whether sampling sites were upstream or down- tant to stress that achieving representative sam-
stream from cities and industrialised centres. Many pling of large river catchments, reflecting temporal
rivers experience significant variation in flow rates, and spatial variations in flow, multiple source inputs
on a diurnal, weekly, monthly, annual or multi-year and the influence of previous events, is extremely
basis. For example, a high rainfall event after a period challenging. The published figures should be
of drier conditions may result in higher than average treated as an indicator of possible loadings, with
quantities being transported during a limited period large uncertainties.

Table 5.6

River Annual discharge Receiving sea Catchment area Catchment

(m3 s-1) (km2) characteristics

Rhine 2 378 North Sea 200 000 Highly urbanised

and industrialised

Dalålven ~ 300 Baltic Sea 29 000 Nature reserve

Danube ~ 6500 Black Sea 800 000 Agricultural catchment

of the tributary of the
Siret River

Po 1 470 Mediterranean Sea 71 000 Moderately urbanised

River inputs case study – characteristics of four European river catchments

(Van der Wal et al. 2015)

49
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.7

River WSF27 sampler (> 3.2 mm) WSF127 sampler (> 3.2 mm) Manta net (>330 μm)
Particle numbers a-1 Tonnes a-1 Particle numbers a-1

Rhine 8x107 – 3x108 20 – 31 10x1010 – 3x1011

Dalålven* - - 5x1010

Danube 1x1010 530 2x1012

Po 7x108 120 7x1011

Marine input plastic particles

Estimated annual input of plastic particles to the sea from four European rivers.
The sampling methods are described in section 11
(adapted from van der Wal et al. 2015)

* Unable to operate the WSF sampler at the study site.

Plastic litter is also transported along the river bed,

although this is much harder to quantify. A study in
the upper estuary of the River Thames in London,
using bottom-anchored nets (‘fyke’ nets designed
to catch eels) captured considerable quantities of
debris, most of which was plastic and over 20% com-
prised sanitary items (Morritt et al. 2014).

Extreme flooding events have the potential to mobi-

lise plastic that would not otherwise be transported
to the ocean. The effects of heavy rainfall are exac-
erbated by unsustainable land-use practises (e.g.
deforestation, compacted soils). There is evidence
that extreme events are becoming more common as a
consequence of global warming.27

27 https://wastefreewaters.wordpress.com/
Photo: © CC BY Jason Karn

50
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.8
Plastic resin pellets

Rivers will be particularly important where the

catchment serves urbanised populations and
industrial development. For example, resin pellets
have been observed in abundance deposited on
the engineered banks of the highly industrialised
estuary the Westerschelde in the Netherlands, and
in amongst floating vegetation (Figure 5.8; per-
sonal communication, Tanka Cox, Fauna & Flora
International). The Port of Antwerp, which lies
upstream of the sampling site, is the location for
one of Europe’s largest petrochemical and plastics
production hubs.

Resin pellets have been reported to occur in large

quantities in the River Danube, together with a variety
of other drifting plastics (Figure 5.9; Lechner et al.
2014). In the Danube study, the authors estimated
a total transport of over 1 550 tonnes a-1 into the
Black Sea, claiming this was likely to be an underes-
timate based on under-sampling of microplastics <
500 μm, under-sampling of larger items (> 50mm),
and less effective wastewater treatment in coun-
tries downstream of Austria. Sampling took place in
2010 and 2012, with significant differences in the
variety and quantities sampled. For example, indus-
trial pellets, spherules and flakes represented 64%
of the total load (number of items) in 2010 and 31%
in 2012. The Danube is the most transboundary of
any river, draining 19 countries, with a catchment of
over 800 000 km-2. A wide variety of sectors make
use of the river, including plastics production, and
it is heavily used for transportation. All these fac-
tors will make introducing reduction measures very
challenging.

Plastics production is a global industry but there

are clear regional patterns, China is the single
largest producer, with the rest of Asia, Europe and
North America each a few per cent lower. This is
likely to influence the occurrence of resin pellets
in the environment near production and manufac- Plastic resin pellets in the Westerschelde,
Netherlands (images courtesy of Tanya Cox
turing sites. However, the trade in plastics is also and Fauna & Flora International).
global so pellets produced in one country may be
transported to another for further processing, with
the potential for losses en route due to accidental
release.

51
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.9a

Figure 5.9a

Occurrence of microplastics in the River Rhine: a) Number of microplastic particles (300 μmí5 mm) 1000 mí3
in categories at all sampling sites (ǻ). The horizontal columns present microplastic abundance 1000 mí3 and
the respective fraction of categories. L: left bank, M: mid-river, R: right bank, T: transect (position in the river
cross section); b) Typical microplastic categories in the Rhine. Left: Duisburg sample consisting of 65% opaque
spherules, further fragments and fibres, bar: 2 mm. (a/b) transparent spherules with gas bubbles, polymethyl-
methacrylate (Zuilichem), bars: 1 mm; (c/d) opaque spherules, polystyrene (Duisburg, Rees), bars: 500 μm.
(reproduced from Mani et al.2015, courtesy of ICPR, 2011)

52
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Solid waste management and the countries to have higher per capita waste generation,
global waste trade which may be offset by larger populations in some
poorer countries (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012)29.
State of economic development Inadequate waste management occurs on every con-
The state of economic and social development will tinent. Some current practices in developing coun-
have a significant influence on a number of factors tries that are now condemned (e.g. burning plastic
related to both the generation and management of coatings from copper wire), were commonplace in
waste. To some extent this can be defined in indi- the richer countries of North America and Europe just
cators such as GDP per capita and the Human a few decades ago. To a certain extent, the improve-
Development Index (HDI), which is a composite ment in waste management in richer countries has
indicator encompassing the degree of poverty, liter- been achieved by exporting waste to third countries.
acy and other social measures. Although the HDI
has increased globally over the past 25 years, sig- The sophistication of waste management practices
nificant regional differences remain (Figure 5.10). varies enormously between countries, from well-con-
Increasing use of plastics has been linked to rising trolled sanitary landfills to poorly controlled open
relative incomes, although GDP has risen at a much dumpsites. A comprehensive guide to the fifty waste
faster rate than the HDI28. This implies the capacity to dumps considered to be of greatest concern globally
manage waste effectively has not kept pace with the has been published recently (D-Waste 2014). These
buying power of consumers. are distributed mainly in Africa (18) and Asia (17), but
are also found in Latin America (8), the Caribbean
The quantities of waste produced by each coun- (5) and Europe (2) (Figure 5.11). However, they may
try depend on the per capita waste generation and contain waste that has been imported from other
the population. There is a general pattern for richer regions, so it could be argued that responsibility for

28 http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n12.html 29 https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/08/which-countries-produce-
the-most-waste/

Figure 5.10

Human development classification

Very high
0.800 or greater
Latin America &
High the Caribbean
0.700–0.799 Europe & Central Asia
East Asia & the Pacific
Arab States
Medium
0.550–0.699
South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa
Low
Less than
0.550

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014

Changes in the UNDP Human Development Index by region, 1975-2004

(Human Development Report 2015, Work for Human Development, UNDP 2015)

53
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

improving waste management at such sites may be cutions. The transfer of toxic and hazardous wastes is
shared by many countries. Many of these sites are controlled under the Basel Convention (Chapter 2).
close to the coast or to waterways. The plastics associated with electronic waste often
contain high concentrations of certain chemicals, in
A helpful development would be for countries to map particular flame retardants. Poorly managed sites act
and quantify the extent of informal and illegal waste as sources of contaminated plastics to nearby water-
dumps and poorly controlled landfill sites, especially ways and hence to the ocean, both directly and via
where these are adjacent to the coastal or other the atmosphere.
water bodies.
Jambeck et al. (2015) estimated that 16 of the top
20 contributors to plastic marine litter were from
The trade in waste middle-income countries, where economic growth is
rapidly occurring (Chapter 5.4). The top five coun-
Tighter regulation on waste management in many tries (China, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and
developed nations, especially for electrical and elec- Vietnam) accounted for more than 50% of ‘misman-
tronic goods, has led to a burgeoning market for aged’ plastics, on the basis of this analysis (Figure
waste materials. This includes the legitimate trade in 5.12).
end-of life plastics, for example from Europe to China,
for large-scale recycling. However, it has also led to SIDS can face particular problems with managing
the more dubious practice of exporting ‘second-hand’ waste related to: remoteness; small and sparse pop-
(legal) and discarded (illegal) electronics goods to ulations with limited potential economies of scale; a
developing countries, particularly in West Africa and shortage of land for sanitary landfill; limited institu-
Asia. Key reasons for this are the lower wage costs, tional and human resources capacity; and, the state
a lack of scrutiny, and a lack of consideration and and pace of economic and social development (Box
enforcement of adequate human and environmen- 5.3). They can also be subject to tsunamis and other
tal protection policies. Thus the domestic appliance extreme events, leading to the potential for increased
taken for ‘recycling’ at an established waste treatment inputs to the ocean.
centre in North America or Europe can end up in the
informal recycling sector in West Africa where waste
is discarded and transferred to large open dump-
sites. Incidents of illegal transport, often motivated by
greed, are reported regularly and have led to prose-

Figure 5.11

Distribution of the 50 largest dumpsites (D-Waste 2014)

54
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.12

Plastic waste produced and mismanaged

Norway

Canada Denmark Sweden

Finland Russia
United
EU 27 plus Norway Kingdom Netherlands
Germany
Ireland
Poland
Belgium Ukraine North
France Croatia Korea
United States Japan
Spain Italy Turkey
Greece Syria South
Portugal Iran
Cyprus Lebanon China Korea
Pakistan
Morocco Tunisia Israel
India Hong
Cuba Kuwait Kong Taiwan
Mexico Algeria UAE
Haiti Libya Egypt
Dominican Republic Saudi Arabia Bangladesh
Honduras Puerto Rico
Guatemala Oman Myanmar
Nicaragua Trinidad and Tobago Vietnam
El Salvador Yemen Philippines
Senegal
Venezuela Ghana Thailand
Costa Rica
Coastal population Panama Guyana Nigeria
Million people Somalia Sri Lanka Malaysia
Colombia Cote d'Ivoire Singapore
Less than 1 Ecuador
1 to 2
2 to 10 Papua New Guinea
Indonesia
10 to 50
Peru Angola
50 to 263
Brazil
Land locked country
Mauritius
Plastic waste production
Thousand tonnes per day, 2010
Chile Australia
37 Uruguay South Africa
Total plastic waste
produced Argentina
10

1 Portion of plastic
0,2 mismanaged New Zealand

Source: Jambeck, J., R., et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science, 2015; Neumann B., et. al., Future
Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding - A Global Assessment. PLoS ONE, 2015.

Plastic waste produced and mismanaged. Taken from Marine Litter Vital Graphics
(in preparation)

Box 5.3

WASTE MANAGEMENT IN PACIFIC SIDS

The Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) has overseen a number
of initiatives to improve waste management, and helped to develop the Pacific Regional Waste
Management Strategy 2010-2012. This was adopted at the 20th SPREP meeting (Samoa) on 18
November 2009 by: American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji,
France, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand,
Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau,
Tuvalu, United States of America, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna.

www.sprep.org

55
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.13

Kroo Bay slum, Sierra Leone, where debris is used to reclaim land for building
makeshift homes ©United Nations/OCHA/IRIN/Nicholas Reader

Waste and informal land reclamation Coastal tourism

In some coastal regions, such as Sierra Leone, vehi- Coastal tourism represents a major source of litter
cle tyres and other debris have been used to reclaim in many regions, with major ‘hot spots’ including
land, where land for housing is in short supply or too the Mediterranean, greater Caribbean, South-
expensive. The Kroo Bay slum in Freetown, on the east Asia and several SIDS. Casual recreational
coast, is adjacent to two rivers and floods frequently use near urban conurbations adds to the prob-
(Figure 5.13). According to the IRIN news agency lem. Coastal littering causes social, economic and
‘Kroo Bay…is a squalid slum so littered with rubbish ecological impacts. The problem is exacerbated
that the paths are made of compressed plastic, cans by poor waste management, a lack of resources
and toothpaste tubes, and patches of bare orange in some regions and a disconnect between those
earth are a rare sight…the average life expectancy is benefitting from the activity (e.g. tourists, restau-
35 years’30. Clearly the slum is the source of plastics rant owners, tour operators) and those having to
to the ocean. This experience is far removed from that deal with the consequences (e.g. local commu-
of many of those investigating the impacts of marine nities). Catering for tourists in SIDS can lead to
litter and seeking potential solutions. But it does illus- the importation of very large quantities of food and
trate the reality of the lives of many people, in which other consumer goods, with the accompanying
concern for litter may come a long way down their list packaging creating a huge challenge for effective
of priorities. waste management.

30 http://www.irinnews.org/report/79358/sierra-leone-rampant-disea-
se-washes-in-with-flood-water

56
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

5.8 The number of containers lost each year is disputed, but

was reported by the World Shipping Council (2014)31
ESTIMATING SEA-BASED INPUTS OF MARINE to be approximately 550 per annum on average, not
PLASTICS AND MICROPLASTICS TO counting catastrophic losses (regarded as losses
THE OCEAN – A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE of > 50 containers in one incident). In 2011 there
was the grounding of the M/V Rena off New Zealand
Shipping (Figure 5.18; 900 containers) and in 2013 there was
the complete loss of the MOL Comfort in the Indian
Globalisation and the growth in shipping Ocean (4 293 containers).
Shipping represents a continuing source of marine
litter, both due to accidental release (collisions, storm The impact of major accidental losses can be signif-
damage) and illegal disposal of plastics at sea, in icant locally (Figure 5.15). On a lighter note, many
breach of Annex V of the MARPOL Convention. incidents have been reported in the media of familiar
Shipping accounts for approximately 90% of global items being washed up on shorelines; for example,
trade. The introduction of containerised cargo handling Nike™ training shoes (west coast of North America,
in the 1960s brought about a step-change increase Ebbesmeyer and Sciano 2009), bath toys including
in the efficiency and decrease in the cost of shipping plastic ducks (Hohn 2011) and pieces of Lego™ (SW
goods. The change was pioneered on busy routes England32). The pattern of shipping accidents roughly
between North America and Europe, where the high correlates with shipping traffic density, with the top
capital investment was offset by a reduction in high five regions for accidents being the seas of east Asia
labour costs, and gradually spread to developing (Korea, Japan, eastern China), the seas of southeast
economies, especially in Asia (Figure 5.14). There has Asia, the eastern and western Mediterranean and the
been a tendency to increase capacity by building larger waters of the Bay of Biscay and NW European shelf
vessels. There has been a great expansion of trade in seas (Butt et al. 2011).
manufactured goods from Asia to Europe and North
America, a significant fraction being composed of plas-
tics, with most being transported by container vessels.

Shoreline surveys adjacent to busy shipping routes

(Figure 5.14), such as the southern North Sea
approaching Rotterdam, reveal a higher proportion of
shipping-related debris (van Franeker 2010). Some 31 http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containers_
Lost_at_Sea_-_2014_Update_Final_for_Dist.pdf
of this material may be casually thrown overboard, but
32 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28367198, accessed 1 Feb-
some arises from accidental losses. ruary 2016

Figure 5.14

Global shipping density (Kaluza et al 2010)

57
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.14

Loss of containers in shipping accidents:

a) Containers fall from the deck of damaged cargo ship MSC Chitra in the Arabian
Sea off the Mumbai coast August 9, 2010 (Reuters/Danish Siddiqui);
b) People look at cargo shed from the ship MSC Napoli at Branscombe, on the
southern English coast, January 2007 (Reuters/Luke MacGregor

Figure 5.16

Pre-production PP pellets washed ashore in Hong Kong, following a shipping

accident in 2012 (Reuters/SiuChiu)

Microplastics is permitted under MARPOL Annex V, subject to cer-

tain conditions. Sewage sludge is likely to contain
Shipping accidents have also resulted in the intro- plastic fragments, fibres and particles that were not
duction of microplastics directly into the ocean. removed during initial treatment. In one Swedish
Probably the best-known incident was the loss of six study it was concluded that >99% of microplastics
shipping containers from a freighter off Hong Kong, entering the wastewater treatment plant were retained
during Typhoon Vincente in July 2013. It is thought in sludge Magnusson and Norén 2014). Sewage
that 150 tonnes of pre-production PP pellets were sludge is often used as an agricultural fertiliser and a
lost initially, with many washing up on local beaches33. method using the presence of synthetic fibres has
This initiated a remarkable clean-up campaign, largely been proposed as an indicator that sludge has been
based on volunteers. It is thought about 70% of the applied (Zubris and Richards 2005). The quantities
lost pellets were recovered. involved will depend partly on the upstream manage-
ment of waste streams, the shape, size and density of
Disposal of sewage sludge and dredged sediments the particles, and the existence and sophistication of
The disposal of sewage sludge and dredged sediment wastewater treatment.

Maintenance dredging is an essential activity to allow

ports to function and provide safe passage for ship-
ping. Currently there are no guidelines on the compo-
sition of material considered suitable for sea disposal
33 http://plasticfreeseas.org/plastic-pellets.html that include the plastic content. A report on the topic

58
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

has been prepared34 and is being considered by the Ocean, Northern and Western Africa, the Caribbean
Scientific Group of the LC and LP (March 2016). and Chile (Figure 5.17).
Although little information is available on the plastic
content of dredged sediment, high levels of plastics, Macfadyen et al. (2009) provided a summary of esti-
including plastic pellets and fibres, have been mates of ALDFG losses in different regions (Table
reported in shoreline and harbour sediments (Browne 5.6). Clearly it is a global problem, but the incidence
et al. 2010, Claessens et al. 2011). Although it is not is likely to be influenced by a number of regionally
possible to provide accurate figures on the input of dependent factors, such as: the type of gear, the edu-
plastic via this route, it can be surmised that the quan- cation level of the crew, inefficient fishing methods,
tities will vary dependent on factors such as shipping gear conflicts with other fishers and maritime users,
intensity, coastal population density and the degree the value of the catch compared with the cost of the
of coastal industrialisation. net and the extent of IUU fishing (Gilman 2015). A
new study covering ALDFG from marine gillnet and
trammel net fisheries describes methods to estimate
Fisheries ghost fishing mortality and synthesizes estimates of
mortality rates (Gilman et al. in press). This study
Wild fish capture is an important source of high also assesses related measures of regional fisheries
quality protein in many regions, but in particular in bodies and arrangements for monitoring and manag-
Southeast Asia and Pacific SIDS, parts of the Indian ing ALDFG and ghost fishing.

34 IMO LC/SG 39/8/1 Annex

Figure 5.17

Regional food provision by wild fisheries capture, displayed as a relative scale by EEZ
(oceanhealthindex)

59
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.7

Examples of gear loss /abandonment/discard indicators from around the world

Region Fishery/gear type Indicator of gear loss (data source)

Atlantic Ocean

North Sea Bottom-set gill nets 0.02-0.09% nets lost per boat per year
& NE Atlantic (EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338 (2003))

English Channel Gill nets 0.2% (sole & plaice) to 2.11% (sea bass) nets lost
& North Sea per boat per year
(France) (EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338 (2003))

Baltic Sea Set nets 1 630 set nets lost in 2009 (Szulc 2013)
(Poland & Lithuania)

NW Atlantic Newfoundland cod gill net fishery 5,000 nets per year (Breen, 1990)

Canadian Atlantic gill net fisheries 2% nets lost per boat per year
(Chopin et a., 1995)

Gulf of St. Lawrence snow crab 792 traps per year

New England lobster fishery 20-30% traps lost per boat per year
(Smolowitz, 1978)

Chesapeake Bay Up to 30% traps lost per boat per year

(NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 2007)

Caribbean Guadeloupe trap fishery 20,000 traps lost per year,

mainly in the hurricane season
(Burke & Maidens, 2004)

Mediterranean

Mediterranean Gill nets 0.05% (inshore hake) to 3.2% (sea bream) nets lost
per boat per year
(EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338 (2003))

Indian Ocean

Indian Ocean Maldives tuna longline 3% loss of hooks/set

(Anderson & Waheed, 1988)

Gulf of Aden Traps c. 20% lost per boat per year

(Al-Masroori, 2002)

ROPME Sea Area Traps 260,000 lost per year in 2002

(UAE) (Gary Morgan, personal communication, 2007)

60
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Pacific Ocean

NE Pacific Bristol Bay king crab trap fishery 7,000 – 31,000 traps lost in the fishery per year
(Stevens, 1996; Paul et al, 1994;
Kruse & Kimker, 1993)

Australia (Queensland) Blue swimmer crab trap fishery 35 traps lost per boat per year
(McKauge, undated)

Southern Ocean

Southern Ocean Toothfish longline 0.02-0.06% hooks lost per longline set per year
(Webber and Parker 2012)

Global statistics for lost fishing gear (adapted from Butterworth et al. 2012;
original data Macfadyen 2009; additional data Szulc 2013,
E. Grilly CCAMLR pers. comm., January 2016)

A comprehensive analysis of floating macro-debris

(> 200 mm diameter) revealed that 20% by number
and 70% by weight was fishing–related, principally 70% by weight of floating macroplastic
floats/buoys (Eriksen et al. 2014, Chapter 6.2). This debris, in the open ocean, is fishing-related
was based on 4 291 visual observations from 891
sampling locations in the North and South Pacific, (Eriksen et al. 2014)
North and South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal,
Mediterranean Sea and coastal waters of Australia.

Fishing-related debris is also common in the Southern

Ocean and is consistently the most frequent category
of litter associated with wandering albatross colonies
(CCAMLR 2015).
Photo: © Sustainable Coastlines

61
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Aquaculture common in Canada, NW Europe and southern Chile.

Aquaculture provides an important source of protein
Geographically Asian countries have been high- in many countries (Figure 5.18).
lighted in terms of both production and consump-
tion of cultured food (Figures 5.19). China is the The quantities of equipment lost generally have
number one producer among them (FAO, 2014 #86). not been quantified. Regional differences may be
Mussel culture is common in North America, south- expected due to the type of culture, the selection of
ern Chile and the Atlantic coast of Europe. Oysters designs and materials, and exposure to adverse con-
are cultured extensively in Asia, North America and ditions. For example, EPS buoys are used extensively
parts of Europe. Scallop culture is concentrated in in some regions of Asia for the hanging culture of
subtropical regions, and clam culture is common in mussels and oysters. Loss and damage is particu-
many parts of Asia and North America. Shrimp cul- larly intense following the passage of tropical storms
tures are most extensive in estuarine environments (Chapter 6.2, Lee et al. 2014).
of tropical and subtropical regions. Fish culture is

Figure 5.18

Global aquaculture production by continent (left) and by country within Asia

(right) (FAO data)

Figure 5.19

Regional food provision by marine aquaculture, displayed as a relative scale by

EEZ (oceanhealthindex)

62
 5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

5.9 examination of the probable origin (i.e. sector) of

marine litter items, one in each of Europe’s four mar-
REGIONAL CASE STUDY – RELATIVE ginal seas (ARCADIS 2012): i) Oostende (Belgium)
CONTRIBUTIONS OF DIFFERENT SOURCES – North Sea; ii) Constanta (Romania) – Black Sea; iii)
Riga (Latvia) – Baltic Sea; and, iv) Barcelona (Spain)
It is sometimes possible to gain an indication of the – Western Mediterranean (Figure 5.20, Table 5.7).
source of marine litter by carefully examining the type
of material encountered in surveys. Beach surveys Details of the methodology for site selection and data
offer an opportunity to investigate spatial and temporal collection and analysis are provided by ARCADIS
trends in a relatively cost-effective manner, provided (2012). The study included stakeholder workshops
harmonised sampling and analysis techniques are and the development of potential measures to close
adhered to. In a pilot study commissioned by the EC, loopholes in the ‘plastic cycle’.
four shoreline locations were selected for a careful

Figure 5.20

Probable source of marine litter items from shoreline surveys at four pilot sites:
Oostende, North Sea; Constanta, Black Sea; Riga, Baltic Sea; and Barcelona,
Western Mediterranean (adapted from ARCADIS 2012)

63
5
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.8

Broad sector category* Oostende Constanta Riga Barcelona

North Sea Black Sea Baltic Sea Mediterranean

Maritime-based 50.51 18.2 18.18 16.08

Shoreline-based 29.11 48.58 27.69 35.09

Land-based 20.36 33.23 54.4 48.82

Table 5.7 Sources of shoreline marine litter from four pilot locations, grouped by major source categories
* maritime based = fishing, shipping, ports, recreational boating, aquaculture and other activities
shoreline-based = coastal/beach tourism and recreational fishing
land-based = sanitary, general household, waste collection and transport, construction and demolition, other industrial
activities, agriculture and dump sites/landfill

The results showed some clear contrasts. About

50% of litter at Oostende was thought most likely to
have come from maritime-based sectors, with a fur-
ther 29% from shoreline-based activities. In contrast,
maritime-related sectors account for 16 – 18% at the
three other sites. Both Riga and Barcelona had signif-
icant quantities of sanitary (toilet) waste, showing the
inadequacy of wastewater treatment in these cities.
Constanta alone had large quantities (46%) of litter
from recreational fishing. This was a pilot study and it
would be inappropriate to extrapolate the results from
one location to a whole sea area or region. However,
the study did illustrate that significant differences
in the sources of litter do occur, requiring different
approaches to bring about reductions (Chapter 9).

64
6

65
6. DISTRIBUTION
will influence currents at a more local scale. Within
these broad patterns the circulation is highly complex
and variable, on multiple scales in space (mm – 100s

AND FATE km) and time (s – decades) (Figure 6.2). This will have
a significant influence on the distribution of floating
plastics, providing an explanation for some of the spatial
and temporal variability in concentrations that have
been observed. The water column is not uniform in tem-
6.1 perature and salinity. The upper few metres of the ocean
will be mixed by wave action episodically. Attempts to
MARINE COMPARTMENTS AND TRANSPORT measure and interpret the distribution and abundance
PATHWAYS of floating plastics in the surface ocean need to be
placed in the context of this natural variability.

Ocean circulation
Transfer between compartments
The circulation of the surface waters of the ocean are
characterised by a broad pattern of persistent surface The ocean can be divided into five compartments:
currents (Figure 6.1). These tend to dominate the coastline, surface/upper ocean, the main water
passive transport of any floating objects. The ocean column, the seabed and biota (Figure 6.3). Plastics
circulation is driven by the complex interaction of occur in all five compartments, and there will be pro-
atmospheric forcing (winds), the Coriolis force due to cesses acting both within and between compartments
the Earth’s rotation, density differences (temperature which will affect the fate and distribution of the plas-
and salinity) and deep-water formation in the Arctic tic material. Plastics that are inherently buoyant (e.g.
and sub-Arctic seas and Southern Ocean (Thermo- PE) can be expected to remain in the upper ocean,
Haline circulation due to the sinking of cold, dense unless there is a change in density, for example by
water, produced through the formation of freshwater the attachment and growth of sessile organisms. The
ice) (Lozier 2015). In coastal regions river outflows degree to which this may occur is unknown. Other

Figure 6.1

Figure 6.1 Surface ocean circulation, showing main currents and the location of the sub-tropical gyres in the North
and South Pacific, Indian, and North and South Atlantic Oceans, and the Norwegian Current transporting material
from the NE Atlantic to the Arctic (image courtesy of Dr. Michael Pidwirny (see http://www.physicalgeography.net)
[http://skyblue.utb.edu/paullgj/geog3333/lectures/oceancurrents-1.gif original image], Public Domain.

66
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.3
plastics are denser than water so may be expected to
occur on shorelines and the seabed. This difference
in physical properties clearly will have a considerable
influence on both the observed and modelled distri-
butions (Chapter 6.2). Plastics of all types may be
found in the biota compartment.

The degree of transfer of plastics between these

compartments is largely unknown. Transfer of mate-
rial on and off shorelines is likely to be considerable
in some regions but often episodic, in response to
wave action, wind and rainfall events, the proximity of
sea- and land-based sources and the exposure of the
coastline. Non-buoyant plastic objects (e.g. fishing
nets) that are supported by buoyant objects (e.g. fish-
ing floats) will continue to float in the water column or
upper ocean until the buoyancy becomes ineffective,
then will sink to the seabed. Transport from the near-
shore environment to the deep seabed may be facil-
itated by the presence of canyons and debris slides
(e.g. NW Mediterranean). Material may behave dif-
ferently once fragmented. The relative importance of
such transfers will be regionally dependent.

Mesoscale eddies - false colour image of ocean

water colour, from NASA’s Aqua MODIS satel-
lite, showing the complexity of the surface ocean
circulation, which will influence the distribution of
floating plastics. Image courtesy of NASA-GSFC.
The circular blue in the middle left is approximately
100km in diameter35. 35 http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/ocean-mesoscale-eddies

Figure 6.3

Figure 6.3 Overview of compartments and fluxes of marine plastics (figure

based on a version by Erik van Sebille, taken from GESAMP 2016).

67
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.4
6.2

REGIONAL PATTERNS AND ‘HOT SPOTS’

Shoreline and nearshore ‘hot spots’

Macro and microplastics are found on shorelines

throughout the world’s oceans. The debris is a mixture
of locally-derived material and debris that has been
transported by wind and wave action and surface cur-
rents, sometimes for several thousand kilometres. A
number of consistent patterns have emerged from rou-
tine beach surveys, including the significant increase in
shoreline litter adjacent to urban centres and adjacent
to nearshore shipping routes (Figure 6.4).

Data from the Ocean Conservancy annual international

clean-up programme reveal the influence of tourism
and beach use on the type and quantities of plastic
litter found on the shoreline (Ocean Conservancy
2014). The International Coastal Clean-up (ICC)
counts the number of items, rather than the quan-
Results of shoreline surveys in the NOWPAP region
tity of litter (volume and mass) so provides a rather (units: number of items/100m shoreline) (NOWPAP
partial picture of the relative significance of different CEARAC )

items. For example, no fishing-related plastics were

recorded in the top ten items found most often (Table
6.1). However, it does represent one of the most transport or more permanent accumulation zones.
comprehensive sets of data, recording relative distri- Undoubtedly, local oceanographic conditions will
butions and trends on shorelines. play a key role. In some cases, higher concentrations
are due to the presence of poorly controlled or illegal
What remains uncertain is whether these local ‘hot waste dumps, sometimes immediately adjacent to the
spots’ (Figure 6.5) act as sources for longer-distance shoreline (D-Waste 2014).

Table 6.1

Order Description Number Order Description Number

1 Cigarette ends 2 248 065 6 Miscellaneous plastic bags 489 968

2 Food wrappers 1 376 133 7 Shopping bags 485 204

3 Plastic drinks bottles 988 965 8 Glass drinks bottles 396 121

4 Plastic bottle caps 811 871 9 Metal drinks cans 382 608

5 Straws & stirrers 519 911 10 Plastic cups & plates 376 479

Top ten items collected during the 2014 annual International Coastal
Clean-up, covering approximately 22 000 km of coastline, with 561 895
volunteers in 91 countries, collecting 735 tonnes of debris (data taken
from the Ocean Conservancy website).

68
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.5

Coastal community in Papua New Guinea, surveyed for

litter in 2015 ©Sustainable Coastlines Papua New Guinea

Coastal debris surveys often report an increase in The Mediterranean experiences high volumes of ship-
beach deposition of litter following tsunamis (Figure ping, has high coastal populations and a very well
6.6), storms or river basin flooding, (Frost and Cullen developed tourist industry. It also has a very restricted
1997; Gabrielides et al. 1991; Vauk and Shrey 1987) exchange with the Atlantic. The high levels observed
further supporting the importance of local contribu- of floating, shoreline and seabed plastics are not
tions to marine litter. unexpected. In the western Mediterranean the con-
tinental shelf is very narrow, with submarine canyons
extending from close to the shore into deep water.
Coastal waters and Large Marine Ecosystems These have the function of channelling waste depos-
ited in coastal waters, directly or via river inflows,
Coastal waters in many regions can be expected to leading to significant ‘hot spots’ of plastics both in
have higher concentrations of marine plastics being the canyons and on the deep seafloor (Galgani et al.
the receiving body for land-based plastics and the 1996, 2000).
zone where fisheries, aquaculture, commercial ship-
ping and other maritime activities are concentrated.
‘Hot spots’ of floating plastic have been observed Long-distance transport of floating litter and
in coastal waters adjacent to countries with high mid-ocean hot spots
coastal populations and inadequate waste manage-
ment in South–east Asia (Peter Ryan 2013). The Reports of floating plastic fragments in open ocean
Strait of Malacca has a combination of high shipping waters started to appear in the peer-reviewed scien-
densities, fisheries and coastal population densities. tific literature in the early 1970s (Carpenter et al.
Large quantities of floating plastic debris have been 1972). Such observations were made as an addition
observed several tens of kilometres off the coast to the prime purpose of the study, which was usually
(Figure 6.7; Ryan 2013). concerned with either the dynamics of plankton or
with fisheries research. In contrast, sampling for plastic
occurrence in some open ocean regions, such as the

69
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.6

Debris from Japan, resulting from the 2011 tsunami, on the west coast of North
America (NOAA Marine Debris Program, courtesy of Kevin Head)

Figure 6.7

Plastic debris in surface waters of the Strait of Malacca (images

courtesy of Peter Ryan)

70
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Indian Ocean, South Pacific and South Atlantic, has

only taken place relatively recently (Ericksen et al.
2014, Ryan 2014).

Long-distance transport of floating plastics occurs

by a combination of ocean circulation and winds (for
larger objects). The surface circulation has been well
defined in terms of the overall circulation patterns
and relative transport rates. A feature of all the major
ocean basins (North Pacific, South Pacific, North
Atlantic, South Atlantic and Indian Oceans) is the
formation of sub-tropical gyres, regions of slower
currents where material tends to collect and stay for
some time. Many studies have now confirmed that
the gyres are characterised by relatively high con-
centrations of floating plastic (Figure 6.8). The term
‘The Great Pacific garbage patch’ was coined for the
North Pacific sub-tropical gyre. This description is
rather misleading, but it has entered the public lexicon
(Box 6.1). Although the overall accumulation patterns
are quite consistent there are very large variations in
concentration at smaller scales (Law et al. 2014), due
to the complexity of ocean dynamics and interactions
with the wind.

Box 6.1

‘THE GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH’

This term was coined following the discovery of an ‘accumulation zone’ of floating plastic debris in
the North Pacific in the late 1990s. It became widely used in the media and by advocacy groups to
raise awareness of what had been a poorly recognised phenomenon. Unfortunately, use of the term
also generated a misconception on the part of the public as to what the ‘garbage patch’ consisted
of, with visions of large piles of floating debris forming an ‘island’, variously described as being ‘the
size of Texas’ or other popular unit of area, and assumed to be visible from space.

In reality most of the plastic debris is too small to be seen easily from the deck of a ship, and has
to be sampled by towing a fine-mesh net (e.g. 330 μm). Concentrations are often presented as
numbers per unit area of sea. Although the number of particles may be recorded as over 200 000
km-2 (e.g. Law et al. 2010), that equates to less than one microplastic particle m-2. Larger items
do occur but much less frequently, and they are subject additionally to wind forcing and so may
have different transport rates and pathways, often being blown ashore. The phenomenon is not
unique to the North Pacific and has been described for the five main sub-tropical gyres, where
small free-floating objects will tend to converge (Figure 6.1). Generally, material is quite dispersed,
but with very significant variations in concentration in space and time, due to the differing scales
of ocean circulation and turbulent mixing by waves. Microplastics also occur in the surface ocean
outside the gyres, although in lower concentrations

71
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.8

Western North Atlantic sub-tropical gyre showing elevated concentrations of microplastics (pieces km-2) at
each sampling site from a 20-year data set; described by Law et al. 2010 and re-plotted by IOC-UNESCO.

Ericksen et al. (2014) have produced the most com- It is interesting to note that fishing-related debris
prehensive collation of available data on macro and accounted for 20% of the total by number but 70%
microplastic distribution so far, using both towed by weight, with floats/buoys predominating. Such
nets (usually using a 330-micron mesh) and direct items are a common component of shoreline debris in
observations of larger items to produce the first mid-ocean islands. These data have formed the basis
global representation of our current knowledge of of a modelling study to estimate the total quantities
the distribution of floating plastic, based on obser- the sampling represents (see below). In some cases,
vations (Figure 6.9, Table 6.2). The data set com- it is possible to prove the provenance of the fishing
prised 1571 sampling locations from 24 expeditions gear from gear marking. For example, debris from
(2007-2013). These covered the five ocean gyres in the Oregon Dungeness Crab fishery has been found
the North Pacific, South Pacific, South Atlantic, North washed up in Hawaii (Ebbesmeyer et al. 2012).
Atlantic and Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea,
Bay of Bengal and coastal waters of Australia, com- Buoyant plastics will tend to float at the sea surface
bining surface net tows (n=680) and visual surveys of during calm conditions. However, wave action can
large plastic debris (n=891). mix the water column, and smaller items of plastic, to

72
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.9

The distribution of floating plastics (pieces km-2) in four size categories (0.33 – 1.00 mm, 1.01 – 4.75 mm, 4.76 – 200 mm
and >200 mm ) based on either net tows or visual observations at 1 571 sampling locations (from Ericksen et al. 2014)

Table 6.2

Category Subcategory Items % count % weight

Plastic fishing gear Buoy 319 7.4 58.3

Line 369 8.6 11.1

Net 102 2.4 0.9

Other fishing gear 70 1.6 0.1

Other plastics Bucket 180 4.2 15.0

Bottle 791 18.4 4.9

Foamed polystyrene 1 116 26.0 8.0

Plastic bag/film 420 9.8 0.8

Misc. plastic 924 21.5 0.8

Total 4 291 100 100

Categories of large floating plastic debris (> 200 mm) based on observations by visual surveys of 4 291
items in the North Pacific, South Pacific, South Atlantic, North Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal,
Mediterranean Sea and coastal waters of Australia (Eriksen et al. 2014).

73
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

depths of several meters (Lattin et al. 2004, Lusher et e) sea-based sources such as fisheries and aqua-
al. 2015, Reisser et al. 2015). This introduces some culture
uncertainty into some of the observations of smaller f) land-based sources such as coastal tourism
plastics collected with towed nets. This phenomenon
has been studied using both modelling (Kukulka et al. Such weaknesses do not invalidate the usefulness
2012) and observations with vertically stacked trawl of the modelling approach, but do introduce large
nets (Reisser et al. 2015). The sea state will also uncertainties into the results, something which is
affect the reliability of direct observations of larger readily admitted by the modelling community (e.g. van
items. Both problems can be addressed provided Sebille et al. 2015).
sampling protocols are designed with this in mind
(Chapter 11).
Modelling the influence of different sources
Modelling can provide a means to investigate the
Utilizing modelling techniques to simulate the relative importance of different sources, where more
distribution of macro and microplastics accurate data is absent. Lebreton et al. (2012) used
this approach to generate the relative contribution of
Model simulations provide a useful interpretation floating plastics from three sources, based on proxy
of the distribution and relative abundance of float- indicators: coastal population density, proportion of
ing plastics, filling in gaps in the distribution in the urbanised catchment (i.e. liable to more rapid run-
absence of observations, allowing investigation of the off) and shipping density. The authors simulated the
relative importance of different processes and test- resultant distribution of plastics in coastal and open
ing scenarios. Ocean circulation models are based ocean waters using an ocean circulation model, into
on a very good understanding of ocean physics and which particles could be introduced in proportion to
are validated with robust scientific data (e.g. satellite the three indicators. The distributions were spatially
observations, oceanographic measurements of tem- resolved to fit the outlines of the 64 Large Marine
perature and salinity, current meter arrays, neutral- Ecosystems (LME) and then placed in five catego-
ly-buoyant floats). However, all models are based on ries of relative abundance. Figure 6.10 shows the
sets of assumptions, the structure and complexity of distribution of microplastics by LME, with concentra-
the model and the state of knowledge of the system tions varying from highest to lowest in the order red-
that is being investigated. Modelling the ocean in orange-yellow-green-blue.36 Highest concentrations
three dimensions (i.e. including multiple depth layers) occurred in SE Asia, around the Korean peninsula,
is challenging computationally. A model will always the Bay of Bengal and the Mediterranean. This is con-
be a simplification of reality, which is both an advan- sistent with the available observations.
tage and a disadvantage. When considering the use
of models it is worth remembering the adage: ‘All A second modelling study (UNEP 2016b) simulated
models are wrong, but some are useful’ (Box 1976) the distribution of floating plastic based on the esti-
mated influx of plastic due to inadequate waste treat-
ment, as defined by Jambeck et al. (2015). Figure
6.11 shows the simulated distribution of floating plas-
‘All models are wrong, but some are useful’ tics originating from countries in SE Asia, indicating
significant transboundarytransport across the Bay of
(Box 1976) Bengal.

A fundamental weakness with many global-scale cur-

rent modelling approaches is that they do not account
for several important factors:

a) non-buoyant plastics
b) fragmentation
c) vertical transport to the seabed
36 This study was a contribution to the GEF Transboundary Waters
d) other environmental reservoirs (biota, seabed, Assessment Programme
water column, shoreline) (IOC-UNESCO and UNEP 2016; www.geftwap.org).

74
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.10

Estimated relative distribution of microplastic abundance in 64 Large Marine Ecosystems, based on

Lebreton et al. 2012. Inputs of plastic ‘particles’ in the model were based on three proxy indicators of
probable sources: coastal population density, proportion of urbanised watershed and shipping density.
Concentrations were divided into five equal-sized categories of relative concentration, varying from high-
est to lowest in the order red-orange-yellow-green-blue. (IOC-UNESCO and UNEP 2016)

75
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.11

Simulated distribution of floating plastic. Showing high concentrations in coastal waters,

using as the source term the estimated influx of plastics from SE Asia due to ‘mismanaged
waste’ (based on Jambeck et al. 2015), from 2004-2014 (from UNEP 2016b)

Modelling transport times

It can be difficult to assign how long plastic debris
has been in the ocean and where it has come from,
but models can be very useful in indicating proba-
ble transport pathways and the average time taken
from source to sampling site (Lebreton et al. 2012,
Maximenko et al. 2012, UNEP 2016b, van Sebille et
al. 2015); Figure 6.12).

These estimates can be compared with the results of

other investigations into the pathways and transport
times of other passive water-borne tracers (e.g. radio-
tracers, CFCs). For example, several studies have
modelled the transfer pathways and transport times
of caesium (134Cs, 137Cs), technetium (99Tc)
and other radionuclides discharged from nuclear
reprocessing sites in the NE Atlantic, with subse-
quent transport to the Arctic (Karcher et al. 2004).
The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant
in Japan, in 2011, provided another opportunity to
examine transport of surface and mid-waters in the
North Pacific on the basis of measurements of dis-
solved 134Cs and 137Cs.

76
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.12

Simulation of the transport of particles originating in South East Asia showing the relative age of
particles (1994-2014) in the Indian and Pacific Oceans (top) and globally (bottom). Red indicates 1
year and dark blue 10 years from release (from UNEP 2016b).

77
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Estimating ocean plastic budgets Modelling different types of plastic

Despite the increasing number of sampling expe- Most model simulations of plastic particle transport
ditions, the total number of observations of floating have been applicable to floating plastic only. This is
macro and micro-plastics is rather small, and large appropriate for plastic objects with entrapped air,
areas of the ocean have not been sampled at all, such as a fishing float, or for particles and fragments
particular in the Arctic, South Pacific, Indian Ocean of some polymers such as PE, PP or EPS. However,
and the Southern Ocean. It is possible to generate many other common polymers are denser than seawater
budgets of ocean plastics on the basis of model sim- so will tend to sink (Chapter 4.2). The behaviour of
ulations, but these need to be validated by observa- different types of microplastic particle has been inves-
tional data. Eriksen et al. (2014) collated data on the tigated within the European research project MICRO
number and mass of floating plastic particles/items (van der Meulen et al. 2015)37. The Delft 3D model38
from 24 expeditions (2007 – 2013, Figures 6.13 was utilised to model the distribution of particles
and 6.14). These covered the five ocean gyres, the with densities equivalent to the polymers PE (0.91),
Mediterranean, Bay of Bengal and coastal waters PS (1.05) and PET (1.40). The model was con-
of Australia, combining surface net tows (n=680) figured to represent the southern North Sea and
and visual surveys of large plastic debris (n=891). English Channel (Figure 6.15), with particles being
The data were used to calibrate an ocean circula- introduced with major river inputs (Box 6.3). The
tion and particle-tracking model (HYCOM/NCODA, particles were assumed to be spherical. There was
Cummings 2005) which was then used to estimate a very clear difference between the behaviour of
budgets of floating macro and microplastics. PE and PET. PE particles were restricted to surface
waters and occurred in greatest concentration in a
Using the validated model, it was estimated that the broad band extending from coast of France, Belgium,
total number of floating plastic pieces, in the four size Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. PET particles
categories, was 5.25 trillion (5.25 x 1012), with a were absent from the surface but prevalent in bottom
mass of 268 940 tonnes. waters, with higher concentrations in a restricted
zone close to the coast and in a tongue extending
A recent analysis of the performance of three models north east from the coast of East Anglia, in eastern
of floating plastic distribution, which can be con- England. The region has a vigorous tidal- and wind-
sidered the state of the art, revealed similar overall driven circulation and the water depth is quite shal-
patterns in predicted abundance, but significant dif- low, so bottom transport of sediment is common. The
ferences in many regions of the ocean (van Sebille PS particles, being closer to the density of seawater,
et al. 2015). This illustrates the difficulty in providing showed features of both the PE and PET particle dis-
accurate predictions of the distribution and quanti- tributions.
ties of floating plastics. From this study, van Sebille
et al. (2015) estimated the total number of floating
microplastics (i.e. excluding macroplastics) to be 15 Future developments
– 51 trillion (1.5 – 5.1 x 1013) pieces, weighing 93 – Despite their current shortcomings, models can pro-
236 thousand tonnes. vide extremely useful insights and help to expose
knowledge gaps and focus future research needs.
They also provide a means of testing scenarios, such
as the likely outcome of implementing litter reduction
measures. But current models cannot supply, on their
own, a realistic estimate of the total current standing
A recent study estimated the total number
stock of plastic in the ocean, including plastic on the
of floating macro and microplastic pieces in
seabed. Allowing for additional sources will be rela-
the open ocean to be 5.25 trillion, weighing
tively easy to simulate, given sufficient input data, but
269 000 tonnes
issues of vertical transport and particle fragmentation
will be much more challenging.
(Eriksen et al. 2014)

37 http://www.ilvo.vlaanderen.be/micro/EN/Home/tabid/6572/Default.
aspx
38 http://oss.deltares.nl/web/delft3d

78
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.13

Figure 6.13 Model prediction of the distribution by global count

(pieces km-2, see colour scale bar) of particles/items for each of
four size classes: 0.33 – 1.00 mm, 1.01 – 4.75 mm, 4.75 – 200 mm, and
>200 mm (Eriksen et al. 2014)

Figure 6.14

Figure 6.14 Model prediction of the distribution by weight density (g kg-1, see colour scale bar) of particles/items
for each of four size classes: 0.33 – 1.00 mm, 1.01 – 4.75 mm, 4.75 – 200 mm, and >200 mm (Eriksen et al. 2014)

79
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.15

Model simulations (Delft-3D) of plastic particle transport in the southern North Sea and
the English Channel, for spherical 330 μm diameter particles with densities of 0.91 (PE), 1.05 (PS)
and 1.40 (PET), showing the mean concentration distribution in model layer 1 (surface waters) and
layer 12 (bottom waters), using particle inputs from rivers (Box 6.x). Conducted as part of the EU MICRO
project[1]. (images taken from van der Meulen et al. 2015, numerical modelling by Ghada El Serafy, Dana
Stuparu, Frank Kleissen, Dick Vethaak and Myra van der Meulen, Deltares)

SIDS and mid-ocean island hot spots gramme to remove ALDFG in Chapter 11. Samples
from isolated beaches in the outer Hawaiian Islands
Mid-ocean islands are generally characterised as contained around 1.2 kg of plastic fragments m-3
having low population densities and low levels of sediment (McDermid and McMullen 2004). This is
industrial development. This would suggest a low similar to patterns found on Easter Island, which
generation of waste compared with many mainland adjoins the higher concentrations found in the
centres although, in some cases, tourism does sub-tropical gyres in the southern Pacific (Hidalgo-
increase the generation of waste. Unfortunately, Ruz and Thiel 2013).
many mid-ocean islands, such as Easter Island and
Midway Atoll, receive a disproportionate burden of Some SIDS fall into the category of mid-ocean
plastic marine litter as a result of long distance trans- islands, others occur closer to continental margins
port by surface currents. The Hawaiian Islands lie on and may be subject to a greater range and quan-
the southern edge of the North Pacific sub-tropical tity of plastics, generated internally, transported from
gyre and are particularly susceptible to receiving nearby countries or resulting from maritime activities
floating debris. ALDFG is a particular problem in the such as fisheries or tourism. For example, SIDS in the
Northwestern Hawaii Islands (PapahƗnaumokuƗkea Caribbean are dependent on tourism for economic
Marine National Monument) (Figure 6.16). The development but bear a disproportionate burden in
impact of this is described in Chapter 7 and the pro- dealing with the waste from the cruise ship sector.

80
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Table 6.3

Countries served by the catchment River % input

UK Dee 1.1

Tay 4.2

Earn 0.7

Forth 1.9

Tweed 1.9

Tyne 1.7

Tees 1.2

Humber 8.3

Ouse 2.1

Yare 1.8

Thames 3.1

Stour 0.4

France Seine 10.4

France, Belgium, Netherlands Scheldt 3.2

Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Austria, Germany, France, Netherlands Rhine 33.9

Germany Weser 9.3

Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Germany Elbe 14.7

Total 100

Percentage river contributions of particles used in the Delft 3D model simu-

lation in the English Channel and North Sea

81
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.16a

Figure 6.16b

Plastic accumulation on mid-ocean islands in the North Pacific: a)Hawaiian monk seal
hauled out on derelict fishing gear on Lisianski Island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
(image: NOAA Marine Debris Program); b) Miscellaneous debris washed ashore on Laysan
Island in the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge in Papahanaumokuakea marine
national monument (image: Susan White, US Fish & Wildlife Service).

82
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Waste is an important and growing issue for many Water column

SIDS. This is due to a range of internal and exter-
nal influences. Most waste collected is disposed Very few measurements have been reported of plas-
of in sanitary landfill rather than being recycled tics in the water column beneath the top few meters
(UNEP 2012). But, in the absence of adequate of the surface ocean. There are two key factors
and disposal facilities, waste is often disposed involved: plastics will tend to float if buoyant and
of casually by burial, burning or discarding into sink if non-buoyant in seawater; capturing sinking
the surrounding land or sea, Population growth, particles in the water column is resource intensive
urbanisation, changing consumption patterns and so the number of observations is limited, and these
increasing numbers of tourists are all contributory are usually made in relation to carbon cycling. The
factors (UNEP 2014a). It has been argued that sinking rate will be determined by the relative density
a lack of appreciation of the need for a proper of the particle and its size and shape. Incorporation
waste management strategy is damaging the of plastic particles into faecal pellets may result in
environment and compromising the viability of more rapid sedimentation rates. However, the verti-
some communities, with the situation on some cal transport of particles is quite complex and may be
Pacific islands being described as ‘a waste dis- multi-stage, with faecal pellets being re-used as an
aster’ (Veoitayaki 2010). energy source by mid-water organisms.

Figure 6.17

Relative proportion of litter in six categories observed on the

seabed of the North-east Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea
(adapted and re-drawn from Pham et al. 2014).

83
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Seabed Deposition patterns will depend on many factors

including the size and density of the plastic objects and
Plastics and microplastics have been reported in particles, the water depth, the strength of surface and
marine sediments worldwide (Claessens et al. 2011; bottom currents, wave action, the seabed topography
Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2014 and 2015, Woodall and the variation in the sources. For example, in the
et al. 2015) but the first report in subtidal sediments shallow Lagoon of Venice, microplastics were found to
dates back to 2004 (Thompson et al. 2004). Deep accumulate where the currents were weakest (Vianello
sea sediments were demonstrated more recently to et al. 2013). Higher concentrations of microplastics
also accumulate microplastics (Van Cauwenberghe et have been found in coastal regions and adjacent to
al. 2014 and 2015, Woodall et al. 2015) with com- harbours (Claessens et al., 2011, Bajt et al., 2015).
position that appears different from surface waters
as fibres were found at up to four orders of magni-
tude more abundant in deep-sea sediments from the Hot spots related to fisheries and aquaculture
Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean
than in contaminated sea surface waters (Annex Case study – shellfish aquaculture in southern Korea
V; Woodall et al. 2015). Sediments are suggested EPS buoys are used extensively in southern Korea for
to be a long-term sink for microplastics (Cozar et the hanging culture of mussels and oysters. Buoys
al. 2014, Eriksen et al. 2014, Woodall et al. 2015). are used at a density of 500-1000 Ha-1. It is esti-
Macroplastics have been observed on the seabed at mated that approximately 1.8 million are discarded
many locations in the NE Atlantic and Mediterranean into the marine environment annually (Lee et al.
Sea (Pham et al. 2014). 2014). Each 62-litre EPS buoy can generate 7.6 mil-
lion micro-size EPS fragments of < 2.5 mm diameter,
Transport pathways near the deep sea floor will differ or 7.6 x 1021 nano particles of < 250 nm diameter.
from those at the surface, and generally will be weaker. Consequently, EPS buoys and fragments were found
Predicting the most likely areas for accumulation will to be the most common item, with EPS accounting
be more problematic. Submarine topographic features for > 10% of marine debris on 94 Korean beaches in
may also favour sedimentation and increase the reten- 2008 (Figure 6.18; Lee et al. 2014). A participatory
tion of macro and microplastics at particular locations process is underway to find solutions to this problem
such as canyons and deeps or smaller scale struc- (Chapter 9).
tures (holes, rocks, geological barriers, etc.). For larger
debris, the proximity of human activities is likely to be Large quantities of fishing–related debris occur on
more influential. For example, relatively high levels of the seabed in the same region of the South Sea of
fishing-related debris were found on ocean ridges and Korea (mean abundance 1 110 kg km-2), although
seamounts, reflecting more intensive fishing efforts in the highest quantities of debris are found in harbours
those areas (Figure 6.17; Pham et al. 2014). (Lee et al. 2006).

Figure 6.18a

84
 6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.18b

Figure 6.18c

Figure 6.18d

Large-scale mariculture for oysters in southern Korea,

using ropes hanging from EPS buoys: a) typical configu-
ration of buoys; b) beached EPS buoys following passage
of a typhoon; c) EPS fragments floating in coastal waters;
and d) EPS fragments on shoreline.
(images: Jong Ho, OSEAN)

85
6
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Case study – demersal fisheries in North Sea Biota

A significant quantity of marine plastic debris results Macro and microplastics have been found associ-
from maritime activities such as fisheries. In addition, ated with a wide variety of organism, from small zoo-
many plastics are denser than water so will sink to the plankton to the largest whales, from worms burying
seabed once any trapped air is released. Fishing gear in the seabed to seabirds feeding in the upper ocean
debris has been found to be widespread in areas such (GESAMP 2015, 2016). A comprehensive dataset
as the North-east Atlantic and Mediterranean (Pham of laboratory- and field-based observations of meso-
et al. 2014). Conducting seabed surveys is much and microplastic particles and fragments, in a wide
more resource intensive than sampling shorelines of variety of organisms, has been compiled by GESAMP
the ocean surface. However, in many regulated dem- (GESAMP 2016) is reproduced in Annex VI. The
ersal (bottom) fisheries there is a requirement to carry size of this reservoir of plastic particles is unknown.
out regular trawl surveys to assess the state of the In terms of the overall budget of marine plastics this
fish stocks. This provides an opportunity to record compartment is rather small. Of more immediate con-
the type and quantity of litter collected incidentally cern is the potential physical and chemical impact
as part of the survey (Figure 6.19). This practice is due to ingestion or entanglement and this is dis-
being encouraged as a cost-effective method for rou- cussed further in Chapter 7.
tine seabed monitoring on fishing grounds. Results
to date indicate a relatively high proportion of fisher-
ies-related litter.

Figure 6.19

Figure 6.19 Seabed distribution of marine debris in the greater North Sea collected during a
routine ground-fish survey by the Netherlands, for fisheries management purposes. Much of
the debris found in this region can be attributed to fisheries (IMARES).

86
7

87
 Figure 7.1c

7. IMPACTS

7.1

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Macroplastic debris and individual organisms

Entanglement
The impact of marine debris on individual animals
is most obvious when dealing with entanglement in
floating debris, very often but not exclusively related
to fishing gear (Table 7.1). This is a global problem
that affects all higher taxa to differing extents (Figures
7.1, 7.2). Incidents of entanglement have been widely
reported for a variety of marine mammals, reptiles,
birds and fish. In many cases this leads to acute and
chronic injury or death (Moore et al. 2006, Allen et al.
2012, Butterworth et al. 2012, Waluda and Staniland
2013, Thevenon et al. 2014). Up to 50% of hump- Figure 7.1b
back whales in US waters show scarring from entan-
glement (Robbins et al. 2007). It is estimated that
between 57 000 and 135 000 pinnipeds and baleen
whales globally are entangled each year, in addition
to the countless fish, seal, birds and turtles, affected
by entanglement in ingestion of marine plastic (Annex
VI; Butterworth at al 2012). Injury is both a welfare
issue and a cause of increased mortality, for example
in seals (Allen et al. 2012) and turtles (Nelms et al.
2015), and may be critical for the success of sev-
eral endangered species. A comprehensive review of
marine litter impacts on migratory species has been
published for the Secretariat of the Convention on
Migratory Species (CMS 2014a).

Examples of entanglement by fishing debris:

a) a entangled seal (John Vonderlin via Flickr);
b) a sea turtle entangled in a ghost net, (Doug Helton,
NOAA/NOS/ORR/ERD); c) northern gannets using fishing
net debris as nesting material in the North Sea – note
entangled corpses (Andreas Trete, www.photo-nature.de);
d) nurse shark (deceased) entangled in monofilament fish-
ing net and washed onto rocks, Jamaica (Aaron O’Dea).

88
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.1a

Figure 7.1d

89
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.1

Plasticized animals - Entangled

Number of species with documented records of entanglement in marine debris

Polar Marine
bear Dugongs Turtles Whales
and ducks Penguins Grebes
sea cows Divers 5 6 6 7
2
1
3
9
Pelicans, gannets
16 Eared seals
and boobies, 9
tropicbirds

24 20 13
Toothed whales Eared seals

89

Albatros and other 92

Procellariiformes

39

Gulls, skuas,
terns and auks Fish Invertebrates

Source: Kühn, S., et al., Deleterious Effects of Litter on Marine Life, in Bergmann, M., et al., Marine Anthropogenic Litter, Springer, 2015

Entanglement by species. Taken from Marine Litter Vital

Graphics (in preparation).

Table 7.1

Type of material Summer Winter Total

Packaging band 287 287 442

Synthetic line 149 112 261

Fishing net 128 52 180

Plastic bag/tape 31 32 63

Rubber band 16 5 21

Unknown 46 20 66

Total 657 376 1 033

Type of material entangling seals at Bird

Island, South Georgia 1989 – 2013

90
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Despite the growing evidence of effects on many spe-

cies at an individual level, it is difficult to quantify the
possible population-level effects; i.e. will the impact
of plastic debris be sufficient to cause a decline in
the population of a particular species through direct
injury and death, or by reducing their foraging and
reproductive success, for example. An approach
using expert elicitation has been used to estimate the
impacts of different types of plastic objects on wildlife
(Wilcox et al. 2016). This is a critical part of devising
appropriate and cost-effective mitigation measures
(Chapter 9) to target items that have the greatest
impact but may be more difficult to see (e.g. dere-
lict fishing pots/traps), rather than items that may be
more obvious but have a lower impact (e.g. drink bot-
tles). An internet-based survey was developed using
existing protocols devised by the WWF, IUCN and
Bird Life International, and the results are presented
in Table 7.2.
Photo: © CC BY Lucy Lambreix

91
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Table 7.2

Item Rank of expected impact

Mean Bird Turtle Mammal

Buoys/traps/pots 1 1 1 1

Monofilament line 2.3 3 2 2

Fishing nets 2.7 2 3 3

Plastic bags 5.7 4 9 4

Plastic utensils 5.7 7 4 6

Balloons 6.7 8 5 7

Cigarette butts 7.3 5 12 5

Caps 7.7 9 6 8

Food packaging 8.7 10 7 9

Other EPS packaging 9.7 11 8 10

Hard plastic containers 11.3 6 13 15

Plastic food lids 11.3 13 10 11

Straws/stirrers 12.3 14 11 12

‘Takeout’ containers 15.3 15 18 13

Cans 15.7 17 14 16

Beverage bottles 16 12 17 19

Unidentified plastic fragment 16.3 16 19 14

Cups & plates 16.7 18 15 17

Glass bottles 17.7 19 16 18

Paper bags 20 20 20 20

Rankings of marine debris items by expected impact on marine animals, based on most severe expected impact across
three impact mechanisms (adapted from Wilcox et al. 2016)

92
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Ingestion eastern Atlantic around the Azores (Barreiros and

Raykov 2014) and in the SW Indian Ocean around
Examples of ingestion have been widely reported for Reunion Island ( Hoarau et al. 2014). The physiol-
a variety of marine mammals, reptiles, birds and fish ogy of some species of turtles and toothed whales
(Figure 7.3). Evidence of ingestion often comes from makes it extremely difficult for the animal to eliminate
the dissection of beached carcasses, which repre- the material once ingested. Ingestion of debris has
sent an unknown proportion of the total number of been reported in 46 (56%) of cetacean species with
individuals affected. Turtles and toothed whales fre- rates as high as 31% in some species (Baulch &
quently are found to have large quantities of plastic Perry, 2014). The differing feeding habits of closely
sheeting and plastic bags in their gut compartments related species can influence their susceptibility.
(e.g. Campani et al. 2013, de Stephanis et al. 2013, For two species of dolphin off the coast of Brazil, far
Lazar & Gracan, 2011, CMS 2014a). Plastics have more specimens of the bottom-feeding Pontoporia
been found in the guts of Loggerhead turtles in the blainvelli contained plastic than the surface feeding
Adriatic Sea (Lazar and Gracan 2011) and west- Sotalia guianensis in the same area (Di Beneditto and
ern Mediterranean (Camedda et al. 2014), the Ramos 2014).

Figure 7.3

Plasticized animals - Ingestion

Number of species with documented records of marine debris ingestion

Dugongs Penguins
Marine and
Divers True seals
ducks 1 sea cows
5
3
16 3
Pelicans, gannets 4
40 and boobies, Invertebrates
tropicbirds Eared seals Turtles Whales
7
16 6
8 7

Toothed whales

84 92

55

Gulls, skuas, Albatros and other

terns and auks Procellariiformes Fish

Source: Kühn, S., et al., Deleterious Effects of Litter on Marine Life, in Bergmann, M., et al., Marine Anthropogenic Litter, Springer, 2015

Ingestion of plastics. Taken from Marine Litter Vital Graphics

(in preparation)

93
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.4

Seabirds appear to be particularly susceptible at mis-

taking plastics for their natural prey (CMS 2014a).
Most dead laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabi-
lis) chicks on Midway Atoll in the Pacific Ocean have
been found to contain plastics in their guts (Figure
7.4), with items such as disposal cigarette lighters,
toys and fishing gear39. The incidence of plastic frag-
ments in the guts of the northern fulmar (Fulmarus
glacialis) is so prevalent that this has been adopted
as a reliable indicator of plastic pollution in the
OSPAR region (Chapter 11.2, van Franeker 2010,
van Franker and Law 2015). Evidence has emerged
recently of the transfer of plastics from prey to preda-
tor, specifically from examination of regurgitated food
pellets from a colony of the seabird the great skua
(Stercorarius skua). Pellets containing the remains of
northern fulmars had the highest prevalence of plastic
(Hammer et al. 2016).

Population level impacts

While the impact of plastic debris on individuals of

many species is beyond doubt, it may be more dif-
ficult to assess the impact at a population level. A
review commissioned by the Scientific Technical and
Advisory Panel (STAP) of the GEF, in collaboration
with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD 2012), concluded that 663 species
had been reported as having been entangled in or
ingested plastic debris, an increase of 40% in the Plastic in the gut of a laysan albatros chick,
number of species since the previous global estimate Green Island, Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument in the Northwestern
(Laist 1997). Plastic debris was responsible for 88% Hawaiian Islands. (Photographer Claire Fackler
of recorded events; 15% of species affected were on NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries)
the IUCN Red List. Of particular concern were the
critically endangered Hawaiian monk seal Monachus
schauinslandi, endangered loggerhead turtle Caretta
caretta, vulnerable northern fur seal Callorhinus ursi-
nus and vulnerable white chinned petrel Procellaria Habitat damage
aequinoctialis. Two studies have suggested popula-
tion level effects for the northern fulmar Fulmarus gla- Coral reefs
cialis (van Franeker et al. 2011) and the commercially Coral reefs are very susceptible to damage from
important crustacean Nephrops norwegicus (Murray ALDFG. It is most obvious in shallow tropical reefs,
and Cowie 2011). but also occurs in cold water reefs located on many
continental margins (Figure 7.5; Hall-Spencer et al.
2009). The movement of nets and ropes under the
influence of winds or tidal currents can cause exten-
sive damage.

Mangroves
Studies have shown that marine litter will tend to
collect in mangrove forests, and that such habitats
39 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/mediatipsheet/Stories/201012_Ma-
may act as a partial sink for plastics (Ivar do Sul et
rineDebrisThreatGrows.html al. 2014).

94
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.5a

Figure 7.5b

Impacts of ALDFG on coral reefs: a) fishing net and rope, entangled with cold water coral reef (Lophelia
pertusa), 700m water depth NE Atlantic (image courtesy Jason Hall-Spencer, Univ. Plymouth); b) fishing nets
entangled in shallow warm water reef (image courtesy of NOAA)

95
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Impacts of ingested microplastics and insufficient data to detect such patterns. There is lim-
associated chemicals ited evidence that some organisms may selectively
egest plastic particles (Wright et al 2013) but it is
Physical effects not possible to quantify the extent of this process.
The type of plastic fragments that are ingested by There is some evidence of trophic transfer in the field;
biota will depend on the characteristics and behaviour i.e. a transfer of microplastics from prey to predator
of the organism as well as the range of particle types it (Eriksson and Burton 2003). The potential physical
is exposed to. Particles in the microplastic size range impacts of microplastics on marine organisms have
are common in the gut contents of dead seabirds, been subject to recent review (Wright et al. 2013,
such as the northern fulmar (F.glacialis, Figure 7.6), GESAMP 2015).
and there is evidence that this can be transferred to
predators, such as the great skuu (Stercorarius skuu) Ingested nano- and microplastics have been observed to
(Hammer et al. 2016). Filter-feeding sessile bivalves cause inflammatory and other responses in several types
close to population centres may be expected to of organism under laboratory conditions (Table 7.3).
ingest a higher proportion of synthetic clothing fibres
than those at more remote locations. As yet there is

Figure 7.6

Example of ingestion of microplastics: stomach contents of an individual northern fulmar

(F.glacialis) from Svalbard in the Arctic. Scale bar indicates 10 mm (Trevail et al. 2015)

Table 7.3

Particle type Size range Species and transfer route Evidence of effect Reference

HDPE >0–80 μm Incorporation into epithelial cells Histological changes Von Moos
lining the gut of M. edulis et al 2012

PS 2.0, 3.0 & 9.6 Translocation across Transfer of particles Brown

μm the gut wall of M. edulis from gut to circulatory et al 2008
system (haemolymph)

PS 24-28 nm Carassius carassius (Crucian Behavioural change, Cedervall

particles carp), ingestion via zooplankton change in lipid metab- et al. 2012
olism

Particle uptake and internal transfer in marine organisms under

laboratory conditions.

96
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

The ability of nano-sized material to cross cell mem- Rafting

branes is quite well established. But there is a lack of
information about the occurrence of plastic particles The transport of organisms attached to floating natu-
in this size range in the environment. ral materials, such as wood, macro-algae and pumice,
is well reported and is commonly referred to as raft-
Associated chemicals ing. Floating plastics have provided an additional sub-
Plastic debris may contain a combination of additive strate. However, floating plastics have much greater
chemicals, present since manufacture, and POPs longevity than most natural materials and so the
and PBTs absorbed from the surrounding seawa- range over which rafting now occurs has been greatly
ter (Rochman et al. 2013). This may raise concerns extended. This has the potential to alter the distribu-
about the potential impact of such chemicals when tions of marine organisms (Goldstein et al. 2012).
particles are ingested, either to individual organisms
or to larger populations. However, it is important to Macro and microplastic debris hosts a diverse assem-
note that many organisms already contain organics blage of species, some distinct from surrounding
contaminants as a consequence of the widespread seawater (Zettler et al. 2013), through the creation
distribution of POPs in the ocean seawater and of novel habitat which may drift long distances and
sediments, through normal foodchain interactions pose an ecological impact via transport of non-native
(Teuten et al. 2009, Rainbow 2007; Vallack et al. species (Barnes et al. 2005, ref NOAA Japanese tsu-
1998). There is convincing evidence that the health nami). The availability of microplastics for settlement
and breeding success of some populations of orcas, has become an important issue, offering opportuni-
dolphins and porpoises are negatively impacted by ties for settlement in areas where natural sources of
loadings of ‘legacy’ pollutants such as PCBs (Jepson flotsam are uncommon.
et al. 2016, Murphy et al. 2015). The key question
is whether ingested plastic particles will add signifi- Many species of marine organisms are known to
cantly to the existing contaminant load. attach to marine plastics (Barnes 2002; Barnes and
Milner 2005; Astudillo et al. 2009; Gregory 2009;
In general, it is very difficult to ascribe the proportion Goldstein et al. 2014) and there is some evidence
of a contaminant found in the tissue of an organism that microplastics translocate non-indigenous spe-
with the route of entry, in most cases. The most con- cies. Although many of these reports refer to plastic
vincing field-based evidence that transfer of con- pieces larger than 5 mm, they include species that
taminants from plastic particles to the organism can could easily be transported by microplastic.
occur comes from studies of the distribution of cer-
tain PBDE flame retardants, present in relatively high In the smaller size range, microplastic in seawa-
concentrations in some types of plastic. Evidence for ter quickly develops a slimy biofilm that includes a
this transfer mechanism is provided by a study of the diverse community of microbes (Figure 7.7). This
short-tailed shearwater (Puffinus tenuirstris) sampled biofilm is a miniature ecosystem that includes primary
in the northern North Pacific (Tanaka et al. 2013) and producers, consumers, predators, and decompos-
species of lanternfish (myctophids) (Rochman et al. ers and has been described as a “complex, highly
2014). However, there is no field-based evidence differentiated, multicultural community” analogous
that the transfer has caused any negative impacts at to “a city of microbes” (Watnick and Colter 2000).
an individual level. The microbial biofilm encourages the attachment of
larger organisms that use chemical and/or physical
Laboratory-based studies have indicated that fish fed characteristics as a cue to settle (Zardus et al. 2008;
a diet that included plastic particles contaminated Hadfield et al. 2014).
with PAHs, PCBs and PBDEs (following exposure
to ambient concentrations in San Diego Bay, USA) Microplastics may also allow the dispersal of path-
did suffer liver toxicity and pathology (Rochman et al. ogens that can pose threats to humans and marine
2013). This demonstrates a causal relationship but animals (Snoussi et al. 2008). For example, Zettler et
it is still not clear whether similar effects occur in a al. (2013) demonstrated that species of the bacteria
natural setting, where exposure to plastic particles Vibrio are commonly attached to microplastics. Vibrio
is likely to be lower. Clearly this is an area requiring sp. infections can cause serious gastrointestinal dis-
more attention. orders and septicaemia via open wounds in humans
(Baker-Austin et al. 2013).

97
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.7 Figure 7.8a

Figure 7.8b

Scanning Electron Micrograph of the surface of a

piece of microplastic from the Atlantic Ocean. Cracked
surface showing biofilm of attached microbes including
heterotrophic bacteria (smallest rods), photosynthetic
diatoms (ellipses), and a predatory suctorian cilate
(centre with “tentacles”) (taken from GESAMP 2016;
image courtesy of E. Zettler/SEA)

Duarte et al. (2012) pointed out that the increase in

human structures in the ocean may be contributing to
the increase in jellyfish blooms. Calder et al. (2014) Figure 7.8c
identified 14 species of hydroids on debris from the
March 2011 Japanese tsunami that washed ashore
on the west coast of the United States. At least five
of these had not previously been reported from that
coast. The proliferation of microplastic particles pro-
vides substrate for attachment and development of
jellyfish hydroid life stages. Because pelagic surface
waters are typically substrate limited, microplastic
represents another factor that could be contributing
to jellyfish blooms.

DNA sequences extracted from microplastic in the

Atlantic had hits for a number of jellies that have both
medusa and attached polyp stages (GESAMP 2016).
The proliferation of the giant jellyfish Nemopilema Life stages of the giant jellyfish Nemophiliema nomurae,
nomurai in the waters around the Korean peninsula a) planula, b) polyps and c) medusa (images courtesy of
has been attributed, in part, to the increase in float- Shin-ichi Uye, Univ. Hiroshima)

ing plastic debris (Figure 7.8). Experimental data

suggest preferential attachment of planulae to PE
sheets compared with a range of natural substrates
(personal communication, Shin-ichi Uye, Univ. of
Hiroshima). The increase in outbursts of this species
has caused considerable social and economic losses
to the fisheries.

98
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

7.2 Microplastics in commercial fish

IMPACT ON FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE Field studies have demonstrated microplastic inges-
tion by many commercial fish species, both pelagic
Macroplastics and benthic (bottom dwelling); for example, from the
English Channel (Lusher et al. 2013), the North Sea
The most important impact of macroplastic debris on (Foekema et al. 2013) the Indian Ocean (Kripa at al.
fisheries is from ghost fishing from ALDFG. Ghost 2014) and the North Eastern Atlantic (Neves et al.
fishing is so called because the abandoned nets and 2015). However, the quantities observed in fish guts
traps continue to catch fish and shellfish, causing sig- are generally very low, in the range < 1- 2 particles
nificant levels of mortality to commercial stocks which, individual-1. A comprehensive compilation of results
in many cases are already under pressure. There have for commercial fish and shellfish species is provided
been several studies of the impact of ADLFG, most in Annex VI. Information is also available for non-com-
of which have identified gill nets and trammel nets as mercial species (e.g. Boerger et al. 2010; Jantz et al.
most problematic in terms of quantity lost and ghost 2013) many of which may constitute as prey for larger
fishing capacity. Trammel nets are made up of two or fish. Similar findings from the Mediterranean Sea
three layers of netting with a finer mesh sandwiched (Avio et al. 2015), the Arabian Sea (Sulochanan et
between two wider meshes. They are often fixed with al. 2014) and the south Atlantic (Dantas et al. 2012)
floats and ground weights, and are very effective at confirm the perception that fish are globally exposed
trapping fish, and so tend to be rather non-selective to and ingest plastic particles.
with higher levels of bycatch. For these reasons they
are especially damaging as ALDFG. Gill nets and
trammel nets are used worldwide by coastal, artisanal
and small-scale fisheries, and account for about a
fifth of global fish landings. Pots and certain types of Microplastics have been found in many
long-line fisheries also pose a threat to marine biodi- commercial fish species but
versity when gear becomes lost or abandoned. concentrations are generally very low
(<1 – 2 particles per individual)

Some studies have attempted to quantify the loss of

the target species due to ghost fishing. For example,
it has been estimated that there is an annual loss of
208 tonnes of Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus maw-
soni) due to lost longlines (Webber and Parker 2012).
An intense programme to remove derelict crab pots Although it is clear microplastics are ingested by
in Chesapeake Bay on the east coast of the USA, many species of commercial fish, we know little
is thought to have increased landings of blue crab about the impact of their consumption. Microplastics
by 27% (13 504 tonne). Applying these results to all may be egested along with faecal material, retained
major crustacean fishes it is estimated that removing within the digestive tract, or translocate between tis-
9% of derelict pots and traps would increase global sues (this is more likely for nano-sized plastics). The
landings by 293 929 tonnes (Scheld et al. 2016), retention and possible translocation of microplastics
with a significant increase in revenue (Table. might raise some concern about the possible trans-
fer of chemicals associated with microplastics into
organisms’ tissues, if microplastics were ingested
in sufficient number and retained for long enough
for transfer across the gut to take place. Currently
there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential
for transfer of these contaminants to the fish flesh,
and hence be made available to predators, including
humans. At present we can only extrapolate results
from laboratory feeding studies using non-commer-
cial fish species looking at contaminant transfer and
endpoints, such as accumulation in the tissues and
altered predatory behaviour. Generally, there is a
mismatch between the quantities of microplastics

99
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

specimens are exposed to in laboratory experiments Van Cauwenberge and Jansen 2014; Rochman et al.,
with the much lower levels encountered in nature. 2015; Vandermerrsch et al. 2015) (Annex VI).

Mesopelagic fish are an important component of Microplastics identified in shellfish range in size from
the oceanic ecosystem (Gjosaeter and Kawaguchi, 5 μm - 5 mm and are composed of fragments, pellets
1980). They have recently been identified as potential and fibres. For example, in eight out of nine species
target species for fishmeal. Their high lipid content of shellfish sampled from an Asian fish market, fibres
would benefit the growing demand from aquaculture constituted more than 52% of items per species, with
for fish protein and oil (FAO, 2010). With a global the exception of A. plicata where pellets were most
biomass estimated between 600 to > 1,000 million abundant, 60% (Li et al., 2015). In a European study
tonnes (Gjosaeter and Kawaguchi, 1980; Irigoien et of M. edulis synthetic fibres were also the dominant
al. 2014), this fisheries resource is still underutilised. microplastic and range from 200μm up to 1500μm
Davison and Asch (2011) estimated that mesope- size (De Witte et al. 2014).
lagic fish in the North Pacific ingest 12 000 – 24
000 tonnes-1. Such estimates are of interest but have Both wild and cultured Mytilus edulis have been found
to be treated with some caution, given the rather to ingest microplastics, under natural conditions, at
small sample size involved in the Davison and Asch typical concentrations of 0 - 34 particles g-1 (wet
study (141 individual fish representing 27 species). weight) (Li et al. 2015, Vandermeersch et al. 2015,
It is possible that the presence of microplastics in De Witte et al. 2014, Van Cauwenberghe and Jansen
the mesopelagic fish community (Davison and Asch 2014, Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015). In contrast,
2011, Lusher et al, 2015) could have consequences average concentration of micro-fibres in farmed
for the mesopelagic ecosystem, as well as fisheries and wild M. edulis from Nova Scotia, Canada were
and aquaculture. However, there is little evidence significantly higher (average 178 fibres per farmed
that this is realistic at present. This is another area of mussel compared to 126 microfibres per wild mussel;
research that warrants further attention, especially as Mathalon and Hill 2014). In Belgium microplastics
the numbers of microplastics in the ocean will con- were observed in mussels collected at department
tinue to increase for the foreseeable future. stores (mussels ready for human consumption) and
in open sea and sheltered points along the Belgian
coastline (Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen 2014).
Microplastics in commercial bivalves and The brown mussel Perna perna is another shellfish
molluscs with commercial value susceptible to microplastic
contamination. In one study, 75% of brown mussels
Microplastic ingestion from Santos Estuary, a highly urbanized area on the
Microplastics have been observed in many commer- Southeast coast of Brazil (São Paulo state), con-
cial species, including mussels, clams, oysters and tained microplastics (Santana et al. submitted).
scallops. Many bivalves and molluscs are filter feed-
ers, typically inhabiting shallow water coastal areas, Potential impacts
and are likely to be exposed to higher concentrations As with finfish, there is little information regarding
of microplastics than non-sessile or more mobile the effects of microplastics on shellfish, but it is likely
organisms. Research approaches have included to vary as a function of species and particle types
laboratory exposure, ingestion by wild and cultured and exposure. For example, the transfer of contam-
organisms, and the presence of microplastics in inants in plastic particles has been demonstrated
organisms sold in retail stores from Europe, North for the mussel M. galloprovincialis under laboratory
America and Asia (De Witte et al. 2014; Li et al. 2015; conditions. The mussel can ingest and assimilate pol-
yethylene and polystyrene particles, which when con-
taminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons can
transfer this pollutant to mussels after being ingested
(Avio et al. 2015). Cellular effects associated with
Microplastics have been found in many such intake included alterations of immunological
commercial shellfish species, mostly < 1 responses, neurotoxic effects and the onset of gen-
particle but up to 75 particles an individual-1 otoxicity.
for some species, depending on location.
Ingestion impacts have also been observed for P.
perna. Under laboratory conditions, this species
retained particles of PVC in the gut and within the

100
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

haemolymph for 12 days after a single exposure pled C. crangon had, on average, 1.03 fibres g-1 w.w.
(Santana et al. in prep), and had signs of stress due but the large inter-individual variation of microplastic
to the ingestion of PVC and PE microparticles. Brown contamination among sampling points indicates the
mussels expressed stress proteins, had signs of lipid need of larger sampling efforts (Devriese et al. 2015).
peroxidation and DNA damage; and effects on lyso- The amount of microplastics ingested by C. crangon
somal integrity (Santana et al. submitted; Ascer et al. varied temporally, possibly due to seasonal fluctu-
in prep.). In oyster, preliminary work on the exposure ations on the occurrence of plastic (Devriese et al.
of the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) to microplastics 2015). The authors also investigated the relationship
indicated effects on reproduction (Sussarellu et al. between the condition of the shrimp and the level of
2014). contamination of microplastics within an individual.
However, no relationship was found, indicating that
These reactions to exposure to microplastics have microplastic contamination does not affect the nutri-
been made in experimental set-ups, in which concen- tional condition of the shrimp C. Crangon (Devriese
trations of microplastics may be much greater than et al. 2015).
might be experienced under more natural conditions.
Echinoderms
Information on this group is only available from labo-
Microplastics in commercial crustacea and echi- ratory experiments. Sea urchins, Tripneustes gratilla,
noderms exposed under laboratory conditions to microplastics
in various concentrations (1-300 particles per ml, with
Crustacea an exposure duration of 1- 9 days) ingested but also
Commercially important crustaceans are also known egested particles (Kaposi et al. 2014). The impact
to ingest microplastics. Green crabs (Carcinus of ingestion was not investigated. However, earlier
maenas) were observed to ingest microplastics under research on sea cucumbers found that Holothuria
control conditions (Farrell and Nelson, 2013; Watts sp. selectively ingested particles in preference to
et al. 2014). Such intake was observed through con- food items (Graham and Thompson 2009). The com-
taminated food (mussels artificially contaminated with mercial market targets the body of the organism and
microplastics), thereby suggesting the possibility removes their gut. If microplastics are translocating
of microplastic trophic transfer. Farrell and Nelson from the gut to the tissue of the organisms there
(2013) identified the plastics assimilation and persis- could be concerns relating to bioaccumulation in the
tence within the crabs over 21 days. Microplastics food chain. However, the data available suggests that
were also found in the stomach, hepatopancreas, microplastics are removed along with faecal material.
ovary and gills of the crabs (Farrell and Nelson,
2013). Watts et al. (2014) did not record microplas-
tics assimilation but identified the ventilation of gills 7.3
as another uptake pathway of microplastics for crabs.
Lobsters (Nephrops norvegicus), sampled from the SOCIAL IMPACTS
Clyde Sea (Scottish coast), also had microplastics
in their stomachs (Murray and Cowie, 2011). About Human health and food safety
83% of the individuals examined had ingested plas-
tics that ranged in volume and size, but were mainly Health impacts associated with poorly regulated
composed of monofilaments (Murray and Cowie, waste management
2011). There are several human health concerns associated
with poorly managed waste collection and treatment.
Natural populations of brown shrimp (Crangon cran- Higher levels of plastic-related compounds, includ-
gon), sampled across the Channel area and Southern ing flame retardants, have been observed in people
part of the North Sea (between France, Belgium, the involved in, or living adjacent to, informal and poorly
Netherlands and the UK), were also contaminated managed plastics recycling facilities, especially in
with microplastics (Devriese et al. 2015). The major- the informal electronic and electrical waste recycling
ity of the microplastic was synthetic fibres (96.5%, sector (Lee et al. 2015, Tang et al. 2014, Siniku et al.
ranging from 200μm up to 1000μm size), which 2015). Littering can block wastewater drains, leading
was ingested by 63% of the individuals assessed to sewage contamination of communities and areas
(Devriese et al. 2015). Shrimp from different loca- of stagnant water. Plastic debris left lying outside
tions did not have a significant difference between can prove to be a very effective, if unwelcome, way
the plastic content (Devriese et al. 2015). The sam- of collecting rainwater, thereby becoming a vector for

101
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Box 7.1

PLASTIC LITTER AND THE SPREAD OF DISEASE – AEDES AEGYPTI AND

ZIKA VIRUS

The mosquito Aedes aegypti is one of several species of mosquito that breeds opportunistically
in stagnant water, and can carry human disease. A. aegypti has been implicated in the spread of
dengue fever, chikungkuya virus and, most recently Zika virus. A Zika virus outbreak in 2007 in
west Africa has since spread rapidly throughout the tropics and sub-tropics, mostly recently into
the Americas. It is strongly linked to the incidence of microcephaly in newborn babies by trans-
mission across the placenta in the womb and neurological conditions in infected adults. A. aegypti
appears to thrive in artificial habits created by discarded tyres, cans, plastic containers and other
temporary reservoirs, and advice has been issued to minimise these potential breeding sites*. The
rapid spread of Zika in South America and the Caribbean in 2015 and 2016 may have been exacer-
bated by a lack of effective waste collection and management. The American Administration asked
Congress, on 6 Feb 2016, for more than US$ 1.8 billion in emergency funding for use both domesti-
cally and internationally.

*http://www.rachelcarsoncouncil.org

Microplastics and seafood safety range between about 11 000 (Van Cauwenberghe et
For the present purposes, ‘seafood’ includes: fin- al. 2014) and 100 000 MPs a-1 (GESAMP 2015).
fishes, crustaceans, molluscs, amphibians, freshwa-
ter turtles and other aquatic animals (such as sea Although it is evident that humans are exposed to
cucumbers, sea urchins, sea squirts and edible jelly- microplastics through their diet (Table 7.4), and the
fish) produced for the intended use as food for human presence of microplastics in seafood could pose
consumption (FAO 2014). It is evident that humans a threat to food safety (Van Cauwenberghe and
are exposed to micro and nano-plastics through the Janssen 2014, Bouwmeester et al. 2015), our under-
consumption of marine food stuffs, such as shellfish, standing of the fate and toxicity of microplastics in
shrimp, small fish species such as sprat and poten- humans constitutes a major knowledge gap.
tially other species such as sea urchins, tunicates
and sea cucumbers, that are consumed as whole-
animal foods including the gastrointestinal tract. Chemical exposure and seafood safety
Consumption of filter feeding invertebrates, such as Before considering the potential human health
mussels or oysters, appears the most likely route of aspects of chemical contaminants associated with
human exposure to microplastics, but a wide variety marine plastic debris, it is important to note that there
of commercial species appear to be contaminated are well-recognised links between the concentration
with microplastics. One study has attempted to esti- of plastic-related chemicals in humans and exposure
mate potential dietary exposure based on observed during plastic production, use and disposal. Many of
microplastic concentrations in seafood and assumed the additives used in plastics intended for durable
consumption rates. This study estimated dietary applications in the construction, automotive and elec-
exposure for high mussel consumers in Belgium to tronics sectors have toxic and ecotoxicology effects

102
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Table 7.4

Species number kg-1 Reference

(wet weight)
or l-1 product

Blue mussel 260 –13 200 Van Cauwenberghe and Jansen 2014
(North Sea) de Witte et al. 2014
Leslie et al. 2013

Brown shrimp (North Sea) 680 De Vries et al. 2015

Honey (various branches) 0.09 –0.29 Lieberzeit and Lieberzeit. 2013

Beer (Germany) 2–79 fibres Lieberzeit and Lieberzeit. 2014

12–109 fragments
2–66 granules

Table salts (China): Yang et al. 2015

Sea salts 550–681
Lake salts 43–364
Rock/well salts 7–204

Examples of microplastic concentration in foodstuffs* (taken from GESAMP 2016)

*Note different methods have been used in each of these studies which may have affected the detection limits

(Hansen et al. 2013). Particular concern is directed correlates with body burdens, especially in children
at compounds that can interfere with neurological (Wu et al.2007).
development and the endocrine system (Table 7.5).
This is quite different for plastics used for food pack- Evidence that chemicals associated with plastics may
aging and water supply, where regulatory frameworks cause harmful effects in the human population has
are in place to control exposure to potentially harmful been contested (e.g. Weiss 2006) or deemed insuf-
chemicals. ficient to warrant further regulation (Hubinger and
Havery 2006). Reported research findings may show
Endocrine disrupting chemicals are of particular con- apparent bias, depending on the source of funding for
cern for a number of reasons: they can affect the the study, as has been suggested for industry-funded
unborn foetus, children at early developmental stages research on BPA (EEA 2013). However, it has been
and adolescents, as well as the general population. argued that guidelines based on more traditional tox-
The effects may be of great significance to the indi- icity testing, using exposure to relatively high con-
vidual but may be difficult to detect on the wider taminant concentrations of a single substance, are
population without extensive epidemiological studies not appropriate to pick up more subtle changes that
(Weiss 2006, EEA 2013, North and Halden 2014). can affect a large proportion of the population, with
Endocrine disruption has been demonstrated for mixtures of plastic-related compounds (Talsness et
some of the chemicals most widely used in the plas- al. 2009); this includes the association between the
tics industry (e.g. BPA, phthalates, brominated flame levels of certain plasticisers and organic chemicals
retardants; Talsness et al. 2009) and for many organic and the widespread increase in metabolic syndrome
contaminants that are readily absorbed by plastics (obesity, type-2 diabetes, hypertension; OECD,
(e.g. PAHs, PCBs). Clearly this may have implications 2012).
for human health if plastics containing these chemi-
cals are introduced into the body, either deliberately Chemicals inherent in microplastics or chemicals
for medical purposes or accidentally as a result of sorbed and transported by microplastics may contribute
ingestion or inhalation (OECD 2012). Exposure to to human health impacts. The toxicity of some of their
flame retardants, such as PBDEs, in household dust components to humans, especially plasticizers and

103
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Table 7.5
water-borne diseases and providing a multitude of
Additive/
breeding Function(Box 7.1).
sites for mosquitoes Potential effect Evidence from Evidence
Monomer non-human studies from human
studies

Monomer

BPA A monomer used in Reproductive and Evidence from animal Minimal impact
the manufacture of developmental impair- models – EFSA 2015 from food
polycarbonates and ment, kidney and liver consumption
epoxy resins function impairment – WHO 2009,
FDA 2014,
EFSA 2015
Suggested
effects – EEA
2013, North
and Halden
2010

Additives

phthalates Improve flexibility and Impairment of repro- Impairment of repro- Testicular

durability ductive function ductive function – development -
animal models - Swan Sharpe 2011
2008

DBP Anti-cracking agent in See phthalates

dibutyl phthalate nail varnish

DEP Skin softeners, colour See phthalates Minimal risk

diethyl phthalate and fragrance fixers in when used in
cosmetics fragrances –
EU 2007

DEHP Plasticizer in PVC Metabolic syndrome Exposure from

di-(2-ethylhexyl) See phthalates medical uses
phthalate and multiple
sources – North
and Halden
2013

nonylphenol Stabilizer in PP, PS Endrocrine disruptor Feminisation of aquatic Endocrine dis-

organisms – Soares et ruption, effects
al. 2008 on metabolism
– Sonnensche
in and Soto
1998

PBDEs Flame retardant Endrocrine disruptor Transfer to seabirds – Inhalation of

Polybrominated Takada et al 2013 house dust and
diphenyl ethers Transfer to fish – air – Wu et al.
(penta, octa & Rochman et al 2013 2007
deca forms)

Transfer from
consumer
products –
Hubinger 2010

Examples of microplastic concentration in foodstuffs* (taken from GESAMP 2016)

*Note different methods have been used in each of these studies which may have affected the detection limits

104
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

additives (Flint et al. 2012; Oehlmann et al. 2009), It is possible that nano-plastics pose a greater
and the possible leaching of toxic chemicals, may be chemical risk than microplastics due to their larger
considered as a potential human health hazard. But, surface-volume ratio: sorption of polychlorinated
on the basis of the available evidence, it appears that biphenyl (PCBs) to nano-polystyrene was shown
absorbed persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and to be 1–2 orders of magnitude greater than to
leachable additives of dietary exposure to microplas- micro-polyethylene (Velzeboer et al. 2014). Due to
tics will have a relatively minor impact on contaminant the absence of knowledge on nano-plastic exposure
exposure (Bouwmeester et al. 2015). However, this to humans, their potential chemical risk, especially
conclusion is mostly based on larger-sized micro- after translocation into tissues and cells remains a
plastics, and there is a large knowledge gap on the ‘black box’. It is possible that these internalized and/
possible effects of nano-sized plastics. or encapsulated particles would deliver plastic-as-
sociated POPs and additive chemicals to different
tissue types and locations than those resulting from
uptake from food and water. This so-called ‘Trojan
horse’ vector effect could pose an as yet unquantified
From the limited information available on risk, especially for very small plastic particles that can
the occurrence of microplastics in seafood, cross membranes.
the uptake of plastic-associated chemicals
in humans due to inadvertent ingestion of Microplastics as a vector for pathogens
microplastics in seafood appears likely to be As described above, plastic particles may also har-
no more significant than other human expo- bour pathogenic microorganisms (bacteria, viruses),
sure pathways of these chemicals. However which could be potentially harmful to fisheries, aqua-
significant knowledge gaps and uncertainties culture and human health.
remain, particularly for nano-sized material,
and this may justify a more precautionary Risk from injury or death
approach. Floating plastic macro-debris represents a naviga-
tion hazard. It can lead to injury or death following
loss of power, due to entangled propellers or blocked
water intakes; and, collision with floating or semi-sub-
merged objects, including (plastic) insulated ship-
ping containers (Frey and De Vogelaere 2014). For
Nano-plastics and seafood safety example, in 2005, the USA coastguard reported that
The commonly used analytical techniques introduce collisions with submerged objects caused 269 boat-
a bias in the state of our knowledge, since they are ing incidents, resulting in 15 deaths and 116 injuries
only able to detect plastic particles well above the (USCG 2005). In South Korea, 9% of all Korean ship-
nano-size range (Bouwmeester et al. 2015; ping accidents involved marine debris from 1996-
GESAMP 2016). It is plausible that these smaller 1998. In the worse case a ferry capsized after both
particles pose a greater risk than the larger particles propeller shafts and the starboard propeller became
(> 1 micrometer) due to their smaller size, higher entangled with derelict fishing rope, resulting in 292
surface to volume ratio and associated increased deaths (Cho 2005).
chemical reactivity of the nano-sized group. Particles
at the smaller end of the size spectrum (nano scales) Injury or death to people can occur due to entangle-
have been shown to cross membranes into cells, in ment when swimming and diving. This represents a
controlled laboratory experiments. Experimental evi- higher risk when associated with the rescue of entan-
dence with rodents shows that microplastics > 1 gled live animals such as whales, seals and turtles,
micrometer may reach the blood circulation via justifying the need for a specialist and professional
lymph, but cannot penetrate deeply into organs response (Chapter 9).
(Bouwmeester et al. 2015; GESAMP 2016). They
might cause local effects on the gut epithelium, the
immune system, inflammation, encapsulation (fibro- Loss of income
sis) and cell damage (Bouwmeester et al. 2015;
GESAMP 2016). Unlike microplastics, nanoplastics Loss of income is considered as a social cost, in this
may reach and penetrate all organs, including pla- analysis, as it directly affects individuals and commu-
centa and brain (Bouwmeester et al. 2015; see also nities. In the fisheries sector the presence of plastic
GESAMP, 2015). with the catch may contaminate or damage the fish,

105
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

lowering its value, and more time may be required Loss of intrinsic value and the moral dimension
to clean and repair nets. If consumers perceive that
seafood contains microplastics there is the potential The loss of intrinsic value encompasses our response
that their interpretation of the relative risks involved to being aware of a degradation of the environ-
may result in behaviour change (i.e. reduction in sea- ment, whether this is litter on a deserted shoreline
food consumption), whatever ‘experts’ or responsible or images of injured or dead iconic species, such
authorities may say. There are precedents for this, as turtles, birds and marine mammals. It is very dif-
particularly in the field of radioactive contamination of ficult to quantify the impact reliably, except in the
seafood from routine discharges and after major acci- case where a change in behaviour apparently linked
dents. Clearly this would result in a loss of income for to the degree of degradation be observed, as in the
the seafood industry, and a loss of safe nutritious pro- tourism examples above. It can be surmised that the
tein for the consumers. This emphasises the need for closer the relationship individuals feel to the example
improved education and communication in the field of litter-induced degradation then the greater will be
of risk assessment and risk perception (Chapter 10). the sense of loss. This may undermine some of the
benefits associated with coastal and marine environ-
The tourism sector is both significantly affected by ments (e.g. improved physical health, reduced stress
marine litter and a major contributor to the problem. and improved concentration, GESAMP 2016, UNEP
The presence of marine litter can discourage visi- 2016c). Attempts have been made to develop meth-
tors from going to certain beaches, thus reducing odologies for quantifying non-use values (e.g. UNEP
visitor numbers, which in turn leads to lost revenues 2011), but such analyses are often hindered by the
and jobs in the tourism industry (see UNEP 2014a). lack of relevant and reliable data. Different forms of
These impacts can be quite significant in certain contingent valuation may be used (e.g. stated pref-
cases, particularly where local economies are heavily erence, willingness to pay), based on a rather limited
dependent on tourism. For example, in Geoje Island number of studies, which are then applied glob-
(South Korea) the presence of marine litter on the ally, to dissimilar social and economic settings, not
beaches following a period of heavy rainfall is esti- taking into account local attitudes and values (UNEP
mated to have led to between USD 27.7 and 35.1 2014b). Therefore, such figures as do exist should be
million (KRW 29 217–36 984 million) of lost revenue treated with some caution if taken out of context. But
in 2011 as a result of over 500 000 fewer visitors. such analyses do serve to illustrate the likely extent of
The presence of beach litter on the Skagerrak coast external costs (Figure 7.9)
of Bohuslan (Sweden) has been estimated to lead
to an annual loss of approximately USD 22.5 million
(GBP 15 million) and 150 person-years of work to
the local community from reduced tourist numbers.
Photo: © Sustainable Coastlines

106
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.9

Impacts related to plastic pollution in

the oceans cost $8 bn per year
Natural capital cost of marine plastic pollution by consumer
product sector

. ir.
J

< > < >

i
< >
i i i
< >
< >
i i

14 Automobiles

15 Consumer electronics
44 Furniture
Medical and pharma- 65
ceutical products
86 Athletic goods
Durable household goods 94 Tobacco
166
Restaurants Toys
214
Clothing and
282
333 accessories
Footwear
334
Personal
345 products
Retail 734
Non-durable
902 household goods

Food

Soft drinks
and ice
3 135
1 370 Million dollars

Source: UNEP, Valuing Plastic, 2014

Estimates economic impact related to plastic pollution in the ocean

(taken from Marine Litter Vital Graphics in preparation

107
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

It can be argued that there is an important moral dimen- Fisheries and aquaculture
sion to the debate about the presence of litter in the
ocean and the need to introduce measures to reduce Direct impacts
inputs and mitigate the effects of litter already pres- The impact of marine litter on the fishery sector
ent. This means society may decide that we should includes damage to fishing vessels and equipment
prevent litter from entering the ocean because it does and contamination of the catch with plastic debris.
not belong there, irrespective of whether there is an The direct impact is mostly due to floating plastic
economic argument for doing so or that major impacts debris affecting engine cooling systems and becom-
from plastics or microplastics cannot be proven. ing entangled in propellers (McIlgorm et al. 2011,
Takehama 1990, Cho 2005). Information on the
related costs is not systematically collected by marine
authorities, and it can only be estimated. Takehama
(1990) estimated the costs of marine litter to fish-
There is an important moral dimension to ing vessels based on insurance statistics at US$
the debate about whether, and how, society 40 million (Y4.4 billion) in 1985, i.e. about 0.3% of
tackles pollution from marine plastics and total annual fishery revenue in Japan. The total cost of
microplastics. marine litter to the EU fishing fleet has been estimated
to be nearly US$ 65.7 million a-1 (€61.7 million a-1),
representing 0.9% of the total revenues (Annex VII;
Mouat et al. 2010, Arcadis 2014).

Indirect impacts
Under this philosophical outlook an unpolluted ocean Indirect impacts include loss of target species due to
is considered to have a value in and of itself. This can ghost fishing from ALDFG, although the total losses
be expanded to include other forms of non-use values, are unknown. Gilardi et al. (2010) investigated the
which can be defined as: i) altruistic value - knowl- Dungeness Crab fishery in Puget Sound and esti-
edge of the use of resources by others; ii) existence mated that targeted removal of derelict gill nets
value - knowledge of the existence of the resource; yielded a cost-benefit ration (cost of removal versus
and, iii) bequest value – knowledge of passing on the increased landings) of 1:14.5. More recently, Scheld
resource to future generations (UNEP 2014b). et al. (2016) estimated that the annual loss due to
derelict pots and traps for nine species of crusta-
cea amounted to US$ 2.5 billion (US$ 2.5 x 109)
7.4 (Table 7.6), using data from a derelict pot removal
programme in Chesapeake Bay. The authors argued
IMPACTS ON MARITIME ECONOMIC SECTORS that targeted removal campaigns, paying operators
from the fishing community, during downtime, can
From ecosystem impacts to economic conse- be a cost-effective measure (Chapter 9). A theoret-
quences ical cost to the industry would be if the presence of
microplastics in some way reduced the organisms’
The degradation of ecosystems due to marine litter fitness or reduced reproductive capacity. However,
can have both direct and indirect socio-economic there is no evidence that this is the case given cur-
impacts. For example, marine litter can lead to eco- rent measured concentrations in fish and the envi-
nomic costs in the commercial shipping sector due ronment (Chapter 7.1).
to damage caused by entanglement or collision with
marine litter in general. Loss of cargo can introduce
plastic debris into the environment and lead to com- Tourism
pensation payments. Other economic costs may be
more difficult to quantify, such as the impact litter may Costs of inaction
have on changing people’s behaviour. Under the aus- The visible presence of marine litter has an impact
pices of the G7, Germany has commissioned a report on the aesthetic value and attractiveness of beaches
on an economic cost-benefit analysis of the preven- and shorelines for recreational purposes (Fanshawe
tion and removal of marine litter, and the most urgent and Everard 2002). For example, damage to marine
fields of action to reduce marine litter. The following ecosystems and the presence of marine litter affects
sections provide some examples of economic costs recreational activities such as diving and snorkel-
in a variety of sectors. ling, fouling propellers and jet intakes of recrea-

108
 7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Table 7.6

Species Annual Landings Revenues Major

gear loss (MT) (US$) producers
(% deployed)*

Blue swimmer crab Portunus pelagicus 70 173 647 199 million§ China,
Philippines.
Indonesia.
Thailand,
Vietnam

American lobster Homarus americanus 20-25 100 837 948 million Canada,
USA

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 10-50 98 418 152 million USA

Queen crab na 113 709 401 million Canada, St

/snow crab Chionoecetes opilio Pierre
& Miquelon
(France),
USA

Edible crab Cancer pagurus na 45 783 49 million∞ UK, Ireland,

Norway,
France

Dungeness crab Metacarcinus magister 11 35 659 169 million USA,

Canada

Spiny lobster Panulirus argus 10-28 34 868 500 million Bahamas,

Brazil,
Cuba,
Nicaragua,
Honduras,
USA

King crab Paralithodes camtschaticus 10 10 137 99 million USA

Stone crab Menippe mercenaria√ Na 2 502 24 million USA

Total 615 560 2.5 billion

Gear loss and global landings for major crustacean

pot and trap fisheries (from Scheld
et al. 2016)
*estimates from Bilkovic et al. (2012), §based on an average price of
US$ 1.15 kg-1, ∞based on 2012-2014 average price of US$ 1.07 kg-1,
√claws only

109
7
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

tional boaters and affecting recreational fishers in the Ventanillas municipality in Peru is double the
terms of contamination of catch, restricted catch annual budget of the municipality for all public clean-
and damaged gear. ing (Alfaro, 2006 cited in UNEP, 2009). Some exam-
ples of clean-up costs from Europe, the USA and the
Marine litter can thus discourage visitors from going to APEC region are provided in Annex VIII.
certain beaches. Reduced numbers of coastal visitors
leads to lost revenues for the tourism sector, which in
turn leads to a loss of revenue and jobs in the local and Commercial shipping
regional economy. This can have short-term (e.g.
where a specific natural incident such as a flood or Collisions with marine litter can cause significant
tsunami washes up marine litter) and/or long-term damage to vessels and even pose a threat to human
impacts. This may occur where consistent levels of health. Firstly, lost containers represent a particular
marine litter damages the reputation and image of the hazard to mariners because of their size and ability to
area as a tourist destination thus discouraging private float for up to several weeks, particularly for refrigerated
sector investment in new tourist developments containers fitted with foam lining. Smaller items of
(McIIgorm et al. 2011). These impacts can be quite waste at sea can also damage ships, with costs asso-
significant in certain cases, particularly where local ciated with repairing fouled propellers or blocked out-
economies are heavily dependent on the tourism ages. High levels of traffic in harbours and ports
sector. For example, Hawaii and the Maldives are increase the risk of collision with waste. Consequently,
facing declines in tourist numbers and associated rev- many port authorities actively remove marine litter in
enues due to marine litter, particularly plastics, that order to ensure facilities are safe and attractive to users
threaten to affect the reputation of islands as sought-af- (Mouat et al. 2010). One study of the removal of debris
ter tourist destinations (Thevenon et al. 2014). Some from harbours reported costs as high as USD 86 695
studies provide quantitative estimates of the costs to (GBP 57 300) in one year for Esbjerg Harbour in
the tourism sector of marine litter (Annex VIII). Denmark (Hall 2000). Costs are also incurred due to
the loss of cargo. The average value per container is
Costs of action estimated to be US$ 20 000 - 24 500 but can be sig-
Clean-up costs can be significant and in some cases nificantly higher if carrying personal electronic goods,
can pose an undue burden on local authorities. For for example (UNEP 2016c). Cargo loss can also result
example, the estimated coastline clean-up cost for in compensation and insurance payments (Box 7.2)

The process of generating, and the presence of,

Box 7.2
marine litter (including both waste originating and not
originating from vessels) bring costs to the commer-
cial shipping sector. The main costs are associated
COMPENSATION FOR with: the accidental loss of cargos; collisions with
CONTAINER LOSS marine litter; and indirect costs relating to operational
costs, disruption of service, and public image. Clean
up costs in harbours may also indirectly fall on the
shipping sector. One estimate placed the total value
Monterey Bay National Marine of litter damage to shipping at USD 279 million per
Sanctuary, USA year (APEC 2009).

The loss of 14 containers from the MV While it is difficult to collate all the economic costs
Med Taipei on 24 February 2004 led to associated with marine plastic debris and microplastics
the shipping company involved paying it is quite clear, from those studies that have been
US$ 3.25 million in compensation to carried out, that the economic impact, together with
the MBNMS. This amount included the associated social and ecological dimensions is con-
estimated environmental damage, as siderable. The costs could be reduced substantially if
assessed by NOAA, and legal fees. the concept of the circular economy was developed
further and implemented with regards to plastics pro-
UNEP 2016c duction and utilisation. The great advantage of pursu-
ing this philosophy is that a precautionary approach
can be adopted without incurring excessive cost. This
is discussed further in Chapter 9.

110
8
TAKING
ACTION

111
8. CLOSING
or recycling) – Remove (single-use plastics when
practical) – Re-use (alternative uses or for refurbish-
ment) – Recycle (to avoid plastics going to waste)

THE LOOP – Recover (re-synthesise fuels, carefully controlled

incineration for energy production).

However, creating a ‘circular economy’ which works

effectively, and is accepted by business and the
public, requires a great many intermediate stages,
8.1 including introducing appropriate infrastructure
and investment, and facilitating behavioural change
TOWARDS A CIRCULAR ECONOMY throughout the supply chain. Without these changes
the concept is likely to remain for many as an aspira-
In many situations, especially in developing econo- tional target rather than become an everyday reality.
mies, the most urgent short-term solution to minimis- The goal of a circular economy is to severely restrict
ing marine litter inputs is likely to be improved waste both the use of new raw materials and the produc-
collection and management (Ocean Conservancy tion of residual waste. A fundamental requirement is
2015). In the longer term a more sustainable solu- to reduce overall consumption, recognising that the
tion will be to move towards a more circular ‘plas- present per capita use of energy and other resources
tic economy’, in which waste is minimised by being is extremely unequal.
designed out of the production cycle (Figure 8.1;
McDonough and Braungart 2013, EMF 2014, WEF/ The concept of a circular economy is not new, but
EMF/MCKINSEY 2016, EC 2014, EC 2015). This it has received renewed impetus in the past five
might be more easily understood by the general years (McDonough and Braungart 2013). One of
public as adopting the six ‘Rs’: Reduce (raw mate- the main promoters of the concept has been the
rial use) – Redesign (design products for re-use Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF 2014, WEF/

Figure 8.1

Conceptual representation of the circular economy (EC 2014)

112
 8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Box 8.1

THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

The circular economy package was introduced to the European Commission and adopted in
December 2015. The package includes a number of measures aimed at tackling the issue of
plastics and marine litter:

a) a mandate to develop by 2017 an EU integrated strategy on plastics;

b) a target on plastic recycling/reuse in the legislation (55% by 2025 recycling/reuse of plastics
from packaging);
c) inclusion of litter prevention in the waste management plans as well as in the producer res
ponsibility schemes (producers will have to financially contribute to action to prevent littering);
d) a connection between the fees paid by the producer and the true/full waste management cost
and the recyclability of their products – an economic encouragement to use more easy to
recycle materials when possible…; and
e) a confirmation of the necessity to implement an aspirational target of „reducing marine litter
by 30% by 2020 for the ten most common types of litter found on beaches, as well as for
fishing gear found at sea, with the list adapted to each of the four marine regions in the EU.

The EC is intending to address the issue of marine litter from ships, in the context of the 2016
revision of the EC Directive on port reception facilities, and examine options to increase the delivery
of waste to port reception facilities and ensure adequate treatment.

EMF/MCKINSEY 2016), working with a number of produced a series of policy options for encouraging
major companies and institutions, such as the World litter-free seas which revolved around the circular
Economic Forum. Some individual manufacturers, economy concept (CleanSea 2015).
such as Groupe Renault (motor vehicles), have
begun the transition and reported significant finan- Plastic production and use has tended to follow a
cial benefit40. At a regional level, a circular economy linear flow, from extraction of raw materials (i.e. oil)
package was adopted by the European Commission to generation of waste, partly because of a failure to
in early December 2015. It acknowledges that large appreciate the social, economic and ecological cost
quantities of plastics end up in the oceans, and that of waste generation and include this externality in
the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals include a economic forecasts. A simple conceptual model of a
target to prevent and significantly reduce marine pol- circular economy for plastic production and use in a
lution of all kinds, including marine litter (Box 8.1). closed loop, illustrating potential intervention points
The EU-funded project CleanSea41 (2013 – 2015) and the flow of materials and energy, is shown in
Figure 8.2. In this model energy recovery is included
as a way of closing the loop. But, waste generation
should be designed out of the plastic cycle wher-
ever possible. Promoting an economy for after-use
40 https://group.renault.com/en/news/blog-renault/circular-eco-
plastics will encourage the development of improved
nomy-recycle-renault/ collection infrastructure. The design of materials and
41 http://www.cleansea-project.eu/drupal/index.php products can be improved to increase the end of

113
8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

life value and hence provide an incentive to prevent marine debris42; the production of bags and other
leakage, especially for those working in the informal craft items and goods from waste items, such as
waste sector (WEF/EMF/MCKINSEY 2016). plastic bags43; taking unwanted or leftover materials
to create fashion or promotional goods44; and,
The removal of plastics from the production and use re-using items directly in refurbished goods, such
cycle can be achieved by minimising the availability as in the automotive industry. Recycling rates vary
of single-use plastic products, where appropriate greatly by region and country, with rates even in
alternatives can be made available. A simple exam- developed economies varying between <10%
ple is the replacement of disposable cutlery, plates (USA) to >90% (Switzerland) (Box 8.2).
and drink receptacles in sit-down cafes, with metal
and crockery. Another is the provision of drinking Another key consideration for increasing the quan-
water dispensers so that individuals can re-fill con- tity and value of recycled plastic is by clearly mark-
tainers rather than rely on single-use plastic bottles ing the type of plastic, minimising the use of
or bags. Re-use and recycling of materials can be products composed of more than one polymer,
made more straightforward by improved design. reducing the use of bright pigments, and discour-
This can be extended to the selection of materials aging the inclusion of so-called ‘biodegradable’,
that are intrinsically less toxic (e.g. thermoplastic ‘compostable’ or ‘oxo-degradable’ plastics, as
polyurethane (TPU) rather than PVC) or contain these will reduce the utility of the recyclate if pres-
fewer added toxic compounds (e.g. selection of
non-hazardous dyes in textiles) (McDonough and
Braungart 2013). Fewer precautions will be required
in handling them and there will be less risk of con-
tamination, for example, of food- or child-safe plas-
tics by accidental or deliberate mixing of waste 42 http://australianmuseum.net.au/ghost-net-art
streams. The re-use or ‘upcycling’ of materials can 43 http://www.trashybags.org/index.htm
range from the creation of inspirational art from 44 http://www.globehope.com

Figure 8.1

Conceptual representation of the circular economy (EC 2014)

114
 8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

ent even in only small quantities (> 2%, UNEP manufacture, collection and recovery processes
2015a). International standards do exist to define could increase the downstream value, according to
the conditions under which ‘biodegradable’ and EMF, by up to US$ 4.4 billion per annum.
‘compostable’ plastics should degrade under
favourable (i.e. non-marine) conditions (Chapter 4), Energy recovery
but this is not necessarily apparent to those utilising The use of energy recovery for the majority of plastic
products marked in this way. Some form of improved waste should be considered as a temporary measure.
labelling would be helpful to minimise mishandling, Longer-term use of energy recovery is justified pro-
and to indicate the conditions under which the plastic vided the other elements of the Redesign-Reduce-
can be expected to degrade. Re-use-Recycle cycle have been fully implemented.
Waste-to-energy technologies are quite widely used
Treating waste as a resource can be encouraged by in Japan and some European countries, to close part
the use of MBIs. Some of these can be very simple, of the plastic loop. They are operated to modern
such as introducing a bottle deposit scheme for PET standards within well-developed regulatory frame-
bottles and lids. This can be particularly effective in works. However, incinerating plastics can be highly
countries with a high dependence on bottled water problematic. Without adequate financial investment,
for the safe supply of potable water. Unfortunately, education and capacity building, there is a risk that
leakage of economic value can occur due to a loss of use of incinerators to generate energy in some
quality in materials being recycled. Even for relatively countries will produce serious human health con-
pure waste streams such as PET it has been esti- sequences and environmental damage. Concerns
mated that only 20-30% of recycled PET can be used include: excessive cost for a facility that would meet
for bottle production and 50% in thermoformed prod- modern emission standards; a lack of transparency
ucts, which generally are not recycled (EMF 2014). and oversight to ensure standards are met in some
Increasing the purity of the waste stream, by improved countries; and, the neglect or diminished support for

Box 8.2

PLASTIC RECYCLING RATES

The rate of plastic recycling varies considerably by region and country. Within Europe (EU28 plus
Norway and Switzerland) the average utilisation of waste plastic in 2014 was 30% recycled, 40%
energy recovery and 30% landfill. However, there are very significant differences between the best
and worst performing European nations (Plastics Europe 2015). The USA is a major producer and
user of plastic but achieves only a 9% recycling rate (www.epa.gov). China is the world’s largest
producer of plastics (26% of global production in 2014) and the world’s largest importer of waste
plastic. The latter is intended only to be used for recycling. The total recycling rate is thought to be
approximately 25% (www.mofcom.gov.cn). Recycling rates in South Africa are in the region of 20%
(www.plasticsinfo.co.za) and 9% in Singapore (www.nea.gov.sg). In Japan, the total plastic utilisa-
tion rate is 82%, split between 25% recycling and 57% energy recovery. Clearly there is scope to
improve the utilisation rate of waste plastics in many countries.

115
8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Box 8.3

EXTRACT FROM THE 10-YEAR FRAMEWORK OF PROGRAMMES ON

SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION PATTERNS

‘(c) The 10-year framework should affirm a common vision that:

(vi) Protects natural resources and promotes a more efficient use of natural resources, products
and recovered materials;
(vii) Promotes life cycle approaches, including resource efficiency and sustainable use of
resources, as well as science-based and traditional knowledge-based approaches, cradle
to cradle and the 3R concept (reduce, reuse and recycle) and other related methodologies,
as appropriate;…’

Rio+20 A/CONF.216/5

alternative strategies to minimise single-use plastics

and promote the philosophy of redesign-reduce-
‘Governments, international organizations,
reuse-recycle45.
the business sector and other non-state
actors and individuals must contribute to
Reducing consumption
changing unsustainable consumption and
Waste prevention, and sound resource management,
production patterns.’
must involve a reduction in our consumption of mate-
rials. A circular economy will not be possible if we
Agenda 2030
do not cut consumption. This does not necessarily
mean that the supply of goods and services need be
restricted, but that there are cleverer ways of deliv-
ering them. For example, by moving away from sin-
gle-use plastics as the default, and substituting other
materials we can ‘dematerialise’ our way of living At Rio+20, the 10-year Framework of Programmes on
(WEF/EMF/MCKINSEY 2016). This need to promote Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns
more sustainable production and consumption pat- was adopted, and endorsed by the UNGA on 27 July
terns is recognized within many UN documents and 2012 (Resolution A/RES/RES/66/288, paragraph
international declarations. 226). Two of the items mentioned in the common
vision refer to the more efficient use of resources,
including the cradle to cradle and 3R concepts (Box
8.3). SDG 12 also reflects the need for sustainable
consumption and production patterns.

In order for these concepts to become a reality, there

is a need for people to make a connection between
their consumption patterns and the consequences in
45 http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Technical_critique_Stemming_
terms of environmental degradation, and the potential
the_Tide_report.pdf loss of ecosystems services. This requires that we

116
 8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

better understand the motivations and assumptions incineration of waste (Recuerda Girela 2006). The
governing behaviour, both with regard to consump- EC Communication contained guidance on when and
tion and waste management/littering (Chapter 9.1). how the Principle should be applied (Box 8.3)

8.2
‘The Precautionary Principle should be
THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH AND ADAP- considered within a structured approach to
TIVE MANAGEMENT the analysis of risk which comprises three
elements: risk assessment, risk management
The need for a precautionary approach was discussed and risk communication. The Precautionary
at the United Nations Conference on Environment Principle is particularly relevant to the man-
and Development in June in 1992 and adopted as agement of risk.’
Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development46: EC 2000

‘In order to protect the environment, the

precautionary approach shall be widely
applied by States according to their capa- The EC advised that the Precautionary Principle
bilities. Where there are threats of serious should be placed with a structured approach to the
or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific analysis of risk (Box 8.4). The use of risk-based man-
certainty shall not be used as a reason for agement to reduce the impact of marine plastics and
postponing cost-effective measures to pre- microplastics is described in Chapter 10.
vent environmental degradation.’

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration 1992

There is overwhelming evidence that marine plas-

tics are widespread in the oceans and that they have
caused a range of social, economic and ecological
impacts. What is unknown is the overall quantitative
impact, on different social systems, economic sec-
tors or species and habitats. But there is a sufficient
body of knowledge to argue convincingly of the need
to invoke the precautionary approach, in reducing the
input of plastics into the ocean and minimising the risk.

The Precautionary Principle can be viewed as an

extension of the precautionary approach, placing
Photo: © Romeo Ranoco / Reuters

it as a principle in Law. It is not as widely accepted

by countries, but the EC adopted the Precautionary
Principle into EC law in 2000, and it has informed
a variety of environmental legislation, including the

46 http://www.un.org/esa/documents/ecosoc/cn17/1997/
ecn171997-8.htm

117
8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Box 8.4

GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN

EUROPEAN LAW

‘Where action is deemed necessary, measures based on the precautionary principle

should be, inter alia:

• proportional to the chosen level of protection

• non-discriminatory in their application
• consistent with similar measures already taken
• based on an examination of the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of
action (including where appropriate and feasible, an economic cost/benefit analysis)
• subject to review, in the light of new scientific data
• capable of assigning responsibility for producing the scientific evidence necessary
for a more comprehensive risk assessment’

EC 2000

Table 8.1

Evidence-based action Precautionary approach

(comprehensive understanding of the system) (removal of all tangible threats)

Advantages Reduces scientific uncertainty Anticipatory: acknowledges

the scientific uncertainty

Attractive to legislators and industry Ensures the capacity to adapt

to unforeseen problems

Disadvantages Science and information A hard sell as costs of

base may be insufficient implementation may be high

Reactive Difficult to assess areas

where precaution is warranted

Costs of monitoring are high and require long- Makes an assumption that
term government buy in impacts are inevitable

Public face Science-based indicators often difficult to Public may seek alternative products and services
understand when costs spiral

Comparison of alternate approaches for achieving Good Environmental

Status, in European Seas (based on Mee et al. 2007)

118
 8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Pros and cons of the precautionary approach 8.3

There are advantages and disadvantages to adopt-
ing the precautionary approach, as recognised in IMPROVED GOVERNANCE
a European study comparing alternative visions of
achieving ‘Good Environmental Status’ in European The existing international legal framework of relevance
seas (Table 8.1; Mee et al. 2007). These need to be to regulating the transport and disposal of waste,
anticipated and factored into an overall strategy for including plastics, was summarised in Chapter 2.2.
implementing marine plastics reduction measures. UNCLOS is a key instrument with regard to marine
littering, because it is the only international conven-
A brief history of unrecognised risk tion covering land-based sources. Under the General
The societal benefits of the widespread use of plastic Obligation ‘States have the obligation to protect and
are widely recognised (Andrady and Neal 2009). preserve the marine environment’, and Article 194
However, there is a cost associated with most human declares ‘… prevent, reduce and control pollution
development and the introduction of plastics has from any source’. Clearly this has not been sufficient to
proved to be no exception. There is a long history of stop plastic entering the ocean. This is largely for two
new techniques and materials being introduced and reasons: i) the existing framework as currently utilised
rapidly and widely adopted, because of perceived does not deal adequately with all the key sources and
societal benefits, in advance of adequate risk assess- entry points (e.g. transboundary rivers); and, ii) where
ment, regulatory frameworks or assessment guide- existing legislation is appropriate there is a failure of
lines. Examples include the widespread use of implementation and enforcement. This is exacerbated
asbestos, X-ray ‘therapy’, tetraethyl lead in petrol, tha- by a lack of standards, more precise obligations and
lidomide to alleviate morning sickness in pregnant regulation, lack of enforcement and the vast ‘policy
women, tributyl tin as an anti-foulant on ships’ hulls, space’. Regional-scale governance frameworks can
certain plasticizers in medical or domestic items and, provide the means for transboundary sources and
most recently, nanomaterials (North and Halden inputs of plastics and microplastics. Examples include
2014, EEA 2001, 2013). This can lead to social and UNEP Regional Seas organisations and river basin
economic uncertainties when attempts are made to Commissions, such as the International Commission
properly assess and mitigate the potential harm for the Protection of the Danube (Chapter 2.3).
being caused, either to humans directly or to the
environment. The whole problem with marine debris in general, and
marine macro and microplastic debris in particular,
Adaptive management could be considered a ‘common concern of human-
Given the present level of uncertainty, actions need kind’ (Chavarro 2013). This would require increased
to be proportional and incremental. Regional differ- international cooperation and common efforts, and is
ences in socio-ecological systems are significant; a concept which is increasingly being applied under
i.e. a good solution in one area may be inadequate international law.
(or make things worse) in another. This indicates the
importance of utilising local knowledge with the intro-
duction of new practices or techniques. Solutions
need to be workable and acceptable, which will Marine macro and microplastic debris
demand good communication and dissemination. could be considered a ‘common concern
of humankind’
Management strategies will be based on the cur-
rent level of understanding. But to be effective in
the longer term, it is essential for management to
be adaptive. It should not be restricted by the intro-
duction of well-meaning but counterproductive rules Regulation can be difficult to enforce in some maritime
and regulations that may be difficult to alter. As the sectors. For example, MARPOL Annex V prohibits the
state of knowledge improves so management strat- discharge of plastics from ships and other offshore
egies and reduction measures, within an adaptive platforms anywhere in the ocean. This prohibition
approach, can be adjusted. has been supported by the need to maintain a gar-
bage record book on the ship and for ports to provide
adequate shore-side waste disposal facilities. But,
it is very difficult to enforce the prohibition on plas-
tic disposal at sea without the willing consent of all

119
8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

seafarers. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence, related to the packing and securing of containers.47
from surveys of marine plastic adjacent to shipping Poorly managed landfill sites or illegal waste dumps
routes (Van Franeker et al. 2011, Schulz and Matthies can lead to the atmospheric transport of plas-
2014), to conclude that there is widespread flouting tic debris, exacerbated by open burning of waste.
of this legislation. As enforcement would be difficult There is the potential for longer-range atmospheric
to achieve by technical or other policing means, solu- transport of microplastics and associated hazardous
tions need to rely on encouraging behaviour change, chemicals. This is an area of waste management that
and to educate seafarers to accept the need for and may justify additional regulatory scrutiny.
embrace the requirements of MARPOL.
Regulation of marine litter sources can take place
Regulation of other aspects of commercial ship- at different scales, from local to global. The trans-
ping may be easier to implement. Improved govern- port of marine plastics is commonly a transboundary
ance arrangements to reduce losses of containers phenomenon, and impacts (ecological, social and
at sea are being pursued through the leadership of
IMO, in collaboration with the International Labour
Organisation (ILO), the UN Economic Commission
for Europe and the International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO). These cover technical issues 47 http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containers_
Lost_at_Sea_-_2014_Update_Final_for_Dist.pdf

Figure 8.3

Proposed governance framework for connecting local, national, regional and

global scales of governance, showing links (non-binding or legal) (adapted
and re-drawn from Fanning et al. 2007)

120
 8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

economic) may be due to plastic originating from out- developing nations in order to tackle waste manage-
side the jurisdiction where they occur. This limits the ment in general and marine plastics in particular.
extent to which the state experiencing the loss of an
ecosystem service can increase measures to allevi- The Blue Ribbon Panel of the Global Partnership for
ate the situation. This illustrates the need to consider Oceans (GPO), for which the World Bank acted as
marine litter on larger regional and global scales, so Secretariat from 2012 to January 2015, produced a
that efforts can be coordinated and a ‘level playing series of criteria (GPO 2013) for selecting invest-
field’ established. Several Regional Seas Conventions ment options with respect to five principles:
and Action Plans have developed marine litter mon-
itoring and assessment programmes (e.g. OSPAR, 1. sustainable livelihoods, social equity and
NOWPAP, MAP, HELCOM) which have helped to food security;
establish harmonised techniques, indicators and 2. healthy ocean and sustainable use of marine
baselines appropriate to each region. These have and coastal resources;
been used by member states to implement joint litter 3. effective governance systems;
reduction actions and measure their effectiveness. 4. long-term viability; and
5. capacity building and innovation.
A framework for linking multi-level governance insti-
tutions has been proposed at the regional seas scale Although the GPO has been dismantled, it can be
(Figure 8.3). This was designed for application to argued that the selection criteria for improved gov-
the Greater Caribbean Region, extending from the ernance are still valid and equally applicable in the
northeast coast of Brazil to Cape Hatteras in North current circumstances of the SDG ambitions. These
Carolina and including the Gulf of Mexico (Fanning et were proposed to measure the degree to which the
al. 2007, 2013). However, it has much wider poten- investment:
tial for establishing or improving governance frame-
works at a regional scale. 1. describes a viable approach for sustaining
impact beyond the initial [GPO] investment
The framework is also very relevant to SIDS, at local, (through risk analysis and the identification of
national and regional (i.e. SIDS groupings) scales. The actions and tactics to mitigate potential risks);
SAMOA Pathway (SIDS Accelerated Modalities of 2. includes an analysis to evaluate the return on
Action) has been developed to provide a platform to investment, net present value, benefits and costs,
encourage and sustain partnerships. These are a key and economic, social, and political risks;
requirement for pursuing the SDGs and ‘to ensure 3. addresses major obstacles to sustainable
accountability at all levels’48. ocean economies;
4. has the potential to create assets that can be
Financing improvements in governance invested in or securitized;
A key element of meeting the UN SDGs is ade- 5. develops or introduces innovative financial
quate investment in appropriate tools and actions, tools and structures that support investments in
including those aspects relevant to reducing the maintaining or improving the health of the ocean,
input and impact of marine plastic debris. This was related ocean services, and ocean-based econo-
emphasised in the Addis Abada Action Agenda of mies;
the Third International Conference on Financing for 6. includes dynamic design elements that build
Development, meeting in July 201549. The conference resilience to future conditions such as climate
concluded by encouraging the UN Secretary General change, population growth, technology evolution,
to convene an inter-agency task force. This would and geo-political changes;
include major institutional stakeholders and the UN 7. and is replicable or has the potential to be
system, together with funding and programmes. It is self-sustaining from demonstration projects so
suggested that this may form a suitable framework that other communities or institutions can adopt
for addressing the structural reforms needed in many it without [GPO] funding.

48 http://www.sids2014.org/
49 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/frameworks/addisababaacti-
onagenda

121
8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Box 8.5
8.3

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
NINE MAJOR STAKEHOLDER
The term ‘stakeholder engagement’ has become GROUPS AS DEFINED AT THE 1992
popular short-hand for the concept of involving of EARTH SUMMIT AGENDA 21:
all those parties, or representatives of such parties,
who may be in some way able to contribute to, be
affected by or otherwise have an interest in a decision
or process. It is a term familiar to many in business, 1. Women
government and the UN system. However, it is worth 2. Children and Youth
remembering that it may be unfamiliar, and possibly 3. Indigenous Peoples
meaningless, to members of the public being consid- 4. Non-Governmental Organizations
ered as stakeholders. It is also important to recognise 5. Local Authorities
that when stakeholders are invited to contribute to 6. Workers and Trade Unions
a process there needs to be a perceived benefit to 7. Business and Industry
those who are often giving up their time voluntarily, 8. Scientific and Technological Community
and sometimes losing income as a result. There is a 9. Farmers
danger of ‘stakeholder fatigue’ if the same individuals
or organisations are repeatedly asked to contribute
(SRAC 2005).

Whatever the terminology used, ‘buy-in’ for all par-

ties who are somehow affected by or responsible for
causing or alleviating a marine litter-related problem lar reviews that ‘shall provide a platform for partner-
is essential to maximise the likelihood of success. ships, including through the participation of major
Stakeholders can contribute by helping to: groups and other relevant stakeholders’. Paragraph
89 states that: ‘the HLPF will support participation in
i) accurately describe the social and economic follow-up and review processes by the major groups
context; and other relevant stakeholders…’. The development
ii) identify the various elements of the risk assess- of stakeholder partnerships is viewed as essential in
ment adequately; order to achieve the SDGs for the community of SIDS
iii) suggest appropriate and relevant measures; (Chapter 2.1).
iv) achieve acceptance of the measures;
v) successfully implement the initiative/instru- Almost all individuals, community groups and organ-
ment(s); and isations utilise or are affected by plastic products to
vi) monitor the change in state in response to the some degree. However, a number of major categories
measures being introduced. of stakeholder can be identified with regards to leak-
age of plastics to the ocean, using the DPSIR frame-
At the 1992 Earth Summit Agenda 21 recognised work described in Chapter 10.3 (Box 8.6).
the need to engage with stakeholders to facilitate
the UN goals relating to sustainable development50 It is common for individuals or organisations to be
, and identified nine ‘major groups’ (Box 8.5). engaged as facilitators in stakeholder engagement
events and initiatives. This is because certain skills
The importance of these groups was reaffirmed are required to gain greatest benefit from the time and
at Rio+20, in ‘The Future We Want’ report, and is effort invested. To assist in the process, a Stakeholder
included in the Agenda 2030 goals (paragraphs 84 Engagement Manual has been published in two vol-
and 89). Paragraph 84 refers to the intention for the umes, with UNEP support, that lays out some of
High Level Political Forum (HLPF) to carry out regu- the guiding principles (SCRA 2005) and provides
a detailed Practitioner’s Handbook (AccountAbility
2005).

Why demography matters

Demography involves the study of populations. Human
50 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/majorgroups populations can be classified in many different ways,

122
 8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Box 8.6
ments and less effective governance structures
(UNEP 2016). In addition, there is a legal and illegal
trade in waste from North America and Western
MAJOR CATEGORIES OF STAKEHOL- Europe to Asia and West Africa, as it is often cheaper
DER GROUPS IN CONNECTION WITH to transport waste from a high-cost country to a lower-
MARINE LITTER: cost country, where education levels, governance,
environmental standards and compliance may all be
lower.

1. Producers of plastic products It is important to include demographics when ana-

2. Consumers of durable plastic products lysing the generation of marine plastic debris and
3. Users of plastic packaging microplastics, the sectors of society which are
4. Users of single-use plastic food and drink affected by potential impacts, and when seeking to
packaging change behaviours and promote effective reduction
5. Users and providers of coastal tourism measures. This has been recognised by many indi-
6. Shipping industry viduals and groups seeking to raise awareness about
7. Fishing industry marine plastic issues through campaigns and educa-
8. Waste collection and management tional initiatives.
organisations
9. Aquaculture industry Gender-based aspects
Gender is one of several key factors to consider
when assessing the societal response to marine
plastics and microplastics. However, its importance
may be hidden if social categories in an environmen-
tal assessment are not differentiated sufficiently. The
influence of gender on the frame of reference for
including in terms of ethnicity, religious background, environmental inquiry can be demonstrated using
social status/caste, degree of poverty or wealth, level a general model of environmental gender analysis
of education, age structure, birth and death rates, and (Table 8.1). This approach could be adapted to take
gender differences. Those factors contributing to account of other societal characteristics.
human well-being may be measured using individual
descriptors or by using a collective indicator such as
the Human Development Index51. Many aspects of
human society are linked to where individuals fit into
the demographic structure of their community. For
example, there is a culture of certain groups engaging
in the informal recycling industry in India or West
Africa, which may be defined according to age,
gender, income and social status. Such groups may
be most exposed to risk as a result, including signifi-
cant human health consequences involved in han-
dling plastics associated with electronic goods
(UNEP 2016). Countries with a high HDI (e.g. OECD)
tend to generate more waste per capita but have
more effective waste management systems (Jambeck
Photo: © Carlos Jasso / Reuters

et al. 2015), with less leakage to the environment.

Countries with low HDIs may generate less waste per
capita but tend to have poorly developed waste man-
agement infrastructure, a lack of funding for improve-

51 http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

123
8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Table 8.1

Foundational questions in the UNEP model of inte- Gender-sensitive version

grated environmental assessment

1 What is happening to the environment and why? 1. What social forces are producing the changes we see in the
environment and why?
Are those social forces ‘gendered’?

2. What are the consequences for the environment and 2. What are the ecological changes produced, and what are
humanity? the consequences for social systems and human security?
In what ways are those consequences
gender-differentiated?
What are the larger social consequences
of gender-differentiated impacts?

3. What is being done and how effective is it? 3. Who are the actors involved in responding (at many levels)
and are men and women equally engaged? Equally effec-
tively engaged?
Are there gender differences in weighing what ‘should’ be
done and in weighing the effectiveness of possible actions
and solutions?

4. Where are we heading? 4. Where are we heading and will there be different outcomes
for women and men? Are there gender-differentiated per-
ceptions of where we’re heading?

5. What actions could be taken for a more sustainable future? 5. What actions could be taken for a more sustainable future
that will position men and women as equal agents in taking
such actions? What socio-economic factors will shape
different outcomes and responses for men and women?

A general model of environmental gender analysis

(from Seager 2014).

The extent to which gender per se is the main factor in open-sea capture fishing. Open-sea, commercial,
in influencing an outcome will depend on other demo- and large-boat fishing is generally a male domain.
graphic factors, and these are likely to vary widely on This may render women’s fishing contributions less
a variety of spatial and temporal scales. For example, visible - it is left out of most data collection efforts,
an increase in relative wealth or educational attain- as well as overlooked in conventional government or
ment may alter the relative importance of gender for aid programs that support fishing and fishers (Siason
individuals or communities. 2010). If there are to be remediation programmes,
financing to cope or reduce plastics pollution, or edu-
Gender and fisheries cation programs about plastics, a concerted effort to
Commercial fisheries and aquaculture are key eco- make these gender-inclusive will be essential.
nomic activities in many coastal regions, and artisanal
fishing may be vital for food security. It is a sector that
both generates and is impacted by marine plastics
and microplastics. Many roles in the sector are dif-
ferentiated by gender. Women participate throughout
most parts of the fishing cycle; including post-capture
processing, inland-waters and onshore aquaculture,
net-mending, processing, and selling. Women fish in
the coastal zones, inshore reefs, and mangroves, they
glean at low tide, and cultivate fish fry in the shallows
(Lambeth, 2014, FAO 2015), but very few participate

124
 8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

that drives the demand for bottled water, irrespective

of other factors. Littering behaviours are demograph-
ically variable, although cross-national comparisons
‘Protecting women’s incomes and preventing have not been made and it is not clear to what extent
the deterioration of their status and posi- gender is relevant (KAB, 2009, Lyndhurst 2013,
tion in a context of changing political, social, Curnow 2005). Clearly, sustained and comparative
[environmental] and economic circumstances research is needed to understand the demographic
are essential for achieving the objective of drivers of such behaviours, and thus the possible
creating responsible fisheries and aquaculture levers for change. Further research into the demo-
systems.’ graphics of consumer behaviour specific to marine
plastic pollution, and willingness to change those
(World Bank 2009). behaviours, is needed.

8.5

Because of possible differences in the role of women IMPROVING CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

and men in fishing-related activities, there may be AND PARTNERSHIP
significant gender differences in the experience
of, knowledge of, and impacts of plastics pollution. Public private partnerships
Debris buildup in littoral and coastal zones can be Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a common
severe and is different in character than open-sea feature of solid waste management in developing
plastics pollution, as analyses discussed elsewhere countries. The benefits of using PPPs in this sector,
in this report demonstrate. This will have a different according to the World Bank52, include:
impact on women’s fishing activities in the near-shore
zone than on men’s fishing in open oceans. Loss of 1. regularising informal waste picking activities;
economic activity, damage to wellbeing, and mental 2. introducing and promoting more output-fo-
health aspects of impacts from degraded environ- cussed contracts;
ments are, in consequence, all likely to be gender-dif- 3. involvement of the private sector in treatment
ferentiated, more intense for women in the near-shore and disposal projects to introduce more techni-
fishery and for men in the offshore fishery. Given the cal innovation into sanitary landfill, recycling and
constraints of gender roles, including family-care waste to energy projects; and
responsibilities, women are typically less able than 4. involvement of the private sector in financing
men to be flexible in seeking alternative livelihoods if capital investment.
their main activity, such as inshore fishing, is damaged.
However, it is important to consider local factors
Demographics and behaviour which can influence the successful implementation of
Individual consumption of goods and services, per- a cost-effective and safe partnership. A 2013 review
sonal habits (e.g. use of reusable bags and packag- of a PPP waste management scheme in Nigeria
ing) and waste practices (such as littering) are key (Haruna and Bashir 2013) made a number of recom-
drivers of marine litter. Consumer behaviour derives mendations relating to:
both from individual preferences and tastes, and from
corporate strategies and marketing. Microbeads, for 1. creating an enabling environment to allow the
example, were introduced into consumer goods as a participation of community-based organisation
top-down corporate strategy, not in response to bot- and the various stakeholder groups;
tom-up consumer demand. 2. capacity building in both private and public
sectors;
Rather little is known about the demographic factors 3. awareness campaigns on the potential dangers
influencing perceptions and behaviours of relevance to health;
to marine litter, but it seems to assume there will be
effects in particular circumstances. For example, a
recent study in the USA on the purchase of bottled
water indicated that age and income were stronger
predictors of consumption than gender. In some 52 http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sector/so-
countries it is the unavailability of safe potable water lid-waste

125
8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

4. encouraging improved segregation of waste; while protecting the environment. It works on the
5. implementation of strict controls; and principle that if you cannot measure something you
6. the need for support from donor agencies. cannot manage it. The business case for adopting
this approach was published in 2014 (UNEP 2014b).
It would be imprudent to assume that the creation of
a PPP for waste management would automatically
bring about improvements for all the stakeholders The role of Life-Cycle Assessment
involved.
Life-cycle assessments (LCA) can provide useful
An example of a successful private participation in guidance to increase the sustainability of production,
infrastructure (PPI) is the provision of ATM-style clean provided the LCA considers the social and ecological
water dispensers in the Mathare slum area of Nairobi consequences of production and is not limited to
in Kenya53. A smart card is used to buy water from economic considerations (UNEP 2015). LCA can be
the automatic dispenser, and the card can be topped used to provide a basis for decisions about optimal
up using a mobile phone or at a kiosk. This provides use of resources and the impact of different pro-
unadulterated water at a lower cost than that provided cesses, materials or products on the environment. For
by traditional water vendors. The PPI is between the example, LCA could be employed to assess the use
Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company and a of plastic-based or natural fibre-based bags and tex-
Dutch water engineering company. tiles. In one LCA –based study of consumer shopping
bags, conventional PE (HDPE) shopping carrier bags
were considered to be a good environmental option
Extended producer responsibility compared with bags made from paper, LDPE,
non-woven PP and cotton, but strictly in terms of their
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a variant carbon footprints (Thomas et al. 2010). In particular,
of another principle, that of the ‘polluter pays’. The this analysis did not take account of the social and
polluter pays principle may be justified but it can be ecological impact that plastic litter may have, such as
difficult to enforce, especially in the case of diffuse the injury or death of marine turtles that mistake plastic
sources and legacy pollutants. The OECD has pro- bags for jelly fish (Chapter 7.1).
duced a number of guidance documents on the use
of EPR, including the cost-benefits involved in the
waste prevention and recycling sector (OECD 2001,
2005). EPR schemes have been introduced for pack- Life-cycle analysis is useful for promoting
aging waste and for e-waste. sustainability, but needs to take account of the
full social and ecological consequences of
Plastic Disclosure Project production, use and disposal
The Plastic Disclosure Project54 is run by the Ocean
Recovery Alliance, an NGO based in California and
Hong Kong. The objectives are to:

1. reduce plastic waste in the environment;

2. encourage sustainable business practices vis-à- In a second example, an LCA-based analysis of tex-
vis plastic; and tiles – that included factors for human health, envi-
3. inspire improved design and innovative solutions. ronmental impact and sustainability – placed cotton
as having a much smaller footprint than acrylic fibres
The means of achieving these objectives are focussed (Mutha et al. 2012). However, it is important to
on encouraging businesses to measure, manage, examine what is included under such broad terms
reduce and benefit from plastic waste, thereby as ‘environmental impact’. In a third study, an LCA-
adding benefit to both business and the consumer, based assessment of textiles concluded that cotton
had a greater impact than fabrics made with PP or
PET, and a much greater impact than man-made
cellulose-based fibres (Shen et al. 2010). This was
on the basis of ecotoxicity, eutrophication, water use
and land use. Neither textile-based LCAs consid-
53 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33223922 ered the potential ecological impact due to littering
54 http://www.plasticdisclosure.org/ by the textile products or fibres. Clearly, the scope

126
 8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

of an environmental LCA can determine the out- increased recycling of materials and energy led to
come. Ecological and social perspectives should be lower environmental impact and lower consumption of
included in a comprehensive LCA approach, as well energy resources. However, there were difficulties in
as the time-scales involved. Without such evaluation, applying this approach due to uncertainties in apply-
decisions made in good faith may result in ineffective ing system boundaries (e.g. timing of effects) and
mitigation measures, unnecessary or disproportion- weighting factors. It was pointed out that (improved)
ate costs, or unforeseen negative consequences. municipal waste management may diverge from exist-
ing economic systems.
As with all such assessment studies, it is very important
to consider the scope, assumptions, limitations, motiva- LCA has also been used, by a major international
tions, data quality and uncerta‚inties before drawing con- manufacturer, to guide the introduction of a more
clusions about the study’s validity and wider applicability. sustainable production model. In this case the analy-
sis revealed that the largest source of waste was from
LCA was used in a systems approach to study waste packaging, and this led to changes in product design
management options in Sweden (Reich 2005). This (Box 8.7, UNEP 2016a).
illustrated that reducing landfilling and replacing with

Box 8.7

PRODUCT DESIGN: UNILEVER

To support its 2020 Sustainable Living Plan, Unilever undertook a Life Cycle Analysis of 1,600 prod-
ucts. Through the analysis, it determined that the largest source of its waste is from packaging, which
prompted the company to develop several targets aimed at reducing packaging waste.

1. Reduce the weight of packaging by one-third by 2020;

2. Work with partners to increase recycling and recovery rates
in its top 14 countries up to 5% by 2015, and up to 15% by 2020; and
3. Increase the recycled material content of its packaging to
maximum possible levels by 2020.

Unilever has published internal design guidelines for packaging engineers and marketers to follow
that are consistent with the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, of which it is a member. For all new
products and packaging, a scorecard needs to be filled out at each stage of approval, to ensure that it
meets all the companies’ goals – including those around waste. Successes to date include achieving
a 12.5% decrease in weight of margarine cartons by reducing the paperboard thickness, and re-de-
signing a salad dressing bottle to reduce the amount of plastic used by 23%.
UNEP 2016a

127
8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

8.6 5. To increase awareness on sources of marine

litter, their fate and impacts.
Utilising the GPML and GPWM for dissemination 6. To assess emerging issues related to the fate
of good practice and potential influence of marine litter, including
(micro) plastics uptake in the food web and asso-
Dissemination of good practice and technological ciated transfer of pollutants and impacts on the
advances represent a cost-effective way of encour- conservation and welfare of marine fauna.
aging the expansion of litter reduction schemes.
Environmental NGOs have been at the forefront of The partnership activities contribute to the GPWM,
raising awareness but several have also been very which will ensure that marine litter issues, goals, and
influential in developing and disseminating good strategies are tied to global efforts to reduce and
practice. manage solid waste. The GPML aims to establish
a coordinating forum for international organizations,
The GPML and GPWM provide two mechanisms governments, the private sector, and other non-gov-
to encourage collaboration between public and pri- ernmental entities, to build synergies and thus to
vate partners, NGOs, industry sectors and the citi- avoid duplication of efforts.
zen’s groups. The Global Partnership on Marine Litter
(GPML) was launched in June 2012 at Rio+20 in The GPWM is an open-ended partnership for interna-
Brazil following the recommendations contained in the tional organizations, governments, businesses, aca-
Manila Declaration on Furthering the Implementation demia, local authorities and NGOs. It was launched
of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection in November 2010 to enhance international cooper-
of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities. ation among stakeholders, identify and fill information
The GPML, besides being supportive of the Global gaps, share information and strengthen awareness,
Partnership on Waste Management (GPWM), seeks political will, and capacity to promote resource con-
to protect human health and the global environment servation and resource efficiency.
by the reduction and management of marine litter as
its main goal, through several specific objectives. A draft Road Map has been proposed for the imple-
mentation of the GPML (Figure 8.4), including the
The GPML is a global partnership gathering interna- development of indicators and the implementation
tional agencies, governments, NGOs, academia, pri- and testing of potential measures through pilot pro-
vate sector, civil society and individuals. Participants jects. The Marine Litter Network provides an on-line
contribute to the development and implementation of mechanism to share information. As the GPML
GPML activities. Contributions may be in the form of continues to develop, the capability of using it to
financial support, in-kind contributions and/or techni- disseminate information and guidance will grow.
cal expertise.

Specific Objectives of the GPML:

1. To reduce the impacts of marine litter worldwide

on economies, ecosystem, animal welfare and
human health.
2. To enhance international cooperation and coor-
dination through the promotion and implementa-
tion of the Honolulu Strategy - a global framework
for the prevention and management of marine
debris, as well as the Honolulu Commitment – a
multi-stakeholder pledge.
3. To promote knowledge management, informa-
tion sharing and monitoring of progress on the
implementation of the Honolulu Strategy.
4. To promote resource efficiency and economic
development through waste prevention (e.g. 4Rs
(reduce, re-use, recycle and re-design) and by
recovering valuable material and/or energy from
waste.

128
 8
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Figure 8.4

Draft Road Map for the implementation of the GPML

Photo: © CC BY Bo Eide

129
9

130
9. A SELECTION OF
2005; Widmer & Reis 2010). In general, microplastics
are not mentioned spontaneously in such surveys.
This could indicate either a lack of perceived impor-

DIFFERENT TYPES tance, or simply a lack of knowledge and recognition

of this particular environmental issue.

OF MEASURES One of the largest scientifically-based assessments

of public perceptions was conducted in Europe, in a
survey of 10,000 citizens from ten European coun-
tries, where respondents were asked to identify the
three most important environment matters regarding
9.1 the coastline or sea (Buckley and Pinnegar 2011).
The survey was conducted in the context of assess-
ENCOURAGING CHANGES IN BEHAVIOUR ing perceptions about climate, but allowed the
respondents to express their concerns freely. When
Attitudes towards marine litter stating levels of concern for a number of environmen-
tal issues, including overfishing, coastal flooding and
There is a need for people to make a connection ocean acidification, the term ‘pollution’, particularly
between their consumption patterns and the con- water and oil pollution, was mentioned frequently.
sequences in terms of environmental degradation Marine debris-related terms, such as ‘litter’, ‘rubbish’
(marine litter), and the potential loss of ecosystems and ‘beach cleanliness’ were also reported, but much
services, as stated in Chapter 8.1. There is evidence less frequently (Figure 9.1). Such surveys are help-
that at least some sections of the public are aware ful for catching the public mood, but some caution
of our dependency on the marine environment. For is warranted. The survey took place in January 2011,
instance, as early as 1999, 75% of people in a US just months after the largest oil spill in history, the
survey believed that the health of the ocean is impor- Deepwater Horizon, took place in the Gulf of Mexico,
tant for human survival (Ocean Project 1999). When between April and July 2010. It can be speculated
focusing on environmental matters related to the that this may well have influenced the respondents
marine environment specifically, several environmen- concerns.
tal topics are of particular interest to the public, such
as climate change, chemical pollution and ocean In addition to research examining the level of impor-
acidification (e.g. Vignola et al. 2013; Peterlin et al. tance individuals place on the marine environment
2005;). Similarly, marine debris is commonly noted and the various perceived threats to it, some studies
as one of the most important issues when people have started to explore the public’s current under-
are asked whilst visiting the coast (e.g. Santos et al. standing about macro marine debris more specifically.

Figure 9.1

Main responses from a multinational sample from 10 countries (n = 10,106) to a qualita-

tive question that asked individuals to state the three main marine environmental matters.
Frequency of responses is illustrated by the size of the text, with pollution noted most often
(reproduced from Buckley and Pinnegar 2011).

131
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

One multinational survey (MARLISCO55) explicitly solution will be much more complex. Very often it will
examined perceptions in different societal groups require changes in public perceptions, attitudes and
about macro marine debris. A number of sectors were behaviour. The introduction of IMO MARPOL Annex V
chosen, including: design and manufacturing, mari- banned the introduction of plastic waste into any part
time industries, policy makers, media organizations, of the ocean, but it is routinely ignored. Legislation
education and environmental organizations. This was will have limited effectiveness if there is significant
not intended to be representative of society in gen- non-compliance, combined with low rates of detec-
eral, but that portion of society that might be consid- tion and enforcement.
ered as being more connected to the issue of marine
litter and microplastics. With a sample of just under Whatever approach is taken it is very likely that some
4,000 respondents from over 16 mostly European degree of behaviour change will be required if the
countries, the MARLISCO survey found that the measure is to be implemented successfully. In many
majority of respondents were concerned about theories of behaviour change, two key factors are
marine litter and perceived the marine environment as noted as important: i) perceptions of responsibility,
being highly valuable to society. There was a belief and ii) perceived control or efficacy (e.g. Steg et al.
that the situation regarding marine litter was worsen- 2013, 2014). Out of two people who have limited
ing, and that most marine litter was derived from the control over an issue, the one who has higher percep-
sea (B. Hartley unpublished data). This survey also tions of control is more likely to act. Consequently,
found that all groups significantly underestimated the the marine litter initiatives that provide individuals the
proportion of marine litter items composed of plastic facilities and thus the ability to dispose of marine litter
by about 30% (B. Hartley unpublished data). A sepa- (e.g. floating reception barges), or recycle their fish-
rate survey on UK commercial fishers found similar ing lines (e.g. Reel in and Recycle initiative) and make
patterns in perception, whereby fishers underesti- these visible, will help to strengthen these percep-
mated the proportion of litter that is plastic, and on tions of control thus further encourage the positive
average, were unsure whether marine litter was behaviour (Steg and Vlek, 2009).
increasing or decreasing (Defra report, forthcoming).
Perceived responsibility is also important in
At more local scale, a beach visitor survey in Chile the context of marine litter. Large-scale sur-
revealed that most visitors reported that they did not veys within the European MARLISCO project
dispose of litter on beaches, despite a large propor- showed that general public respondents perceived
tion of marine debris being left by visitors in general sectors to vary widely in responsibility. Industry and
(Eastman et al. 2013; Santos et al. 2005). Even though government / policy makers and commercial users
respondents generally claimed not to be individually of the coast were seen as high in responsibility.
responsible, they did identify the overall public to be the However, the respondents also held themselves
main source of debris (Santos et al. 2005, Slavin et al. responsible. Given the many sectors and actors in
2012; Eastman et al. 2013). In terms of the effects and society involved in the issue of marine litter, another
impacts of marine debris, the main problems that beach promising example is the programme Amigos del
users identified were related to the impact on marine Mar (Friends of the Sea) in Ecuador, led by the
biota, human health and safety, and attractiveness (B. Comisión Permanente el Pacífico Sur (CPPS),
Hartley unpublished data; Santos et al. 2005; Wyles et which targets students, fishermen and tour opera-
al. 2014; Wyles et al. under review). Thus, these find- tors as key influencers. Therefore, it is necessary to
ings suggest that beach-users and commercial fishers engage all sectors, emphasise their responsibility
have a basic understanding of marine litter in general. (e.g. by illustrating the cost of action and inaction)
and work cooperatively to help to address the prob-
lem of marine litter.
Changing behaviour
There have been a large number of campaigns
If meeting a litter reduction target depends on any- directed towards raising awareness and improving
thing other than a simple technical solution, then the education about marine litter issues, and some of
these are described below to illustrate the range of
approaches that have been used. A collation of marine
debris public awareness campaigns has been pre-
pared in support of the CMS (CMS 2014a), together
with recommendations of Best Practice in the com-
55 www.marlisco.eu mercial shipping and fisheries sectors (CMS 2014b).

132
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Fishing industry cigarettes are one of the commonest items found on

recreational beaches, especially near popular tourist
A number of campaigns have targeted the fishing destinations (Ocean Conservancy 2014). A number
industry. CCAMLR has developed several initia- of NGOs have attempted to change public behaviour
tives to educate fishers and fishing vessel operators (Box 9.1). For example, the NGO Marevivo ran a cam-
including the production of posters in multiple lan- paign in Italy in which 100,000 reusable pocket-sized
guages to be placed on fishing vessels (required to ashtrays were handed out to visitors of Rome’s
be displayed since 1989) to raise awareness and beaches56. UK-based Surfers Against Sewage run
help to reduce pollution (Figure 9.2). This has been the ‘No Butts On The Beach’ campaign, featuring a
backed up with specific legislation where specific message displayed in an eye-catching manner, as
risks have been identified. well as a more conventional logo (Figure 9.3).

Coastal tourism

Initiatives to reduce the impact of coastal tourism

in many regions have been initiated by NGOs, local
authorities and the tourism industry itself. Discarded 56 http://www.marevivo.it/mare_cicca2011.php

Figure 9.2

Posters issued by CCAMLR for display of all fishing vessels operating

within the CCAMLR region. Reproduced with permission from CCAMLR

133
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.3a Figure 9.3b

Examples of campaign posters: (a) Logo of the ‘No

Butts On The Beach’ campaign,
an example of a special interest group, the UK-based
Surfers Against Sewage, to reduce the disposal of
cigarette butts (or stubs) on beaches57; (b) sign on a
tour boat in the Galapagos Islands.
©Peter Kershaw;

In Puerto Ayora in the Galapagos, a retired fisherman Education and citizen science
turned artist has constructed impressive sculptures
from cigarette ends (butts/stubs) he picks up from Informing people about marine litter and the impact it
the streets. He displays these at the harbour side and can have is regarded generally as an important step
explains to visitors about the damage littering can in changing behaviours and instilling a more responsi-
cause (Figure 9.6). ble attitude towards protecting the environment. This
can involve both formal education and more informal
The release of helium-filled balloons is popular in some initiatives. All ages can take part although efforts are
cultures and is common on some cruise lines. Several often directed towards school-age students in the
NGOs and farming organisations have campaigned hope that any changed attitudes will persist and may
to raise awareness and try to restrict their use. This influence their peers and elders. This educational phi-
includes the ‘Don’t Let Go’ campaign, promoted by the losophy informed the development of the European
UK-based Marine Conservation Society (MCS), MARLISCO project (Marine Litter in European
to educate the public about the consequences of Seas – Social Awareness and Co-Responsibility).
releasing helium-filled balloons, and encourage good A number of educational activities were developed,
practice. including educational packs for different year groups
and a video competition for schools. It also included
The tourism industry has also been active in helping to a ‘serious game’ designed for youngsters, to pro-
change attitudes and behaviour, and reducing single-
use plastics, amongst tourists, hotels and tour opera-
tors (Figure 9.5). However, engaging the wider food
value chains involved in tourism will be essential to
bring about a significant reduction in plastic con-
sumption for vulnerable areas such as SIDS. 57 http://www.sas.org.uk/campaigns/marine-litter/

134
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.4

Awareness-raising in Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island Galapagos, to discourage dropping cigarette ends
– ‘Nico’ the cigarette man, and his ‘feathered’ friend. Created by Miguel Andagana (pictured), a former
fisherman who survived 76 days adrift in 1985, and now campaigns to keep Galapagos free from marine
litter. ©Peter Kershaw 2015

Box 9.1

AWARENESS RAISING AND TARGETED EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS

Green Blue initiative (UK), led by the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Federation
to raise awareness among the recreational boating community, providing education, solutions and
toolkits http://thegreenblue.org.uk/About-us

NOWPAP – Guidelines for tourists and tour operators in the NOWPAP region, setting out best prac-
tice for activities such as: cruising, fishing, diving, camping and barbequing (NOWPAP 2011)

TreadRight Foundation – encouraging sustainable tourism http://www.treadright.org/

Taken from Gitti et al. 2015

135
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.5

Can you help us use less plastic?

Tourism contributes towards plastic waste, so as part of the
Make Holidays Greener campaign we are trying to reduce
how much we use... here’s how you can help us too.

By the pool...
t
*U
JT
JNQPSUBOU
UP
LFFQ
IZESBUFE
CVU
XIZ
OPU
HFU
B
HMBTT
PG

XBUFS
GSPN
UIF
CBS
JOTUFBE
PG
CVZJOH
B
QMBTUJD
CPUUMF
0VS
TUBGG

BSF
IBQQZ
UP
QSPWJEF
SFm
MMT
PO
SFRVFTU
t
5IJOL
UXJDF
CFGPSF
VTJOH
QMBTUJD
TUSBXT
t
3FVTF
ZPVS
QMBTUJD
DVQT
SBUIFS
UIBO
UBLJOH
OFX
POFT

t
1MFBTF
VTF
PVS
SFDZDMJOH
QPJOUT
UP
EFQPTJU
ZPVS
QMBTUJD
XBTUF
In your room...
t
*G
ZPV
BSF
VTJOH
UIF
UPJMFUSJFT
TVQQMJFE
CZ
UIF
IPUFM
QMFBTF

NBLF
TVSF
ZPV
VTF
UIF
XIPMF
DPOUBJOFS
CFGPSF
EJTQPTJOH
PG
JU
t
*G
ZPV
MFBWF
ZPVS
QMBTUJD
CPUUMFT
CZ
UIF
CJO
XF
XJMM
CF
IBQQZ
UP

SFDZDMF
UIFN
GPS
ZPV
When shopping...
t
1MFBTF
VTF
QMBTUJD
CBHT
NPSF
UIBO
PODF
PS
VTF
B
SFVTBCMF

POF

If you can see more ways in

which the hotel could save
plastic, please let the staff on
reception know so they can
pass it on to the manager.

Poster issued by a company involved of the tourism58 sector, with the aim of bringing
about more sustainable tourism Reproduced with permission from the travel foundation.

136
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

vide the opportunity to help one of eight characters, a collaboration between the NOAA Marine Debris
from different sectors, in a fun way to choose the Program and the Univ. Georgia in the USA, and the
most responsible behaviour in58different situations59. results can be viewed on-line61.
The game is available in 15 European languages,
so is suitable for use in the Americas and parts of Informal groups and NGOs have played an impor-
Africa. On a larger scale, UNEP launched a MOOC tant role in both raising awareness and in pro-
(Massive Open On-line learning Course) on marine moting citizen science programmes. Good
litter in October 2015, in association with the Open examples include the 5 Gyres organisation62
University of the Netherlands. Approximately 6000 , who have organised a series of sea-based expe-
participants enrolled. ditions and land-based initiatives, including in the
Arctic, and the more recent all-female eXXpedi-
Citizen science is a form of ‘learning by doing’. Citizen tion sailing campaign who have been nominated as
science initiatives can be very effective at both raising Gender Heroes under the Stockholm-Rotterdam-
awareness and collecting information and monitoring Basel Convention Synergies platform63.
data about the state of the environment. One of the
most impressive examples was an initiative carried
out in Chile called the ‘National sampling of Small The role of special interest groups
Plastic Debris’. This involved nearly 1000 school-
children from 39 schools on mainland Chile and on Recreational fishers
Easter Island. The organisers approached schools Recreational coastal fishing is a very popular activity
and social organisations that were already part of the in many countries and regions (e.g. Font and Lloret
citizen science project ‘Scientíficos de la Bastura’ 2014). Unfortunately, it results in the deliberate or
(Litter Scientists). The sampling protocol and results accidental discarding of large quantities of fish-
were reported by Higdalgo-Ruz and Thiel (2013). ing line, hooks and other paraphernalia (Lloret et al.
An important part of the exercise was the publica- 2014). In the Republic of Korea, recreational fishing
tion of a children’s storybook ‘The journey of Jurella is widespread. The impact of fishing gear on birds
and the microplastics’ (Nuñez and Thiel 2011). This is particularly marked, including the internationally
28-page illustrated book, telling the story (in Spanish) endangered Black-faced spoonbill. A variety of meas-
of a local Chilean fish confronting the problem with ures has been taken to raise awareness of the effects
marine litter, was given to each child participating of fishing gear on wildlife amongst this special user
in the scheme. The children also learned important group, with the aim of reducing the impact. These
skills in following instructions, carrying out a survey have included focussed meetings, a website to report
accurately, handling the samples and interpreting the monitoring results, a well-illustrated booklet (Figure
results. 9.6), publications in the scientific literature (Hong et
al. 2013) and a Youtube™ video, released to mark the
The NGO Thames 21 promotes Thames River Watch, 2014 ‘International Day for Biological Diversity64.
in the UK, providing support and training for volunteers
who carry out sampling and analysis throughout the Surfers
tidal reaches, including the occurrence of plastic litter. NGOs with an environmental motivation have been
The results are published on an interactive webpage60 at the forefront of raising awareness about the extent
. Citizen science has also been used to sample river- and impact of marine litter. However, other groups
ine litter in Chile (Rech et al. 2015). with a special interest in the oceans have proved to
be very effective. The Surfrider Foundation is active
The increased use of mobile phones, and the abil- in Europe and North America and has promoted the
ity to readily download applications, prompted the
development of an app to report marine debris finds
by people using the shoreline. This was the result of

61 http://www.marinedebris.engr.uga.edu/

62 http://www.5gyres.org/
58 http://www.thetravelfoundation.org.uk
63 http://www.brsmeas.org/ManagementReports/Gender/Gender-
59 http://www.marlisco.eu/serious-game.en/articles/serious-game. Heroes/GenderHeroesExxpedition/tabid/4802/language/en-US/
html Default.aspx
60 [email protected] 64 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh7ns2TjP6Y

137
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.6

Booklet cover with extracts to illustrate the impact of recreational fishing gear on wildlife, in particular
the internationally endangered Black-faced Spoonbill, with best practice guidelines to reduce the impact;
acknowledgement of images: top right - Yamashiro Hiroaki, bottom right - Young Jun Kim. Reproduced
with permission from OSEAN.

138
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

‘Rise above plastics’ mission, advocating the reduc- Utilising BATs to reduce loss of fishing gear
tion in single use plastics and improved recycling65.
Surfers Against Sewage is a UK-based group set up Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing
to campaign for improvements in sewage treatment gear can have a significant impact both on deplet-
prior to discharge into coastal waters, primarily over ing commercial fish and shellfish stocks and caus-
concerns about surfers becoming infected by swim- ing unnecessary impacts on non-target species and
ming in sewage-polluted water. Their interests have habitats. The importance of this issue was recognised
expanded to include sanitary-related and other types formally at the 16th meeting of the FAO Committee
of litter, by running a series of striking campaigns; on Fisheries in 1985, and led to publication of a key
e.g. ‘Think Before You Flush’, ‘Break The Bag Habit’, report by FAO and UNEP (Macfadyen et al. 2009).
‘Unidentified Floating Objects’, ‘Mermaids’ Tears’, There are several initiatives supported by international
‘No Butts On The Beach’ and ‘Return To Offender’ and national bodies to reduce the amount of derelict
(SAS 2014; Figure 3.8). fishing being generated, remove lost and abandoned
gear, and develop good practice for reducing ghost
fishing and the safe recovery of trapped animals (safe
9.2 for both the entangled animal and the rescuer; FAO
1993, 1995).
REDUCTION MEASURES – BATS, BEPS, MBIS
AND LEGISLATION Better marking of gear will allow determination of
ownership more readily and is one approach to
reducing ALDFG, particularly that element associ-
Technical measures in brief ated with Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU)
fisheries. In addition, technical changes in how gear
This section provides examples of technical meas- is constructed and deployed can also reduce gear
ures which can be described loosely as: loss and reduce potential ecological damage (Box
9.2; WSPA 2013). FAO is in the process of develop-
1. Best Available Techniques, or Best Available ing technical guidelines for the application of an
Technologies BATs); international system for the marking of fishing gear,
2. Best Practices, or Best Environmental Practices and the EC has introduced regulations for marking
(BEPs); passive fishing gear (EC 2005). Such schemes
3. Market-based Instruments (MBIs); and could be combined with leasing arrangements to
4. Legislation – regulation by governments or encourage the return of unwanted gear rather than
Commissions deliberate discarding. The IWC has published guid-
ance on gear marking, and details of national initia-
The section is not intended to provide an exhaus- tives, as it believes there are significant advantages
tive list of possible measures, but to provide illus- from a cetacean entanglement perspective (IWC
trative examples of measures which have proved 2014).
to be effective, and which have the potential to
be more widely applied. In some cases, the meas-
ures are enforceable by legislation and in other Using legislation to reduce the impact of fishing
cases they may be adopted by the public or private activities
sector, as an appropriate response to improving
waste management and reducing the flow of plastic The EC has introduced regulations regarding the
to the ocean. marking of passive fishing gear (EC 2005) and the
retrieval of lost fishing gear (EC 2009), which should
Guidelines for carrying out a risk assessment and act to reduce ALDFG in EU waters. The CCAMLR
selecting appropriate measures are outlined in introduced a Conservation Measure in 2015, cover-
Chapter 10. ing general environmental protection during fishing
(CCAMLR 2015). The Commission acknowledged
the impact of fishing-related plastic waste, singling
out the significant numbers of fur seals entangled
and killed by plastic packaging bands. These are rou-
tinely used to tie together plastic bait boxes, used by
longline fisheries. The measure made several specific
65 http://www.surfrider.org/programs/plastic-pollution requirements (Box 9.3). This strengthens previous

139
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.2

EXAMPLES OF TECHNOLOGICAL MODIFICATIONS OF NETS TO

REDUCE LOSS:

• Mandatory lights on gill nets, with strong solar-powered batteries

• Technology that makes the net sink or drift at a depth where its impact on animals is
likely to be low
• Biodegradable materials for making nets (need to be strong and cheap)
• Use of steel cables for securing buoys
• Labelling of nets (chemicals, colour, tags, transmitters)

(from: Proceedings of the Untangled symposium, December 2012; WSPA 2013)

legislation which did appear to have reduced the address five questions (Box 9.3) on the sources of
entanglement rate, but a residual level has persisted land-based plastic and potential measures for reduc-
(Waluda and Staniland 2013). ing inputs to the sea (Ocean Conservancy 2015).
The study identified five countries as amongst the
Utilising BATs to improve solid waste largest potential contributors from inadequately man-
management aged solid waste, and examined improvement oppor-
tunities, that exist today, for each that would be likely
A functioning waste collection system helps pro- to yield the greatest benefit. Five technological solu-
tect and improve public health, reducing deaths tions emerged as being of most relevance, although
and illnesses related to the presence of waste (UN there were differences in which were judged most
HABITAT 2010). If waste is not collected, it can end appropriate for each country (Table 9.1).
up accumulating in open spaces (informal dumps)
and clog drains or waterways. This can attract dis- These ‘downstream’ measures may have great poten-
ease-carrying insects and animals (e.g. mosquitos tial for plugging some of the leaks in plastic manage-
and rats), cause floods, and is a hazard to people ment, provided sufficient investment is made, but they
(e.g. children may play with it) (UN HABITAT 2010). will not encourage the minimisation of waste gener-
Open burning is also very common for uncollected ation. In the longer term there needs to be a move-
waste as a means to reduce its volume, which can ment towards a more circular plastic economy (WEF/
lead to respiratory health problems (UNEP 2016a, EMF/MCKINSEY 2016, Chapter 8.1). The study has
UNEP 2015). attracted some criticism as placing too much empha-
sis on ‘downstream’ solutions for plastic waste,
Following the Jambeck et al. (2015) analysis of solid especially incineration; i.e. for failing to consider
waste mismanagement, a study66 was undertaken to technologies and other measures for significantly

66 ‘Stemming the tide: land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean’, a

study led by Ocean Conservancy with McKinsey Consultants as an initiative of the Trash Free Seas Alliance®

140
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.3

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE STUDY ‘STEMMING THE TIDE –

LAND-BASED STRATEGIES FOR A PLASTIC-FREE OCEAN’:

1. What are the cornerstones of a concerted programme for global action to address
this issue?

2. What are the origins of ocean plastic debris, and how much does it leak into the ocean?

3. Are there significant differences across regions that require different types of solutions?

4. What leakage-reduction solutions are available, and what are the relative economics
and benefits of each?

5. What can be done to trigger the implementation of leakage-reduction measures

in the short, medium and long term?

(OCEAN CONSERVANCY 2015)

Table 9.1

BAT option China Indonesia Philippines Vietnam Thailand

Collection services Y Y Y

Close leakage points within the Y Y Y Y Y

collection system

Gasification Y Y

Incineration Y Y Y

MRF*-based recycling Y Y Y Y Y

Assessment of potential BATs for five countries identified as

having inadequate waste management practices (Ocean Conservancy 2015).

* MRF- Material-recovery facility, used for separating different materials from the waste stream

141
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.4

BEST PRACTICE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTRODUCING RECYCLING BINS

IN PUBLIC PLACES:

1. NUMBER OF BINS/MATERIAL STREAMS

a. Materials generated at that location (quantity and type)
b. Value of different materials (e.g. mixed recyclables or separate bin for plastic bottles)
c. Convenience for user

2. CONTAINER
a. Ease of use (e.g. size and shape of hole, height of bin)
b. Ease of understanding (e.g. clear banner, logo or sign)
c. Convenient location
d. Durability and cost

3. SIGNAGE AND COMMUNICATION

a. Consistent use of colour for materials (e.g. green for organics)
b. Use of images
c. Bold text (e.g. white on colour)

D. USE OF SLOGANS AND HUMOUR

UNEP 2016a

reducing the quantities of waste being produced. Plastics-to-fuel

This includes solutions currently being developed In some circumstances an alternative form of energy/
and promoted in some of the countries highlighted material recovery may be feasible. This involves the
as being the largest contributors of mismanaged thermal decomposition (pyrolysis) of waste plastic,
waste67. The debate sparked by a single report serves breaking down the complex polymer molecules to
to emphasise that BATs, or any other measures, have produce a vapour. This is condensed to form syn-
to be considered as part of an overall waste reduction thetic crude oil or (uncondensed) synthetic gas. This
strategy, with an emphasis on ‘upstream’ options. This can be further fractionated in a typical refinery and
process needs to be guided by a risk-based analysis may be appropriate for types of plastic that are more
involving all relevant stakeholders, with due considera- challenging to recycle, such as LDPE, PP, PS and
tion given to short-, medium- and longer-term objectives plastic films (ORA 2015).
(Chapter 8.4).

Provision of bins for recycling and waste collec-

tion in public spaces

A key component of resource recovery in public

spaces is having the correct waste infrastructure
67 http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Technical_critique_Stemming_
in place as well as using communication tools and
the_Tide_report.pdf education programs to ensure that people participate

142
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.7

Examples of waste bins in North America. Images by Belinda Li, Tetra Tech EBA, Vancouver, BC,
Canada and Geoff LMV CC via flickr CC

and use bins correctly. The material streams collected quantity of materials returned. Furthermore, if the
may also need to vary depending on the location of the recovery system is managed as a monopoly the costs
bins and the waste generated there. Keeping colour of the system may rise, reducing its efficiency further
schemes consistent for different material streams and (Lavee 2010). However, many European countries
using clear, bold images and text helps users to make have well-established schemes, including the use
a quick decision about where to throw their materials of automatic ‘return-deposit’ machines in Germany
(Figure 9.7). Best practice should incorporate con- and Finland, and returns of up to 90% for PET are
sideration of a number of components (Box 9.4). common.

Deposit-refund schemes - MBI Payments and subsidies - MBI

Among all the different incentives, one of the most One example of a payment or award for action is that of
effective is the deposit-refund scheme (Box 9.4): paying fishermen for reporting on and removing of litter.
at the purchase the consumers have to pay a small For example, in South Korea in 2001 the government
deposit for the objects bought (usually plastic or established a compensation ‘buy-back’ scheme for
glass bottles). This sum is given back to the person fishermen that removed nets and other litter from sea.
that returns them (Lavee 2010), and can occur at a
national, sub-national or local scale.68 From an eco- In the European Union the Directorate General for
nomic perspective deposit-refund schemes are con- Maritime Affairs and Fisheries made a call in 2014 to
sidered to be efficient. In addition, this tool has a explore the “feasibility and economic viability” of fisher-
potentially wide application – it could be used not just man in the EU fleet to abandon fishing and to reassign
for bottles and plastic bags, but also for food contain- some vessels towards addressing marine litter, whether
ers, for batteries, electronic equipment, white goods through the collection of litter or awareness raising.69
and automobiles (ten Brink et al. 2009). The costs The EU would support fisherman by co-financing the
of implementation of such schemes depends on the

69 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/contracts_and_
68 http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/ecuador-incremento-la-recolecci- funding/calls_for_proposals/2014_24/doc/call-for-proposals_
on-de-botellas-pet-en-2012/ en.pdf

143
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.5

EXAMPLES OF DEPOSIT SCHEMES AT DIFFERENT SCALES:

National - Ecuador
PET bottles are used extensively in Ecuador for supplying clean drinking water.
A deposit scheme of US$ 0.02 per PET bottle was introduced in 2011. This led to an increase in PET
bottle recycling from 30% in 2011 to 80% in 2012, when 1.13 million of PET bottles were recycled out
of 1.40 million produced.

Sub-national – State of California, USA

California has had a bottle deposit since 1987, with a rate of US$ 0.05 for bottles, < 0.71 l and US$
0.10 for bottles > 0.71 l. It is estimated that the scheme has resulted in the recycling of about 300
billion (3 x 1011) aluminium, glass or plastics drinks containers (CalRecycle 2015).

Local - Boronia West Primary School, Victoria South Australia

At the schoolchildren’s suggestion, a deposit scheme was introduced for plastic wrappers on goods
sold in the school refectory. This was motivated after learning about the impact of plastics on wild-
life (personal communication Britta Denise Hardesty 2015)

Taken from Gitti et al. 2015

crew and vessel operational costs for the first year of Taxes can be applied to different stages of the
operations outside of fishing (MARE/2014/24). production process: they can affect the pro-
However, the effectiveness of these kinds of schemes duction and consumption phase. They can be
is still not clear, some arguing that they could provide designed for general environmental or revenue
perverse incentives. raising issues (e.g. waste charges to help finance
waste management collection and infrastructure),
Taxes and fees – creating incentive while raising and also motivated specifically by marine litter
revenues – MBI considerations. One of the longest established
examples is the Irish plastic bag levy (Box 9.6)70
Taxes have been considered by economists to be . The EU has adopted a Directive providing defini-
one of the most effective tools as they can offer a tions and guidance on encouraging the reduction
disincentive to polluting behaviour and inefficient in use of lightweight plastic carrier bags (defined
use or resources and at the same time ensure a rev- as having a wall thickness of <50 μm) by Member
enue for the state, with generally low implementa- States, including the use of MBIs (EC 2015).
tion costs (Oosterhuis et al 2014). Revenues
coming from environmental taxes, or at least part of However, the revenues raised from environmental
them, can be reinvested for the environment. For taxes are at risk of decreasing over time. This can
example, in 1981 the National Assembly of Cuba
approved the Law 81, also known as ‘Environmental
Law’, that allows the use of economic tools such as
taxes for the development of activities that posi-
tively impact the environment (Whittle and Rey
70 http://www.marine-litter-conference-berlin.info/userfiles/file/online/
Santos 2006). Plastic%20Bag%20Levy_Doyle.pdf

144
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.6

THE IRISH PLASTIC BAG LEVY

In 2002 the Irish Government added a fee of 15 cents per plastic bag, increased to 22 cents in
2007. After its introduction, sales distribution of bags in retail outlets dropped by 90%. In addition,
the money collected thanks to the levy is reinvested in anti-litter initiatives, used to finance the
Environmental Protection Agency R&D and the initiatives undertaken by community groups and
others for the protection of the environment (e.g. Coastwatch, An Taisce). The levy was also very
cost-effective, as stores could use the existing Value Added Tax scheme for collecting and reporting
the levy (Convery et al. 2007, Pape et al. 2011)

Taken from Gitti et al. 2015

happen for two main reasons, firstly, if the tax is suc- to the Galapagos Islands have to pay a fee of US$
cessful and results in behaviour change, or, if the rate 100 on arrival to help maintain the unique ecology of
is nominal and erodes with inflation. Indexing taxes with the archipelago (Box 9.7).
inflation or gradually increasing rates can help to main-
tain revenues and the positive environmental impacts
of a tax (OECD 2011). With all such MBI schemes, Port reception facilities – MBI
there needs to be an assessment of the consequences
of their introduction, to ensure there are no perverse Payments for using port reception facilities to dispose
incentives or unforeseen negative consequences. of waste have to be structured so as to recover the
cost of providing the service but to avoid creating
an incentive to dispose of it at sea (Box 9.8). This
Taxes to meet the needs of SIDS and other is important, for example, for coastal areas close
small ocean islands to the busy cruise destinations, such as Miami and
Alaska (US), Nassau (Bahamas), Cozumel (Mexico)
In the Caribbean the waste generated by cruise and several SIDS, that are also likely to experience
ships has placed ports of call under stress, and cre- high concentrations of marine litter associated with
ated tension between island authorities and cruise discharges of litter from the cruise sector (Brida &
line operators, and furthermore with neighbouring Zapata 2010).
islands as they compete for traffic. The Organisation
of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and the If correctly managed, port reception facilities may
Caribbean Community (CARICOM) tried several be one of the most important tools for addressing
times to face the problem by creating a passenger waste generated at sea from all sectors (Newman et
head tax to cover the costs of infrastructure, includ- al., 2015). Using port reception facilities to dispose
ing for managing waste, but have been unsuccess- of waste generally includes a fee for the service;
ful. All those attempts often faced opposition from the price is often determined by several variables
cruise operators (Chin, 2008). For instance, in 1999 such as the size of the ship, the volume of waste,
Carnival Cruise Lines boycotted Grenada after they and the type of waste. This can act as a disincentive
introduced a USD 1.50 per passenger tax to fund a (Sherrington et al. 2015). In some cases, reduc-
World Bank constructed sanitary landfill for the island tions may be offered for ships with better-devel-
(Klein, 2002). More positively, non-Ecuadoran visitors oped waste management strategies (EMSA, 2005).

145
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.7

GALAPAGOS ARCHIPELAGO (ECUADOR)

In the Galapagos Islands there is a tourist tax that aims to have an incentive effect (limiting the
number of tourists and hence pressure on the islands), and raise revenues. The rate of tax depends
on the age and provenience of the tourist. For example, the tax for foreign tourists, non-residents of
Ecuador over 12 years is of USD $100, while tourists and foreign nationals residing in Ecuador, over
12 years have to pay USD $6. The total revenues coming from this tax are reinvested among several
entities: 10% goes to INGALA (Galapagos Immigration), 5 % to the Ecuadorian Navy, 10% to the
Consejo Provincial de Galapagos, 25% to the Galapagos Municipalities, 5 % to the Galapagos Marine
Reserve, 5 % to Inspection and Quarantine Services and the last 40% to the Galapagos National
Park. (Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador, 2013).

Additional charges are included in fees for boat charters to certain islands, which are under greater
pressure due to the nature of the environment and their popularity, to further control visitor num-
bers.

Taken from Gitti et al. 2015

In some ports, the costs of waste disposal can act providers that accept and/or recycle end of life fishing
as a barrier to their use and may incentivise dump- gear and could provide additional useful information,
ing. A possible solution to this problem is the appli- such as restrictions on gear and recycling potential.
cation of a ‘No Special Fee’. Such a fee includes in
the port fee the cost of delivering waste, irrespec-
tive of the quantities discharged. The no special fee Imposing fines – part-MBI
system effectively prevents cost from becoming a dis-
incentive for using port reception facilities; similarly, Fines are imposed as a penalty for committing an
the simplicity of the system results in a reduction in offence. They are not a pure market based instrument
administration costs for port authorities. (they don’t directly impact pricing or costs) and con-
stitute a halfway between a command-and-control
IWC expert discussions focussed on fee systems and an MBI tool (ten Brink et al, 2009; Ecorys, 2011).
that incentivise and streamline waste delivery at port Fines can be determined using different parameters
reception facilities and also on the Global Integrated (e.g. costs of damage, on an “affordability basis” or on
Shipping Information system (GISIS) website71. The legal limits), can address different activities ending up
website, provided and managed by IMO, has the producing marine litter and may be issued to punish a
potential to be more up to date in terms of specific specific action or inaction (Box 9.9).
identification of those ports and waste management
In order for this specific tool to be effective, it has to
be carefully designed and collection and enforcement
must be carefully implemented. For example, in Chile,
littering is forbidden by law and subject to fines but
the absence of enforcement weakens the efficiency
71 https://gisis.imo.org/Public/Default.aspx of this measure.

146
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.8

EXAMPLES OF PORT FEES

PORT OF ROTTERDAM

Vessels pay between USD 299 and USD 418 (EUR 225 and EUR 315) for handling 6m3 of waste,
dependent on their main engine capacity (MEC) (Port of Rotterdam, 2014).

BALTIC SEA

To face the high levels of illegal waste discharges in the Baltic Sea during the 1990s, HELCOM
(Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission) as the governing body
of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, made a
Recommendation on the application of the no-special fee system to ship-generated wastes and
marine litter caught in fishing nets in the Baltic Sea area (Recommendation 28E-10). Such a fee
includes in the port fee the cost of delivering waste, irrespective of the quantities discharged.
For instance, in the Port of Gdansk, a fee is applied to boats depending on their type of between
USD 0.18-0.82 (EUR 0.14-0.64) per gross tonnage (GT) (Port of Gdansk Authority SA, 2012).

NIGERIA

A private waste management agency (African Circle Pollution Management Ltd.) was given a 20-year
contract, in 2000, for operating port reception facilities in Nigeria’s six largest ports. By 2012 they
had invested an estimated USD 70 million in shipping waste management infrastructure (Obi 2009).
At Nigerian ports, in addition to harbour dues, vessels are charged an indirect fee that covers the
costs of using port reception facilities. Vessels are charged on the basis of the size of the vessel or
its cargo, and then again for the vehicle to transport the waste. Vessels are charged USD 0.12 per
tonne of cargo, or USD 4.45 per TEU, and USD 2.76 per vehicle used to transport the waste (NIMASA
2015, NPA 2015).

adapted from Gitti et al. 2015

147
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.9

EXAMPLES OF FINES

HONG KONG

The Fixed Penalty Ordinance was introduced in 2002, under which an authorized public officer can
issue a fine of $1,500 against marine and nearshore littering (Clean Shorelines HK 2013).

CALIFORNIA

The California litter law imposes a fine between USD 250-1000 for people disposing cigarettes butts
improperly (Barnes 2011).

9.3 Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI)

The GGGI was officially launched in September
REMOVAL MEASURES – BEPS 2015 with the aim to: ‘improve the health of marine
ecosystems, protect marine animals and safeguard
human health and livelihoods’72. It represents a
Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing cross-sectoral alliance including the fishing indus-
g65ear (ALDFG) try, private sector, academia, governments, IGOs
and NGOs. It brings together a number of existing
Removal of ALDFG, using environmentally sensitive ghost net removal initiatives and is part of the GPML.
techniques, can yield several benefits. It provides The GGGI website provides examples from around
immediate benefits to marine animals, including ceta- the world of initiatives to reduce, remove and re-use
ceans, by removing gear that is a threat to entangle- ghost nets (Figure 9.8). These range from purely
ment and ingestion and has saved thousands of altruistic actions to those that create a financial ben-
animals (McElwee and Morishige, 2010). In addition to efit to local communities (Box 9.8).
conservation concerns, there can be clear economic
benefits to reducing ghost fishing, especially for higher Established programmes for recovery of fishing gear
value commercial species such as crustacea, where There have been established programmes for ALDFG
the cost-benefit ratio of removal costs versus increased in many regions for some years (Table 9.2). For exam-
fishing yields may exceed 1:10 (Gilardi et al. 2010). It ple, removal operations have been coordinated by
has been argued that paying fishermen to remove der- NOAA targeting fish traps off the NW coast of the
elict gear, in targeted programmes during non-fishing USA and drift nets off the Hawaiian archipelago
periods, can be cost-effective, as well as educational (Figure 9.9).
and hence potentially encouraging more responsible
fisheries activity (Scheld et al. 2016). Free-floating
ALDFG may be more difficult to locate, but strategies
have been developed both for the North Pacific
(McElwee et al. 2012) and the Gulf of Carpentaria
(Wilcox et al. 2014), involving some combination of
ocean circulation modelling and observation (e.g. sat-
ellite or airborne remote sensing; Mace 2012). 72 http://www.ghostgear.org/

148
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.8

Screen shot from the GGGI website showing an interactive map of

ghost net initiatives, with an example from the Philippines

Box 9.10

NET-WORKS

This is collaboration between local partners, the Zoological Society of London and two private sector
companies (Interface Inc. produces carpet tiles; Aquafil manufactures synthetic fibres). The region
of the Danajon Bank (Philippines) is a biodiversity ‘hot spot’ but has been subject to overfishing and
pollution. This initiative has resulted in the removal of 61 tonnes of discarded nets to date with 41
tonnes recycled into carpet tiles.

As a result of the programme there has been a reduction in the deliberate discarding of nets, creat-
ing a benefit both to the local community and the natural environment. A new collection hub is being
established in Northern Iloilo in the central Philippines and in the Lake Ossa region in Cameroon
Central Africa.

149
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.9

Recovery of fishing net using free divers and air bags,

PapahƗnaumokXƗkea Marine National Monument,
Northwestern Hawaii Islands (image courtesy Kris
McElee and NOAA Marine Debris Program)

Table 9.2

Time frame Gear Amount Recovered Project / source Geographical Area

1996 - 2014 820 metric tons of DFG (and NOAA‘s Pacific Islands Papahanaumokuakea MNM
other marine debris) Fisheries Science Centre

2006 - 2012 60+ tons removed CA lost fishing gear recovery Coastal California

2004 - 2012 12 000+ nets GhostNets Australia Australia

2008 - 2013 161 nets; 28 934 crab pots; CCRM VIMS Chesapeake Bay, US
4 202 other pots

2000 - 2006 10 285 tons Korean coastal cleanup Korea

campaigns (Hwang and Ko,
2007)

Not specified 20 tons fishing nets Healthy Seas Initiative North Sea, Adriatic Sea,
Mediterranean Sea

Not specified 5 600 traps Geargrab.org Gulf of Maine

Summary of total derelict gear removed in organised campaigns (NOAA 2015)

150
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

A pilot project in the Baltic in 2011 and 2012, involv- Fishing for litter
ing fishermen from Poland and Lithuania, investi-
gated the efficacy and safety of a number of gear The Fishing for Litter initiative was introduced by
retrieval methods, recovering large quantities of KIMO International75, an organisation for local munic-
ALDFG (WWF 2013). It is intended to introduce ipalities in NW Europe, to provide a cost-effective
similar schemes into other regions on the Baltic. solution for dealing with litter that is inadvertently
A retrieval programme in the East Sea, off Korea, collected during commercial fishing operations. The
removed approximately 460 tonnes of ALDFG from scheme consists of providing fishing fleets with large
the seabed, at an average depth of 1 700 m (Cho bags in which litter can be stored on-board, prior to
2011). Removal operations in such deep waters are being deposited on the quayside for proper disposal,
inherently more difficult and potentially carry more risk at no cost to the fishermen. The scheme runs in four
than carrying out recovery in shallower waters. regions of northern Europe: the Baltic, Netherlands,
Scotland and SW England. It is supported in the
MARLITT Toolkit for derelict litter projects Baltic by HELCOM which also applies the no-special
MARLITT is a pilot project funded by the EC aimed fee system to marine litter caught in fishing nets.
at developing good practice for the removal of litter
and derelict fishing gear from Europe’s four regional
seas73. A Toolkit has been produced which offers Rescue and recovery of trapped animals – BEP
practical guidance on setting up locally-based pro-
grammes to remove ALDFG (MARLITT 2015a). A Several organisations run volunteer or semi-profes-
second Toolkit provides guidance on preventing litter sional programmes to train those who may come into
entering the ocean, with a particular focus on fisher- contact with an entangled animal in rescue techniques
ies and ports (MARLITT 2015b). (Box 9.9). The overall concern is with the welfare of
the trapped animal while ensuring the safety of those
Nets to energy carrying out the rescue operation. For some endan-
The multi-partner marine debris group in Hawaii has gered species, such as the North Atlantic right whale,
been running a successful programme, since 2002, the loss of an individual may threaten the survival of
to collect ALDFG nets from beaches, coral reefs and the species. There is an inherent danger in a situation
coastal waters. Instead of going to landfill, as hap- involving an often large and distressed animal, float-
pened previously, the nets are chopped into small ing ropes and nets and human divers. Unfortunately,
pieces and then incinerated to produce steam to drive there have been human fatalities. The IWC has been
a turbine generating electricity. So far 800 tonnes of at the forefront to develop and promote effective and
nets have been processed, producing enough elec- safe rescue techniques76. There are also many small-
tricity to power 350 homes for a year74. er-scale initiatives to rehabilitate animals that have
been rescued and need attention before release.
Reducing the impact of ALDFG
The impact of ALDFG can be reducing by improved
design, so that ghost fishing can be reduced even if Shorelines
the gear is not retrieved. This is most clearly demon-
strated in the design and use of materials in pots and Countless shoreline programmes have been conducted
traps. Components such as panels or hinges that in recent years, by a variety of special interest and citi-
are fully biodegradable in seawater can significantly zens’ groups, NGOs and corporations, government
reduce the catching efficiency of the gear (Bilkovic agencies and municipalities. Initiatives may be organ-
et al. 2012). ised at local, national, regional or global scales. They
have two functions: one is to raise awareness of the
problem of marine littering; the second is to remove
material that would otherwise cause potential harm, and

73 http://www.marelitt.eu/ 75 http://www.kimointernational.org/Home.aspx

74 http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/solutions/hawaii-nets-energy-program 76 https://iwc.int/entanglement

151
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.11

INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE THE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE RESCUE OF ENTAN-

GLED ANIMALS

International Whaling Commission

The IWC has developed comprehensive principles, guidelines and training courses for large whale
entanglement response efforts. The goals are human safety, animal welfare, conservation, data
collection and awareness raising. The programme is informed by the IWC Expert Advisory Panel on
Entanglement Response

International Fund for Animal welfare (IFAW)

The IFAW trains volunteers in practical techniques to rescue and release trapped cetaceans and
seals, using a variety of equipment such as grappling hooks, floating buoys, long cutting poles and
special cutting knives and shears (IFAW 2012).

British Divers Marine Life Rescue (BDMLR)

The BDMLR has trained more than 400 British divers in how to use cutting and restraint gear for
entangled animals as part of its rescue and rehabilitation training programme (BDLMR 2012).

Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC)

The WDC uses whale watching initiatives as a means for research and monitoring the health of pop-
ulations. This provides a means of reporting animals entangled in floating debris to prompt rescue
missions (WDCS 2012).

NOAA
NOAA provides guidance to the public on rescuing trapped or entangled animals (NOAA 2012).

gradually degrade to form microplastics. Some exam- community-based activities that address local environ-
ples of large-scale schemes are given below (EC 2012). mental issues. It engages an estimated 35 million volun-
teers in 130 countries each year. Clean Up the World is
Blue Flag held over the 3rd weekend in September.
This began initially in France but has expanded to encom-
pass all of Europe, southern Africa, and the Caribbean. The International Coastal Cleanup (ICC)
originally (1985) French concept of the Blue Flag was This is a global project co-ordinated by the Ocean
developed on a European level to include also other areas Conservancy, a U.S. non-governmental organization.
of environmental management, such as waste manage- The project involves over 70 countries worldwide in litter
ment and coastal planning and protection. surveys and beach cleans over the same weekend in
September.
Clean Up the World
This is a community based environmental programme Project AWARE Foundation
that invites community groups, schools, businesses, and International Cleanup Day events involve thousands of
local governments to join as Members and carry out dive volunteers removing trash from more than 900

152
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

global dive locations in 100 countries and territories. BATs for litter capture and removal in rivers and
Project AWARE coordinates the underwater portion of harbours
International Cleanup Day in cooperation with the
Ocean Conservancy. Systems to capture floating plastics near the source
can prove to be a cost-effective way of prevent-
World Environment Day ing plastics reaching the ocean. Several innovative
This UN day is celebrated each year on 5 June and Techniques have been developed and some exam-
is one of the principal vehicles through which UNEP ples are provided here (Figure 9.10).
stimulates worldwide awareness of the environment
and focuses political attention and action.

Figure 9.10a

Figure 9.10b

Two technical solutions for intercepting floating plastics; a) a floating net array used in a river in Australia,
(Image: Bandalong International Pty Ltd) and b) ‘Mr Trash Wheel’, a floating boom and waterwheel powered by
sunlight and water in Baltimore Harbour USA (Image: Adam Lindquist, Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore.)

153
9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Korea has been at the forefront of developing prac- and expectations, and the organisers make the aston-
tical engineering approaches and infrastructure to ishing claim that: ‘A single Ocean Cleanup Array can
address marine debris in Korean water. This includes clean up half the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 10
the development of floatation booms and modified years’ time77.
grapple and other devices for removing material from
the seabed and sea surface, including ALDFG (Jung The logic for the efficacy of the OCA system is
et al. 2010). Other developments include a portable flawed for several reasons, but most importantly
volume reduction unit for EPS buoys and a full treat- there appears to have been little consideration of
ment and recycling plant for marine debris (Figure the ecological impact of installing a 60 km barrier to
9.14). free floating organisms, even assuming mobile forms
could avoid capture. The overwhelming view of marine
scientists who have discussed this issue in open sci-
Removing plastics from mid-ocean entific debate, since the idea was first mooted, is
that ocean clean-ups, of the sort envisaged by OCA,
When the headlines ‘the Great Pacific Garbage are at best a distraction from tackling the problem at
Patch’ first emerged there were some individuals who source and at worst will cause unnecessary harm78 79.
misconstrued this to mean there was a floating island If such schemes are to be proposed then there must
of debris in the middle of the ocean. They thought it be an onus on the developers to arrange a fully inde-
contained so much material that it readily could be pendent environmental impact assessment and LCA,
collected and converted for some other use, perhaps before proceeding with full-scale field trials.
fuel to replace the energy utilised in the collection
mission. It took some time to dispel this myth but
others have emerged more recently who appear to
believe that an ocean ‘clean-up’ is both practical and
desirable. Most prominent of the groups proposing a
‘solution’ is the Ocean Cleanup Project, initiated in
the Netherlands. Currently this consists of a 60 77 http://www.theoceancleanup.com/
km-wide floating net array deployed in the North 78 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29631332
Pacific, with plastic collected and stored for ‘recy- 79 http://www.5gyres.org/blog/posts/2015/6/17/5-reasons-why-oce-
cling’. This high profile campaign has high ambitions an-plastic-recovery-schemes-are-a-terrible-idea

Figure 9.11

Schematic of the treatment process for marine debris devel-

oped in Korea (adapted from Jung et al. 2010)

154
 9
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
A SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

9.4 Alternatives to outright product bans are voluntary

agreements, which may be easier to achieve. The
IMPOSING PRODUCT BANS industry body Cosmetics Europe has issued a rec-
ommendation to all its members to phase out the use
Examples of product bans range from grass roots of microplastics in wash-off cosmetic products by
campaigns to remove goods from a well-defined 202082.
source, such as shops on university campuses, to
bans imposed by national governments on certain
types of plastic bags.

Several governments in Africa have introduced, or

82 http://www.5gyres.org/blog/posts/2015/8/12/ucla
are planning to introduce legislation to ban or restrict
the use of conventional plastic shopping bags, usu-
ally below a certain minimum thickness (South Africa,
Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda, Mauritania and Uganda80).
This has been prompted by the severe problems
discarded bags have caused, for example by block-
ing drains and open sewers or causing the death of
livestock, in countries where solid waste disposal is
poorly developed and regulated. In other sub-Sa-
haran countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra
Leone, plastic bags are considered essential to pro-
vide clean drinking water and they are much more
affordable than plastic bottles. This illustrates why
those promoting litter reduction measures have to
take account of the economic and social dimensions
of the local communities.

Student interventions have been successful in ban-

ning the sale of bottled water on several University
and College campuses in the USA, accompanied by
the refurbishment of drinking water fountains. In the
USA a student-led campaign, at the Univ. California
Los Angeles, resulted in the removal of all PCCP
products containing microbeads81. The message of
this grassroots campaign has been matched by a
number of States in the USA which moved to ban
microbeads from PCCPs. However, these efforts
have been superseded by the ‘Microbead-Free
Waters Act’, passed unanimously by the US House
and Senate in December 2015, and signed into law
by President Obama on 4 January 2016. The phase
out is due to begin on 1 July 2017.
Photo: © Erik de Castro / Reuters

80 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20891539
81 http://www.5gyres.org/blog/posts/2015/8/12/ucla

155
10

156
10. RISK
ferred by specialists (Box 10.1). It is an approach
that is routinely applied in every aspect of human
activity, ranging from formal risk assessments, for

ASSESSMENT example in major construction projects, to informal

decision-making by individuals, for example on when

AND GUIDELINE
to cross a busy road.

FOR SELECTING Risk = likelihood/probability x consequence/

hazard

MEASURES
In the context of marine litter, the hazard is the pres-
ence and potential impact of plastic items/particles
and the likelihood is the extent or rate of encounter.
The earlier sections of this report describe the source
and distribution of the potential hazard (macro and
microplastics), and the potential impact. Estimating
the degree of risk provides a more robust basis for
10.1 decisions on whether or how to act to reduce the risk,
if it is considered unacceptable, than simply react-
DEFINING RISK ing to popular appeal or an advocacy group, however
well intentioned.
In simple terms risk is defined as the likelihood (or
probability) that a consequence (or hazard) will occur. The risk of a significant impact occurring will vary
Terms such as likelihood and consequence may be depending on the ecosystem component being
more familiar to a non-technical audience, whereas assessed, the nature of the hazard and the likelihood
probability and hazard are terms that may be pre- of the hazard occurring (Table 10.1)

Table 10.1

Risk category Risk outcome

High The risk is very likely to occur

Moderate The risk is quite likely to be expressed

Low In most cases the risk will not be expressed

Extremely low The risk is likely to be expressed only rarely

Negligible The probability of the risk being expressed is so small

that it can be ignored in practical terms

Defining the degree of risk at a generic level (GESAMP 2008)

157
10
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

The hazard descriptions can be adapted • Chemical contamination of commercial spe-

readily for other ecosystem components, cies (seafood safety)
for example: – shellfish aquaculture (e.g. South Korea)

• Injury or death to endangered species As an illustration, a risk assessment and risk commu-
– North Atlantic right whale, Hawaiian monk seal nication study for coastal aquaculture, in which poten-
• Injury or death to rare or iconic species tial hazards associated with water quality were
– humpback whale, laysan albatross (Pacific), described in some detail (GESAMP 2008). Hazards
leatherback turtle, Stellar sea lion were ranked from negligible to catastrophic, and
• Injury or death to indicator species accompanied by a description of the effects (Table
– northern fulmar NE Atlantic), loggerhead turtle 10.2).
(Mediterranean)
• Damage to sensitive or critical habitat Similar tables can be developed for a variety of mar-
– tropical reef, cold water reef itime sectors or ecosystem components (i.e. spe-
• Loss of commercial species due to ghost cies, habitats, functional groups) and for a wide
fishing (food security) range of potential hazards. For example, Lithner et al
– Dungeness crab (NW Pacific) (2011) developed an environmental and health

Table 10.2

Degree of hazard Description of hazard

Catastrophic • Irreversible change to ecosystems performance

in the faunal-province [regional] level; or
• The extinction of a species or rare habitat

High • High mortality for an affected species or significant changes

in the function of an ecosystem
• Effects would be expected to occur at the level of a single coastal or oceanic body
• Effects would be felt for a prolonged period after the culture activities stop (greater than
the period which the new species
was cultured or three generations of the wild species whichever
is the lesser time period)
• Changes would not be amenable to control or mitigation

Moderate • Change in ecosystem performance or species performance

at a regional or sub-population level, but they would not
be expected to affect whole ecosystems
• Changes associated with these risks would be reversible
• Changes that has a moderately protracted consequence
• Changes may be amenable to control or mitigation at a
significant cost or their effects may be temporary

Low • Changes are expected to affect the environment and species

at a local level but would be expected to have a negligible effect
at the regional or ecosystem scale
• Changes would be amenable to mitigation or control
• Effects would be of a temporary nature

Negligible • Changes expected to be localised to the production site

and to be of a transitory nature
• Changes are readily amenable to control or mitigation

Description of hazards in relation to aquaculture (GESAMP 2008)

158
 10
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

hazard classification of a large number of polymers problem identification and formulation followed by a
and co-polymers. This was based on the UN Global characterization of exposure and effect (GESAMP
Harmonised System (UN 2011). 2008). Ideally this should lead to the identification
of potential intervention points and an evaluation of
possible risk management actions, to ‘close the loop’.
Risk perception Risk Assessment Frameworks provide a means of
In many cases, a perception of some degree of risk formalising the process of examining a system in con-
is required to engage people with the issue and trig- text, describing possible consequences if a failure in
ger behaviour change. Interest in marine plastics and the system occurs and predicting the likelihood of a
microplastics in the media has increased in the past failure occurring (Figure 10.1). Evaluating the con-
decade, in both traditional print media and on-line text is an essential first step (Fletcher 2015). This
(GESAMP 2015). Articles have highlighted both the requires communication and consultation with those
problem and potential solutions (GESAMP 2016). individual or organisational stakeholders who may be
In order to promote behaviour change, this is espe- directly or indirectly affected, a process that should
cially important, as individuals need to perceive the be maintained throughout. The risk assessment con-
relevance of the issue but also how their actions can sists of three stages: risk identification, risk analysis
help (Tanner and Kast 2003). However, empirical and risk evaluation. A decision can then be made on
research on public risk perception of microplastics the best way to treat this risk. The system and risk
and nano-plastics is still lacking. assessment process needs to be monitored and kept
under review so that adjustments can be made. This
Nano-plastics model can be applied to complex construction pro-
Nano-plastics are an emerging issue because moni- jects, such as building a nuclear power station, as
toring methods have not been developed yet and the well as more straightforward decisions about keeping
scale of industrial production is unclear. However, a beach free from litter. The risk assessment corre-
there has been a literature around the perception of sponds to the Impact-Response part of the DPSIR
“nanotechnologies” in the social sciences since the framework (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response,
early 2000s. As opposed to other contested issues Chapter 10.3).
in new technology development (e.g., GM foods),
public opinion on nanotechnologies appears to be This approach can be applied to a wide range of
largely positive, with ‘discussion of risk issues […] potential marine plastic impacts. Two examples have
relatively limited so far’ (Pidgeon & Rogers-Hayden been developed to illustrate the approach (Figures
2007). Satterfield et al. (2009) provide a meta-analy- 10.2 and 10.3). The first is an actual case involving
sis of recent studies into public perceptions of nano- the entanglement of marine turtles in ALDFG in the
technology. Their key findings are that three quarters Gulf of Carpentaria, in northern Australia. Marine
of people surveyed in the US, UK and Canada believe turtles are subject to significant impacts by marine
the benefits outweigh the risks of nanotechnologies, plastic litter, both due to ingestion (Camedda et al.
but more than 40% are unsure. This uncertainty is still 2014) and entanglement (Wilcox et al. 2014). This
present in more recent work and has been linked to represents an additional pressure for taxa whose
high fragility and mobility of attitudes (e.g. Satterfield individuals are routinely caught as by-catch in active
et al. 2012). This is a societal risk because new fishing gear and whose nesting sites are subject to
information or a future risk event has the potential loss and disturbance (refs). The Gulf of Carpentaria
to change public opinion rapidly in the case of such is an important breeding area for several species of
unstable attitudes. turtle (flat- back Natator depressus, green Chelonia
mydas, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricate, loggerhead
Caretta caretta, and olive Ridleys turtles Lepidochelys
10.2 olivacea; Wilcox et al. 2014). The region is subject
to an influx of ALDFG from the extensive fisheries
IDENTIFYING INTERVENTION POINTS - RISK of South-east Asia with a consequent loss of turtles
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS due to entanglement. The risk from entanglement has
been quantified by mapping the distribution of tur-
Risk assessment frameworks tles and predicting the drift trajectories of ghost nets
Risk assessments generally follow a similar set of using an ocean circulation model, to estimate proba-
steps, and a variety of conceptual frameworks have ble encounter rates (Wilcox et al 2015). The illustra-
been proposed to illustrate this process. These tend tion of the use of a formal risk assessment framework
to have a number of common features, beginning with in Figure 10.2 is based on information provided by

159
10
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Figure 10.1

Risk Assessment Framework (proposed by Fletcher 2015).

Wilcox et al. (2015a). The second example (Figure consequences of taking action; i.e. is there a realistic
10.3) is of a hypothetical risk assessment of the prospect of an intervention being effective, without
potential impact of microplastics on bivalve aquacul- introducing some unwelcome effect.
ture, specifically contamination by chemicals associ-
ated with the microplastics. In this case the risk from Setting priorities needs to be done at an appropri-
chemicals contamination was evaluated to be within ate governance scale (local, nation, regional) and
regulatory limits, but action was deemed necessary take account of the social, economic and ecologi-
to minimise changes in consumer behaviour due to a cal context. In this report, several sectors have been
perception of unacceptable risk. highlighted as having the potential to leak substantial
quantities of macro or microplastics in to the ocean
(Chapter 5), or create significant impacts (Chapter
Identifying priority areas for intervention 7). However, the relative importance of any of these
potential sources, and the pathways by which mate-
It is important to ensure that efforts to reduce the leak- rial reaches the ocean, will be very regionally depend-
age of macro and microplastic into the ocean, remove ent. There may be cases of being able to ‘pick the
what is already there, or in some other way mitigate low-hanging fruit’, i.e. implementing a simple low-cost
the impact, are both well-directed and cost-effective. solution which brings about an immediate improve-
There are multiple potential areas for intervention but ment. In other cases, there may be complex social,
assigning priorities as to which to tackle and how to political and economic hurdles to overcome. In some
select an approach need to be guided by the risks cases, technological developments and interventions
or not taking action (i.e. what is the hazard) and the will be needed.

160
 10
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Figure 10.2

Case study of turtle entanglement by ALDFG in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Wilcox et al. 2014), mapped onto
the Risk Assessment Framework developed by Fletcher (2015) (original by P.J. Kershaw).

Figure 10.3

Hypothetical risk assessment of the impact of microplastics on bivalve aquaculture, mapped onto the
Risk Assessment Framework developed by Fletcher (2015) (original by P.J. Kershaw).

161
10
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

This report stops short of identifying specific priority intended to be a quantitative risk assessment tool,
areas. But it is hoped that the information and guidance but it does provide a useful tool for structuring com-
it contains will enable practitioners, policy-makers and munication between scientists and end-users/deci-
the general public to make better-informed choices and sion makers (Maxim et al. 2009). Figure 10.4
choose the most appropriate response (Chapter 10.3). illustrates the relationships within the DPSIR frame-
work for marine plastic litter between the major
Drivers (e.g. food security, energy generation), the
Pressures or stressors that are a consequence (e.g.
10.1 fisheries, shipping), the change in the state of the
environment (e.g. plastic litter in the ocean), and the
GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING THE APPROACH potential impact in terms of a loss of ecosystem ser-
vices (e.g. navigation hazard to shipping, injury of
organism due to ingestion). The impact here is
Choosing the Response (DPSIR) defined in socio-economic terms as a welfare
impact; i.e. there is an effect on an ecosystem ser-
The overarching aim of any approach has to be to vice that society considers undesirable. Note, there
reduce the impact of marine plastics, in terms of will usually be a cost-benefit trade-off to achieve the
ecology, society or economics. The main concern desired reduction in welfare impact without undue
may be focussed on one or a combination of all cost to the underlying driver (Mee et al. 2015). The
three. The Driver – Pressure – State – Impact – DPSIR conceptual framework will be further
Response (DPSIR) conceptual framework is quite extended, or complemented, for example looking at
widely used to place activities and their impacts in risks to biodiversity by introducing four spheres of
context, and to map potential responses (Niemeijer sustainability (environmental, economic, social, and
and de Groot 2008, Alexander et al. 2015). It is not political) (Maxim et al. 2009).

Figure 10.4

The DPSIR framework in relation to inputs and impacts of marine plastic litter
(original by P.J. Kershaw).

162
 10
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

The selection of appropriate measure must be 4. utilising market-based instruments;

guided by several processes: 5. introducing guidelines or voluntary agreements
and codes of practice; and
1. defining the problem – context and objectives; 6. introducing legislation.
2. carrying out a risk assessment, to establish the
nature of the risk and justify intervention; A framework for guiding the selection of appropriate
3. establishing which element of the DPSIR measures is presented in Figure 10.4
framework should be targeted (Driver, Pressure,
State or Impact); and The DPSIR framework can be used also to illustrate
4. evaluating the most appropriate response – potential measures to reduce the loss of ecosystem
selection of measures. services. This is the Response element of DPSIR.
The response can involve the driver, pressure, state
At all stages there needs to be a mechanism in place or welfare elements. Figure 10.4 indicates possible
for consultation and communication, and a process responses to reduce the welfare impact of injury to
to review and monitor the risk and consequences of marine turtles from marine litter resulting from entan-
introducing the measure. The possible measures to glement in ALDFG and ingestion of plastic bags.
reduce the impact of marine plastics can be catego- Each driver will require a specific set of responses
rised broadly as follows: and intervention points, some of which may be
common and some of which may relate solely to that
1. influencing behaviour change by raising driver. Both market-based and non-market-based
awareness and education; marine litter reduction solutions are described in the
2. encouraging best/good practice; following sections.
3. introducing Best Available Techniques/
Technologies (BATs);
Photo: © Danish Siddiqui / Reuters

163
10
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Figure 10.5a

A framework for guiding the selection of appropriate Responses to reduce or miti-

gate against the impact of marine plastic debris (original by P.J. Kershaw).

Figure 10.5b

DPSIR framework showing some potential responses to reduce the impact on sea
turtles of entanglement in ALDFG and ingestion of plastic bags; RD – Responses
direct at Drivers, RP – Responses directed at Pressures, RS – Responses directed at
environmental State, RI – Responses directed at Impacts (original by P.J. Kershaw).

164
 10
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Criteria for evaluating Best Practices Criteria for selecting Best Available Techniques

Best Practices (or Best Environmental Practices, BEPs) A number of criteria have been put forward to eval-
generally involve lower financial investment than Best uate BATs in the waste management sector (Tetra
Available Techniques/Technologies (BATs). Some Tech 2015), which may have wider applicability to
BEPs are developed by public or private bodies. Others the selection of BATs in other sectors. The aim is to
may be more dependent on volunteering, citizens’ ensure that the proposed BAT is appropriate to the
groups, special interest groups and NGOs. social and economic setting:
Dissemination and stakeholder involvement is key to
establishing appropriate BEPs and promulgating good 1. What is the scale and affordability of the tech-
practice. The use of the term ’best’ can be unhelpful. A nology for a local government or business? What
practice may be ‘good enough’ to bring about a worth- are the financing opportunities?
while improvement, even though it may not be the ‘best’ 2. Is the technology a good fit for the types and
possible had sufficient resources or time been available. quantities of waste materials generated in the
community?
Many factors contribute to what makes a practice 3. Does the technology process include local
‘good’, and one that may be ideal in a certain set of communities in technology innovation, modifica-
circumstances may be inappropriate in an alternative tion and implementation, providing continuing job
setting. These factors may include: opportunities?
4. Is the technology going to result in a process
1. Effective communication, education and will- that continues to employ or increase job opportu-
ingness to collaborate on the part of the public, nities for local workers, or will it displace people
authorities and user groups from existing jobs?
2. The availability of, and willingness to use, local/ 5. Is the technology understandable without high
specialist knowledge levels of training? Can it be controlled and main-
3. A recognition of the local and regional social, tained by local community members without spe-
cultural and economic circumstances cialized education?
4. The availability of start-up funding 6. Is the technology sustainable, both with
5. A mechanism to ensure longer term viability, respect to the environment and to technology
possibly through self-financing repair and replacement when and if skilled pro-
fessional support is no longer available?
There are many examples of good practice and it can 7. Will the technology have an adverse impact
be difficult to judge their relative success. An evaluation on the environment?
tool, DeCyDe-4-MARLISCO, has been designed to 8. Will the technology contribute to community
provide a means to select optimal solutions for marine members working together to improve the quality
litter reduction based on existing good practices of life/standard of living?
(Loizidou et al. 2014). To be successful, the approach 9. Is the technology adaptable and flexible? Can
requires the active participation of a representative it be adapted to changing circumstances such as
group of stakeholders. Eleven measures were judged increases or decreases in tonnage or more strin-
to be the most effective out of 73 that were evaluated gent environmental regulations?
(Annex IX).

Four evaluation criteria were applied: Criteria for selecting Market-based Instruments
(MBIs)
1. Impact – a measure of the effectiveness of the
chosen practice at bringing about a significant There is a variety of MBIs that can be used to both reduce
reduction when applied as intended to a specific the production of waste that could become marine litter
region or case; and incentivize good behaviour (e.g. avoid littering, illegal
2. Applicability or exploitability – a measure of waste disposal). Some are explicitly targeted at marine
the degree to which the practice could be applied litter, others have multiple or broader foci (e.g. waste
more widely; reduction in general), and others focus elsewhere but
3. Sustainability – a measure of the longevity of the can help address marine litter (e.g. fees for waste man-
practice, taking account of social, environmental agement infrastructure and collection services). MBIs
and economic considerations; and must comply with existing national and international
4. Data and information availability. agreements and legislation, such as the WTO.

165
10
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
RISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Positive incentives 1. Political will, political acceptability and buy in,

Economic incentives are implemented to stimulate a which often builds on perceptions of probable
specific behaviour that can help reduce marine litter. success.
There are a number of incentives which can be used 2. Public acceptability – the public needs to
to address marine litter, involving a number of stake- understand why there is an instrument (what
holders at different levels – including deposit refund problem does it deal with), that various options
schemes as well as payments, subsidies or awards have been explored and that the choice is fair and
for certain actions. appropriate.
3. Communication – to ensure public acceptability,
Disincentives awareness of the benefits of responding, aware-
There are also a number of financial disincentives, ness of the ways of responding to the instrument,
these can be applied at several levels. What differ- and that the authorities are serious about the
entiates the two groups is the fact that disincentives instrument.
aim at changing behaviours by discouraging bad 4. Regulatory and institutional framework in
ones, where incentives are based on promotion of place - capacity to monitor and enforce current
good behaviours. legislation. This has to be credible to make the
instrument work. Monitoring and enforcement
Criteria have been put forward for testing the suitabil- require financial support.
ity of a MBI (UNEP 2016c): 5. Physical infrastructures in place – e.g., waste
collection, management and recycling infrastruc-
1. Has it the potential to be a fair instrument (put- tures.
ting burdens in their due place)? 6. National considerations – economic, political,
2. Will it avoid unacceptable social impacts? and institutional – are significant and should not
• Will it avoid any negative effect on the more be minimised or underestimated.
vulnerable members of society?
• Is it affordable? In many cases public acceptability is linked to demon-
3. Is it consistent with other important economic strating a clear link between the imposition of a fee
objectives? (e.g. budget deficit, competitiveness, and supposed benefit. For example, revenues from
inflation, and balance of payments) taxes applied on the tourism sector and other recre-
4. Is the instrument likely to be cost-effective? ational users of coastal areas (e.g. car park charges
(i.e., more effective than other instruments such near beaches, fees for recreational fishers) can con-
as regulatory, educational or other economic tribute to funding coastal clean-up, waste collection
instrument; no major additional costs to imple- and treatment, helping to alleviate pressure on local
ment, etc.) authority budgets. Tourists’ willingness to pay such
5. Does the instrument lead to efficient pricing? taxes depends on several factors including the age
(i.e., improve pricing such that the market price is and income of tourists, and whether there is a link
closer to resource / social pricing) between the tax and litter control (Oosterhuis et al.,
6. Are the instrument and the rationale behind 2014).
it understandable and deemed credible by the
stakeholders / public?
7. Is there capacity to design, implement and
enforce such an instrument by the authorities?
• Is the available administrative / infrastructural
capacity (skills, staff) sufficient?
• Are there sufficient resources to cover
additional administrative costs?
• Are sufficient data available?

Once the best instrument has been chosen, to make

it work effectively, it needs to be well designed and
linked to a number of other supporting instruments. It
needs to be effectively launched, communicated, sup-
ported, enforced and monitored. There needs to be:

166
11

167
11. MONITORING
techniques are used for monitoring microplastics in
sediments (reviewed in (Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012,
van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015, Rocha-Santos and

AND ASSESSMENT Duarte 2015). These methods include density sep-

aration, filtration and/or sieving Hidalgo-Ruz et al.
2012, Rocha-Santos & Duarte, 2015). To facilitate
the plastic extraction among organic components
such as organic debris (shell fragments, small organ-
isms, algae or sea grasses, etc.), solutions can be
applied to selectively digest and remove the organic
11.1 material (Galgani et al. 2011, Hidalgo-Ruz et al.
2012, Cole et al. 2014) such as for water samples.
SUMMARY OF MONITORING METHODS These are described in more detail in Annex X.

Rivers
Obtaining representative samples of macro and Upper ocean
microplastics in rivers can be problematic. For sur-
face sampling of microplastics stationary or towed Observations of macroplastics at sea
nets have been used. Alternatively, an underwater Visual sightings of macroplastics from ship-based
pump can be used to collect water which is then observers have been reported since the 1970s
passed through a net (van der Wal et al. 2015). A (Venrick et al. 1973), and have proved to provide
floating sampler has been developed in Europe, for useful information about litter densities and how
larger items (> 3.2 mm), by the organisation Waste these compare between regions and over time. There
Free Water. This is in two parts, with a surface net has been an effort to standardise the observational
and a suspension net collecting at a depth of 0.2 methods used to reduce potential bias in the data.
to 0.7 m (van der Wal et al. 2015). Measuring the Factors such as wave and light conditions, and the
transport of material along the river bed has been height of the observer relative to the sea face can all
undertaken using bottom nets designed for fishing contribute to variations in the number of items meas-
(Mirrit et al. 2014). In addition floating booms have ured. A simple methodology has been proposed that
been deployed in rivers, harbours and other water- should greatly improve the robustness of observa-
ways to serve as litter traps. River flows can be very tions, allowing a more coherent picture of the distri-
episodic, and the quantities of material transported bution of floating plastic objects to be constructed in
may vary considerably on an hourly, weekly, seasonal time and space (Ryan 2013). This takes account of
or multi-year basis. In addition, flows are not constant the minimum size of items counted, the distance of
across the cross-section of the river. items from the ship, the height of the observer above
sea level, and the position of the observer relative
to the ship’s bow wave. In extreme cases, aircraft
Shorelines or satellite observations may provide a role, particu-
larly in the aftermath of natural disasters, such as the
Sampling macroplastics 2011 Tǀhoku earthquake tsunami in the North Pacific
Several national and regional bodies have developed (NOAA 2015).
protocols for conducting beach surveys (Lippiat et
al. 2013, OSPAR 2010, NOWPAP 2007, HELCOM, ALDFG
JRC 2013). These are designed to reduce varia- A number of strategies are being developed for at-sea
bility and bias in the observations, by setting down detection of floating ALDFG, including using aircraft
guidelines for demarcating sampling protocols, such and satellite observation (Morishige and McElwee
as the length and position of transects and record- 2012), combined with ocean circulation modelling
ing instructions to place found items in a number of (Wilcox et al. 2013).
pre-determined categories.
Sampling microplastics
Sampling microplastics Microplastics are usually sampled using towed nets,
Sampling for microplastics on shorelines usually originally designed for sampling plankton. Manta
consists of passing sediment samples through a trawls are commonly used for surface sampling and
sieve, either in-situ (Figure 11.1) or in a labora- Bongo nets for mid-water (Figure 11.2). Mesh sizes
tory (dry or wet sieving). A wide range of sampling may vary (0.053 – 3 mm) but most surveys use a 330

168
 11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Figure 11.1

Sampling for microplastics on a sandy beach by dry

sieving, near Busan, South Korea,
July 2014. ©Peter Kershaw

μm mesh. Particles below this size are captured but also been used to determine relative microplastic
are under-represented. Net apertures vary from 0.03 abundance, including retrospective evaluation of
to 2 m2, depending on the type and shape. Smaller archived samples and is now considered as a rou-
mesh sizes result in increased net resistance and tine part of on-going CPR analysis (Cole, 2011). The
clogging, resulting in under-sampling and poten- CPR samples the water column at about 10m depth,
tially ripping. This can be partly lessoned by increas- using 280 μm mesh, so the data are not readily com-
ing the surface area of the net. Results are usually parable with data from standard towed nets.
reported in number of items or mass of items m-2 or
m-3. More recently some researchers have started to
use on-board filtration of seawater (Desforges et al. Seabed observations
2014). This allows underway sampling while main-
taining normal steaming speeds, with filtration to As more studies are completed it has come apparent
smaller size ranges being possible. that significant quantities of plastic debris are lying on
the seabed in parts of the global ocean. Some stud-
Long-term data from Continuous Plankton Recorders ies have been based on direct observation by cam-
(CPRs), sampling on regular and fixed routes, have eras (Pham et al.), whereas others have been based

169
11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Figure 11.2

Towed Manta trawl for sampling the ocean surface

for floating microplastics – (NOAA News Archive)

on recovery in towed bottom trawls, as part of routine greater spatial and temporal coverage. Video-based
fisheries management surveys. Many larger items will systems, with image recognition software, have been
have been deposited close to the point of release (e.g. tested to monitor beach litter in Japan and the condi-
from a ship). Others may have floated and been trans- tions under which litter is deposited or removed from
ported before losing buoyancy and sinking (e.g. fish- the shoreline (Kako et al. 2010). A ship-mounted
ing gear), or been carried to great depth in canyons video system has been developed for use on ships of
linking the continental shelf to the ocean floor (Galgani opportunity in the Mediterranean (JRC 2013). These
1996, 2000). In shallower waters, side-scan sonar are still at an early stage of development.
has been used to locate crab pots in Chesapeake to
better target removal operations (Havens 2009). Another approach has been to develop sampling sys-
tems for microplastics, to allow water to be pumped
on-board while the ship is underway then passing
Sampling biota through a filtration system. The next step will be to
utilise image recognition to describe particle size and
There are two main approaches used: i) retrieving shape and introduce some form of rapid analysis to
and examining dead organisms; and, examining faecal identify the polymer cost-effectively.
samples of larger living organisms. A wide variety of
biota has been examined for the presence of macro
and microplastics. However, for monitoring purposes 11.2
it is important to identify an appropriate indicator spe-
cies; i.e. is it characteristic of a region and common SETTING BASELINES, INDICATORS AND
enough to allow repeated sampling. This is expanded TARGETS
upon below.
Baselines

Automated systems In natural sciences a baseline is usually defined as the

state of some element in the environment prior to an
There are several advantages to developing auto- event or some expected change. A baseline survey of
mated systems to monitor marine plastics, including nutrient levels in seawater might be conducted before

170
the installation of a wastewater treatment plants, or of 1. Scientifically valid
heavy metal concentrations in seabed sediments or 2. Simple to understand by public and policy
biota prior to the disposal of mine wastes offshore. For makers
marine plastics we can refer to a baseline state (of zero 3. Sensitive and responsive to change
occurrence) in the early 1950s, before large-scale 4. Cost-effective
plastics production began. As of 2016 it is reasonable 5. Policy-relevant
to assume that there is no longer a ‘pristine’ state, with
respect to marine plastics, anywhere in the ocean. A number of other factors will need to be taken into
Instead we have to set a baseline as the state observed account when identifying appropriate indicators and
at a particular time or place (e.g. number of plastic setting targets:
items per unit area/volume/mass in sediment/water/
biota), from which a monitoring programme can estab- 1. The purpose of the assessment
lish whether the littering is increasing or decreasing. 2. Degree of granularity in the description of the
This definition differs from a ‘baseline’ as used in eco- components selected for monitoring83
nomics, which describes the current direction of some 3. Spatial variations in the property being meas-
economic measure (i.e. increasing or decreasing). ured – local, national, regional (<1 m – 100s km)
4. Temporal variations in the component being
measured – daily, weekly, annually, inter-annual,
What makes a good indicator? episodic84
5. The availability of cost-effective sampling and har-
In environmental management, indicators are often monised monitoring techniques and approaches
used to describe the ‘state’ of the environment; i.e. the
degree to which a selected ‘descriptor’, such as the
number of large fish, departs from an optimal state. In
most cases this optimal state is not the same as pris-
tine; i.e. before the influence of human activities. 83 Within the MSFD, 217 separate categories of marine litter have been
Instead, a ‘target state’ can be selected on the under- identified; JRC/EC, 2013.
standing that it will be possible to introduce manage- 84 For example, within the European Union this is referred to as ‘Good
Environmental Status’ under the Marine Strategy Framework Direc-
ment measures in order to achieve this (Table 11.1). tive http://www.msfd.eu/knowseas/guidelines/3-INDICATORS-Gui-
A good indicator has the following attributes: deline.pdf

Table 11.1

Term Definition Examples

Indicator A measure of the State of the environment, Number of items of litter on a beach per unit area
subject to a Pressure (i.e. littering)

Baseline A reference State, usually based on data obtained Number of litter items per unit area
by monitoring an indicator in the environment

Proxy indi- An indirect measure of a Pressure Coastal population density, shipping density,
cator tourist visitor numbers, size and location of fish-
ing fleets, percentage mismanaged solid waste

Target A preferred State84, usually defined by a national < ‘y’ items of litter per unit area
administration or regional body, with the expectation that
effective management measures can be implemented
to achieve it

Aspirational A desired state to be achieved in the future, which

target cannot be achieved in the short-medium term

Common definitions of environmental indicators

171
11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Box 11.1

DEFINITION OF CRITERIA USED IN DEVELOPING INDICATORS

FOR MARINE LITTER IN EUROPEAN SEAS

Level of maturity: high-used extensively for > 1 decade; medium-used systematically for, 1 decade;
low-tool under development, further R&D needed

Technical/equipment – requirements in terms of cost: low - €1K-€10k; medium - €10k-€50k;

high - > €50k

Expertise: low-trained personnel without specific professional qualifications; medium-trained

personnel with specific professional qualifications; high – high skill and expertise required

Cost – total costs incurred: low - €1K-€10k; medium - €10k-€50k; high - > €50k

Level of detail generated: potential of the protocol to generate details and information in terms of
material, nature and purpose of the items sampled, which can be attributed to specific and distinct
sources.

Geographical applicability: potential of the protocol to be applied in any geographic area/region

Limitations: key aspects inherent to the protocol and/or factors that can limit its applicability and/or
generation of reliable and comparable data.

Opportunities to reduce costs: opportunities that can improve cost-effectiveness by making use
of other monitoring programmes (e.g. for other MSFD descriptors) and/or maritime operations, in
which the protocol can be integrated.
(JRC 2013)

Indicators, as defined here, fit within the higher-level These include indicators both of environmental State
indicators and monitoring framework being devel- and ‘process’ indicators of progress in the implemen-
oped for the UN SDGs, specifically target 14.1 tation of the GPML (Annex XI). These are relatively
(Chapter 2)85. high-level indicators that can be adapted to meet the
particular ecological, social and economic circum-
Proposed indicators for marine plastics stances of the nation or region.
A series of indicators for marine plastics has been
proposed in connection with the implementation of Several Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans
the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML). have coordinated implementation of Marine Litter
monitoring programmes and developed state and
impact indicators related to marine litter with the view
to define good environmental status. For example,
UNEP/MAP has developed an integrated monitoring
and assessment programme based on three region-
85 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&ty-
pe=400&nr=2013&menu=35 wide common indicators.

172
 11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Within the European Union a Framework Directive ble through application of the Codex Alimentarius86.
has been adopted, providing a Marine Strategy for However, there are no standards for the quantities of
European Seas (MSFD; EC 2008). Eleven descrip- nano- or microplastics. In order to develop standards,
tors have been agreed to describe the State of it will be necessary to establish the risk relationship
European Seas, with targets to define what is Good between the number of particles and probable harm,
Environmental Status (GES) measured by a global accepting that this will depend on the size, shape,
indicator framework and associated SDG indicators. composition, number and exposure pathway. At pres-
One of the Descriptors is marine litter. Detailed tech- ent there are no accepted standards for measuring
nical recommendations and guidelines have been the concentration of nano- and microplastics in dif-
published covering the selection of indicators and ferent media. This is an area requiring further investi-
appropriate monitoring techniques (JRC 2011, 2013). gation, based on pragmatic risk-based assessments,
A set of criteria has been developed to assist in the in order to focus resources on reducing the most sig-
selection and implementation of appropriate indica- nificant risks.
tors (Box 11.1). These have been applied to a series
of indicators for macro and microplastics in seawater, Winners and losers
seabed, shoreline and biotas compartments. It is also important to consider that there may be ‘win-
ners’ and losers’ from the imposition of management
measures. For example, a ruling could be introduced
Setting realistic targets requiring that any litter picked up inadvertently during
normal fishing operations be landed in the next port
Targets are usually set by an administration, so that of call. The skipper may then be faced with a bill for
they have a legal basis within which mitigation meas- waste treatment that affects profit. This does nothing
ures can be developed and implemented. However, it to ‘punish’ those who allowed the litter to be intro-
is only worth setting a target if there is a reasonable duced to the marine environment, possibly breaking
likelihood of achieving it. In the case of marine litter, a a law in doing so, but effectively ‘punishes’ someone
connection has to be made between the presence of else who is following the law. Measures sometimes
particular items of litter and a specific source(s) that have unintended and undesirable consequences.
can be controlled. This may be very difficult to estab- Substituting glass bottles for plastic bottles in coastal
lish, as similar items may come from several different resorts may bring about a decrease in the number of
sources (land- and sea-based). A further complica- discarded plastic bottles. But, if littering continues,
tion is that items may originate from outside the juris- the social consequences may be worse as a result of
diction of the administration. For example, a beach injuries from broken glass.
survey in the Netherlands indicated that only 42%
of items collected had a local origin (van Franeker
2010). This phenomenon is even more marked in the Examples of indicators and trends
case of mid-ocean islands and SIDS. If it is unsure
whether a target can be met within the short- to medi- Establishing trends in plastic abundance requires a
um-term then an aspirational target may be set. For combination of selecting an appropriate indicator,
example, the EC has adopted an aspirational target developing a robust sampling and analysis strategy,
of 30% reduction by 2020 in the top 10 items found and maintaining a monitoring programme over a suffi-
on beaches and fishing gear found at sea (EC 2014). cient period to establish a time-series to reveal a trend,
taking account of any inherent variability in the data-
It may be considered desirable to call for ‘standards’ set. Globally there are relatively few examples where
for the quantities of macro and microplastics in waste these conditions have been met. However, there have
streams or particular environmental compartments. In been two exceptional studies, both described by van
some cases, it may be practical to do so. If waste- Franeker and Law (2015): i) surface concentrations
water is subject to tertiary treatment, then setting a of floating plastics in the North Atlantic gyre (towed
standard of > ‘x’% retention may be achievable. In the plankton nets); and, ii) the incidence of ingested plas-
case of PCCPs, it would be possible to require zero tics by the northern fulmar in the greater North Sea.
added microplastic particles. However, in most cases
targets are more likely to be related to achieving pro-
portional reductions, with ‘standards’ set locally to
take account of relevant sources, pathways and the
social, ecological and economic context. Standards
for contaminants in foodstuffs are already availa- 86 http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/standards/en/

173
11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Biological indicators for plastics have tended to focus The fulmar indicator clearly shows that the incidence
on common species with life traits that favour indis- of plastic has been relatively constant in recent years
criminate feeding, or those that might mistake plastic (Figure 11.3), with higher values occurring close to
for food items. Samples are usually taken from ani- shipping lanes and areas of industrial development.
mals found beached, to avoid unnecessary culling. One significant trend has been a steady decline in
Regional surveys will be species-specific, depend- ‘industrial’ plastics (i.e. resin pellets). This trend is
ing on the characteristic fauna. One of the long- apparent also in the towed samples from the North
est-standing biological indicators was developed in Atlantic gyre. However, the overall incidence of plas-
the Netherlands, based on the quantities of plastic tics shows a high degree of variability, with no statis-
found in the stomach of the northern fulmar (Fulmarus tically significant trend (Figure 11.4).
glacialis). This approach has now become one of
the ecological quality assessment markers used by
OSPAR to assess both the abundance of plastic Figure 11.4 Incidence of user plastics and industrial
debris at sea and regional differences and trends over plastics in samples collected from the North Atlantic
time (van Franeker et al. 2011). Clearly the selection gyre, using towed plakton nets (van Franeker and Law
of a biological indicator will be regionally-dependent. 2015)
In the Mediterranean the loggerhead turtle (Caretta
caretta) has been adopted as the most appropriate
indicator species (JRC 2011).

Figure 11.3

Incidence of plastic fragments in the stomachs of beached northern fulmars in different subregions
of the North Sea, shown as a percentage of birds with > 0.1 g of ingested plastics in 5-year rolling
means. The Ecological Quality Objective (EcoQO) target level is that no more than 10% of fulmars
exceed the 0.1 g level. (van Franeker and Law 2015)

174
 11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Figure 11.4

Incidence of plastic fragments in the stomachs of beached northern fulmars in different subregions of the North
Sea, shown as a percentage of birds with > 0.1 g of ingested plastics in 5-year rolling means. The Ecological Quality
Objective (EcoQO) target level is that no more than 10% of fulmars exceed the 0.1 g level. (van Franeker and Law
2015)

Figure 11.5

Latitudinal patterns in fulmar EcoQO performance (proportion of fulmars having >0.1 g plastic in the stomach)
in North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. (a) Bond et al. (2014), (b) van Franeker and Law (2015), (c) Kühn and Van
Franeker (2012), (d) combined from Mallory et al. (2006), Mallory (2008) and Provencher et al. (2009) with additional
information from the authors, (e) Nevins et al. (2011), (f) Avery-Gomm et al. (2012). (van Franeker and Law 2015)

175
11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Van Franker and Law (2015) compiled a dataset the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
using published sources for the incidence of plastic (Figure 11.7; SDSN 2015).
in stomachs of the northern Fulmar from the Pacific
and Atlantic. Both datasets showed a latitudinal National monitoring is considered the most impor-
dependence, lower incidences at higher latitudes tant level, with national ownership of the process
(Figure 10.5). and monitoring designed to meet national priorities
and needs. National monitoring of the SDGs should
“build on existing national and local mechanisms and
Developing an indicator framework processes, with broad, multi- stakeholder participa-
tion.” (SDSN 2015). It is recognized that national
The value of the indicator approach is enhanced if it monitoring can be augmented with more informal
takes place within a framework, in which issues such programmes, by NGOs and other organisations.
as the monitoring and assessment techniques to be Regional monitoring is seen as building on existing
used and the selection of appropriate indicators can institutions where appropriate, such as regional seas
be agreed and harmonised. Several frameworks have bodies. Global SDG indicators are intended to be
been developed under the auspices of regional seas universal. Some are used to track global commons
bodies (NOWPAP, OSPAR, MAP, HELCOM) and such as the oceans. Thematic SGD indicators are
within the EU (Chapter 2.3). intended to cover cross-cutting issues such as tech-
nology gaps, consumption and production patterns,
Meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the health sector, at a global scale.
A framework for monitoring and assessment has been
proposed to help address progress towards meeting

Box 11.2

TEN PRINCIPLES FOR GLOBAL SDG MONITORING INDICES

Limited in number and globally harmonised

Simple, single-variable indicators, with straightforward policy implications
Allow for high frequency monitoring*
Consensus-based, in line with international standards and system-based information
Constructed from well-established data sources
Disaggregated
Universal
Mainly outcome-focussed
Science-based and forward-thinking
A proxy for broader issue or conditions
(SDSN 2015)

(*it may be appropriate to add the caveat ‘monitoring frequency appropriate to meet needs’)

176
 11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Figure 11.6

2,500 2,500 PUBLIC

PLASTIC PIECES
NON SOURCED
FISHING LITTER
2,000 2,000 SEWAGE RELATED DEBRIS
SHIPPING LITTER
FLY TIPPED

1,500 1,500
,500

1,000 1,000

500 500

© 2015 Marine Conservation Society.

All Rights Reserved.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Results of a multi-year monitoring programme organised by the UK NGO the Marine Conservation
Society, showing the incidence of litter in six categories from 2005 - 2014 (MCS 2015)

Figure 11.6

Schematic illustration of the indicators for national, regional, global and thematic monitoring,
towards achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (based on SDSN 2015).

177
11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

A set of ten Principles has been put forward for set- such as MAP (Mediterranean)87, HELCOM (Baltic
ting SDG indicators and an integrated monitoring Sea)88 and NOWPAP (NW Pacific)89 have developed
framework (Box 11.2). These provide a good set of their own region-specific guidelines and recommen-
overarching guidelines. But, developing a pragmatic dations. In addition, MAP, HELCOM and OSPAR are
and regionally-relevant set of indicators for marine helping their EU Contracting Parties to implement the
litter requires further refinement, as described above. MSFD so they are part of the harmonisation/compar-
Several of the SDG goals appear relevant to aspects ison process.
of marine litter reduction (Chapter 2). Marine litter
is mentioned in SDG Target 14.1 although it is not Further research on methods needs to consider sam-
mentioned in the description of overarching SDG pling design in terms of: i) the number and the size of
indicators. The ten principles are useful but need to replicates; ii) the spatial extent and the frequency of
be applied with some consideration for the needs of sampling; iii) the methods used for sampling (sample
particular circumstances. An alternative to Principle collection, visual observation); and, iv) the meth-
3 (Box 11.2, ‘allow for high frequency monitoring’) ods used for identification of microplastics (Rocha-
might be phrased ‘monitoring frequency appropriate Santos and Duate 2015). Although some methods
to meet needs’, which may or may not imply high fre- have been proven useful techniques for monitoring
quency monitoring was required. What is needed is (Galgani et al. 2014, Masura et al. 2015) and iden-
monitoring optimized to the issue. Factors include the tifying the composition of microparticles (Dumichen
cost of monitoring, management needs and account- et al. 2015), there is still a lack of analytical meth-
ing for variability in the system being assessed. So ods capable of characterizing and quantifying small
an annual sample may be adequate given chang- sized particles, under 20-30 μm, including nanopar-
ing amounts of litter in different seasons (storms). ticles from environmental samples and consequently
Changes in the incidence of marine debris are likely assessing their concentration. There is also a need to
to need long-term monitoring in order to observe sta- harmonize procedures in order to mitigate airborne
tistically significant differences. contamination.

Although harmonisation of methods may be a lauda-

11.3 ble goal, circumstances may dictate that harmonisa-
tion is not readily achievable. For example, regional
HARMONISATION OF APPROACHES differences in the nature of marine debris, accumu-
lation zones and technical and infrastructure support
available may require a more tailored approach. This
Monitoring and assessment should not prevent comparisons being made, pro-
vided comparable approaches have been taken.
A major obstacle in developing more comprehensive
monitoring and assessment programmes has been
the absence of internationally accepted methodolo- Data sharing
gies, for the design and implementation of sampling
and analysis techniques. Without this it is more dif- There is a great advantage to be gained in sharing
ficult to combine and compare datasets and detect information about the distribution, fate and impacts of
significant changes in the spatial or temporal distri- plastics and microplastics in the ocean. It is becoming
butions. common practise for the results of research-based
field observations of plastics and microplastics to be
Some progress has been made. UNEP and IOC made available freely to other researchers, via on-line
together have produced generic guidelines for mon- databases. Where the data have been published
itoring marine litter (Cheshire et al. 2009). A major in the peer-reviewed literature there is a reasona-
effort has been underway to harmonise monitor- ble expectation that the sampling, analysis, quality
ing and assessment techniques with the European
Union, through the introduction of the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive. This lays out a number of objec-
tives and tasks that Member States are required to
undertake. ‘Harmonisation is required to allow com- 87 http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=news&action=de-
parisons between EU countries and ensure a level tail&id=158
playing field’ (EC 2013). Regional seas organisations 88 http://helcom.fi/action-areas/waste-water-litter/marine-litter
89 http://www.nowpap.org/ML-RAPMALI.php

178
 11
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

assurance and reporting methods have followed an

accepted protocol, and that details are made availa-
ble with the results, so that the quality and relevance
of the data can be put into context. The nature of the
data collected will be determined by a wide range of
factors, including the primary purpose of the mission,
the research questions being addressed and various
operational constraints. Nevertheless, there is scope
for harmonising some aspects of sample collection
and data recording, and at least making sure that
all relevant information about sampling, analysis and
environmental context (e.g. geographical position,
sea state, water depth) is recorded and made availa-
ble. Such metadata are essential to make full use and
re-use of the data collected.

Where monitoring is carried out by a regulatory body

the location and frequency of sampling, together with
the type of analysis carried out, may be determined
by a range of factors, including legal or financial con-
straints. This may limit the range of information col-
lected. But, the big advantage of a regular monitoring
programme is that trends in environmental state can
be recorded. This is critical for targeting and measur-
ing the success of interventions. Protocols and stand-
ards for data collection and sharing form part of the
Action Plans of several Regional Seas Programmes.
These provide an excellent example of how nations
with shared interests in a region can cooperate with
good practice and common approaches, develop
appropriate region-specific measures and monitor
their success. This can be achieved without setting
up complex on-line data repositories, although these
may be helpful in the longer term.

179
12
CONCLUSIONS
AND
KEY
RESEARCH
NEEDS

180
12. SUMMARY
4

An improved governance framework is needed:

OF KEY • The existing governance landscape pro-

CONCLUSIONS
vides a basis for an improved governance frame-
work, taking account of the goals and targets of
the Agenda 2030;
• Greater effort is needed to make exist-
ing governance frameworks more effective,
by ensuring full implementation, compliance and
oversight.

1 Stakeholder engagement is essential:

The moral case: • There is a need to involve all relevant partners

and other stakeholders at every stage of the risk
• There is a strong moral case that humanity assessment and exploration of potential meas-
should not allow the ocean to become more ures to reduce the impact of marine plastic litter;
polluted by plastic debris and microplastics. • Partnerships are particularly useful for commu-
nities or nations that may have common concerns
but be geographically isolated, such as SIDS;
2

• There is a clear need to move towards a more 6

circular economic model for the plastic produc-
tion cycle: Sources of marine plastics are poorly quantified:
• This can be simplified as the 6Rs concept:
Reduce – Redesign – Refuse - Re-use – Recycle • ‘Leakage’ of plastics into the environment oc-
– Recover. curs at all stages of the production-use-waste
management cycle;
• The principal land- and sea-based sources
3 and the main entry points into the ocean have
been described, but the absolute quantities en-
A Precautionary Approach is justified: tering the ocean, and regional differences in the
relative importance of different sources, remain
• The case for making an intervention should largely unknown.
be justified by making a risk-based assessment,
backed up by adaptive management;
7
• This is to ensure solutions are cost-effective and
to minimise unintended negative consequences; • Impacts of marine plastics have been demon-
strated for the social, economic and ecological
• It is likely that large uncertainties in the extent dimensions
of ecological, social and economic impacts will • Marine macroplastics can lead to injury and
remain for some time. These need to be fac- death, to loss of income and to loss of intrinsic
tored into the risk assessment and cost-benefit social values;
analysis; • Marine macroplastics can cause significant
economic impacts in the fisheries, aquaculture,
• There is a great need to improve techniques shipping and tourism sectors;
for risk communication between technical spe- • Marine macroplastics can cause significant eco-
cialists, stakeholders and the wider public. logical impacts to sensitive habitats, commercially-

181
12
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SUMMARY OF KEY CONCLUSIONS

valuable seafood species, and to the welfare and 10

conservation of vulnerable or endangered species;
• Abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear Recovery and restoration may be justified, pro-
(ALDFG) causes substantial and wide range of vided that the measures adopted are environ-
economic problems and these problems have mentally sound
received increasing international attention in the
past decade. Economic costs associated with • Recovery measures can be justified where
marine safety, ghost fishing mortality, compliance, there is clear, unacceptable damage or loss of an
control, rescue, recovery and research activities ecosystem service, such as the damage caused
due to ALDFG are complex and have not been by ALDFG to coral habitats or injury to a rare or
estimated systematically yet; endangered species;
• Microplastics are widespread in the ocean but • Recovery measures can be justified where
the impact on individuals or populations is not yet there is a significant loss of commercial species
understood; due to ghost fishing;
• From the available limited evidence, it is con- • Recovery measure can be justified to prevent
cluded that microplastics in seafood do not cur- harm or injury to maritime users
rently represent a human health risk, although
many uncertainties remain. 11

• There is a need to strengthen and harmonise

8 monitoring and assessment effects
• To meet global commitments under the UN
Social attitudes are important SDG targets, and
• To target and gauge the effectiveness of marine
• Social attitudes have a significant effect on lit- litter reduction measures.
tering behaviour and the acceptance of reduction
measures, and need to be taken into account
when designing litter reduction strategies.

Reduction measures are essential

• Reduction measures should be guided by a risk-

based approach to target appropriate intervention
points and design cost-effective measures;
• Reduction measures can be based on BATs,
BEPs, education, awareness raising, voluntary
agreements and legislation;
• The selection of the most appropriate measures
must take into account the social and econom-
ic circumstances of the community or region to
which the measures are being directed;
• Inadequate solid waste management in de-
veloping countries appear to be a major source of
ocean plastics;
• There are many additional benefits from im-
proving waste minimisation and management, in-
cluding reducing the health impacts from poorly
managed waste treatment processes;
• There is a case for extending corporate re-
sponsibility and encouraging public-private part-
nerships.

182
13

183
13. SUMMARY
13.3

SOURCES AND PATHWAYS OF PLASTICS AND

OF KEY MICROPLASTICS

RESEARCH
Sources and pathways of macro-plastics

The quantities and relative importance of differ-

NEEDS
ent land- and sea-based sources of macro-plastics
and their entry points to the ocean need to investi-
gated in greater detail, in particular taking account
of regional differences. Research is required:

• To quantify inputs from the fisheries sector, in-

cluding ALDFG, and the factors contributing to
13.1 such losses;
• To quantify inputs from the aquaculture sector
GOVERNANCE and the factors contributing to such losses;
• To quantify inputs from the shipping and off-
To improve the coverage and effectiveness of gov- shore sectors and the factors contributing to such
ernance mechanisms, research is required to: losses;
• To quantify inputs from the tourism sector and
• Explore potential multi-governance mechanisms; the factors contributing to such losses;
• Examine the legal marge de manoeuvre of • To quantify inputs from the waste management
states with regard to implementing MBIs; sector and the factors contributing to such loss-
• Examine the effectiveness of current govern- es, including stormwater run-off and overflows;
ance arrangements and the reasons for any lack • To investigate the relative importance of atmos-
of implementation; and pheric transport; and
• Identify gaps in current governance arrange- • To quantify inputs due to catastrophic events
ments. (e.g. storms, tsunamis, river basin and coast-
al flooding) and the factors contributing to such
losses, including the identification of vulnerable
13.2 coastlines and communities.

PROPERTIES OF PLASTICS
Sources and pathways of microplastics
An area of particular concern is the release of
chemicals that are added to plastics to achieve a • The quantities and relative importance of
range of desirable properties, such as UV resistance, different sources of primary and secondary mi-
increased plasticity and flame retardation. Some of croplastics and their entry points to the ocean
these chemicals can have profound effects on bio- need to investigated in greater detail, in particular
logical systems, in particular on the endocrine sys- taking account of regional differences. Research
tem (e.g. brominated flame retardants). Research is should consider the relative importance of the
required: main sources, and is required to assess:
• The relative contribution of synthetic fibers;
• To minimise the use of additive chemicals • The relative contribution of vehicle tire fragments;
known to have an environmental impact; • The size, shape and composition (polymer and
• To identify additive chemicals that have a low- additives) of microplastics from different sources;
er impact on the environment; • The input of resin pellets from the plastics pro-
• To identify polymer-additive combinations in duction and plastic manufacturers sectors, in-
which the additives are less likely to desorb once cluding at transhipment points;
ingested; and • River inputs;
• To adopt a precautionary approach in the for- • Atmospheric inputs; and
mulation of new plastics with regard to their be- • The relative contribution of wastewater as a
havior in the environment. pathway of microplastics.

184
 13
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SUMMARY OF KEY RESEARCH NEEDS

13.4 • Collate existing data on plastic distribution in all

environmental compartments;
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE • Investigate vertical and horizontal transport
of non-buoyant plastics, taking account of the
Factors controlling degradation substantial scientific literature on organic and in-
organic particle fluxes and sediment transport;
• Expertise from polymer and materials science • Improve the 3D representation of plastic parti-
is essential to gain a better understanding of the cle transport;
behavior of the main types of plastics in the marine • Improve the representation of particle frag-
environment, including conditions controlling the mentation and biodegradation in model simula-
rates of weathering, fragmentation and biodeg- tions, including the rate of formation of microplas-
radation. Research is required: tics from macro-plastics;
• To better understand the extent and rate of • Utilize other modeling applications, such as
weathering and fragmentation of plastic accord- fish egg/larvae studies, as appropriate for trans-
ing to polymer type, size and shape, and environ- forming particle properties;
mental setting (shoreline, buried, seabed, floating • Include investigations of long-term fate includ-
on the sea surface); ing ‘sinks’, deep ocean basins and canyons; and
• To examine the role of microbial action in pro- • Examine the importance of shoreline deposits,
moting degradation; and including buried plastics, as a time-dependent
• To establish the behavior of ‘biodegradable’ source and sink.
plastics in the ocean according to polymer type,
size and shape, and environmental setting (shore-
line, buried, seabed, floating on the sea surface). 13.5

IMPACTS
Presence, transport and fate of plastics in the
marine environment Quantifying impacts on biota

At present, surface circulation models provide a Concerning macro-plastics, research is required to:
reasonable representation of the transport of float-
ing plastics on a global scale, on the basis of ob- • Quantify the impacts of entanglement and in-
served distributions (Ericksen et al. 2015). Howev- gestion in support of management objectives;
er, many plastics are denser than water and will • Extend the range of taxa investigated, including
therefore be expected to sink, either near the source invertebrates;
or whenever buoyancy is removed. Currently there • Look for population-level and food chain ef-
is a lack of data on both sub-surface distribution of fects, including for commercial species;
plastics in the water column and seabed, and on the • Investigate the importance of plastics for rafting
rate and nature of vertical transport processes. organisms, including non-indigenous species; and
From a management perspective there is a need to • Further investigate effective prevention, rescue
improve the provision of data and improve data and recovery techniques to minimize impacts for en-
quality to better support reduction measures. Re- tangled species or those with ingested plastics.
search is needed to:

• Encourage the development and use of har- Concerning microplastics, research is required to:
monised monitoring techniques to facilitate data
collation and comparison; • Determine if microplastics in fisheries and aq-
• Coordinate monitoring and assessment on a uaculture resources present a risk for food security,
regional scale, incorporating and extending Re- including food safety and impacts on human health;
gional Seas Action Plans; • Determine at what concentrations microplas-
• Develop cost-effective and, where practical, tics will have an impact on populations, assem-
automated sampling and analysis techniques, in- blages and species;
cluding for fibers; • Understand the impacts of nano-sized plastics
• Develop a method to measure nano-plastics in on marine organisms;
the aquatic environment; • Understand the extent to which microplastics
• Encourage the uptake of citizen science; are transferred through foodwebs;

185
13
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SUMMARY OF KEY RESEARCH NEEDS

• Clarify the fate of contaminants to and from Economic impacts

microplastic debris (both sorbed chemicals and
additive ingredients); • To improve the assessment of economic im-
• Measure the impact of chemicals associated pacts, research is required to:
with microplastics under environmentally-relevant
exposure scenarios; • Improve understanding of the cost of action
• Measure the impact of the mixture of microplas- and non-action and the benefits of action to
tics and chemicals under environmentally-relevant highlight cost-effective solutions; and
exposure scenarios;
• Better understand the role microbes have in • Apply this understanding based on sector,
facilitating the fouling of microplastics by organ- product, type of marine litter and the mac-
isms, the ingestion of microplastic by organisms, ro-scale to develop a new evidence base for
and potentially the transformation of toxins; different decision-making frameworks and gov-
• Better understand the relationship between ernance processes.
pathogens and microplastics;
• Perform risk assessments that help clarify the
various ecological impacts that may be a conse- 13.6
quence of the widespread contamination of mi-
croplastics in the marine environment; FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE
• Establish threshold levels for impact in various
habitats and species; and The research needs concerning the fisheries and
• Identify microplastic ‘hotspots’ for risk, and aquaculture sectors have been combined, covering
identify priority species. sources, impacts and potential solutions. For mac-
ro-plastics, research is required to:

Social impacts • Assess the quantities of fishing- and aquacul-

ture-related debris released by these sectors;
There are a number of knowledge gaps that hinder • Assess the influence of the type of practice on
taking better account of the social dimension of debris generation (gear type, gear design, mate-
the discussion about reducing the impact of ma- rials, means of deployment, use of ground lines,
rine plastic litter. Research is required to: area deployed and fishing practices);
• Experiment with gear types and deployment
• Measure consumer perception of plastic in practices to reduce losses;
seafood, i.e. how they consumers would react • Investigate, develop and implement
to awareness about plastic levels in their food gear-marking schemes;
and related health risks; • Assess the impact of ghost fishing on commer-
• Study the differences between public percep- cial stocks; and
tion and established science regarding the im- • Employ risk assessment in decision support
pacts of marine debris; for siting or re-siting aquaculture and develop-
• Understand why many people do not take re- ments.
sponsibility for their waste and what motivates
those that do take responsibility;
• Gain a greater understanding of different For microplastics, research is required to:
stakeholders’ (especially consumers’) percep-
tions of the issues and risks surrounding mi- • Assess levels of microplastic contamination in
croplastics in order to take appropriate action; commercial species, seafood products (e.g. fish-
• Measure the effectiveness of citizen-science meal and fish oil) and in fish prey (e.g. zooplankton);
campaigns; • Determine if there is transfer of microplastics
• Understand what would drive behavior change from one trophic level to the next;
away from single-use plastic; • Assess chemical contaminant transfer from mi-
• Test the most effective messaging to encour- croplastics to seafood;
age responsible use; and • Assess microbial pathogen load on microplas-
• Study how media campaigns cover risk and tics in different areas of the ocean (open ocean,
actions on marine debris and how to develop areas impacted by human sewage, aquaculture
more effective campaigns. and fisheries areas);

186
 13
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SUMMARY OF KEY RESEARCH NEEDS

• Determine if seafood microplastic concentra- • Estimate the likely elasticity of demand for
tion is higher in cultured versus wild-caught or- plastic products, i.e. how is demand likely to
ganisms; change with price (e.g. for plastic bottles, plastic
• Determine if microplastic in seafood is a risk bags); and
for human health in regards to food security and • Explore the economics of recycling for plastic
safety; waste, i.e. the value of recycling waste before it
• Determine how microplastics affect different life becomes marine litter, and the value of differ-
stages (e.g. if earlier life stages are more sensitive); ent plastic types that have become marine litter,
• Determine if microplastics impact the quality hence incentives for recycling.
and palatability of food;
• Conduct a risk assessment to assess the haz-
ards of microplastics in fish and shellfish; and
• Increase awareness and investigate public per-
ceptions about microplastics in seafood.

13.7

RISK ASSESSMENT

Research is required to:

• Develop improved methodologies for measur-

ing the loss of ecosystem services for non-mon-
etized components, recognizing that regional
differences in the social, cultural and economic
context will limit some types of benefit transfer
techniques;
• Perform more detailed risk assessments and
cost-benefit analyses in the areas of food security,
food safety, biodiversity, social impacts (including
human health), and economic impacts;
• Take account of uncertainties of outcome when
interpreting the results of risk assessments, in-
cluding the influence of adopting a more precau-
tionary approach; and
• Explore methods for more effective risk commu-
nication between specialists and non-specialists.

13.8

ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS

• To improve the assessment of economic im-

pacts, research is required to:
• Improve understanding of the cost of action
and the benefits of action to highlight cost-effec-
tive solutions;
• Determine the value of plastics (cost and ben-
efit) to help underline the potential benefits of cir-
cular economic activities and the economic ineffi-
ciencies of letting plastic become waste;
• Estimate the economic value of reducing the
use of plastic;

187
ANNEXES
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX I.

UNEA RESOLUTION
1/6 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS
AND MICROPLASTICS

The United Nations Environment Assembly,

Recalling the concern reflected in the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development, entitled: “The Future We Want”, that the health of oceans and marine biodiversity are negatively af-
fected by marine pollution, including marine debris, especially plastic, persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals
and nitrogen-based compounds, from numerous marine and land-based sources, and the commitment to take
action to significantly reduce the incidence and impacts of such pollution on marine ecosystems,

Noting the international action being taken to promote the sound management of chemicals throughout their
life cycle and waste in ways that lead to the prevention and minimization of significant adverse effects on human
health and the environment,

Recalling the Manila Declaration on Furthering the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities adopted by the Third Intergovernmental Review
Meeting on the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities, which highlighted the relevance of the Honolulu Strategy and the Honolulu Commit-
ment and recommended the establishment of a global partnership on marine litter,

Taking note of the decisions adopted by the eleventh Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity on addressing the impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity,

Recalling that the General Assembly declared 2014 the International Year of Small Island Developing States and
that such States have identified waste management among their priorities for action,

Noting with concern the serious impact which marine litter, including plastics stemming from land and sea-
based sources, can have on the marine environment, marine ecosystem services, marine natural resources, fish-
eries, tourism and the economy, as well as the potential risks to human health;

1. Stresses the importance of the precautionary approach, according to which lack of full scientific certainty
should not be used for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation, where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage;

2. Recognizes the significant risks arising from the inadequate management and disposal of plastic and the
need to take action;

189
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

3. Encourages governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, industry and

other relevant actors to cooperate with the Global Partnership on Marine Litter in its implementation of the
Honolulu Strategy and to facilitate information exchange through the online marine litter network;

4. Recognizes that plastics, including microplastics, in the marine environment are a rapidly increasing prob-
lem due to their large and still increasing use combined with the inadequate management and disposal of
plastic waste, and because plastic debris in the marine environment is steadily fragmenting into secondary
microplastics;

5. Also recognizes the need for more knowledge and research on the source and fate of microplastics and their
impact on biodiversity, marine ecosystems and human health, noting recent knowledge that such particles can
be ingested by biota and could be transferred to higher levels in the marine food chain, causing adverse effects;

6. Notes that microplastics may also contribute to the transfer in the marine ecosystems of persistent organic
pollutants, other persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances and other contaminants which are in or
adhere to the particles;

7. Recognizes that microplastics in the marine environment originate from a wide range of sources, including
the breakdown of plastic debris in the oceans, industrial emissions and sewage and run-off from the use of
products containing microplastics;

8. Emphasizes that further urgent action is needed to address the challenges posed by marine plastic debris
and microplastics, by addressing such materials at source, by reducing pollution through improved waste
management practices and by cleaning up existing debris and litter;

9. Welcomes the establishment of the Global Partnership on Marine Litter launched in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
in June 2012 and the convening of the first Partnership Forum in 2013;

10. Also welcomes the adoption by the contracting parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention) at its eighteenth ordinary
meeting, held in Istanbul, Turkey, from 3 to 6 December 2013, of the Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter
Management, the world’s first such action plan, and welcomes the draft Action Plan on Marine Litter for
the North-East Atlantic region awaiting adoption by the Commission of the Convention for the Protection
of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic at its meeting in Cascais, Portugal, and encourages
governments to collaborate through relevant regional seas conventions and river commissions with a view
to adopting such action plans in their regions;

11. Requests the Executive Director to support countries, upon their request, in the development and imple-
mentation of national or regional action plans to reduce marine litter;

12. Welcomes the initiative by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection to produce an assessment report on microplastics, which is scheduled to be launched in
November 2014;

13. Also welcomes the work undertaken by the International Whaling Commission on assessing the impacts
of marine debris on cetaceans and the endorsement by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals at its tenth meeting of resolution 10.4, addressing
the impacts of marine debris on migratory species;

14. Requests the Executive Director, in consultation with other relevant institutions and stakeholders, to under-
take a study on marine plastic debris and marine microplastics, building on existing work and taking into
account the most up-to-date studies and data, focusing on:

(a) Identification of the key sources of marine plastic debris and microplastics;
(b) Identification of possible measures and best available techniques and environmental;

190
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

practices to prevent the accumulation and minimize the level of microplastics in the marine environment;
(c) Recommendations for the most urgent actions;
(d) Specification of areas especially in need of more research, including key impacts on the environment
and on human health;
(e) Any other relevant priority areas identified in the assessment of the Joint Group of Experts on the
Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection;

15. Invites the secretariats of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Basel Conven
tion on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and relevant organ-
izations involved in pollution control and chemicals and waste management and the secretariats of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Migratory Species and the regional seas conventions
and action plans to contribute to the study described in paragraph 14 of the present resolution;

16. Encourages governments and the private sector to promote the more resource-efficient use and sound
management of plastics and microplastics;

17. Also encourages governments to take comprehensive action to address the marine plastic debris and
microplastic issue through, where appropriate, legislation, enforcement of international agreements, provi-
sion of adequate reception facilities for ship-generated wastes, improvement of waste management practices
and support for beach clean-up activities, as well as information, education and public awareness programmes;

18. Invites governments, intergovernmental organizations, the scientific community, non-governmental organ-
izations, the private sector and other stakeholders to share relevant information with the Executive Director
pertinent to the study described in paragraph 14;

19. Invites those in a position to do so to provide financial and other support to conduct the study identified
in paragraph 14;

20. Requests the Executive Director to present the study on microplastics for the consideration of the United
Nations Environment Assembly at its second session.

191
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX II.

A) COMMON CHEMICAL ADDITIVES IN PLASTICS;

B) COMMON ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS

ABSORBED BY PLASTICS

a) Common chemical additives in plastics

Table II a
Short form Full name Examples of function

BPA Bisphenol A A monomer used in the manufacture of polycarbonates and

epoxy resins

DBP Dibutyl Phthalate Anti-cracking agents in nail varnish

DEP Diethyl Phthalate Skin softeners, colour and fragrance fixers

DEHP Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Plasticizer in PVC

HBCD Hexabromocyclododecane Flame retardant

PBDEs Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers Flame retardants

(penta, octa & deca forms)

Nonylphenol Stabilizer in PP, PS

phthalates Phthalate esters Improve flexibility and durability

b) Common organic contaminants absorbed by plastics

Table II b
Short form Full name Origin

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane Insecticide

PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Combustion products

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls Cooling and insulating fluids, e.g. in transformers

192
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX III.

EXAMPLES OF CONCENTRATIONS OF PLASTICS IN RIVERS

FLOWING TO THE OCEAN

Examples of concentrations of plastics in rivers flowing to the ocean (adapted from

GESAMP 2016)
Table III
Location Compartment Sampling Abundance (densities) References

Europe

Danube river, Austria, Surface water Sizes classes: Max: 141 647.7 items /1000m-3 Lechner 2014
Europe <2mm, 2-20mm Mean:
Sampling mesh: 500mm 316.8 (±4664.6) items/ 1000 m3
73.9% represent spherules
(~3mm)

Elbe, Mosel, Neckar Sediment Size classes: <5mm Max: 64 items kg-1 dry weight, Wagner 2014
and Rhine rivers, Mean: not indicated
Germany, Europe

Po river/Adriatic Sea Surface water Neuston net (330μm), 1 (Spring) to 12.2 items m-3 Vianello 2013
Monthly, (winter)

Seine river/ English Surface water A plankton net (80mm mesh), (i) Plankton net: Dris 2015
Channel and (ii) a manta trawl (330mm 3-108 particles/m3.
mesh) (ii) Manta trawl:
0.28–0.47particles m-3

Rhine, Main Rivers, Sediment 63í5000μm Range: 228í3763 particles kgí1 Klein 2015
Germany Three size clases: 630í5000,
200í630, and 63í200μm

Solent: Hamble, Surface water 1235 (total of 4 samples) Itchen 1.55mp m-2 Gallagher 2015
Itchen and Test as sampled in each estuary. Test 5.86m-2
tributaries to 0.3mm mesh Hamble 0.4mp m-2
Southampton Water
in Hampshire, UK Total all estuaries: 3.72m-2
(Southampton water 1.29m-2)

Tamar estuary, UK, Surface water Size classes: <1mm, 1e3mm, Max: 204 pieces of suspected Sadri 2014
Europe 3e5mm, >5mm plastic
Sampling mesh: 300mm Mean: 0.028 items m-3
Abundances include all plastic
particles, of which 82% repre-
sents size <5mm

193
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Table III
Location Compartment Sampling Abundance (densities) References

North America

North Shore Channel Surface water Two neuston nets (0.92 × Upstream waters : 1.94 (0.81) McCormick 2014
(Chicago, USA) 0.42m and 0.36 × 0.41m) of particles m-3
333-μm mesh Downstream waters : 17.93
(11.05) particles m-3

St. Lawrence River, Sediment Size classes: not indicated. Mean: 13 759 (±13 685) items Castañeda 2014
Canada/USA, Items size range: 0.4-2.16mm m-2 max at 136 926 (±83947)
items m-2

Los Angeles River, Surface, mid and Size classes: >1.0 and Max: 12 932 items m-3 Moore 2011
San Gabriel River, near-bottom <4.75mm, >4.75mm Mean 24-h particle counts on date
Coyote Creek, USA, water Sampling mesh: 333, 500, of greatest abundance:
North America and 800μm Coyote creek: 5000 items m-3
San Gabriel river: 51 603 items m-3
Los Angeles River: 1 146 418
items m-3
Item size class: 1.0-4.75mm

South America

Elqui, Maipo, Maule Surface water Neuston net with a mesh size Elqui Mouth: 0.12875m-3 Rech 2015
and BioBio rivers, of 1mm and an opening area Maipo: 0.647m-3
northern-central of 27 * 10.5cm2. 6 2 counts Maule: 0.74m-3
(29° S) to southern by scientists + 2-6 counts by BioBio: 0.05m-3
central students
Chile (37° S)

Asia

Nakdong River Surface water Trapping of surface water, 120 particles l-1 (10% paints) , Song 2015
(187.1 m3/s)/ Jinhae 2mm mesh screen, 100 times, 187±207 particles l-1 after heavy
Bay, southern Korea. 3.14m2 /2.2-2.8l. samples/ rain
station

Yangtze Estuary, Surface Pumping/filtration (32-μm 4137 ± 2462m-3 Zhao 2014

China steel sieve)

194
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX IV.

ABUNDANCE OF MICROPLASTICS IN SUBTIDAL

SEDIMENTS WORLDWIDE

Abundance of microplastics in subtidal sediments worldwide. Location and location

specification (Modified from Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015).
Table IV
Continent Location Location Specifi- Depth Particle Size Measured Reference
cation Abundance

Americas US Maine Subtidal 0.250mm-4mm 105 items/L Graham &

Thompson
2009

US Florida Subtidal 0.250mm-4mm 116-215 items/L Graham &

Thompson
2009

Brazil Tidal Plain 1mm-10cm 6.36-15.89 items/m2 Costa et al.

2011

Asia India Shipbreaking Yard 1.6mm-5mm 81.4mg/kg Reddy et al.

2006

Singapore Mangrove 1.6mm-5mm 36.8 items/kg dry Nor & Obbard

2014

Europe UK Estuary 2.4-5,6 fibres/50ml Thompson et

al. 2004

Sweden Subtidal 2mm-5mm 2-332 items/100ml Noren 2007

Belgium Harbour 0.38mm-1mm 166.7 items/kg dry Claessens

et al. 2011

Continental Shelf 0-200m 97.2 items/kg dry

Italy Subtidal 0.7mm-1mm 672-2175 items/ Vianello et al.

kg dry 2013

Slovenia Shelf Infralittoral 30-800 items/kg dry Bajt et al.

(<50m) 2015

195
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Continent Location Location Specifi- Depth Particle Size Measured Reference

cation Abundance

Oceanic Polar Ocean, Deep Sea 1176-4848 5 mm-1mm 0.5 items/cm2 Van Cauwen-
Sedi- Mediterra- berghe et al.
ments nean, North 2013
Atlantic, Gulf
of Guinea

NW Pacific Deep Sea Trench 4869- 0.300mm-5 mm 60-2020 items/m2 Fisher et al.
5766 2015

Subpolar/ Deep Sea Mount 1000-2000 0.032-5mm 10-15 pieces per Woodall et al.
North Atlantic Slope 50ml 2015

North East Canyons/Slope 1400-2200 0.032-5mm 6-40 pieces per Woodall et al.
Atlantic 50ml 2015

Mediterranean Canyons/Slope/Basin 300-3500 0.032-5mm 10-35 pieces per Woodall et al.

50ml 2015

SW Indian Seamount 500-1000 0.032-5mm Up to 4 pieces per Woodall et al.

50ml 2015

196
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX V.

ENTANGLEMENT OF CETACEANS AND PINNIPEDS

Overview of literature containing data on entanglement of cetaceans (from

Butterworth et al. 2012)
Table V.1
Species / Region (FAO Entanglement Entangle- Fishing Net Mortality Source
Subspecies statistical areas rate (% en- ment rate pot (derelict) estimate
[FAO 2012]) tangled each (by animal gear debris (%)*
year) or by % of debris (%)
population (%)
with scars)

Humpback whale Western Central 41 50 10 Johnson et

Atlantic al. 2005

Humpback whale North West 2.4 17 whales 26 Cole et al.

Atlantic become entan- 2006
gled each year

Humpback whale North West 8-10.4 48-57 Robbins

Atlantic & Mattila
2004

Humpback whale North East Pacific 8 52-78 Neilson et

al. 2007

Western grey North West 18.7 Bradford

whale Pacific et al. 2009

Minke whale North East Atlantic 5-22 Northridge

et al. 2010

Minke whale North West 31 69 0.9 Song et al.

Pacific 2010

Minke whale North West 2.6 7 whales per 37 Cole et al.

Atlantic year 2006

North Atlantic North West 57 25 67 12 Kraus

right whale Atlantic 1990

North Atlantic North & Central 1.6 6 whales per 27 Cole et al.
right whale West Atlantic year 2006

North Atlantic North & Central 1.15 71 14 29 Johnson et

right whale West Atlantic al. 2005

Fin whale North East Atlantic 5 Sadove &

Morreale
1990

197
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species / Region (FAO Entanglement Entangle- Fishing Net Mortality Source

Subspecies statistical areas rate (% en- ment rate pot (derelict) estimate
[FAO 2012]) tangled each (by animal gear debris (%)*
year) or by % of debris (%)
population (%)
with scars)

Fin whale North West 0.8 2 whales per 44 Cole et al.

Atlantic year 2006

Blue whale North West <1 whale per Cole et al.

Atlantic year 2006

Bryde’s whale North West 0.2 <1 whale per Cole et al.
Atlantic year 2006

Overview of literature containing data on the entanglement of pinnipeds

(from Butterworth et al. 2012).
Table V.2
Species / Region (FAO Entanglement Plastic Net Fishing Mortality Source
Subspecies statistical areas rate debris debris Line estimate
[FAO 2012]) (% incidence in (%) (%) debris (%)*
population) (%)

Kalikoura fur South West 0.6-2.8 31 42 Boren et al.

seal Pacific 2006

Australian fur Eastern Indian Ocean 1.9 30 40 73 Pemberton et al.

seal 1992

New Zealand Eastern Indian Ocean 0.9 30 29 3 57 Page et al. 2004

fur seal

Australian sea Eastern Indian Ocean 1.3 11 66 6 44 Page et al. 2004

lion

Antarctic & Sub Western Indian 0.24 41 17 c. 10 Hofmeyr et al.

– Antarctic fur Ocean 2002
seal

Antarctic fur seal South East Atlantic 0.024-0.059 18 48 50 Hofmeyr et al.

2006

Antarctic fur seal South West Atlantic 0.4 46-52 80 Arnould and
Croxhall 1995

Cape fur seal South East Atlantic 0.1-0.6 50 Shaughnessy

1980

Californian sea Eastern Central 3.9-7.9 50 33 Harcourt et al.

lion Pacific 1994

Hawaiian monk Eastern Central 0.7 8 32 28 16 Henderson 2001

seal Pacific

Stellar sea lion North East Pacific 0.26 54 7 2 Raum-Sayuran et

al. 2009

Californian sea Eastern Central 0.08-0.22 25 19 14 Stewart &

lion Pacific Yochem 1987

Northern ele- Eastern Central 0.15 36 19 33 Stewart &

phant seal Pacific Yochem 1987

Harbour seal Eastern Central 0.09 33 Stewart &

Pacific Yochem 1987

Northern fur seal North East Pacific 0.24 50 Stewart &

Yochem 1987

198
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX VI.

INGESTION OF MICROPLASTICS BY MARINE

ORAGANISMS

Laboratory studies exposing organisms to microplastics.

Organisms which have a commercial interest have a * after the species
name. Table includes all published studies until 11th November 2015.
(Rochman et al highlighted as it is a freshwater study)
Table VI.1
Species Common Size of Poly- Exposure Length Particle Effect Source
Name Ingested mer Concen- of ex- end-
Material tration posure point

Phylum Dinoflagellata

Oxyrrhis Marina 7.3μm PS 3000 per 1 hr Digestive Ingestion Cole et al.

ml tract 2013

Phylum Chlorophyta

Tetraselmis Chuii 1 – 5μm PE 0.000046 96 hrs Cellular No significant Davarpanah

- 0.0015 effect on &
per ml growth, did Guilhermino
not interact 2015
with toxicity of
copper

Scenedesmus Spp. 20nm PS 1.6-40mg 2 hrs Cellular Absorption, Bhattacha-

per ml ROS rya et al.
increased, 2010
photosynthe-
sis affected

Phylum Haptophyta

Isochrysis Galbana 2μm PS 9 x 104 6 hrs External Microspheres Long et al.

per ml attached to 2014
algae, no
negative effect
observed

Phylum Dinophyta

Heterocapsa 2μm PS 9 x 104 6 hrs External Microspheres Long et al.

Triquetra per ml attached to 2014
algae, no
negative effect
observed

199
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common Size of Poly- Exposure Length Particle Effect Source

Name Ingested mer Concen- of ex- end-
Material tration posure point

Phylum Cryptophyta

Rhodomonas 2μm PS 9 x 104 6 hrs External Microspheres Long et al.

Salina per ml attached to 2014
algae, no
negative effect
observed

Phylum Ochrophyta

Chaetoceros 2μm PS 9 x 104 6 hrs External Microspheres Long et al.

Neogracilis per ml attached to 2014
algae, no
negative effect
observed

Phylum Ciliophora

Strombidium 0.41 -10μm - 5-10% 1 hr Digestive Ingestion Christaki et

Sulcatum ambient tract al. 1998
bacteria
concentra-
tion

Tintinnopsis 10μm PS 1000, 3 hrs Digestive Ingestion Setälä et

Lobiancoi 2000, tract al. 2014
10000
per ml

Phylum Cnideria

Obelia Sp. 20.6 PS 2240 per 1 hr Digestive Partial inges- Cole et al.
ml tract tion 2013

Dipsastrea Pallida Coral 10μm-2mm PP 0.395mg 48 hrs Mouth Ingestion Hall et al.
per ml and 2015
mesen-
teries of
polyps

Phylum Rotifera

Synchaeta Spp. 10μm PS 2000 per 3 hrs Digestive Ingestion Setälä et

ml tract al. 2014

Phylum Annelida

Arenicola Marina Lugworm 20-2000μm - 1.5mg per Several Digestive Ingestion Thompson
ml days tract et al. 2004

Arenicola Marina Lugworm 130μm U-PVC 0-5% by 48 hour, Digestive Ingestion, Wright et
weight 4 weeks tract reduced al. 2013
feeding,
increased
phagocytic
activity,
reduced
available
energy
reserves,
lower lipid
reserves

Arenicola Marina Lugworm 230μm PVC 1500g of 10 days Digestive Ingestion, Browne et
sediment tract oxidative al. 2013
stress

200
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common Size of Poly- Exposure Length Particle Effect Source

Name Ingested mer Concen- of ex- end-
Material tration posure point

Phylum Annelida

Arenicola Marina Lugworm < 5mm HDPE, 0.02, 0.2 31 days Digestive Concentration Green et
PVA, 2% of tract in sediment al. 2015
PA sediment had significant
effects on the
metabolic rate
of lugworms
(increase mp
= increase
metabolic rate)

Arenicola Marina Lugworm 400- PS 0, 1, 10, 28 days Faeces Ingestion, Besseling

1300μm 100 mg reduced feed- et al. 2013
per ml ing, weight
loss

Galeolaria Fan worm 3 – 10μm - 5000 per 20 mins Digestive Ingestion Bolton &
Caespitosa ml tract Havenhand
1998

Marenzelleria Spp. 10μm PS 2000 per 3 hrs Digestive Ingestion Setälä et

ml tract al. 2014

Phylum Mollusca

Bivalvia (larvae) 7.3μm PS 3000 per 24 hrs Digestive Ingestion Cole et al.
ml tract 2013

Mytilus Edulis* Blue 30nm PS 0, 0.1, 0.2, 8 hrs Digestive Ingestion, Wegner et
mussel 0.3 mg tract pseudofae- al. 2012.
per ml ces, reduced
filtering

Mytilus Edulis* Blue 0 – 80μm HDPE 2.5mg per < 96 hrs Digestive Ingestion, Von Moos
mussel ml tract, retention in et al. 2012
Lymph digestive tract, & Köhler
system transfer to 2010
lymph system,
immune
response

Mytilus Edulis* Blue 0.5μm PS 50μL per 1 hr Digestive Ingestion, Farrell &
mussel 400 ml tract trophic trans- Nelson
seawater fer to Carcinus 2013
maenas

Mytilus Edulis* Blue 3, 9.6μm PS 0.51mg 12 hrs Digestive Ingestion, Browne et

mussel per ml tract, retention in al. 2008
Lymph digestive tract,
system transferred to
lymph system

Mytilus Edulis* Blue 10μm PS 2 x 10 4 45 mins Faeces Ingestion, Ward &

mussel per ml egestion Tagart
1989

Mytilus Edulis* Blue 10μm PS 1000 per 45 mins Faeces Ingestion, Ward &
mussel ml egestion Kach 2009

Mytilus Mediter- < 100μm PS, PE 1.5mg per 7 days Gills, presence in Avio et al.
Galloprovincialis* ranean ml digestive haemolymph, 2015
mussel tract and gills and
lymph digestive
system gland

Mytilus Mediter- 50nm PS 1, 5, 50 - Haemo- Only the Canesi et

Galloprovincialis* ranean μg per ml cytes haemocytes al. 2015
mussel were exposed,
signs of cyto-
toxicity

201
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common Size of Poly- Exposure Length Particle Effect Source

Name Ingested mer Concen- of ex- end-
Material tration posure point

Phylum Mollusca

Mytilus Trossulus* Bay 10μm PS / 0.5 - 1.5 Digestive Ingestion Ward et al.
mussel hr tract 2003

Placopecten Atlantic 15, 10, 16, PS 1.05 per 1 hr Faeces Ingestion, Brilliant &
Magellanicus* Sea 18, 20μm ml retention, MacDonald
scallop egestion 2000

Placopecten Atlantic 15, 10, 16, PS 1.05 per 1 hr Faeces Ingestion, Brilliant &
Magellanicus* Sea 18, 20μm ml retention, MacDonald
scallop egestion 2002

Crassostrea Eastern 10μm PS 1000 per 45 mins Faeces Ingestion, Ward &
Virginica* oyster ml egestion Kach 2009

Crassostrea Gigas* Pacific 2, 6μm PS 1800 per 2 Digestive Increased Sussarellu

oyster ml for the months tract filtration and et al. 2014
2μm size; assimilation,
200 per reduced
ml for the gamete quality,
6μm size slower larval
rearing for
larvae from
MP exposed
parents

Phylum Echinodermata

Apostichopus Giant 10, 20μm PS 2.4 per μL - Digestive Ingestion, Hart 1991
Californicus Californian tract retention
sea
cucumber

Thyonella Striped 0.25-15mm PVC, 11g PVC 20-25 Digestive Selective Graham &
Gemmate sea PA shavings, hrs tract ingestion Thompson
cucumber 60g resin 2009
pellets, 2g
nylon line,
to 600ml
of silica
sand

Holothuria Grey sea 0.25-15mm PVC, As above 20-25 Digestive Selective Graham &
(Halodeima) Grisea cucumber PA hrs tract ingestion Thompson
2009

Holothuria Florida sea 0.25-15mm PVC, As above 20-25 Digestive Selective Graham &
Foridana cucumber PA hrs tract ingestion Thompson
2009

Cucumaria Orange 0.25-15mm PVC, As above 20-25 Digestive Selective Graham &
Frondosa * footed sea PA hrs tract ingestion Thompson
cucumber 2009

Paracentrotus Sea urchin 40nm PS <25μg 48 hr Digestive Accumulation Della Torre

Lividus* per ml tract and embryo et al. 2014
toxicity

Lytechinus Green sea 3-5mm PE 2ml per 24 hr External Toxic effects, Nombre et
Variegatus urchin 8ml inc. anomalous al. 2015
embryonic
development

Tripneustes Collector 32-35μm PE 1, 10, 1-6hrs, Faeces Ingestion, Kaposi et

Gratilla* urchin 100, 300 9 days egestion al. 2014
per ml

Dendraster Eccentric 10, 20 μm PS 2.4 per μL - Digestive Ingestion, Hart 1991

Excentricus sand dollar tract retention

202
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common Size of Poly- Exposure Length Particle Effect Source

Name Ingested mer Concen- of ex- end-
Material tration posure point

Phylum Echinodermata

Ophiopholis Crevice 10, 20 μm PS 2.4 per μL - Digestive Ingestion, Hart 1991

Aculeate brittle star tract retention

Dermasterias Leather 10, 20 μm PS 2.4 per μL - Digestive Ingestion, Hart 1991

Imbricate star tract retention

Phylum Arthropoda

Semibalanus Barnacle 20-2000 μm - 1mg per Several Digestive Ingestion Thompson

Balanoides ml days tract et al. 2004

Tigriopus Copepod 0.05μm PS 9.1 × 1011 24 hrs Faeces Ingestion, Lee et al.
Japonicas per ml egestion, 2013
mortality,
decreased
fecundity

Tigriopus Copepod 0.5μm PS 9.1 × 108 24 hrs Faeces Ingestion, Lee et al.
Japonicas per ml egestion, 2013
mortality,
decreased
fecundity

Tigriopus Copepod 6μm PS 5.25 × 24 hrs Faeces Ingestion, Lee et al.

Japonicas 105 per ml egestion, 2013
mortality,
decreased
fecundity

Acartia Copepod 7-70 μm - 3000- 15 mins Digestive Ingestion, size Wilson

(Acanthacartia) 4000 tract selection 1973
Tonsa beads per
ml

Acartia Spp. Copepod 10μm PS 2000 per 3 hrs Faeces Ingestion Setälä et
ml al. 2014

Acartia Clausi Copepod 7.3, 20.6, PS 635, 24 hrs Digestive Size based Cole et al.
30.6 μm 2240, tract selection: 2013
3000 Ingestion at
beads per 7.3 μm , no
ml ingestion at
20.6 μm, par-
tial ingestion
at 30.6 μm

Eurytemora Affinis Copepod 10μm PS 1000, 3 hrs Faeces Ingestion, Setälä et

2000, egestion al. 2014
10,000
per ml

Limnocalanus Copepod 10μm PS 1000, 3 hrs Digestive Ingestion Setälä et

Macrurus 2000, 10, tract al. 2014
000 per
ml

Temora Longicornis Copepod 1.7, 3.8, 7.3, PS 635, 24 hrs Digestive Ingestion Cole et al.
20.6, 30.6 2240, tract 2013
μm 3000
beads per
ml

Temora Longicornis Copepod 20μm PS 100 per over- Digestive Ingestion 10.7 Cole et al.
ml night tract ± 2.5 beads 2014
per individual

Calanus Copepod 20μm PS 75 per ml 23 hrs Faeces Egestion, Cole et al.

Helgolandicus ingestion 2015

203
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common Size of Poly- Exposure Length Particle Effect Source

Name Ingested mer Concen- of ex- end-
Material tration posure point

Phylum Arthropoda

Calanus Copepod 7.3, 20.6, PS 635, 24 hrs Digestive Ingestion Cole et al.
Helgolandicus 30.6 μm 2240, tract 2013
3000
beads per
ml

Centropages Copepod 7.3, 20.6, PS 635, 24 hrs Digestive Ingestion Cole et al.
Typicus 30.6 μm 2240, tract 2013
3000
beads per
ml

Idotea Emarginata Isopod 10μm PS 0.3-120 3 days Faeces Ingestion, Hamer et

mg/g presence al. 2014
in stomach,
faeces, no
evidence of
assimilation,
no absorb-
ance, no
adverse effect
on life history

Orchestia Amphipod 20 – - 1g per several Digestive Ingestion Thompson

Gammarellus 2000μm individual days tract et al. 2004
(n = 150)

Talitrus Saltator Amphipod 10 – 45μm PE 10% 24 hrs Faeces Ingestion, Ugolini et

weight egestion after al. 2013
(0.06-0.09 2 hours
p/g dry
food

Allorchestes Amphipod 11 - 700μm PE 0.1 per g 72 hrs Faeces Ingestion, Chua et al.
Compressa egestion 2014
within 36
hours

Neomysis Integer Shrimp 10μm PS 2000 3 hrs Digestive Ingestion Setälä et

spheres tract al. 2014
per ml

Mysis Relicta 10μm PS 2000 3 hrs Faeces Ingestion, Setälä et

spheres egestion al. 2014
per ml

Carcinus Shore crab 8 - 10μm PS 4.0 x 16 hrs, Faeces Ingestion Watts et al.
Maenas* 104 per l 24 hrs, through gills 2014
ventilation 21 days and gut,
1.0 x 106 retention and
per g excretion,
no biological
effects meas-
ured

Carcinus Shore crab 250-500μm - 180mg 3 weeks Digestive Ingestion, MP Msc thesis:
Maenas* per 9 tract presence did Zoeter
cubes of not affect PAH Vanpoucke
feed uptake Mechtild

204
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common Size of Poly- Exposure Length Particle Effect Source

Name Ingested mer Concen- of ex- end-
Material tration posure point

Phylum Arthropoda

Uca Repax Fiddler 180-250μm PS 108- 2 Gills, 2 month Brennecke

crab 1000mg/ months Digestive exposure, et al. 2015
kg tract, 100% with
Lymph MP found in
system gills, stomach,
hepatopan-
creus. More
MP exposure,
more MP in
crab. Not sure
of effect

Nephrops Norway 5mm PP 10 fibres 24 hrs Digestive Ingestion Murray

Norvegicus* lobster per cm3 tract and Cowie
fish 2011

Porcellanidae Decopoda 30.6μm PS 635 beads 24 hrs Digestive Partial Inges- Cole et al.
(zoea) p/ml tract tion 2013

Paguridae (zoea) Decopoda 20.6μm PS 2240 24 hrs Digestive Partial Inges- Cole et al.
beads tract tion 2013
p/ml

Caridea (larvae) Decopoda 20.6μm PS 2240 24 hrs Digestive Ingestion Cole et al.
beads p/ tract 2013
ml

Barchyura Decopoda 20.6μm PS 2240 24 hrs Digestive Ingestion Cole et al.

(megalopa) beads p/ tract 2013
ml

Artemia Brine 40 & 50 nm PS 5-100 μg 48 hrs Digestive Ingestion, no Bergami et

Franciscana shrimp p/ml tract mortality, pos- al. 2015
sible effect on
motility, some
excretion

Nephrops Norway 500 - 600 μm PE 150mg 3 weeks Faeces Ingestion, Devriese et

Norvegicus* lobster loaded with microplas- 100% eges- al. in prep
10 μg of tics in tion. Increase
PCBs gelatine of PCB level
food in the tissues.
Same increase
for positive
control. No
direct effect of
microplastics.

Phylum Chordata

Doliolidae Tunicata 7.3μm PS 3000 1 hr Digestive Ingestion Cole et al.

beads ml tract 2013

Pomatoschistus Common 1 - 5 μm PE 18.4 & 96 hrs External Abnormal Oliveria et

Microps goby 184 μg p/l swimming al. 2013
behaviour
and lethargy,
ACHe activity
affected

Pomatoschistus Common 420 - 500 PE < 30 per 3 mins Digestive Ingestion, De Sa et al.
Microps goby μm fish tracts significant 2015
decrease in
predatory
performance

205
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Phylum Chordata

Species Common Size of Poly- Exposure Length Particle Effect Source

Name Ingested mer Concen- of ex- end-
Material tration posure point

Pomatoschistus Common 1 - 5 μm PE 0.216 mg / Digestive The toxicolog- Luis et al.

Microps goby p/l tracts ical interaction 2015
between MP
and Cr(VI)
at conc
>3.9 mg/l
decreased
predatory
performance
(67%) and
caused
significant
inhibition of
ACHe activity
(<31%)

Gadus Morhua* Atlantic 2, 5 mm PE / / Faeces Ingestion, Dos Santos

cod egestion, & Jobling
5mm held for 1991
prolonged
periods, emp-
tying of plas-
tics improved
by food
consumption
additional
meals.

Oryzias Latipes* Japanese <0.5mm LDPE Ground up 1-2 Digestive Liver toxicity, Rochman
medaka as 10% of months tracts pathology, et al. 2013
diet hepatic stress

Oryzias Latipes* Japanese <0.5mm LDPE Ground up 1-2 Digestive Altered gene Rochman
medaka as 10% of months tracts expression, et al. 2014
diet decreased
choriogenin
regulation in
males and
decreased
vitellogenin
and
choriogenin
in females

Dicentrarchus Seabass 10 - 45 μm PE 0-105 per 8dph - Digestive Ingestion, no Mazurais et

Labrax* (larvae) g incorpo- 26dph tract significant al. 2014
rated with increase in
food growth, effect
on survival of
larvae.
Possible
gastric
obstruction.

Halichoerus Grey seal 3mm PE 2818 96 Faeces Used as a Grellier and

Grypus beads hours tracer for diet Hammond
(99% study 2006
recovery)

Calonectris Streaked 3-5 mm PE 1g of 1st day Chem- Ingestion, Teuten et

leucomelas shearwater beads exposed, icals in chemical al. 2009
exposed studied preen oil transfer
to PCBs for 42
~ 97ng days
per g

206
 Evidence of microplastic ingestion by field studies organisms. If mean
not available, range is reported. Standard deviation is reported where
possible.* represents percentage ingestion by total number of individuals,
not separated by species. * species which are commercially important

Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Mollusca

Dosidicus gigas Humboldt squid 30 26.7 / 0-11 / Nurdles 3-5mm British Columbia, Braid et al. 2012
Canada

Mytilus Mediterranean 17 / Total: 0.08 / / Fibres, particles <5mm Tagus Estuary, Vandermeersch
galloprovincialis* mussel (0.09)-0.34 Portugal et al. 2015
(0.22sd) p/g

Mytilus Mediterranean 17 / Mean: 0.11 / / Fibres, particles <5mm Ebro Delta Coastal Vandermeersch
galloprovincialis* mussel (0.12)-0.15 Embayment, et al. 2015
(sd0.33) p/g Spain

207
Mytilus Mediterranean 5 / Mean: 0.25 / / Fibres, particles <5mm Goro, Vandermeersch
galloprovincialis* mussel (0.26sd) p/g Italy et al. 2015

Mytilus Mediterranean 5 / Mean: 0.04 / / Fibres, particles <5mm Amposta, Ebro Delta, Vandermeersch
galloprovincialis* mussel (0.09sd) p/g Spain et al. 2015

Mytilus Mediterranean 18 100 4.33 (2.62) / PET, PA, Fibres, frag- <5mm Fish market, Li et al. 2015
galloprovincialis* mussel PE ments, pellets China

Mytilus Mediterranean 17 / Mean 0.05 / / Fibres, particles <5mm Po estuary, Vandermeersch

galloprovincialis* mussel (0.11)-0.16 Italy et al. 2015
(0.11 sd) p/g

Mytilus edulis* Blue mussel 5 / Mean 0.06 / / Fibres <5mm Baie de Saint Brieux, Vandermeersch
(±0.13) France et al. 2015
particles p/g

Mytilus edulis* Blue mussel 5 / Mean 0.32 / / Fibres, particles <5mm Inschot, Vandermeersch
(±0.22) p/g The Netherlands et al. 2015

Mytilus edulis* Blue mussel 45 / 3.5 per 10g / Fibres 300- Belgium, De Witte
1000 μm The Netherlands et al. 2014
Table VI.2
ANNEX
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
 ANNEX

Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Mollusca
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS

Mytilus edulis* Blue mussel 36 / 0.36 (±0 .07) / / 5-25 North Sea, Germany Van Cauwen-
p/g μm berghe & Janssen
2014

Mytilus edulis* Blue mussel 20 / 170-375 / Fibres / Nova Scotia, Canada Mathlon & Hill
particles per 5 2014
mussels

Scapharca Ark shell 6 100 45 (± 14.98) / PET, PA, Fibres, frag- <5mm Fish market, China Li et al. 2015
subcrenata* PE ments, pellets

Tegillarca Blood cockle 18 100 5.33 (± 2.21) / PET, PA, Fibres, frag- <5mm Fish market, China Li et al. 2015
granosa* PE ments, pellets

Patinopecten Yesso Scallop 6 100 57.17 (± / PET, PA, Fibres, frag- <5mm Fish market, China Li et al. 2015
yessoensis* 17.34) PE ments, pellets

Alectryonella Fingerprint oyster 18 100 10.78 (± 4.07) / PET, PA, Fibres, frag- <5mm Fish market, China Li et al. 2015
plicatula* PE ments, pellets

208
Sinonovacula Chinese razor clam 6 100 14.33 (± 5.35) / PET, PA, Fibres, frag- <5mm Fish market, China Li et al. 2015
constricta* PE ments, pellets

Ruditapes Carpet shell 24 100 5.72 (± 2.86) / PET, PA, Fibres, frag- <5mm Fish market, China Li et al. 2015
philippinarum* PE ments, pellets

Meretrix Orient clam 18 100 9.22(± 0.46) / PET, PA, Fibres, frag- <5mm Fish market, China Li et al. 2015
lusoria* PE ments, pellets

Cyclina 30 100 4.82 (± 2.17) / PET, PA, Fibres, frag- <5mm Fish market, China Li et al. 2015
sinensis* PE ments, pellets

Crassostrea Pacific oyster 12 30 0.6±0.9 0-2 / Fibres USA Rochman et al.

gigas* 2015

Crassostrea Pacific oyster 11 / 0.47(± 0.16) / / 5-25 μm Atlantic Ocean Van Cauwen-
gigas* per g berghe & Janssen
2014
 Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Arthrapoda

Lepas spp. * Gooseneck barnacle 385 33.5 / 01/ / <5mm North Pacific Goldstein &
30/ Goodwin 2013
16

Neocalanus Calanoid copepod 960 / 1 particle per Fibre, fragment 556 (149) North Pacific Desforges et al.
cristatus 34 zoop μm 2015

Euphausia Euphausid 413 / 1 particle per 7 Fibre, fragment 816 (108) North Pacific Desforges et al.
pacifica euph μm 2015

Nephrops Norway lobster 120 83 / / Clyde, UK Murray and

norvegicus* Cowie 2011

Crangon Brown shrimp 110 / 11.5 fibres per 95% fibres, 5% 300-1000 Belgium Devriese et al.
crangon* 10 g films μm 2015

Phylum Annelida

Arenicola marina Lugworm 1.2 +- 2.8 g/ >5μm Belgium, NL, France Van Cauwenberge

209
w.w et al. in Devriese
et al. 2015

Phylum Chaetognatha

Parasagitta Arrow worm 1 100 / PS Spheres 0.1-3mm New England, USA Carpenter et al.
elegans 1972

Phylum Chordata

Phoca vitulina Harbour seal 100 stomachs S:11.2 , I:1 Max: 8 items Fragments >0.1 The Netherlands Bravo Rebolledo
107 intestines (s), 7 items (i) et al. 2013

Mesoplodon True’s beaked whale 1 100 88 Fibres, fragment mean Connemara, Ireland Lusher et al.
mirus 2.16 2015
mm

Megaptera Humpback whale 1 100 45 items Fragments 1-17 The Netherlands Besseling et al.
novaeangliae cm 2015

Arctocephalus Fur seal 145 100 1-4 per scat Fragments, 4.1mm Macquarie Island, Eriksson & Burton
spp. beads Australia 2003
ANNEX
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
 ANNEX

Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Chordata
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS

Chelonia mydas* Green turtle 24 / Total: 11 pellets Pellets <5mm Rio Grande do Sul, Tourinho et al.
Brazil 2010

Menidia menidia Atlantic silversides 9 33 / PS 0.1-3mm New England, USA Carpenter et al

1972

Atherinopsis Jacksmelt 7 28.57142857 1.6+-3.7 Fibres, 0-10 USA Rochman et al.

californiensis* fragments 2015

Alepisaurus ferox Longnosed lan- 144 24 2.7 (± 2.0) Fragments 68.3 North Pacific Choy and Drazen
cetfish (±91.1) 2013

Cololabis saira Pacific saury 52 *35 3.2 (± 3.05) Fragments 0--2 North Pacific Boerger et al.
2010

Clupea Atlantic herring 2 100 1 PS PS 0.1 -3mm New England, USA Carpenter et al
harengus* 1972

Clupea Atlantic herring 566 2 1 to 4 Fragments 0.5-3 North Sea Foekema et al.

210
harengus* 2013

Clupea Atlantic herring 3 100 / / / North Sea Collard et al.

harengus* 2015

Sprattus European sprat 111 38.74% 0.88 (0.88) Fibres, granual, 0.1-4.9mm Belgium, North Sea Msc thesis:
sprattus * film Zoeter Vanpoucke
Mechtild

Spratelloides Silverstripe round 4 40 1.1 +-1.7 0-5 0-5 fragments Indonesia Rochman et al.
gracilis* herring 2015

Alosa fallax * Twait shad 1 100 1 Fragment <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al.,
2015

Sardina European pilchard 3 100% / / / North Sea Collard et al.

pilchardus* 2015

Sardina European pilchard 99 19% 1.78 ± 0.7 <1mm Adriatic sea Avio et al. 2015
pilchardus*

Sadinella Oil sardine 10 60% / Fibres 0.5-3mm Mangalore Sulochanan et al.

longicxeps* 2014
 Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Chordata

Stolephorus Anchovy 16 37.5 / Fragments 1.14-2.5 Alappuzha, India Kripa et al. 2014
commersonnii*

Engraulis Anchovy 3 100% / / / North Sea Collard et al.

encrasiscolus* 2015

Engraulis mordax* Pacific anchovy 10 30 0.3 +- 0.5 0-1 Fibres and film USA Rochman et al.
2015

Pollachius virens* Saithe 1 100 1 PS PS 0.1-3mm New England, USA Carpenter et al

PS 1972

Ciliata mustela Five-bearded 113 0-10 / PS PS 2mm Severn Estuary, UK Kartar 1976
rocklings

Merlangius mer- Whiting 105 6 01/03/16 1.7 (±1.5) North Sea Foekema et al.
langus* 2013

Merlangius mer- Whiting 50 32 1.75 (± 1.4) Fragment, fibres, 2.2 (±2.3) English Channel Lusher et al.

211
langus* beads 2013

Melanogrammus Haddock 97 6 1 Fragments 0.7 (±0.3) North Sea Foekema et al.

aeglefinus* 2013

Gadus morhua* Cod 80 13 01/02/16 Fragments 1.2 (±1.2) North Sea Foekema et al.
2013

Micromesistius Blue whiting 27 51.9 2.07 Fragment, fibres, 2.0 (±2.4) English Channel Lusher et al.
poutassou* (± 0.9) beads 2013

Trisopterus Poor cod 50 40 1.95 Fragment, fibres, 2.2 (±2.2) English Channel Lusher et al.
minutus* (± 1.2) beads 2013

Merlucius Hake 3 100% 1.33 <1mm Adriatic sea Avio et al. 2015
merlucius* ± 0.57

Merlucius Hake 12 25% 0.33 4 fibres <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
merlucius* ±0.65

Lampris sp. 115 29 2.3 Fragments 49.1 North Pacific Choy & Drazen
(big eye) (± 1.6) (±71.1) 2013
ANNEX
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
 ANNEX

Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Chordata
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS

Lampris sp. (small 24 5 5.8 Fragments 48.8 North Pacific Choy & Drazen
eye) (± 3.9) (±34.5) 2013

Lophius Monkfish 2 50 0.5 1 fibre <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
piscatorius*

Hygophum 45 *35 1.3 ( Fragments 1 – 2.79 North Pacific Boerger et al.

reinhardtii ± 0.71) 2010

Loweina 28 *35 1 Fragments 1 – 2.79 North Pacific Boerger et al.

interrupta 2010

Myctophum 460 *35 6.0 Fragments 1 – 2.79 North Pacific Boerger et al.
aurolaternatum (± 8.99) 2010

Symbolophorus 78 *35 7.2 Fragments 1 – 2.79 North Pacific Boerger et al.

californiensis (± 8.39) 2010

Diaphus Anderson’s lan- 13 15.4 1 Fragments North Pacific Davison & Asch

212
anderseni ternfish 2011

Diaphus fulgens 7 28.6 1 Fragments North Pacific Davison & Asch

2011

Diaphus phillipsi Boluin’s lanternfish 1 100 1 Fragments 0.5 North Pacific Davison & Asch
2011

Lobianchia Coco’s lanternfish 3 33.3 1 Fragments North Pacific Davison & Asch
gemellarii 2011

Myctophum Pearly lanternfish 25 16 1.5 Fragments 5.46 North Pacific Davison & Asch
nitidulum 2011

Morone White perch 12 33 / PS PS 0.1-3mm New England, USA Carpenter et al.

americana 1972

Tautogolabrus Bergall 6 < 83 / PS PS 0.1-3mm New England, USA Carpenter et al.

adspersus 1972
 Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Chordata

Pomatoschistus Goby 200 0 – 25 / PS PS 2mm Severn Estuary, UK Kartar 1976

minutus (As
Gobius minutus)

Argyrosomus Meagre 5 60 0.80 (±0.8) 2 fragments, <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
regius* 2 fibres

Stellifer 330 9.2 0.33 – 0.83 Fragments <1 Goiana Estuary, Brazil Dantas et al.
brasiliensis 2012

Stellifer stellifer 239 6.9 0.33 – 0.83 Fragments <1 Goiana Estuary, Brazil Dantas et al.
2012

Eugerres 240 16.3 1–5 Fragments 1–5 Goiana Estuary, Brazil Ramos et al.
brasilianus 2012

Eucinostomus 141 9.2 1–5 Fragments 1–5 Goiana Estuary, Brazil Ramos et al.
melanopterus 2012

213
Diapterus 45 11.1 1–5 Fragments 1–5 Goiana Estuary, Brazil Ramos et al.
rhombeus 2012

7 71 5.+-5.2 0-24 Indonesia Rochman et al.

2015

Trachurus Horse mackerel 100 1 1 Fragments 2.52 North Sea Foekema et al.
trachurus* 2013

Trachurus tra- Horse mackerel 44 7 0.07 2 fragments; <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
churus* ±0.25 1 fibre

Trachurus Horse mackerel 56 28.6 1.5 (± 0.7) Fragment, fibres, 2.2 (±2.2) English Channel Lusher et al.
trachurus* beads 2013

Trachurus Blue jack mackerel 29 3.00% 0.03 1 fibre <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
picturatus* ±0.18

Seriola lalandi* Yellowtail amberjack 19 10.5 1 Fragments 0.5 – 11 North Pacific Gassel et al.
2013
ANNEX
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
 ANNEX

Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Chordata
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS

Decapyerus Shortfin scad 17 29 2.5 +- 6.3 0-21 Fragments and Indonesia Rochman et al.
macrosoma PS 2015

Callionymus lyra Dragonette 50 38 1.79 (± 0.9) Fragment, fibres, 2.2 (±2.2) English Channel Lusher et al.
beads 2013

Cepola Red band fish 62 32.3 2.15 (± 2.0) Fragment, fibres, 2.0 (±1.9) English Channel Lusher et al.
macrophthalma beads 2013

Morone saxatilis Striped bass 7 28.57142857 0.9+- 1.2 0-3 Bibre, film, foam USA Rochman et al.
2015

Mullus Red mullets 11 64% 1.57 ± <1mm Adriatic sea Avio et al. 2015
barbatus* 0.78

Mullus Striped red mullet 4 100% 1.75±0.5 7 fiberes <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
surmulletus*

Boops boops* Bogue 32 9 0.09 (±0.3) 1 fragment, <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015

214
2 fibres

Dentex Large-eye dentex 1 100 1 1 fibre <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
macrophthalmus*

Brama brama* Atlantic pomfret 3 33 0.67±1.2 2 fibres < North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
5mm

Thunnus thynnus* Bluefin tuna 34 32.40% / > Mediterranean Romeo et al.2015

0.63
mm

Thunnus Albacore tuna 2 50.00% PE <3cm Arabian Sea Sajikumar et al.

alalunga* 2013

Thunnus Albacore tuna 131 12.90% / > Mediterranean Romeo et al.2015

alalunga* 3.60
mm

Rastrelliger Indian Mackerel 10 50.00% / Fibres 0.5 -3mm Mangalore Sulochanan et al.
kanagurta* 2014
 Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Chordata

Rastrelliger kana- Indian Mackerel 9 56 1 (+- 1.1) 0-3 Fragments, Indonesia Rochman et al.
gurta* pellets 2015

Scomber Chub mackerel 35 31 0.57 14 fragments; 6 < North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
japonicas* ±1.04 fibres 9.42
mm

Scomber Atlantic mackerel 13 31 0.46 3 fragments; 3 <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
scombrus* ±0.78 fibres

siganus Streamlined spine- 2 50 0.5+-0.7 0-1 fragments Indonesia Rochman et al.

argenteus foot 2015

Siganus Rabbitfish 3 29 0.3-0.6 0-1 fragments Indonesia Rochman et al.

canaliculatus 2015

Xiphias gladius* Swordfish 56 12.50% / > Mediterranean Romeo et al.2015

3.69
mm

215
Pagellus acarne* Axillary seabream 1 100 1 1 fiber <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al.,
2015

Citharichthys Pacific sandab 5 60 1+-1.2 0-3 Fibre and dilm USA Rochman et al.
sordidus* 2015

Pseudopleu- Winter Flounder 95 2.1 / PS PS 0.1-3mm New England, USA Carpenter et al

ronectes 1972
americanus*

Platichthys flesus* Flounder / / / PS PS 1mm Severn Estuary, UK Kartar 1973

Platichthys flesus* Flounder 1090 0 – 20.7 / PS PS 1mm Severn Estuary, UK Kartar 1976

Buglossidium Solenette 50 26 1.23 (± 0.4) Fragment, fibres, 1.9 (±1.8) English Channel Lusher et al.
luteum beads 2013

Microchirus Thickback sole 51 23.5 1.58 (± 0.8) Fragment, fibres, 2.2 (±2.2) English Channel Lusher et al.
variegatus beads 2013
ANNEX
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
 ANNEX

Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Chordata
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS

Oncorhynchus Chinook salmon 4 25 0.25+-0.5 0-1 Fibre USA Rochman et al.

tshawytscha* 2015

Myoxocephalus Grubby 47 4.2 / PS PS 0.1-3mm New England, USA Carpenter et al

aenaeus 1972

Ophiodon Ling cod 11 9.090909091 0.1+- 0.3 0-1 0-1 film USA Rochman et al.
elongates* 2015

Liparis liparis Sea snails 220 0 – 25 / PS PS 1mm Severn Estuary, UK Kartar 1976
liparis

sebastes flavidus* Yellowtail rockfish 1 33 0.3+-0.6 0-1 Fibres USA Rochman et al.
2015

Sebastes Blue rockfish 10 20 0.2+-0.4 0-1 Fibres USA Rochman et al.

mystinus* 2015

Chelidonichthys Red gurnard 66 51.5 1.94 (± 1.3) Fragments 2.1 (±2.1) English Channel Lusher et al.

216
cuculus* 2013

Chelidonichthys Tub gurnard 3 0.67 1±0 <1mm Adriatic Sea Avio et al. 2015
lucernus*

Trigla lyra* Piper gurnard 31 19 0.26 1 fragment; <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al.,
±0.57 7 fibers 2015

Prionotus evolans Striped searobin 1 100 1 PS PS 0.1-3mm New England, USA Carpenter et al
1972

Cathorops spixii Madamago sea 60 18.3 0.47 1–4 Goiana Estuary, Brazil Possatto et al.
catfish 2011

Cathorops spp 60 33.3 0.55 1–4 Goiana Estuary, Brazil Possatto et al.
2011

Sciades her- Pemecoe catfish 62 17.7 0.25 1–4 Goiana Estuary, Brazil Possatto et al.
zbergii 2011

Astronesthes 7 *35 1 Fragments 1 – 2.79 North Pacific Boerger et al.

indopacificus 2010
 Scientific name Common Number of % with Mean par- Range Polymer Type of Size Study location Source
name individuals microplastic ticles per indi- microplastic ingested
vidual (SD) (mm)

Phylum Chordata

Sternoptyx Hatchetfish 4 25 1 Fragments 1.58 North Pacific Davison & Asch

diaphana mm 2011

Sternoptyx Highlight hatchetfish 6 16.7 1 Fragments 4.75 North Pacific Davison & Asch
pseudobscura mm 2011

Idiacanthus Pacific black dragon 4 25 1 Fragments 0.5 North Pacific Davison & Asch
antrostomus mm 2011

Zeus faber* John Dory 46 47.6 2.65 (± 2.5) Fragment, fibres, 2.2 (±2.2) English Channel Lusher et al.
beads mm 2013

Zeus faber* John Dory 1 100 1 Fibre <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015

Scyliorhinus Lesser- 20 20 0.27 (±0.55) 1 fragment; 5 <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015
canicula* spotted catshark fibres

Raja asterias* Starry ray 7 43 0.57 (±0.79) 4 fibres <5mm North Eastern Atlantic Neves et al. 2015

217
Squalus Spiny dogfish 9 44 1.25 ( ± 0.5) <1mm Adriatic sea Avio et al. 2015
acanthias*
ANNEX
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Evidence of microplastic ingestion by seabirds mean (±SD unless * = SE).

Table VI.3
Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source
name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Procellariidae

(Aphrodroma Kerguelen 26 3.8 1 Pellets North Reed 1981

brevirostris) petrel Island,
(as Pterodroma New
brevirostris) Zealand

(Aphrodroma Kerguelen 13 8 0.2 Mass Pellets Gough Furness

brevirostris) petrel <0.0083g Island, 1985a
(as Pterodroma South
brevirostris) Atlantic

Aphrodroma brev- Kerguelen 63 22.2 / - Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

irostris (as Ptero- petrel Ocean
droma brevirostris)

Aphrodroma Kerguelen 28 7 / 3-6mm Frag- Antarctica Ainley et al.

brevirostris petrel ments, 1990
pellets

Calonectris Cory’s 7 42.8 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

diomedea shearwater Ocean

Calonectris Cory’s 147 24.5 Stomach= 2 Beads North Moser &

diomedea shearwater Gizzard= 3.1 Carolina, Lee 1992
USA

Calonectris Cory’s 5 100 / <10 Rio Colabuno

diomedea shearwater Grande et al 2009
do Sul,
Brazil

Calonectris Cory’s 85 83 8 (± 7.9) 3.9 ± 3.5 Canary Rodríguez

diomedea shearwater Islands, et al. 2012
Spain

Calonectris Cory’s 49 96 14.6 (± 24.0) 2.5 ± 6.0 A Catalan Codi-

diomedea shearwater coast, na-García
Mediterra- et al. 2013
nean

Daption capense Cape 18 83.3 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

petrel Ocean

Daption capense Cape 30 33 1 5 Ardery Van

petrel Island, Franeker &
Antarctica Bell 1988

Daption capense Cape 105 14 / 3-6mm Frag- Antarctica Ainley et al.

petrel ments, 1990
pellets

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 3 100 7.6 1-4mm Pellets California, Baltz &
fulmar USA Morejohn
1976

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 79 92 11.9 Pellets Nether- Van

fulmar land and Franeker
Arctic 1985
colonies

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 8 50 3.9 Pellets St. Kilda, Furness

fulmar UK 1985

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 13 92.3 10.6 Pellets Foula, UK Furness

fulmar 1985b

218
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Procellariidae

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 1 100 1 4mm Pellets Oregon, Bayer &

fulmar USA Olson
1988

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 44 86.4 Stomach = 3 - Beads North Moser &

fulmar Gizzard = 14 Carolina, Lee 1992
USA

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 19 84.2 Max: 26 - Pellets Alaska, Robards et

fulmar USA al. 1995

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 3 100 7.7 - Pellets Eastern Blight &

fulmar North Burger
Pacific 1997

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 15 36 3.6 (± 2.7) 7 (± 4.0) Davis Mallory et

fulmar Strait, al. 2006
Canadian
Arctic

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 1295 95 14.6 (± 2.0*) >1.0 North Sea Van
fulmar –33.2(± 3.3*) Franeker et
al. 2011

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 67 92.5 36.8 (± 9.8*) >0.5 Eastern Avery-

fulmar North Gomm et
Pacific al. 2012

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 58 79 6.0 (± 0.9*) >1.0 West- Kühn & van
fulmar fjords, Franeker
Iceland 2012

Fulmarus glacialis Northern 176 93 26.6 (± 37.5) Frag- Nova Bond et al.
fulmar ments, Scotia, 2014
pellets Canada

Fulmarus Antarctic 84 2 / 2-6mm Frag- Antarctica Ainley et al.

glacialoides fulmar ments, 1990
pellets

Fulmarus Antarctic 9 79 / <10 Rio Colabuno

glacialoides fulmar Grande et al 2009
do Sul,
Brazil

Halobaena caerulea Blue petrel 27 100 / Pellets New Reed 1981

Zealand

Halobaena caerulea Blue petrel 74 85.1 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

Ocean

Halobaena caerulea Blue petrel 62 56 / Frag- Antarctica Ainley et al.

3-6mm ments, 1990
pellets

Pachyptila spp. Prions / / / Pellets Gough Bourne

Island, & Imber
South 1982
Atlantic

(Pachyptila salvini) Salvin’s 663 20 / 2.5-3.5mm Pellets Welling- Harper

prion ton, New & Fowler
Zealand 1987

Pachyptila salvini 31 51.6 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

Ocean

219
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Procellariidae

Pachyptila belcheri) Thin-billed 152 6.6 / 2.5-3.5mm Pellets Welling- Harper

prion ton, New & Fowler
Zealand 1987

Pachyptila belcheri Thin-billed 32 68.7 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

prion Ocean

Pachyptila vittata Broad- 31 39 0.6 Max mass: Pellets Gough Furness

billed prion 0.066g Island, 1985a
South
Atlantic

Pachyptila vittata Broad- 310 16.5 / 2.5-3.5mm Pellets Welling- Harper

billed prion ton, New and Fowler
Zealand 1987

Pachyptila vittata Broad- 137 20.4 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

billed prion Ocean

Pachyptila vittata Broad- 69 10 / 3-6mm Frag- Antarctica Ainley et al.

billed prion ments, 1990
pellets

Pachyptila vittata Broad- 149 / 1987-89 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

billed prion B1.73 ± 3.58 Ocean

Pachyptila vittata Broad- 86 / 1999 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

billed prion B2.93 ± 3.80 Ocean

Pachyptila vittata Broad- 95 / 2004 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

billed prion B2.66 ± 5.34 Ocean

Pachyptila desolata Antarctic 35 14.3 / 2.5-3.5mm Pellets Welling- Harper

prion ton, New and Fowler
Zealand 1987

Pachyptila desolata Antarctic 88 47.7 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

prion Ocean

Pachyptila desolata Antarctic 2 100 1 6-8.1mm Heard Auman et

prion Island, al. 2004
Australia

Pachyptila turtur Fairy prion 105 96.2 / 2.5-3.5mm Pellets Welling- Harper
ton, New and Fowler
Zealand 1987

Pagodroma nivea Snow 363 1 / 3-6mm Frag- Antarctica Ainley et al.

petrel ments, 1990
pellets

Procellaria White- 193 / 1983-1985 Pellets Southern Ryan 1987,

aequinoctialis chinned B1.66 (± Ocean 2008
petrel 3.04)

Procellaria White- 526 / 2005-2006 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

aequinoctialis chinned B1.39 (± Ocean
petrel 3.25)

Procellaria aequi- White- 41 / / <10 Rio Colabuno

noctialis chinned Grande et al. 2009
petrel do Sul,
Brazil

220
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Procellariidae

Procellaria White- 34 44 / <10 Rio Colabuno

aequinoctialis chinned Grande et al. 2010
petrel do Sul,
Brazil

Procellaria Spectacled 3 33 / <10 Rio Colabuno

conspicillata petrel Grande et al. 2010
do Sul,
Brazil

Procellaria Spectacled 9 / / <10 Rio Colabuno

conspicillata petrel Grande et al. 2009
do Sul,
Brazil

Pseudobulweria Tahiti petrel 121 <1 1 Frag- Tropical, Spear et al.

rostrata ments North 1995
Pacific

Pterodroma incerta Atlantic 13 8 0.1 Max mass: Pellets Gough Furness

petrel 0.0053g Island, 1985a
South
Atlantic

Pterodroma incerta Atlantic 20 5 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

petrel Ocean

Pterodroma mac- Great- 13 7.6 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

roptera winged Ocean
petrel

Pterodroma mollis Soft-plum- 29 20.6 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

aged petrel Ocean

Pterodroma mollis Soft-plum- 18 6 0.1 0.014g Pellets Gough Furness

aged petrel Island, 1985a
South
Atlantic

Pterodroma externa Juan 183 <1 1 3-5mm Pellets Offshore, Spear et al.
Fernández North 1995
petrel Pacific

Pterodroma White- 12 8.3 5 3-4mm Frag- Offshore, Spear et al.

cervicalis necked ments North 1995
petrel Pacific

Pterodroma pycrofti Pycroft’s 5 40 2.5 (± 0.7) 3-5mm Frag- Offshore, Spear et al.
petrel ments North 1995
and Pacific
pellets

Pterodroma leu- White- 110 11.8 2.2 (± 3.0) 2-5mm Frag- Offshore, Spear et al.
coptera winged ments North 1995
petrel Pacific

Pterodroma brevipes Collared 3 66.7 1 2-5mm Offshore, Spear et al.

petrel North 1995
Pacific

Pterodroma Black- 66 4.5 3.0 (± 3.5) 3-5mm Frag- Offshore, Spear et al.
nigripenni winged ments North 1995
petrel Pacific

221
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Procellariidae

Pterodroma Stejneger’s 46 73.9 6.8 (± 8.6) 2-5mm Frag- Offshore, Spear et al.
longirostris petrel ments North 1995
and Pacific
pellets

Puffinus Ilherminieri Audubon’s 119 5 Stomach = 1 Beads North Moser &

shearwater Gizzard = 4.4 Carolina, Lee 1992
USA

Puffinus assimilis Little 13 8 0.8 Max mass: Pellets Gough Furness

shearwater 0.12g Island, 1985a
South
Atlantic

Puffinus bulleri Buller’s 3 100 8.5 (± 8.6) 2-8mm Frag- Tropical, Spear et al.
shearwater ments North 1995
and Pacific
pellets

Puffinus creatopus Pink-footed 5 20 2.2 1-4mm Pellets California, Baltz and

shearwater USA Morejohn
1976

Puffinus gravis Great 24 100 / Beads Briar Brown et

shearwater Island, al. 1981
Nova
Scotia

Puffinus gravis Great 13 85 12.2 Max mass: Pellets Gough Furness

shearwater 1.13g Island, 1985a
South
Atlantic

Puffinus gravis Great 55 63.6 Stomach = 1 Beads North Moser and

shearwater Gizzard = 13 Carolina, Lee 1992
USA

Puffinus gravis Great 50 66 1983-1985 Pellets Southern Ryan 1987,

B
shearwater 16.5(± 19.0) Ocean 2008

Puffinus gravis Great 53 / 2005-2006 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

B
shearwater 11.8 (± Ocean
18.9)

Puffinus gravis Great 19 89 / <10 mm Rio Colabuno

shearwater Grande et al. 2009
do Sul,
Brazil

Puffinus gravis Great 6 100 / <3.2-5.3mm Pellets Rio Colabuno

shearwater Grande et al. 2010
do Sul,
Brazil

Puffinus gravis Great 84 88 11.8 (± 16.9) Frag- Nova Bond et al.

shearwater ments Scotia, 2014
and Canada
pellets

Puffinus griseus Sooty 21 43 5.05 1-4mm Pellets California, Baltz and

shearwater USA Morejohn
1976

222
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Procellariidae

Puffinus griseus Sooty 5 100 / Beads Beads Briar Brown et

shearwater Island, al. 1981
Nova
Scotia,
Canada

Puffinus griseus Sooty 36 58.3 11.4 (± 12.2) 3-20mm Frag- Tropical, Spear et al.
shearwater ments North 1995
and Pacific
pellets

Puffinus griseus Sooty 218 88.5 / Pellets Offshore, Ogi et al.

shearwater North 1990
Pacific

Puffinus griseus Sooty 20 75 3.4 Pellets Offshore Blight and

shearwater eastern Burger
North 1997
Pacific

Puffinus griseus Sooty 50 72 2.48 (± 2.7) Frag- Nova Bond et al.

shearwater ments Scotia, 2014
and Canada
pellets

Puffinus balaric 46 70 2.5 (± 2.9) 3.5 (± Catalan Codi-

mauretanicus shearwa- 10.5A) coast, na-García
ter? Mediterra- et al. 2013
nean

Puffinus nativitatis Christmas 5 40 1 3-5mm Frag- Tropical, Spear et al.

shearwater ments North 1995
and Pacific
pellets

Puffinus pacificus Wedge- 23 4 2.5 (± 2.1) Frag- Tropical, Spear et al.

tailed ments North 1995
shearwater and Pacific
pellets

Puffinus pacificus Wedge- 62 24.2 3.5 (± 2.7) Frag- Tropical, Spear et al.
dark phase tailed ments North 1995
shearwater and Pacific
pellets

Puffinus pacificus Wedge- 20 60 max: 11 Pellets Pellets Hawaii Fry et al.

tailed 2-4mm 1987
shearwater

Puffinus puffinus Manx 10 30 0.4 Pellets Rhum, UK Furness

shearwater 1985b

Puffinus puffinus Manx 25 60 / <10 mm Rio Colabuno

shearwater Grande et al. 2009
do Sul,
Brazil

Puffinus puffinus Manx 6 17 / Frag- Rio Colabuno

shearwater ments Grande et al. 2010
do Sul,
Brazil

Puffinus tenuirostris Short- 6 100 19.8 1-4mm Pellets California, Baltz and
tailed USA Morejohn
shearwater 1976

223
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Procellariidae

Puffinus tenuirostris Short- 324 81.8 / Pellets Offshore, Ogi et al.

tailed North 1990
shearwater Pacific

Puffinus tenuirostris Short- 330 83.9 5.8 (± 0.4*) 2-5mm Pellets Bering Vlietstra
tailed Sea, and Parga
shearwater North 2002
Pacific

Puffinus tenuirostris Short- 5 80 / Frag- Alaska, Robards et

tailed ments USA al. 1995
shearwater and
pellets

Puffinus tenuirostris Short- 99 100 15.1 (± 13.2) >2mm Offshore, Yamashita

tailed North et al. 2011
shearwater Pacific

Puffinus tenuirostris Short- 129 67 Adults: 4.5 0.97- Frag- North Acampora
tailed Juvenile: 7.1 80.8mm ments Strad- et al. 2013
shearwater broke
Island,
Australia

Puffinus tenuirostris Short- 12 100 27 >2mm Offshore, Tanaka et

tailed North al. 2013
shearwater Pacific

Puffinus yelkouan Yelkouan 31 71 4.9 (± 7.3) 4.0 (± 13.0 Catalan Codi-

shearwater A) coast, na-García
Mediterra- et al. 2013
nean

Antarctic petrel 184 <1 / Fragments, Antarctica Ainley et al.

(Thalassoica pellets 1990
antarctica) 3-6mm

Family Hydrobatidae

Fregetta grallaria White-bel- 13 38 1.2 Pellets Gough Furness

lied storm Max mass: Island, 1985a
petrel 0.042g UK
South
Atlantic

Fregetta grallaria White-bel- 296 <1 1 Fragment Offshore, Spear et al.

lied storm North 1995
petrel Pacific

Fregetta grallaria White-bel- 318 / 1987-89 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

B
lied storm 0.63 ± 1.13 33.3% Ocean
petrel

Fregetta grallaria White-bel- 137 / 1999 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

B
lied storm 0.63 ± 1.37 20.9% Ocean
petrel

Fregetta grallaria White-bel- 95 / 2004 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

B
lied storm 0.72 ± 1.87 16.2% Ocean
petrel

224
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Hydrobatidae

Garrodia nereis Grey- 11 27 0.3 Pellets: Gough Furness

backed Max mass: Island, 1985a
storm 0.010g UK
petrel South
Atlantic

Garrodia nereis Grey- 12 8.3 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

backed Ocean
storm
petrel

Oceanodroma Fork-tailed / / / <5mm Aleutian Ohlendorf

furcata storm Islands, et al. 1978
petrel USA

Oceanodroma Fork-tailed 21 85.7 Max: 12 Pellets 22% Alaska, Robards et

furcata storm USA al. 1995
petrel

Oceanodroma Fork-tailed 7 100 20.1 Pellets 16% Eastern Blight and

furcata storm North Burger
petrel Pacific 1997

Oceanodroma Leach’s 15 40 1.66 (± 1.2) 2-5mm New- Rothstein

leucorhoa storm foundland, 1973
petrel Canada

Oceanodroma Leach’s 17 58.8 2.9 Pellets St. Kilda, Furness

leucorhoa storm Scotland, 1985b
petrel UK

Oceanodroma Leach’s 354 19.8 3.5 (± 2.6) Fragments, Offshore, Spear et al.
leucorhoa storm pellets North 1995
petrel 2-5mm Pacific

Oceanodroma Leach’s 64 48.4 Max: 13 Monofila- Alaska, Robards et

leucorhoa storm ment line, USA al. 1995
petrel fragments,
pellets

Oceanites ocean- Wilson’s 20 75 4.4 2.9mm Ardery van

icus storm Island, Franeker
petrel Antarctica and Bell
1988

Oceanites ocean- Wilson’s 91 19 / Fragments, Antarctica Ainley et al.

icus storm pellets 1990
petrel 3-6mm

Oceanites ocean- Wilson’s 133 38.3 Stomach = 26% beads North Moser and
icus storm 1.4 Carolina, Lee 1992
petrel Gizzard = 5.4 USA

Pelagodroma marina White- 19 84 11.7 Pellets Gough Furness

faced Max mass: Island, 1985a
storm 0.34g UK
petrel South
Atlantic

Pelagodroma marina White- 15 73.3 13.2 ± 9.5 Pellets Offshore, Spear et al.
faced 2-5mm North 1985
storm Pacific
petrel

225
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Hydrobatidae

Pelagodroma marina White- 24 20.8 / Pellets 41% Southern Ryan 1987

faced Hemi-
storm sphere
petrel

Pelagodroma marina White- 253 1987-89 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

B
faced 3.98 ± 5.45 69.6% Ocean
storm
petrel

Pelagodroma marina White- 86 / 1999 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

B
faced 4.06 ± 5.93 37.5% Ocean
storm
petrel

Pelagodroma marina White- 5 / 2004 Pellets Southern Ryan 2008

B
faced 2.52 ± 4.43 13.5% Ocean
storm
petrel

Family Diomedeidae

Phoebetria fusca Sooty 73 42.7 / Pellets 34% Southern Ryan 1987

albatross Ocean

Phoebastria Laysan / 52 / Pellets Hawaiian Sileo et al.

immutabilis albatross 2-5mm Islands, 1990
USA

Phoebastria nigripes Black- / 12 / Pellets Hawaiian Sileo et al.

footed 2-5mm Islands, 1990
albatross USA

Phoebastria nigripes Black- 3 100 5.3 Pellets 50% Offshore, Blight and
(As Diomedea footed eastern Burger
nigripes) albatross North 1997
Pacific

Thalassarche Black- 2 100 3 Pellets 50% Rio Tourinho et

melanophri browed Grande al. 2010
albatross do Sul,
Brazil

Order Charadriiformes
Family Laridae

Larus audouinii Audouin’s 15 13 49.3 (± 77.7) 2.5 (± 5.0*) Catalan Codina-

gull coast, García et
Mediterra- al. 2013
nean

Larus glaucescens Glaucous- 589 12.2 / <10mm Protection Lindborg et

winged gull bo- Island, al. 2012
luses USA

Larus heermanni Heer- 15 7 1 Pellets California, Baltz and

mann’s 1-4mm USA Morejohn
Gull 1976

Larus Mediterra- 4 25 3.7 (± 7.5) 3.0 (± 5.0*) Catalan Codina-

melanocephalus nean gull coast, García et
Mediterra- al. 2013
nean

226
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Laridae

Larus michahellis Yellow- 12 33 0.9 (± 1.5) 2.0 (± 8.0*) Catalan Codi-

legged gull coast, na-García
Mediterra- et al. 2013
nean

Rissa brevirostris Red- 15 26.7 / Pellets: Alaska, Robards et

legged Mean USA al. 1995
kittiwake 5.87mm

Rissa tridactyla Black- 8 8 4 Pellets California, Baltz and

legged 1-4mm USA Morejohn
kittiwake 1976

Rissa tridactyla Black- 256 7.8 Max: 15 Pellets Alaska, Robards et

legged USA al. 1995
kittiwake

Rissa tridactyla Black- 4 50 1.2 (± 1.9) 3.0 (± 5.0*) Catalan Codi-

legged coast, na-García
kittiwake Mediterra- et al. 2013
nean

Family Alcidae

Aethia psittacula Parakeet / / / <5mm Aleutians Ohlendorf

auklet Islands, et al. 1978
USA

Aethia psittacula Parakeet 208 93.8 17.1 Pellets Alaska, Robards et

auklet 4.08mm USA al. 1995

Fratercula cirrhata Tufted 489 24.5 Max: 51 Pellets Alaska, Robards et

puffin 4.10mm USA al. 1995

Fratercula cirrhata Tufted 9 89 3.3 Pellets Offshore, Blight &

puffin North Burger
Pacific 1997

Fratercula Horned / / / <5mm Aleutian Ohlendorf

corniculata puffin Islands, et al. 1978
USA

Fratercula Horned 120 36.7 Max: 14 Pellets Alaska, Robards et

corniculata puffin 5.03mm USA al. 1995

Fratercula Horned 2 50 1.5 Pellets Offshore, Blight and

corniculata puffin North Burger
Pacific 1997

Uria aalge Common 1 100 2011 – 2012 6.6 (± 2.2) New- Bond et al.
murre 1 foundland, 2013
Canada

Uria lomvia Thick-billed 186 11 0.2 (± 0.8) 4.5 (± 3.8) Canadian Provencher
murre Arctic et al. 2010

Uria lomvia Thick-billed 3 100 2011 – 2012 6.6 (± 2.2) New- Bond et al.
murre 1 foundland, 2013
Canada

Uria lomvia Thick-billed 1249 7.7 1985 – 1986 10.1 (± 7.4) New- Bond et al.
murre 0.14 (± 0.7*) foundland, 2013
Canada

227
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Species Common n Percent- Mean Mean size Type of Location Source

name age with number of ingested ± plastic
plastic particles p/ SD (min-
(%) individual max) (mm)

Family Stercorariidae

Stercorarius Brown 494 22.7 / Pellets 67% Southern Ryan 1987

antarcticus) skua Ocean
(as Catharacta
antarcticu)

Stercorarius ham- Tristan 11 9 0.3 Pellets Gough Furness

iltoni skua Max: 3 Max mass: Island, 1985a
(as Catharacta 0.064g UK
hamiltoni) South
Atlantic

Stercorarius longi- Long-tailed 2 50 5 Fragments, Eastern Spear et al.

caudus skua pellets North 1995
Pacific

Stercorarius Arctic skua 2 50 / Pellets 50% Southern Ryan 1987

parasiticu) Ocean

Family Scolopacidae

Phalaropus fuli- Grey phal- 20 100 Max: 36 Beads 1.7- California, Bond 1971
carius arope 4.4mm USA

Phalaropus fuli- Grey phal- 7 85.7 5.7 Pellets California, Connors

carius arope USA and Smith
1982

Phalaropus fuli- Grey phal- 2 50 / Pellets Southern Ryan 1987

carius arope Ocean

Phalaropus fuli- Grey 55 69.1 Stomach = 1 Beads North Moser and

carius phalarope Gizzard = 6.7 16.7% Carolina, Lee 1992
USA

Phalaropus lobatus) Red- 36 19.4 Stomach = 0 Beads North Moser and

necked Gizzard = 3.7 16.7% Carolina, Lee 1992
phalarope USA

Family Sternidae

Onychoprion Sooty tern 64 1.6 2 Pellets 4mm Offshore, Spear et al.

fuscatus eastern 1995
North
Pacific

Gygis alba White tern 8 12.5 5 Fragments Offshore, Spear et al.

3-4mm eastern 1995
North
Pacific

Order Suliformes
Family Phalacrocoracidae

Phalacrocorax atri- Macquarie C64 7.8 1 per bolus Polystyrene Mac- Slip et al.
ceps purpurascens shag spheres quarie 1990
Island,
Australia

228
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX VII.

ESTIMATED COST OF MARINE LITTER FOR THE EU FISHERY SECTOR

Estimated cost of marine litter for the EU fishery sector

(based on Mouat et al. 2010 in Arcadis 2014)
Table VII
Type of cost Cost per Estimated cost Calculation method
vessel (€) for the EU
(M€)

Reduced catch revenues (contamina- 2,340 28.64 The cost estimated by Mouat et al. (2010) for Scottish
tion forces fishermen to use more time vessels (€2,200 per vessel per year), actualised in
for the selection of their catches and to 2013 prices, was multiplied by the number of EU
discard part of them) trawlers (EU vessels that use seafloor fishing gear), i.e.
12,238.

Removing litter from fishing gear 959 11.74 The time needed to remove litter from fishing gear, as
estimated by Mouat et al (2010) for Scottish vessels
(41 hours per vessel per year), was multiplied by the
average EU27 labour cost (€23.4 per hour) and then by
the number of EU trawlers (EU vessels that use seafloor
fishing gear), i.e. 12,238.

Broken gear, fouled propellers 191 16.79 The cost related to broken fear and fouled propellers,
as estimated by Mouat et al. (2010) for Scottish vessels
(€180 per vessel per year), actualised in 2013 prices
was multiplied by the total number of fishing vessels in
the EU (87,667 according to Eurostat).

Cost of rescue services 52 4.54 The average cost of incidents around the British Isles
attended by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution
(RNLI) in 1998 (£4,000 per vessel) was multiplied
by the number of incidents (200), and divided by the
number of UK fishing boats (7,800), as indicated by
Fanshawe (2002). The estimated yearly cost per boat
resulting by this calculation was then multiplied by
31.1%, i.e. the share of rescue operation dedicated to
fishing vessels, as indicated for the UK by Mouat et al
(2010) (year 2008). The result (£32 per vessel) was
then actualised in 2013 prices and converted to € and
multiplied by the total number of fishing vessels in the
EU (87,667 according to Eurostat).

Total 61.71

229
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX VIII.

ESTIMATED CLEAN-UP AND MANAGEMENT COSTS OF MARINE LITTER

Estimated clean-up and management costs of marine litter –

some examples
Table VIII
Country / Region Estimated cost at national and municipality level Source

Belgium and The USD 13.8 million (EUR 10.4 million) for all municipalities in Belgium and Mouat et al, 2010
Netherlands The Netherlands (ave. USD 264 885/municipality/year (EUR 200 000/ OSPAR 2009
municipality/ year; EUR 629 – 97 346 per km))
Costs are higher for areas with high visitor numbers; for example the
Den Haag Municipality spends USD 1.43 million/year (EUR 1.27 million/
year) with costs for processing litter (including transport) about USD
229/tonne (EUR 165/tonne).

Peru USD 2.5 million in labour costs (ave. USD 400 000/year in municipality Alfaro, 2006 cited in UNEP, 2009
of Ventanillas)

UK USD 24 million (EUR 18 million) (ave. USD 193 365/municipality/year Mouat et al, 2010
(EUR 146,000/municipality/ year) (per km cleaning costs range from Fanshawe and Everard, 2002
USD 226-108 600/km/year (EUR 171-82 000/km/year)). OSPAR 2009
Specific municipality costs:

•Suffolk: approx. USD 93 500/year (GBP 60 000/year) on 40km of

beaches
•Carrick District Council (Devon): approx. USD 56 000/year
(GBP 32 000/year) on 5km of beaches.
•Studland (Dorset): USD 54 000/year (GBP 36,000/year) to collect
12-13 tonnes of litter each week in the summer along 6km of
beaches.
•Kent coastline: direct and indirect cost of litter estimated at over USD
17 million/year (GBP 11 million/year).
•Annual expenditure on beach cleaning in 56 local authorities ranged
from USD 23/km (GBP 15/km) in West Dunbartonshire to USD
78,000/km (GBP 50 000/km) in Wyre.

Bay of Biscay and A Spanish council with 30 beaches (5 Blue Flags) spends around USD OSPAR, 2009
Iberian coast 111 000/year (EUR 80 000/year) on beach cleaning

A French council with 30 beaches (5 Blue Flags) spends around USD

556 000/year (EUR 400 000/year) on ‘beach caring’ (including beach
clearing, monitoring of buoys, coastguards etc.), of which around 20%
(USD 111 000 (EUR 80 000)) relates to beach clearing.

In Landes, the cost of cleaning up 108km of sandy beaches was USD

11 million (EUR 8 million) between 1998 and 2005

Cost of beach cleaning between USD 6 250-69 460/year/council

(EUR 4 500-50 000/year/council) corresponding to average cost of
USD 9 000/km (EUR 6 500/km) of cleaned beach/year.

230
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Country / Region Estimated cost at national and municipality level Source

Poland Beach cleaning and removing litter from harbour waters cost USD 792 (UNEP, 2009)
000 (EUR 570 000) in 2006 (same amount also spent in five com-
munes and two ports)

Oregon, California, Annual combined expenditure of USD 520 million (USD 13/resident/ Stickel et al., 2012
Washington (USA) year) to combat litter and curtail potential marine litter

APEC region USD 1 500/tonne of marine litter in 2007 terms (McIlgorm, 2009)

231
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX IX.

COMPILATION OF ELEVEN BEST PRACTICES IN EUROPEAN SEAS

(EVALUATED USING THE DECYDE-4-MARLISCO TOOL)

Table XI
Title Implementa- Implementation Duration Theme(s) Type of initiative1
tion area scale (y)

1 Operation clean France Sub-national >5 Mitigation Campaign P-A-A

coasts ‘Calanques Awareness
Propres’

2 Responsible snack bar Spain National 0-1 Prevention Econ./Market instrument

project

3 Sea surface marine Turkey Sub-national >5 Mitigation P-A-A

litter cleaning oper-
ation

4 Integrated action plan France Sub-national >5 Prevention P-A-A campaign

for the cleaning of the Mitigation
Channel coast Awareness

5 The plastic bag levy Ireland National >5 Prevention Policy/Reg. Impl. Econ./
Market instrument

6 Coastwatch Portugal Portugal National >5 Mitigation Campaign

campaign Awareness

7 Fishing for litter Netherlands Sub-national 2-5 Mitigation P-A-A

Awareness

8 Blue lid campaign Turkey National 1-2 Awareness P-A-A campaign

9 Separation and Denmark National >5 Prevention P-A-A other

recycling of materials Mitigation
from fishing nets and
trawls

10 BREF – best available Europe European >5 Prevention Policy/Reg. Impl.

techniques reference
document – in
common wastewa-
ter and waste gas
treatment/manage-
ment systems in the
chemical sector

11 Dive against debris, Global Global >5 Mitigation P-A-A campaign

project AWARE

232
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX X.

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR MICROPLASTICS

Microplastics in Sediments

A wide range of sampling techniques are used for monitoring microplastics in sediments reviewed in Hidalgo-
Ruz et al. (2012), van Cauwenberghe et al. (2013) and Rocha-Santos and Duarte (2015). These methods
include density separation, filtration and/or sieving (Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012, Rocha-Santos and Duarte 2015).
Also, to facilitate the plastic extraction among organics components such as organic debris (shell fragments,
small organisms, algae or sea grasses, etc.) and other items such as pieces of tar, other methods can be
applied, such as enzymatic, CCL4 or H2O2 digestion of organic materials have been proposed (Galgani et al.
2011, Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012, Cole et al. 2014) such as for water samples.

The most common approach is to extract plastic particles from the sediment using a density separation based
on the differences in density between plastic and sediment particles. Typically, this is achieved by agitating the
sediment sample in concentrated sodium chloride (NaCl) solution. However, as the density of the NaCl solu-
tion is only 1.2 g cm3, only low density plastics will float to the surface and can hence be extracted. Different
authors have addressed this issue by using different salt solutions to obtain higher densities. Corcoran et al.
(2009)) used a 1.4 g cm-3 polytungstate solution, Imhof et al. (2013) extracted microplastics from sediments
using zinc chloride (ZnCl2, 1.5-1.7 g cm3), while others (Dekiff et al. 2014, Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2013a, Van
Cauwenberghe et al. 2013b) used a sodium iodide (NaI, 1.6 -1.8 g cm3) solution. These modifications result in
an increased extraction efficiency for high density microplastics such as polyvinylchloride (PVC, density 1.14 -
1.56 g cm3) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET, density 1.32-1.41 g cm3). As these high-density plastics make
up over 17% of the global plastic demand (PlasticsEurope 2013), not including these types of microplastics
can result in a considerable underestimation of microplastic abundances in sediments. Especially as these
high-density plastics are the first to settle and incorporate into marine sediments.

Sieves used in separation of particles usually have mesh sizes ranging from 38μm to 5 mm and often include
330μm, 1mm and 2mm. To avoid degradation, plastics separated from the sample have been dried and kept in
the dark, however this step is probably unnecessary if samples are examined within a few months of collection.

Visual examination is the most common method to assess size and quantities of microplastics. Various imaging
approaches, such as zooscan™ (Gilfillan 2009) or semi-automated methods (flow/cytometer, cell sorter, coulter
counters) may be practical for the visualization or counting of microplastic particles, with the potential to enable
a large number of samples to be analysed. For a better identification of plastics, specific criteria can be applied,
such as the presence of cellular or organic structures, the constant thickness of fragments or fibres, homogene-
ous colours and plastic brightness. However, the reliability of such approaches has not been evaluated. Other
analyses based on visual examination with light, polarised or not, or electron microscopy, may provide higher
resolution but cannot be used to determine polymer type.

The choice of sampling strategy and sampling approach (reviewed by (Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012) will eventually
determine the unit in which observed abundances will be reported. While a simple conversion can sometimes
be made to compare among studies (Lusher et al. 2015), comparison is often impossible or requires assump-
tions that lead to biased results. Studies sampling an area (using quadrants) will often report abundances per
unit of surface (m-2); e.g. (Martins and Sobral 2011). If real bulk samples up to a specific depth are taken the
reporting unit is m3 (e.g. (Turra,et al. 2014)). Conversion between these types of abundances is possible, if
sufficient information is available on sampling depth. Yet, for 20% of the studies this is not the case as reported

233
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

sampling depths can range from 0 to 50 cm. Other widely used reporting units are volume (mL to L; e.g. Noren
2007) or weight (g to kg; e.g. Claessens et al., 2011, Ng and Obbard 2006). Conversion between these two
types of units is not straight forward. Detailed information on the density of the sediment is required. As this is
never (as far as we could establish) reported in microplastic studies, assumptions have to be made. For exam-
ple, the conversion of microplastic abundances in sediment (Claessens et al. 2011). Additionally, within studies
reporting weight, a distinction can be made among those reporting wet (sediment) weight and those reporting
dry weight. This adds to the constraints of converting from weight to volume units, or vice versa. Sediment
samples from different locations or even different zones on one beach have different water content. Therefore, a
(limited) number of authors choose to express microplastic abundance per sediment as dry weight to eliminate
this variable (Claessens et al. 2013, Dekiff et al. 2014, Ng and Obbard 2006, Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2013);
(Vianello et al. 2013).

Microplastics in Biota
In terms of monitoring and with regards to “in situ” experiments, one of the most important aspects is the choice
of target species. It is important to consider (i) the exposure to plastics, especially for the species that are living
at the surface or in the sediments, (ii) the ingestion rate, especially for filter feeders such as bivalves, (iii) the sig-
nificance of results which vary depending on whether environmental impact or human health is considered, (iv)
the biological sensitivity of certain species, such as the high retention rate in birds of the procellariform family,
and (v) a large distribution and easy sampling of the target species.

Biological sampling that involves the examination and characterisation of plastic fragments consumed by marine
organisms has been used for fishes (Lusher et al. 2013, Choy and Drazen 2013, Avio, Gorbi et al. 2015), inver-
tebrates (Browne et al. 2008, Murray and Cowie 2011, Desforges et al. 2015, Van Cauwenberghe et al.,2015)
and birds ((van Franeker et al. 2011). In general, the research question addressed will greatly influence which
sampling and extraction technique to use. For example, size range of microplastics can be related to the micro-
and macro-plankton highlighting the potential for microplastic ingestion by a wide variety of organisms (Hidalgo-
Ruz et al. 2012). Thus, the sampling scale and methodology will depend on the size of the particle or the size
group of the studied organisms. However, harmonisation of sampling and extraction techniques should be
adopted for monitoring purposes.

The methodological difficulties in isolation protocols partly explain why only a few studies specifically addressed
the occurrence of microplastics in marine organisms. Even though suitable methods have been identified for
sediment and water samples, the extraction and quantification of microplastics from organisms may be masked
within biological material and tissues. Protocols on the extraction of microplastics from marine invertebrates
after a pre-digestion of organic matter have been proposed (Claessens, Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2013),
indicating the importance of solvent properties and pH for sample treatment, affecting both the estimation and
the characterization of the polymers by FT-IR. The enzymatic digestion of organic matter with proteinase k is a
reliable method to extract microplastics from planktons samples (Cole et al. 2014), but at higher costs when
considering large scale field sampling and monitoring.

234
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX XI.

REVISED GPML INDICATORS AND TARGETS

INDICATORS AND TARGETS - GPML IMPLEMENTATION & RELATED
PROCESSES

Generic Indicators – Goals A, B and C

Table 1
2
Intended Outcome Indicator of GPML Imple- Target (by December2016) Monitoring/Verification
mentation

Operational partnership Number of Governments, >100 Number of submitted forms to

with a wide range of organisations, agencies and join the GPML
partners facilitated through institutions joining the GPML.
an online forum promoting
the Honolulu Commitment
and Strategy

An effective and functional inter- SC established according to Terms SC meeting report, contain-
national steering committee (SC) of Reference and meeting at least ing clear guidance to develop
once per year the GPML

An effective and functional set of Four Regional Nodes established Regional Nodes report to
Regional Nodes according to Terms of Reference GPML Secretariat and Focal
with developed networks opera- Areas A, B and C
tional

Meeting of the global partnership Partnership meeting Meeting report with recom-
to review implementation of the mendations for improving
Honolulu Strategy implementation of the GPML
and associated management
measures

Development of regional Number of regional3 and national 5 regional policy instruments Policy instruments
and national policy instru- policy instruments aligned with 10 national policy instruments
ments aligned with the the Honolulu Strategy discus-
‘Honolulu Strategy’ sions for decision-making at
respective levels.

235
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Indicators and Targets - GPML Outputs

Table 2
Intended outcome Indicator of GPML outputs Target (by December Monitoring/verification
2016)

Operational partnership promoting Number of activities 1 per Region Report uploaded to MLN
the GPML Honolulu Strategy by the
production of reports, articles, videos,
training materials and related products
and activities

Production of Steering Commit- 1 per year from each Reports approved by GPML
tee reports Secretariat

Production of GPML Newslet- At least annual Newsletter produced by

ter/webinar GPML Secretariat

Demonstration Project progress 1 annual progress Reports approved by GPML

reports report per project Secretariat

Indicators and Targets - Demonstration Projects

Specific Land-Based Indicators based on Demonstration Projects – Goals A and C

Table 3
4
Intended outcome Indicator description Target (by 2020) Monitoring/verification

Reduction of influx of solid Reduction in the direct entry 20% reduction in marine input Self-reporting & project reports
waste to the marine environment of plastic to the marine envi- in 5 demonstration projects5 Independent assessment of
through the demonstration of ronment by improved waste degree of reduction of inputs
good policy and on-the- ground management and cost-benefit analysis.
practices and technologies,
including the introduction of new
instruments and market-based
policies

Increase in recycling rates of 50% increase in recycling Self-reporting & project reports
specified wastes rates in 5 demonstration Independent assessment of
projects degree of increase of recycling

Reduction in demand for 25% reduction in demand in 5 National reporting

‘single-use’ plastic shopping countries
bags6

Agreement to adopt new 10 Governments or private Self-reporting of proposed

good practises resulting from sector organisations agree to actions
demonstration projects make use of good practises7

Number of illegal waste Significant reduction8 National reporting

dumps on coast

236
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Specific Sea-based Indicators based on Demonstration Projects – Goals B and C

Table 4
9
Intended Outcome Indicator Description Target (2020) Monitoring/Verification

Reduction of influx of solid Reduction in the direct entry of plastic 20% reduction Self-reporting & project reports
waste to the marine environment to the marine environment by improved in marine input in Independent assessment of
through the demonstration of waste management 5 demonstration degree of reduction of inputs
good policy and on-the- ground projects10 and cost-benefit analysis.
practices and technologies,
including the introduction of new
instruments and market-based
policies

Increase in recycling rates of specified 50% increase in Self-reporting & project reports
wastes recycling rates in Independent assessment of
5 demonstration degree of increase of recycling
projects

Agreement to adopt new good practices 10 Governments Self-reporting of proposed

resulting from demonstration projects or private sector actions
organisations
agree to make use
of good practices11

Indicators and Potential Targets - Environmental State12 - Goals A, B and C

Generic Indicators – Goal C

Table 5
Intended outcome Indicator description Target Monitoring/verification
(2020-25)

Reduce the quantities and impact on the environ- Number of cetaceans injured or Significant IWC, Regional Seas
ment of marine litter entering from all sources killed reduction13 Bodies, national govern-
ment, municipalities and
NGO reporting

Number of turtles killed by entan- Significant Regional Seas Bodies,

glement reduction national government,
municipalities and NGO
reporting

Quantity of plastic (number and Significant Regional Seas Bodies,

mass of items) in guts of indicator reduction national government,
species from necropsies (e.g. fish, municipalities and NGO
birds, reptiles, cetaceans) reporting

Number and mass of items of float- Significant Regional Seas Bodies,

ing macro-litter (items km-2) reduction national government and
NGO reporting

Number of items of floating Significant Regional Seas Bodies,

micro-litter, especially microplas- reduction national government and
tics (items km-2) NGO reporting

Number and mass of items of litter Regional Seas Bodies,

on shorelines - km-1 shoreline national government and
NGO reporting

237
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Specific Land-based Indicators – Goals A and C

Table 6
Intended Outcome Indicator description Target (2020-25) Monitoring/verification

Reduce the quantities and Quantity of litter on tourist Significant reduction14 Regional Seas Bodies, national
impact on the environment of beaches - km-1 shoreline government, municipalities and
marine litter introduced on land NGO reporting
and entering the sea

– Goals B and C
Table 7
Intended Outcome Indicator Description Target (2020-25) Monitoring/Verification

3 15
Reduce the quantities and Quantity (volume m and length km) of Significant reduction FAO reporting (LC/LP), Regional
impact on the environment capture fisheries gear abandoned, lost Seas Bodies, national governments,
of marine litter introduced or otherwise discarded (ALDFG) (e.g. municipalities, fisheries industry
directly at sea nets, lines, pots, FADs)

Quantity of other capture fisheries-re- Significant reduction Reporting by NGOs, Regional Seas
lated items in the environment – items Bodies, national governments,
km-2 sea surface, km-2 water column, municipalities, fisheries industry
km-2 seabed, km-1 shoreline (e.g.
strapping bands, boxes, rope)

Quantity (volume m3 and length km) of Significant reduction FAO reporting; regional reporting
aquaculture gear abandoned, lost or e.g. Network of Aquaculture Cen-
otherwise discarded (ALDFG) - items tres in Asia-Pacific (NACA), NGOs,
km-2 sea surface, km-2 water column, Regional Seas Bodies, national
km-2 seabed, km-1 shoreline (e.g. governments, municipalities
floats, rope, nets, cages, poles)

Quantity of litter derived from commer- Significant reduction National governments, NGOs,
cial shipping Regional Seas Bodies & municipali-
ties reporting

Quantity of litter derived from cruise Significant reduction National reporting

industry

Number of turtles killed by ALDFG Significant reduction CBD, Regional Seas Bodies,
national and NGO reporting

Number of cetaceans injured by Significant reduction FAO, IWC, CBD, Regional

ALDFG Seas Bodies, national and NGO
reporting

Number of fish killed by ALDFG Significant reduction FAO, CBD, Regional Seas Bodies,
national and NGO reporting

Number of birds killed by ALDFG Significant reduction CBD, Regional Seas Bodies,
national and NGO reporting

Number of containers and other cargo Significant reduction National and shipping industry
lost by commercial shipping reporting

238
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Indicators of Social and Economic Impacts – Goal C

Table 8
Intended Outcome Indicator Description Target Monitoring/Verification
(2020-25)

Reduce the social and Number of vessels damaged or lost Significant Operators, national governments
economic impact on the due to collisions or entanglement reduction16
environment of marine litter (e.g. fouled propellers or blocked
entering from all sources cooling water intake)

Loss of energy generation capacity Significant Operators, national governments

(and income) and risk of accidental reduction
damage due to blocked cooling
water intakes in coastal power
stations, including nuclear power
stations; loss of functioning of
desalination plants.

Cost of beach cleaning Significant Municipalities

reduction

Number of injuries to public caused Significant National governments, municipalities, health

by marine litter reduction authorities

Number of call-outs of emergency Significant National governments, emergency services,

services by stricken vessels reduction municipalities

239
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ENDNOTES

1 Key to type of initiative: P-A-A – Practice/Activity/Action; Policy/Reg. Impl. – policy/regulation implementation; Econ./Market Instrument – economic
and market-based instruments.

2 December 2016 is initial target date. Further targets to be agreed as the GPML develops.

3 Regional in this context refers to multi-national bodies, agreements and other arrangements, such as Regional Seas Organisations. In some countries,
regional is used to indicate sub-national levels of governance or organisation.

4 Dependent on: i) the timescale for introduction of demonstration projects and other measures; ii) the scale and complexity of the socio-ecological
system; iii) the willingness of all relevant stakeholders to play an active role; iv) the availability of technical know-how and funding as required; and, v)
any in-built hysteresis in the social, economic, physical or ecological elements of the system (Oosterhuis et al. 2014).

5 To include representative sectors, for example: illegal waste dumps, coastal tourism, waste management in urban areas, retail sector and Small Island
Developing States (SIDS).

6 For example, by introducing a charge per bag and encouraging more durable multiple-use replacements

7 To include representative sectors, for example: illegal waste dumps, coastal tourism, waste management in urban areas, retail sector and SIDS.

8 Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

9 Dependent on: i) the timescale for introduction of demonstration projects and other measures; ii) the scale and complexity of the socio-ecological
system; iii) the willingness of all relevant stakeholders to play an active role; iv) the availability of technical know-how and funding as required; and v)
any in-built hysteresis in the social, economic, physical or ecological elements of the system.

10 To include representative sectors, for example: aquaculture, fisheries, shipping, cruise industry and recreational boating.

11 To include representative sectors, for example: aquaculture, fisheries, shipping, cruise industry and recreational boating

12 ‘Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

13 ‘Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

14 Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

15 ‘Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

16 ‘Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

240
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

REFERENCES

Alexander, K. A., P. Kershaw, P. Cooper, A. J. Gilbert, J. M. Hall-Spencer, J. J. Heymans, A. Kannen, H. J. Los, T. O’Higgins, C. O’Mahony, P. Tett, T. A. Troost
and J. van Beusekom (2015). “Challenges of achieving Good Environmental Status in the Northeast Atlantic.” Ecology and Society 20(1)

Allen, R., D. Jarvis, S. Sayer and C. Mills (2012). “Entanglement of grey seals Halichoerus grypus at a haul out site in Cornwall, UK.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 64(12): 2815-2819

Andrady, A. L. and M. A. Neal (2009). “Applications and societal benefits of plastics.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 364(1526): 1977-1984

Arcadis (2014). Marine Litter study to support the establishment of an initial quantitative headline reduction target - SFRA0025. European Commission
DG Environment Project number BE0113.000668, URL: URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/pdf/
final_report.pdf

Astudillo, J. C., M. Bravo, C. P. Dumont and M. Thiel (2009). “Detached aquaculture buoys in the SE Pacific: Potential dispersal vehicles for associated
organisms.” Aquatic Biology 5(3): 219-231

Avery-Gomm, S., P. D. O’Hara, L. Kleine, V. Bowes, L. K. Wilson and K. L. Barry (2012). “Northern fulmars as biological monitors of trends of plastic
pollution in the eastern North Pacific.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 64(9): 1776-1781

Avio, C. G., S. Gorbi, M. Milan, M. Benedetti, D. Fattorini, G. d’Errico, M. Pauletto, L. Bargelloni and F. Regoli (2015). “Pollutants bioavailability and toxico-
logical risk from microplastics to marine mussels.” Environmental Pollution 198(0): 211-222

Baker-Austin, C., J. A. Trinanes, N. G. H. Taylor, R. Hartnell, A. Siitonen and J. Martinez-Urtaza (2013). “Emerging Vibrio risk at high latitudes in response
to ocean warming.” Nature Climate Change 3(1): 73-77

Barnes, D. K. A. (2002). “Biodiversity: Invasions by marine life on plastic debris.” Nature 416(6883): 808-809

Barnes, D. K. A. and P. Milner (2005). “Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean.” Marine Biology 146(4):
815-825

Barnes, D. K. A., A. Walters and L. Gonçalves (2010). “Macroplastics at sea around Antarctica.” Marine environmental research 70(2): 250-252

Barreiros, J. P. and V. S. Raykov (2014). “Lethal lesions and amputation caused by plastic debris and fishing gear on the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta
(Linnaeus, 1758). Three case reports from Terceira Island, Azores (NE Atlantic).” Marine pollution bulletin 86(1): 518-522

Baulch, S. and C. Perry (2014). “Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans.” Marine pollution bulletin 80(1): 210-221

BiPRO (2013). Study of the largest loopholes within the flow of packaging material. Report prepared for DG Environment, European Commission,
ENV.D.2/ETU/2011/0043, 97pp

Boerger, C. M., G. L. Lattin, S. L. Moore and C. J. Moore (2010). “Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 60(12): 2275-2278

Bond, A. L., J. F. Provencher, P.-Y. Daoust and Z. N. Lucas (2014). “Plastic ingestion by fulmars and shearwaters at Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada.”
Marine Pollution Bulletin 87(1-2): 68-75

Bond, A. L., J. F. Provencher, R. D. Elliot, P. C. Ryan, S. Rowe, I. L. Jones, G. J. Robertson and S. I. Wilhelm (2013). “Ingestion of plastic marine debris by
Common and Thick-billed Murres in the northwestern Atlantic from 1985 to 2012.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 77(1-2): 192-195

Bouwmeester, H., P. C. H. Hollman and R. J. B. Peters (2015). “Potential Health Impact of Environmentally Released Micro- and Nanoplastics in the Human
Food Production Chain: Experiences from Nanotoxicology.” Environmental Science & Technology 49(15): 8932-8947

Box, G.E.P. (1976). Science and statistics. J Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(356) pp. 791-799

Brida, J. G. and S. Zapata (2010). “Economic impacts of cruise tourism: the case of Costa Rica.” Anatolia 21(2): 322-338

Brown, S. B., B. A. Adams, D. G. Cyr and J. G. Eales (2004). “Contaminant effects on the teleost fish thyroid.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
23(7): 1680-1701

Browne, M. (2015). Sources and Pathways of Microplastics to Habitats. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. M. Bergmann, L. Gutow and M. Klages, Springer
International Publishing: 229-244

Browne, M. A., P. Crump, S. J. Niven, E. Teuten, A. Tonkin, T. Galloway and R. Thompson (2011). “Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide:
Sources and Sinks.” Environmental Science & Technology 45(21): 9175-9179

Browne, M. A., A. Dissanayake, T. S. Galloway, D. M. Lowe and R. C. Thompson (2008). “Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory
system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.).” Environmental Science & Technology 42(13): 5026-5031

Browne, M. A., T. Galloway and R. Thompson (2007). “Microplastic--an emerging contaminant of potential concern?” Integrated environmental assess-
ment and management 3(4): 559-561

241
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Browne, M. A., T. S. Galloway and R. C. Thompson (2010). “Spatial Patterns of Plastic Debris along Estuarine Shorelines.” Environmental Science &
Technology 44(9): 3404-3409

Browne, M. A., S. J. Niven, T. S. Galloway, S. J. Rowland and R. C. Thompson (2013). “Microplastic Moves Pollutants and Additives to Worms, Reducing
Functions Linked to Health and Biodiversity.” Current Biology 23(23): 2388-2392

Buckley, P., J. Pinnegar, A. Dudek and A. Arquati (2011). “Report on European public awareness and perception of marine climate change risks and
impacts.” CLAMER: Climate Change and European Marine Ecosystem Research. Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas),
Lowestoft, Suffolk.

Bürgi, E. (2015). Sustainable Development in International Law Making and Trade: International Food Governance and Trade in Agriculture, Edward Elgar
Publishing.

Butt, N., Johnson, D., Pike, K., Pryce-Roberts, N. and Vigar, N. (2011). 15 years of shipping accidents; a review for WWF. Southampton Solent University,
56pp

Butterworth, A., Clegg, I., & Bass, C. (2012). Untangled – Marine debris: a global picture of the impact on animal welfare and of animal-focused solutions.
London: World Society for the Protection of Animals, 78pp

Cadbury, D. (2003). Seven Wonders of the Industrial World. London and New York: Fourth Estate. pp. 165–6, 189–192

Calder, D. R., H. H. Choong, J. T. Carlton, J. W. Chapman, J. A. Miller and J. Geller (2014). “Hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from Japanese tsunami marine
debris washing ashore in the northwestern United States.” Aquatic Invasions 9(4): 425-440

CalRecycle (2015) Beverage Container Recycling. Retrieved November 19, 2015 from http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer/

Camedda, A., S. Marra, M. Matiddi, G. Massaro, S. Coppa, A. Perilli, A. Ruiu, P. Briguglio and G. A. de Lucia (2014). “Interaction between loggerhead sea
turtles (Caretta caretta) and marine litter in Sardinia (Western Mediterranean Sea).” Marine Environmental Research 100: 25-32

Campani, T., M. Baini, M. Giannetti, F. Cancelli, C. Mancusi, F. Serena, L. Marsili, S. Casini and M. C. Fossi (2013). “Presence of plastic debris in log-
gerhead turtle stranded along the Tuscany coasts of the Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals (Italy).” Marine Pollution Bulletin 74(1):
225-230

Campbell, B. and D. Pauly (2013). “Mariculture: A global analysis of production trends since 1950.” Marine Policy 39: 94-100

Carpenter, E. J. and K. L. Smith Jr (1972). “Plastics on the Sargasso sea surface.” Science 175(4027): 1240-1241

Cartwright, S. R., R. A. Coleman and M. A. Browne (2006). “Ecologically relevant effects of pulse application of copper on the limpet Patella vulgata.”
Marine Ecology Progress Series 326: 187-194

CCAMLR (2015) Report on the CCAMLR Marine Debris monitoring program (WG-FSA-15/15). CCAMLR Secretariat, Hobart.

Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., Jeftic, L., Jung, R.T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E.T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan,
L., Pereira, M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B., Westphalen, G. (2009). UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine
Litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical Series No. 83: xii + 120 pp

Chavarro, J.M. (2013). Common concern of humankind and its implications in international environmental law. In (K de Feyter ed.) Globalisation and com-
mon responsibilities of states, Ashgate, pp. 337 – 351

Chin, C. B. (2008). Cruising in the Global Economy: Profits, Pleasure and work at Sea. Surrey, UK: Ashgate

Claessens, M., S. De Meester, L. Van Landuyt, K. De Clerck and C. R. Janssen (2011). “Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments
along the Belgian coast.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(10): 2199-2204

CleanSea (2015). Policy options for litter-free seas. An output of the project Towards a Clean Litter-free European Environment through Scientific Eviden-
ce, Innovative Tools and Good Governance, 2013-2015

CMS (2014) Management of marine debris. UNEP/CMS/Resolution 11.30. Convention on Migratory Species, 4pp

Cole, M., P. Lindeque, E. Fileman, C. Halsband and T. S. Galloway (2015). “The Impact of Polystyrene Microplastics on Feeding, Function and Fecundity
in the Marine Copepod Calanus helgolandicus.” Environmental Science & Technology 49(2): 1130-1137

Cole, M., P. Lindeque, C. Halsband and T. S. Galloway (2011). “Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 62(12): 2588-2597

Convery, F., S. McDonnell and S. Ferreira (2007). “The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy.” Environmental & Resource
Economics 38(1): 1-11

Convey, P., D. K. A. Barnes and A. Morton (2002). “Debris accumulation on oceanic island shores of the Scotia Arc, Antarctica.” Polar Biology 25(8):
612-617

Corcoran, E., C. Nellemann, E. Baker, R. Bos, D. Osborn, H. Savelli (eds). 2010. Sick Water? The central role of waste- water management in sustainable
development. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, UN-HABITAT, GRID-Arendal. www.grida.no 88pp

Covello, V.T. and M.W. Merkhofer, M. W. (1993) Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risks, Plenum Press, New York, USA

Cummings J (2005) Operational multivariate ocean data assimilation. Quart J Roy Meteor Soc Part C 131: 3583–3604

Dantas, D. V., M. Barletta and M. F. Da Costa (2012). “The seasonal and spatial patterns of ingestion of polyfilament nylon fragments by estuarine drums
(Sciaenidae).” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 19(2): 600-606

Davison, P. and R. G. Asch (2011). “Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre.” Marine Ecology Progress Series
432: 173-180

242
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Defra (2015). Review of standards for biodegradable plastic carrier bags. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, UK, 38pp

DEPA (2015). Microplastics – occurrences, effects and sources of releases to the environment in Denmark. Danish Environmental Protection Agency,
205pp

Desforges, J.-P. W., M. Galbraith, N. Dangerfield and P. S. Ross (2014). “Widespread distribution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific
Ocean” Marine Pollution Bulletin 79(1–2): 94-99

de Stephanis, R., J. Gimenez, E. Carpinelli, C. Gutierrez-Exposito and A. Canadas (2013). “As main meal for sperm whales: Plastics debris.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 69(1-2): 206-214

De Witte, B., L. Devriese, K. Bekaert, S. Hoffman, G. Vandermeersch, K. Cooreman and J. Robbens (2014). “Quality assessment of the blue mussel (My-
tilus edulis): Comparison between commercial and wild types.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 85(1): 146-155

Deudero, S. and C. Alomar (2015). “Mediterranean marine biodiversity under threat: Reviewing influence of marine litter on species.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 98(1-2): 58-68

Devriese, L. I., M. D. van der Meulen, T. Maes, K. Bekaert, I. Paul-Pont, L. Frère, J. Robbens and A. D. Vethaak (2015). “Microplastic contamination in brown
shrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the Southern North Sea and Channel area.” Marine pollution bulletin 98(1): 179-187

Di Beneditto, A. P. M. and R. M. A. Ramos (2014). “Marine debris ingestion by coastal dolphins: What drives differences between sympatric species?”
Marine pollution bulletin 83(1): 298-301

Dris, R., H. Imhof, W. Sanchez, J. Gasperi, F. Galgani, B. Tassin and C. Laforsch (2015). “Beyond the ocean: contamination of freshwater ecosystems with
(micro-)plastic particles.” Environmental Chemistry 12(5): 539-550

Duarte, C. M., K. A. Pitt, C. H. Lucas, J. E. Purcell, S.-i. Uye, K. Robinson, L. Brotz, M. B. Decker, K. R. Sutherland and A. Malej (2012). “Is global ocean
sprawl a cause of jellyfish blooms?” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(2): 91-97

Dumichen, E., A. K. Barthel, U. Braun, C. G. Bannick, K. Brand, M. Jekel and R. Senz (2015). “Analysis of polyethylene microplastics in environmental
samples, using a thermal decomposition method.” Water Res 85: 451-457

Eastman, L., V. Hidalgo-Ruz, V. Macaya, P. Nuñez and M. Thiel (2014). “The potential for young citizen scientist projects: a case study of Chilean
schoolchildren collecting data on marine litter.” Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 14(4): 569-579

Eastman, L. B., P. Nunez, B. Crettier and M. Thiel (2013). “Identification of self-reported user behavior, education level, and preferences to reduce littering
on beaches - A survey from the SE Pacific.” Ocean & Coastal Management 78: 18-24

Ebbesmeyer, C. C., W. J. Ingraham, J. A. Jones and M. J. Donohue (2012). “Marine debris from the Oregon Dungeness crab fishery recovered in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: Identification and oceanic drift paths.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3): 69-75

EC (2014) Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2014) 398 final, 14pp

EC (2015). Closing the loop – an EU action plan for the circular economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2015) 614/2, 21pp

EC (2015). Ex-Post evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. Brussels: European
Commission.

Ecorys (2011) The role of market-based instruments in achieving a resource efficient economy. Retrieved November 18, 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/role_marketbased.pdf

Ebbesmeyer and Sciano (2009). Flotsametrics and the Floating World: How One Man’s Obsession with Runaway Sneakers and Rubber Ducks Revolu-
tionized Ocean Science Smithsonian Books.

EEA (2001). “Late lessons from early warnings.” EEA Report

EEA (2013). “Late lessons from early warnings.” EEA Report 1/2013, 48pp

EMF (2014). Towards the circular economy. Volume 3: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains. Ellen McArthur Foundation, 80pp

EMSA. (2005). A Study on the Availability and Use of Port Reception Facilities for Ship-Generated Waste. Lisbon: European Maritime Safety Agency

Eriksen, M., A. Cummins, N. Maximenko, M. Thiel, G. Lattin, S. Wilson, J. Hafner, A. Zellers & S. Rifman (2013). “Plastic Pollution in the South Pacific
Subtropical Gyre.” Plastics Engineering 69(5): 38+

Eriksen, M., L. C. M. Lebreton, H. S. Carson, M. Thiel, C. J. Moore, J. C. Borerro, F. Galgani, P. G. Ryan and J. Reisser (2014). “Plastic Pollution in the
World’s Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea.” Plos One 9(12)

Eriksen, M., N. Maximenko, M. Thiel, A. Cummins, G. Lattin, S. Wilson, J. Hafner, A. Zellers and S. Rifman (2013). “Plastic pollution in the South Pacific
subtropical gyre.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 68(1-2): 71-76

Eriksson, C. and H. Burton (2003). “Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals from Macquarie Island.” Ambio 32(6): 380-
384

Essel, R., Engel, L. Carus, M. and Ahrens, R.H. (2015). Sources of microplastics relevant to marine protection in Germany. Umwelt Bundesamt, 64/2015,
Report No. (UFA-FB) 002147/E, 46pp

Fanning, L., R. Mahon, P. McConney, J. Angulo, F. Burrows, B. Chakalall, D. Gil, M. Haughton, S. Heileman, S. Martinez, L. o. Ostine, A. Oviedo, S. Parsons,
T. Phillips, C. S. Arroya, B. Simmons and C. Toro (2007). “A large marine ecosystem governance framework.” Marine Policy 31(4): 434-443

Fanshawe, T. and M. Everard (2002). “The impacts of marine litter.” Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group, Report of the Marine Litter Task
Team (MaLiTT) May.

243
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

FAO (1993). Recommendations for the marking of fishing gear supplement to the Expert Consultation on the Marking of Fishing Gear. Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada, 14–19 July 1991 (FAO). Fisheries Reports R485Suppl. Rome. 48 pp. ISBN 92-5-103330-7

FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome. 41 pp. ISBN 92-5-103834-1

FAO (2011). Global food losses and foodwaste – extent, causes and prevention. FAO, Rome.

FAO (2015) Global Aquaculture production statistics database updated to 2013; summary information, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO.

FAO (2014). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2014. Rome: 223pp

Farrell, P. and K. Nelson (2013). “Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.).” Environmental Pollution 177: 1-3

Feistel, R., S. Weinreben, H. Wolf, S. Seitz, P. Spitzer, B. Adel, G. Nausch, B. Schneider and D. G. Wright (2010). “Density and Absolute Salinity of the
Baltic Sea 2006-2009.” Ocean Science 6(1): 3-24

Flint, S., T. Markle, S. Thompson and E. Wallace (2012). “Bisphenol A exposure, effects, and policy: A wildlife perspective.” Journal of Environmental
Management 104: 19-34

Foekema, E. M., C. De Gruijter, M. T. Mergia, J. A. van Franeker, A. J. Murk and A. A. Koelmans (2013). “Plastic in North Sea Fish.” Environmental Science
& Technology 47(15): 8818-8824

Fok, L. and P. K. Cheung (2015). “Hong Kong at the Pearl River Estuary: A hotspot of microplastic pollution.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 99(1-2): 112-118

Font, T. and J. Lloret (2014). “Biological and Ecological Impacts Derived from Recreational Fishing in Mediterranean Coastal Areas.” Reviews in Fisheries
Science & Aquaculture 22(1): 73-85

Frey, O. and A. DeVogelaere (2014). “A Review of Resource Management Strategies for Protection of Seamounts.” Silver Spring, MD:(1.8. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2014) 52

Frost, A. and M. Cullen (1997). “Marine debris on northern New South Wales beaches (Australia): Sources and the role of beach usage.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 34(5): 348-352

Gabrielsen, K. M., G. D. Villanger, E. Lie, M. Karimi, C. Lydersen, K. M. Kovacs and B. M. Jenssen (2011). “Levels and patterns of hydroxylated polychlo-
rinated biphenyls (OH-PCBs) and their associations with thyroid hormones in hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) mother-pup pairs.” Aquatic Toxicology
105(3-4): 482-491

Galgani, F., K. Ellerbrake, E. Fries and C. Goreux (2011). “Marine pollution: Let us not forget beach sand.” Environmental Sciences Europe 23(1): 40

Galgani, F., S. Jaunet, A. Campillo, X. Guenegen and E. His (1995). “DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF DEBRIS ON THE CONTINENTAL-SHELF
OF THE NORTH-WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN-SEA.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 30(11): 713-717

Galgani, F., J. P. Leaute, P. Moguedet, A. Souplet, Y. Verin, A. Carpentier, H. Goraguer, D. Latrouite, B. Andral, Y. Cadiou, J. C. Mahe, J. C. Poulard and P.
Nerisson (2000). “Litter on the sea floor along European coasts.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(6): 516-527

Galgani, F., A. Souplet and Y. Cadiou (1996). “Accumulation of debris on the deep sea floor off the FrenchMediterranean coast.” Marine Ecology Progress
Series 142(1-3): 225-234

Galgani F., H. G., Werner S. and GES TG marine Litter, Ed. (2014). Guidance for monitoring marine litter in European seas.

Gambash, S., M. Kochba and Y. Avnimelech (1990). “STUDIES ON SLOW-RELEASE FERTILIZERS .2. A METHOD FOR EVALUATION OF NUTRIENT
RELEASE RATE FROM SLOW-RELEASING FERTILIZERS.” Soil Science 150(1): 446-450

GESAMP (2008). Assessment and communication of environmental risks in coastal aquaculture (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/
UNEP Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) Rome, FAO GESAMP Reports and Studies no. 76: 198pp

GESAMP (2015). Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment.” (Kershaw P.J ed.) (IMO/FAO/UNES-
CO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). Rep.Stud. GE-
SAMP No.90, 96p

GESAMP (2016). Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: second phase assessment part one” (Kershaw P.J. and Rochman,
C. eds.) (IMO/FAO/UNESCO IOC/UNIDO/WMO/ IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection). Rep.Stud. GESAMP

Gilardi, K. V. K., D. Carlson-Bremer, J. A. June, K. Antonelis, G. Broadhurst and T. Cowan (2010). “Marine species mortality in derelict fishing nets in Puget
Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of derelict net removal.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(3): 376-382

Gilman, E. (2015). “Status of international monitoring and management of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear and ghost fishing.” Marine Policy
60: 225-239

Gilman, E., Chopin, F., Suuronen, P. & Kuemlangan, B. (in press). Abandoned, lost and discarded gill nets and trammel nets - Methods to estimate ghost
fishing mortality, and status of regional monitoring and management. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper Nr 600.

Gitti, G., Schweitzer, J-P., Watkins, W., Russi, D., Konar Mutafoglu, K. and ten Brink, P. (2015). Marine litter: Market Based Instruments to face the market
failure. Institute of European Environmental Policy, Brussels.

Gjøsaeter, J. and K. Kawaguchi (1980). A review of the world resources of mesopelagic fish, Food & Agriculture Org.

Goldstein, M. C., H. S. Carson and M. Eriksen (2014). “Relationship of diversity and habitat area in North Pacific plastic-associated rafting communities.”
Marine Biology 161(6): 1441-1453

Goldstein, M. C., M. Rosenberg and L. Cheng (2012). “Increased oceanic microplastic debris enhances oviposition in an endemic pelagic insect.” Biology
Letters 8(5): 817-820

244
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Graham, E. R. and J. T. Thompson (2009). “Deposit- and suspension-feeding sea cucumbers (Echinodermata) ingest plastic fragments.” Journal of Ex-
perimental Marine Biology and Ecology 368(1): 22-29

Gregory, M. R. (2009). “Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings- entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and
alien invasions.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364(1526): 2013-2025

Hall-Spencer, J. M., M. Tasker, M. Soffker, S. Christiansen, S. Rogers, M. Campbell and K. Hoydal (2009). “Design of Marine Protected Areas on high seas
and territorial waters of Rockall Bank.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 305-308

Hammer, S., R. G. Nager, P. C. D. Johnson, R. W. Furness and J. F. Provencher (2016). “Plastic debris in great skua (Stercorarius skua) pellets corres-
ponds to seabird prey species.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 103(1–2): 206-210

Hardesty, B. D., D. Holdsworth, A. T. Revill and C. Wilcox (2015). “A biochemical approach for identifying plastics exposure in live wildlife.” Methods in
Ecology and Evolution 6(1): 92-98

Hidalgo-Ruz, V., L. Gutow, R. C. Thompson and M. Thiel (2012). “Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identification
and quantification.” Environ Sci Technol 46(6): 3060-3075

Hidalgo-Ruz, V. and M. Thiel (2013). “Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): A study supported by a
citizen science project.” Marine Environmental Research 87-88: 12-18

Hinojosa, I. A. and M. Thiel (2009). “Floating marine debris in fjords, gulfs and channels of southern Chile.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 58(3): 341-350
Hoarau, L., L. Ainley, C. Jean and S. Ciccione (2014). “Ingestion and defecation of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from by-
catches in the South-West Indian Ocean.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 84(1-2): 90-96

Hohn, J (2011). “Moby Duck: The True Story of 28,800 Bath Toys Lost at Sea and of the Beachcombers, Oceanographers, Environmentalists, and Fools,
Including the Author, Who Went in Search of Them.” Penguin.

Hong, S., J. Lee, Y. C. Jang, Y. J. Kim, H. J. Kim, D. Han, S. H. Hong, D. Kang and W. J. Shim (2013). “Impacts of marine debris on wild animals in the coastal
area of Korea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 66(1-2): 117-124

Hong, S., J. Lee, D. Kang, H.-W. Choi and S.-H. Ko (2014). “Quantities, composition, and sources of beach debris in Korea from the results of nationwide
monitoring.” Marine pollution bulletin 84(1-2): 27-34

Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Urban Development Series No. 15, World Bank,
Washington, USA, 116pp

IOC-UNESCO and UNEP (2016). Large Marine Ecosystems: Status and Trends. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.

Hubinger, J. C. and D. C. Havery (2006). “Analysis of consumer cosmetic products for phthalate esters.” J Cosmet Sci 57(2): 127-137

Irigoien, X., T. A. Klevjer, A. Røstad, U. Martinez, G. Boyra, J. Acuña, A. Bode, F. Echevarria, J. Gonzalez-Gordillo and S. Hernandez-Leon (2014). “Large
mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean.” Nature communications 5.

Ivar do Sul, J. A. and M. F. Costa (2014). “The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine environment.” Environmental Pollution 185(0):
352-364

Ivar do Sul, J. A., M. F. Costa, J. S. Silva-Cavalcanti and M. C. B. Araújo (2014). “Plastic debris retention and exportation by a mangrove forest patch.”
Marine Pollution Bulletin 78(1–2): 252-257

IWC (2014). Report on the IWC workshop on mitigation and management of the threats posed by marine debris for cetaceans. Conservation Committee,
International Whaling Commission, IWC/65/CCRep04 (CC Agenda Item 9), 40pp

Jambeck, J. R., R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T. R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. Andrady, R. Narayan and K. L. Law (2015). “Plastic waste inputs from land into the
ocean.” Science 347(6223): 768-771

Jantz, L. A., C. L. Morishige, G. L. Bruland and C. A. Lepczyk (2013). “Ingestion of plastic marine debris by longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) in the
North Pacific Ocean.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 69(1-2): 97-104

Jepson et al. 2016, PCB pollution continues to impact populations of orcas and other dolphins in European waters. Sci. Rep.6, 18573

Johnston, E. L. and D. A. Roberts (2009). “Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: A review and meta-analysis.” Environ-
mental Pollution 157(6): 1745-1752

JRC (2011). Marine litter: technical recommendations for the implementation of MSFD requirements. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission,
Ispra. EUR 25009 EN-2011, 93pp

JRC (2013). Guidance on monitoring of marine litter in European Seas. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, EUR 26113 EN, 128pp

Kaluza, P., A. Kölzsch, M. T. Gastner and B. Blasius (2010). “The complex network of global cargo ship movements.” Journal of The Royal Society Interface.
Kaposi, K. L., B. Mos, B. P. Kelaher and S. A. Dworjanyn (2014). “Ingestion of Microplastic Has Limited Impact on a Marine Larva.” Environmental Science
& Technology 48(3): 1638-1645

Karcher, M. J., S. Gerland, I. H. Harms, M. Iosjpe, H. E. Heldal, P. J. Kershaw and M. Sickel (2004). “The dispersion of Tc-99 in the Nordic Seas and the
Arctic Ocean: a comparison of model results observations.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 74(1-3): 185-198

Karlsson, T. (2015). Can microliter in sediment and biota be quantified? Method development and analysis of microliter in field collected biota and sedi-
ment. Master thesis, University of Gothenburg and VU University of Amsterdam-IVM.

Klein, R. A. (2002). Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Industry. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.

Kohler, M., J. Tremp, M. Zennegg, C. Seiler, S. Minder-Kohler, M. Beck, P. Lienemann, L. Wegmann and P. Schmidt (2005). “Joint sealants: An overlooked
diffuse source of polychlorinated biphenyls in buildings.” Environmental Science & Technology 39(7): 1967-1973

245
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Kripa, V., K. Mohamed, D. Prema, A. Mohan and K. Abhilash (2014). “Persistent occurrence of potential fishing zones in the southeastern Arabian Sea.”
Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 43(5): 737-745
Kuhn, S. and J. A. van Franeker (2012). “Plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) in Iceland.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 64(6): 1252-
1254

Kühn, S. and J. A. van Franeker (2012). “Plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) in Iceland.” Marine pollution bulletin 64(6): 1252-
1254

Kukulka, T., G. Proskurowski, S. Moret-Ferguson, D. W. Meyer and K. L. Law (2012). “The effect of wind mixing on the vertical distribution of buoyant plastic
debris.” Geophysical Research Letters 39.

Laist, D. W. (1997). Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement
and ingestion records. Marine Debris, Springer: 99-139

Lattin, G. L., C. J. Moore, A. F. Zellers, S. L. Moore and S. B. Weisberg (2004). “A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths
near the southern California shore.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 49(4): 291-294

Lavee, D. (2010). “A cost-benefit analysis of a deposit-refund program for beverage containers in Israel.” Waste Management 30(2): 338-345

Law, K. L., S. Moret-Ferguson, N. A. Maximenko, G. Proskurowski, E. E. Peacock, J. Hafner and C. M. Reddy (2010). “Plastic Accumulation in the North
Atlantic Subtropical Gyre.” Science 329(5996): 1185-1188

Law, K. L., S. E. Morét-Ferguson, D. S. Goodwin, E. R. Zettler, E. DeForce, T. Kukulka and G. Proskurowski (2014). “Distribution of Surface Plastic Debris
in the Eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11-Year Data Set.” Environmental Science & Technology 48(9): 4732-4738

Law, R. J., J. Barry, J. L. Barber, P. Bersuder, R. Deaville, R. J. Reid, A. Brownlow, R. Penrose, J. Barnett, J. Loveridge, B. Smith and P. D. Jepson (2012).
“Contaminants in cetaceans from UK waters: Status as assessed within the Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme from 1990 to 2008.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 64(7): 1485-1494

Lazar, B. and R. Gracan (2011). “Ingestion of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in the Adriatic Sea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin
62(1): 43-47

Lebreton, L. C., S. D. Greer and J. C. Borrero (2012). “Numerical modelling of floating debris in the world’s oceans.” Mar Pollut Bull 64(3): 653-661

Lechner, A., H. Keckeis, F. Lumesberger-Loisl, B. Zens, R. Krusch, M. Tritthart, M. Glas and E. Schludermann (2014). “The Danube so colourful: A potpourri
of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river.” Environmental Pollution 188: 177-181

Lee, J., S. Hong, Y. C. Jang, M. J. Lee, D. Kang and W. J. Shim (2015). “Finding solutions for the styrofoam buoy debris problem through participatory
workshops.” Marine Policy 51: 182-189

Lee, J., S. Hong, Y. K. Song, S. H. Hong, Y. C. Jang, M. Jang, N. W. Heo, G. M. Han, M. J. Lee, D. Kang and W. J. Shim (2013). “Relationships among the
abundances of plastic debris in different size classes on beaches in South Korea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 77(1-2): 349-354

Lee, S., Y.-C. Jang, J.-G. Kim, J.-E. Park, Y.-Y. Kang, W.-I. Kim and S.-K. Shin (2015). “Static and dynamic flow analysis of PSDEs in plastics from used
arid end-of-life TVs and computer monitors by life cycle in Korea.” Science of the Total Environment 506: 76-85

Leslie, H.A., van Velzen, M.J.M. and Vethaak, A.D. (2013). Microplastic survey of the Dutch environment: novel data set of microplastics in North Sea
sediments, treated wastewater effluents and marine biota. IVM, Vrei Universtat, Amsterdam.

Letessier, T. B., P. J. Bouchet, J. Reisser and J. J. Meeuwig (2015). “Baited videography reveals remote foraging and migration behaviour of sea turtles.”
Marine Biodiversity 45(4): 609-610

Li, J., D. Yang, L. Li, K. Jabeen and H. Shi (2015). “Microplastics in commercial bivalves from China.” Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987) 207:
190-195

Liebezeit, G. and E. Liebezeit (2013). “Non-pollen particulates in honey and sugar.” Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 30(12): 2136-2140

Liebezeit, G. and E. Liebezeit (2014). “Synthetic particles as contaminants in German beers.” Food Additives and Contaminants Part a-Chemistry
Analysis Control Exposure & Risk Assessment 31(9): 1574-1578

Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., and Arthur, C. 2013. Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-46

Lithner, D., A. Larsson and G. Dave (2011). “Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical compositi-
on.” Science of the Total Environment 409(18): 3309-3324

Lloret, J., A. Garrote, N. Balasch and T. Font (2014). “Estimating recreational fishing tackle loss in Mediterranean coastal areas: Potential impacts on
wildlife.” Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 17(2): 179-185

Loizidou, X. I., M. I. Loizides and D. L. Orthodoxou (2014). “A novel best practices approach: The MARLISCO case.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 88(1-2):
118-128

Lozier, M. S. (2015). “Overturning Assumptions: Past, present, and future concerns about the ocean’s circulation.” Oceanography 28(2): 240-251

Lusher, A. L., M. McHugh and R. C. Thompson (2013). “Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the
English Channel.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 67(1-2): 94-99

Lusher, A. L., V. Tirelli, I. O’Connor and R. Officer (2015). “Microplastics in Arctic polar waters: the first reported values of particles in surface and sub-sur-
face samples.” Scientific Reports 5: 14947

Mace, T. H. (2012). “At-sea detection of marine debris: Overview of technologies, processes, issues, and options.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3):
23-27

Macfadyen, G., T. Huntington and R. Cappell (2009). Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO).

246
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Mallory, M. L. (2008). “Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars from the Canadian high Arctic.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(8): 1501-1504

Mallory, M. L., G. J. Roberston and A. Moenting (2006). “Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars from Davis Strait, Nunavut, Canada.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 52(7): 813-815

Masó, M., E. Garcés, F. Pagès and J. Camp (2003). “Drifting plastic debris as a potential vector for dispersing Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) species.”
Scientia Marina 67(1): 107-111

Masura, J., J. Baker1, G. Foster,C. Arthur, C. Herring (2015). Laboratory methods for the analysis of microplastics in the marine environment: recommen-
dations for quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments. . NOAA Technical Memorandum 20.

Mathalon, A. and P. Hill (2014). “Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 81(1):
69-79

Maxim, L.; J. H. Spangenberg; M. O’Connor (2009) An analysis of risk for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework. Ecological Economics, 69.12-23.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.03.017

Maximenko, A., E. Olevsky and M. Shtern (2008). “Plastic behavior of agglomerated powder.” Computational Materials Science 43(4): 704-709

Maximenko, N., J. Hafner and P. Niiler (2012). “Pathways of marine debris derived from trajectories of Lagrangian drifters.” Marine Pollution Bulletin
65(1): 51-62.

McDermid, K. J. and T. L. McMullen (2004). “Quantitative analysis of small-plastic debris on beaches in the Hawaiian archipelago.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 48(7-8): 790-794.

McDonough, W., M. Braungart and B. Clinton (2013). The upcycle: Beyond sustainability--designing for abundance, Macmillan.

McElwee, K., M. J. Donohue, C. A. Courtney, C. Morishige and A. Rivera-Vicente (2012). “A strategy for detecting derelict fishing gear at sea.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3): 7-15

McElwee, K., Morishige, C. (Eds.) (2010). In: Proceedings of the Workshop on At-sea Detection and Removal of Derelict Fishing Gear. December 9–10,
2008. US Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS- OR&R-34

McIlgorm, A., Campbell H. F. and Rule M. J. (2011), ‘The economic cost and control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region’, Ocean & Coastal
Management 54 (2011) 643-651

Mee, L. (2006). “Reviving dead zones.” Scientific American 295(5): 78-85

MCS (2014). Great British bean-clean, 2014 report. Marine Conservation Society, 8pp

Mee, L., P. Cooper, A. Kannen, A. J. Gilbert and T. O’Higgins (2015). “Sustaining Europe’s seas as coupled social-ecological systems.” Ecology and
Society 20(1)

Mee, L. D., R. L. Jefferson, D. d. A. Laffoley and M. Elliott (2008). “How good is good? Human values and Europe’s proposed Marine Strategy Directive.”
Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(2): 187-204

Mercer, I. (2007). MSC Napoli; the aftermath of the beaching off Branscombe, East Deven, 20 January 2007. Report of an Inquiry. Devon County Council,
44pp

Mintenig, S., Int-Ven, I., Löder, M and Gerdts, G. (2014). Mikropalstik un ausgewählten Kläranlagen des Oldenburgisch- Ostfriesischen Wasservrbandes
(OOWV) in Niederasachsen. Alfred Wegener Institute, Helgoland, 50 pp. Moore, M., Bogomolni, A., Bowman, R., Hamilton, P., Harry, C., Knowlton, A.,
Landry, S., Rotstein, D.S. and Touhey, K. (2006). Fatally entangled right whales can die extremely slowly. Oceans 06, MTS-IEEE-Boston, Massachusetts,
September 18-21, 2006. p3.

Morishige, C. and K. McElwee (2012). “At-sea detection of derelict fishing gear in the North Pacific: An overview.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1-3): 1-6
Morritt, D., P. V. Stefanoudis, D. Pearce, O. A. Crimmen and P. F. Clark (2014). “Plastic in the Thames: A river runs through it.” Marine Pollution Bulletin
78(1–2): 196-200

Mouat, J. and R. L. Lozano “Of Marine Litter.”

Murphy S, Barber JL, Learmonth JA, Read FL, Deaville R, Perkins MW, et al. (2015) Reproductive Failure in UK Harbour Porpoises Phocoena phocoena:
Legacy of Pollutant Exposure? PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131085. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0131085

Murray, F. and P. R. Cowie (2011). “Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758).” Marine Pollution Bulletin
62(6): 1207-1217

Muthu, S. S., Y. Li, J.-Y. Hu and P.-Y. Mok (2012). “Recyclability Potential Index (RPI): The concept and quantification of RPI for textile fibres.” Ecological
Indicators 18(0): 58-62

Muthu, S. S., Y. Li, J. Y. Hu and P. Y. Mok (2012). “A hot-button societal issue: Biodegradation studies (soil burial test) of grocery shopping bags.” Energy
Education Science and Technology Part a-Energy Science and Research 29(1): 31-40

Muthu, S. S., Y. Li, J. Y. Hu and P. Y. Mok (2012). “Quantification of environmental impact and ecological sustainability for textile fibres.” Ecological Indi-
cators 13(1): 66-74

Napper, I. E., A. Bakir, S. J. Rowland and R. C. Thompson (2015). “Characterisation, quantity and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from
cosmetics.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 99(1-2): 178-185

NEA (2014). Sources of microplastics to the marine environment, Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet).

Neves, A. A. S., N. Pinardi, F. Martins, J. Janeiro, A. Samaras, G. Zodiatis and M. De Dominicis (2015). “Towards a common oil spill risk assessment fra-
mework - Adapting ISO 31000 and addressing uncertainties.” Journal of Environmental Management 159: 158-168

247
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Nevins, H., Donnelly, E., Hester, M., Hyrenbach, D., 2011. Evidence for increasing plastic ingestion in northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis rodgersii) in
the Pacific. In: Fifth International Marine Debris Conference, Honolulu Hawaii 20e25 Mar 2011. Oral Presentation Extended Abstracts 4.b.3, pp 140-144

Newman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., ten Brink, P., & Schweitzer, J.-P. (2015). The Economics of Marine Litter. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, & M. Klages,
Marine Anthropogenic Litter (pp. 367-394). London: Springer Open.

Niemeijer, D. and R. S. de Groot (2008). “A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets.” Ecological Indicators 8(1): 14-25

NOAA (2014). Report on the Entanglement of Marine Species in Marine Debris with an Emphasis on Species in the United States. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program Silver Spring, MD. 28pp

NOAA (2015). Report on the impacts of “ghost fishing” via derelict fishing gear. NOAA Marine Debris Program Silver Spring, MD. 25pp

NOWPAP (2007). Guidelines for monitoring litter on the beaches and shorelines of the Northwest Pacific Region. NOWPAP CEARAC, 12pp

NOWPAP (2011). Marine Litter Guidelines for Tourists and Tour Operators in Marine and Coastal Areas, NOWPAP CEARAC, 11pp

North, E. J. and R. U. Halden (2013). “Plastics and Environmental Health: The Road Ahead.” Reviews on environmental health 28(1): 1-8

Nuñez, P., Thiel, M. (2011). El Viaje de Jurella y los Microplásticos. Científicos de la Basura, Coquimbo. http://www.cientificosdelabasura.cl/docs/jurella.
pdf

NPA (2015). Harbour Dues and Environmental Protection Levy. Retrieved September 10, 2015, from Nigerian Port Authority: http://www.nigerianports.
org/dynamicdata/uploads/Tariffs/TARIFFShipApr15.pdf?id=96

Obi, I. (2009). African Circle invests $43m to reduce ship pollution in Lagos. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from Vanguard: http://www.vanguardngr.
com/2009/08/african-circle-invests-43m-to-reduce-ship-pollution-in-lagos/

Ocean Conservancy (2014). Report of the International Coastal Clean-up 2013.

Ocean Conservancy 2015). Stemming the tide: land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean. Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business
and Environment, 48pp

OECD (2001). Extended producer responsibility – a guidance manual for governments. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris,
164 pp

OECD (2005). Analytical Framework for Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Extended Producer Responsibility Programmes. Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Paris.

OECD (2011) Environmental Taxation – A guide for policy makers. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, Retrieved November
20, 2015 from http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/48164926.pdf

OECD (2012). “Detailed review paper on the state of the science on novel in vitro and in vivo screening and testing methods and endpoints for evaluating
endocrine disruptors.” OECD Series on Testing and Assessment no. 178, 213pp

OECD and Japanese Ministry of the Environment (2014) Issues Paper: The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Opportunities and
Challenges: http://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/Global%20Forum%20Tokyo%20Issues%20Paper%2030-5-2014.pdf

Oehlmann, J., U. Schulte-Oehlmann, W. Kloas, O. Jagnytsch, I. Lutz, K. O. Kusk, L. Wollenberger, E. M. Santos, G. C. Paull, K. J. W. Van Look and C. R.
Tyler (2009). “A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences
364(1526): 2047-2062

Oehlmann, J., U. Schulte-Oehlmann, W. Kloas, O. Jagnytsch, I. Lutz, K. O. Kusk, L. Wollenberger, E. M. Santos, G. C. Paull, K. J. W. VanLook and C. R.
Tyler (2009). “A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 364(1526): 2047-2062

Oosterhuis, F., E. Papyrakis and B. Boteler (2014). “Economic instruments and marine litter control.” Ocean & Coastal Management 102: 47-54

ORA 2015. 2015 plastics-to-fuel project developer’s guide. Prepared by the Ocean Recovery Alliance for the American Chemistry Council, 74pp

OSPAR (2007). Monitoring of marine litter in the OSAPR region. OSPAR Pilot Project on monitoring marine beach litter. OSPAR, London, 75pp

Pape, J., Rau, H., Fahy, F. and Davies, A. (2011) Developing Policies and Instruments for Sustainable Household Consumption: Irish Experiences and
Futures. J Consum Policy, Vol: 34, pp. 25–42 DOI 10.1007/s10603-010-9151-4

Pease, C. J., E. L. Johnston and A. G. B. Poore (2010). “Genetic variability in tolerance to copper contamination in a herbivorous marine invertebrate.”
Aquatic Toxicology 99(1): 10-16

Pemba, A. G., M. Rostagno, T. A. Lee and S. A. Miller (2014). “Cyclic and spirocyclic polyacetal ethers from lignin-based aromatics.” Polymer Chemistry
5(9): 3214-3221

Peterlin, M., B. Kontic and B. C. Kross (2005). “Public perception of environmental pressures within the Slovene coastal zone.” Ocean & Coastal Ma-
nagement 48(2): 189-204

Pham, C. K., E. Ramirez-Llodra, C. H. S. Alt, T. Amaro, M. Bergmann, M. Canals, J. B. Company, J. Davies, G. Duineveld, F. Galgani, K. L. Howell, V. A. I.
Huvenne, E. Isidro, D. O. B. Jones, G. Lastras, T. Morato, J. N. Gomes-Pereira, A. Purser, H. Stewart, I. Tojeira, X. Tubau, D. Van Rooij and P. A. Tyler (2014).
“Marine Litter Distribution and Density in European Seas, from the Shelves to Deep Basins.” PLoS ONE 9(4): e95839

Pidgeon, N. and T. Rogers-Hayden (2007). “Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’?”
Health, Risk & Society 9(2): 191-210

PlasticsEurope (2013). Plastics - the Facts 2013. An analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data. Brussels, Plastics Europe:
Association of Plastic Manufacturers: 40

248
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Plastics Europe (2014) Plastics the facts 2013

Plastics Europe (2015) Plastics the facts 2014

Port of Gdansk Authority SA. (2012). Fee tariff for services of Port of Gdansk Authority SA. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from http://www.portgdansk.
pl/events/780/pga-sa-tariff-2012.pdf

Potemra, J. T. (2012). “Numerical modeling with application to tracking marine debris.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3): 42-50

Provencher, J. F., A. J. Gaston, M. L. Mallory, D. O’Hara P and H. G. Gilchrist (2010). “Ingested plastic in a diving seabird, the thick-billed murre (Uria
lomvia), in the eastern Canadian Arctic.” Mar Pollut Bull 60(9): 1406-1411

Rainbow, P. S. (2007). “Trace metal bioaccumulation: models, metabolic availability and toxicity.” Environment international 33(4): 576-582

Rech, S. &V. Macaya-Caquilpán & J. F. Pantoja & M. M. Rivadeneira & C. Kroeger Campodónico & M. Thiel. Sampling of riverine litter with citizen scien-
tists—findings and recommendations. Environ Monit Assess (2015) 187:335 DOI 10.1007/s10661-015-4473-y

Recuerda Girela, M. A. (2006) Risk and reason in the European Union Law. European Food and Feed Law Review, 270

Reddy, M. S., B. Shaik, S. Adimurthy and G. Ramachandraiah (2006). “Description of the small plastics fragments in marine sediments along the Alang-So-
siya ship-breaking yard, India.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68(3-4): 656-660

Reich, M. C. (2005). “Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems - case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA)
and life cycle costing (LCC).” Journal of Cleaner Production 13(3): 253-263

Reisser, J., J. Shaw, G. Hallegraeff, M. Proietti, D. K. A. Barnes, M. Thums, C. Wilcox, B. D. Hardesty and C. Pattiaratchi (2014). “Millimeter-Sized Marine
Plastics: A New Pelagic Habitat for Microorganisms and Invertebrates.” Plos One 9(6)

Reisser, J., J. Shaw, C. Wilcox, B. D. Hardesty, M. Proietti, M. Thums and C. Pattiaratchi (2013). “Marine Plastic Pollution in Waters around Australia:
Characteristics, Concentrations, and Pathways.” Plos One 8(11)

Reisser, J., B. Slat, K. Noble, K. du Plessis, M. Epp, M. Proietti, J. de Sonneville, T. Becker and C. Pattiaratchi (2015). “The vertical distribution of buoyant
plastics at sea: an observational study in the North Atlantic Gyre.” Biogeosciences 12(4): 1249-1256

Robbins, J., Barlow, J., Burdin, A.M., Calambokidis, J., Gabriele, C., Clapham, P., Ford, J., LeDuc, R., Mattila, D.K., Quinn, T., Rojas-Bracho, L., Straley, J.,
Urban, J., Wade, P., Weller, D., Witteveen, B.H., Wynne, K. and Yamaguchi, M. 2007. Comparison of humpback whale entanglement across the North
Pacific Ocean based on scar evidence. Unpublished report to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission. Report number SC/59/

BCRoberts, D. A., E. L. Johnston and A. G. B. Poore (2008). “Contamination of marine biogenic habitats and effects upon associated epifauna.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 56(6): 1057-1065

Rocha-Santos, T. and A. C. Duarte (2015). “A critical overview of the analytical approaches to the occurrence, the fate and the behavior of microplastics
in the environment.” TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 65: 47-53

Rochman, C. M. (2013). “Long-Term Field Measurement of Sorption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plastic Pellets: Implications for Plastic
Marine Debris.” ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE &amp; TECHNOLOGY 47(3): 1646-1654

Rochman, C. M. (2013). “Plastics and Priority Pollutants: A Multiple Stressor in Aquatic Habitats.” Environmental Science & Technology 47(6): 2439-2440
Rochman, C. M., M. A. Browne, B. S. Halpern, B. T. Hentschel, E. Hoh, H. K. Karapanagioti, L. M. Rios-Mendoza, H. Takada, S. Teh and R. C. Thompson
(2013). “Classify plastic waste as hazardous.” Nature 494(7436): 169-171

Rochman, C. M., B. T. Hentschel and S. J. Teh (2014). “Long-Term Sorption of Metals Is Similar among Plastic Types: Implications for Plastic Debris in
Aquatic Environments.” Plos One 9(1)

Rochman, C. M., E. Hoh, B. T. Hentschel and S. Kaye (2013). “Long-Term Field Measurement of Sorption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plastic
Pellets: Implications for Plastic Marine Debris.” Environmental Science & Technology 47(3): 1646-1654

Rochman, C. M., E. Hoh, T. Kurobe and S. J. Teh (2013). “Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress.” Scientific
Reports 3.

Rochman, C. M., C. Manzano, B. T. Hentschel, S. L. M. Simonich and E. Hoh (2013). “Polystyrene Plastic: A Source and Sink for Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in the Marine Environment.” Environmental Science & Technology 47(24): 13976-13984

Rochman, C. M., A. Tahir, S. L. Williams, D. V. Baxa, R. Lam, J. T. Miller, F. C. Teh, S. Werorilangi and S. J. Teh (2015). “Anthropogenic debris in seafood:
Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption.” Scientific Reports 5: 10.

Romeo, T., B. Pietro, C. Pedà, P. Consoli, F. Andaloro and M. C. Fossi (2015). “First evidence of presence of plastic debris in stomach of large pelagic fish
in the Mediterranean Sea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin(0).

Ross, P., R. DeSwart, R. Addison, H. VanLoveren, J. Vos and A. Osterhaus (1996). “Contaminant-induced immunotoxicity in harbour seals: Wildlife at
risk?” Toxicology 112(2): 157-169

Ryan, P. G. (2013). “A simple technique for counting marine debris at sea reveals steep litter gradients between the Straits of Malacca and the Bay of
Bengal.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 69(1-2): 128-136

Ryan, P. G. (2014). “Litter survey detects the South Atlantic ‘garbage patch’.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 79(1-2): 220-224

Ryan, P. G., H. Bouwman, C. L. Moloney, M. Yuyama and H. Takada (2012). “Long-term decreases in persistent organic pollutants in South African coastal
waters detected from beached polyethylene pellets.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 64(12): 2756-2760

Ryan, P. G., A. D. Connell and B. D. Gardner (1988). “Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: Is there a relationship?” Marine Pollution Bulletin 19(4):
174-176

Ryan, P. G., A. Lamprecht, D. Swanepoel and C. L. Moloney (2014). “The effect of fine-scale sampling frequency on estimates of beach litter accumulati-
on.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 88(1-2): 249-254

249
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Ryan, P. G. and C. L. Moloney (1990). “PLASTIC AND OTHER ARTIFACTS ON SOUTH-AFRICAN BEACHES - TEMPORAL TRENDS IN ABUNDANCE
AND COMPOSITION.” South African Journal of Science 86(7-10): 450-452

Ryan, P. G., C. J. Moore, J. A. Van Franeker and C. L. Moloney (2009). “Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment.” Philosophi-
cal Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364(1526): 1999-2012
Santos, I. R., A. C. Friedrich and F. P. Barretto (2005). “Overseas garbage pollution on beaches of northeast Brazil.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 50(7):
783-786

Satterfield, T., J. Conti, B. H. Harthorn, N. Pidgeon and A. Pitts (2013). “Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications for
policy dialogues about emerging technologies.” Science and Public Policy 40(2): 247-260

Satterfield, T., M. Kandlikar, C. E. Beaudrie, J. Conti and B. H. Harthorn (2009). “Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.” Nature nanotech-
nology 4(11): 752-758

SCBD (2012) Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel—GEF (2012). Impacts of Marine
Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status and Potential Solutions, Montreal, Technical Series No. 67, 61 pages.

SDSN (2015) Indicators and a monitoring framework for the sustainable development goals, A report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by
the Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 233pp

Sekiguchi, T., A. Saika, K. Nomura, T. Watanabe, T. Watanabe, Y. Fujimoto, M. Enoki, T. Sato, C. Kato and H. Kanehiro (2011). “Biodegradation of aliphatic
polyesters soaked in deep seawaters and isolation of poly( -caprolactone)-degrading bacteria.” Polymer Degradation and Stability 96(7): 1397-1403
Scheld, A. M., D. M. Bilkovic and K. J. Havens (2016). “The Dilemma of Derelict Gear.” Scientific Reports 6.

Shen, L., E. Worrell and M. K. Patel (2010). “Environmental impact assessment of man-made cellulose fibres.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling
55(2): 260-274

Sherrington, C., Darrah, C., Hann, S., Cole, G. and Corbin, M. (2016). Study to support the development of measures to combat a range of marine litter
sources. Report for European Commission DG Environment, 432pp

Sindiku, O., J. Babayemi, O. Osibanjo, M. Schlummer, M. Schluep, A. Watson and R. Weber (2015). “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers listed as Stockholm
Convention POPs, other brominated flame retardants and heavy metals in e-waste polymers in Nigeria.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research
22(19): 14489-14501

Slavin, C., A. Grage and M. L. Campbell (2012). “Linking social drivers of marine debris with actual marine debris on beaches.” Marine Pollution Bulletin
64(8): 1580-1588

Snoussi, M., E. Noumi, D. Usai, L. A. Sechi, S. Zanetti and A. Bakhrouf (2008). “Distribution of some virulence related-properties of Vibrio alginolyticus
strains isolated from Mediterranean seawater (Bay of Khenis, Tunisia): investigation of eight Vibrio cholerae virulence genes.” World Journal of Microbio-
logy and Biotechnology 24(10): 2133-2141

Steg, L., J. W. Bolderdijk, K. Keizer and G. Perlaviciute (2014). “An Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-environmental Behaviour: The role of values,
situational factors and goals.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 38: 104-115

Steg, L. and C. Vlek (2009). “Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda.” Journal of Environmental Psycho-
logy 29(3): 309-317

Sulochanan, B., A. Dineshbabu, R. Saravanan, G. S. Bhat and S. Lavanya (2014). “Occurrence of Noctiluca scintillans bloom off Mangalore in the Arabian
Sea.” Indian Journal of Fisheries 61(1): 42-48

Sundt, P., Schulze, P-E. and Syversen, F. (2014). Sources of microplastic pollution to the environment. Norwegian Environment Agency, 108pp
Sussarellu, R., A. Huvet, S. Lapègue, V. Quillen, C. Lelong, F. Cornette, L. F. Jensen, N. Bierne and P. Boudry (2015). “Additive transcriptomic variation
associated with reproductive traits suggest local adaptation in a recently settled population of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas.” BMC Genomics
16(1): 1-12

Szulc, > (2013). Collecting ghost nets in the Baltic Sea. Final report on the activities conducted in 2012. WWF Poland, 39pp

Takehama S. (1990) Estimation of damage to fishing vessels cause by marine debris, based on insurance statistics. In: Shomura R.S., Godfrey M.L.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2-7 April 1989. US Department of Commerce, 792-809
(NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC—154)

Talsness, C. E., A. J. M. Andrade, S. N. Kuriyama, J. A. Taylor and F. S. vom Saal (2009). “Components of plastic: experimental studies in animals and
relevance for human health.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 364(1526): 2079-2096

Tang, Z., Q. Huang, J. Cheng, Y. Yang, J. Yang, W. Guo, Z. Nie, N. Zeng and L. Jin (2014). “Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Soils, Sediments, and Human
Hair in a Plastic Waste Recycling Area: A Neglected Heavily Polluted Area.” Environmental Science & Technology 48(3): 1508-1516

Tanner, C. and S. W. Kast (2003). “Promotine sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers.” Psychology & Marke-
ting 20(10): 883-902

Taylor, R. (1996). “Forms of capital and intrinsic values.” Chemosphere 33(9): 1801-1811

Ten Brink, P., I. Lutchman, S. Bassi, S. Speck, S. Sheavly, K. M. Register and C. Woolaway (2009). Guidelines on the use of market-based instruments to
address the problem of marine litter.

Teuten, E. L., J. M. Saquing, D. R. U. Knappe, M. A. Barlaz, S. Jonsson, A. Bjorn, S. J. Rowland, R. C. Thompson, T. S. Galloway, R. Yamashita, D. Ochi, Y.
Watanuki, C. Moore, H. V. Pham, T. S. Tana, M. Prudente, R. Boonyatumanond, M. P. Zakaria, K. Akkhavong, Y. Ogata, H. Hirai, S. Iwasa, K. Mizukawa, Y.
Hagino, A. Imamura, M. Saha and H. Takada (2009). “Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife.” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 364(1526): 2027-2045

Thomas, P. and M. S. Rahman (2010). “Region-wide impairment of Atlantic croaker testicular development and sperm production in the northern Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic dead zone.” Marine Environmental Research 69: S59-S62

250
 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Thompson, R. C., Y. Olson, R. P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S. J. Rowland, A. W. G. John, D. McGonigle and A. E. Russell (2004). “Lost at Sea: Where Is All the
Plastic?” Science 304(5672): 838

Tran, N. K. and H.-D. Haasis (2015). “An empirical study of fleet expansion and growth of ship size in container liner shipping.” International Journal of
Production Economics 159: 241-253
Trevail, A. M., G. W. Gabrielsen, S. Kuhn and J. A. Van Franeker (2015). “Elevated levels of ingested plastic in a high Arctic seabird, the northern fulmar
(Fulmarus glacialis).” Polar Biology 38(7): 975-981
Turner, R. K. and B. Fisher (2008). “Environmental economics - To the rich man the spoils.” Nature 451(7182): 1067-1068

UN (2011). The globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). 4th Edition, United Nations, New York

UNEP (2014a). Emerging issues for Small Island Developing States. Results of the UNEP Foresight Process. United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), Nairobi, 68pp

UNEP (2014b). Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry.

UNEP (2015a) Biodegradable Plastics and Marine Litter. Misconceptions, concerns and impacts on marine environments. United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.

UNEP (2015b) Global waste management outlook. UNEP & ISWA, 346pp

UNEP (2016a in press) Marine litter prevention and waste management guidance manual: Best Available Techniques. United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme (UNEP), Nairobi, 62pp

UNEP (2016b in press) Marine litter – a modelling study. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.

UNEP (2016c in press). Marine litter: socio-economic study. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.

UN HABITAT (2010) Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities. Earthscan.

Vallack, H. W., D. J. Bakker, I. Brandt, E. Broström-Lundén, A. Brouwer, K. R. Bull, C. Gough, R. Guardans, I. Holoubek and B. Jansson (1998). “Controlling
persistent organic pollutants–what next?” Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 6(3): 143-175

Van Cauwenberghe, L., M. Claessens, M. B. Vandegehuchte and C. R. Janssen (2015). “Microplastics are taken up by mussels (Mytilus edulis) and lug-
worms (Arenicola marina) living in natural habitats.” Environmental Pollution 199: 10-17

Van Cauwenberghe, L., L. Devriese, F. Galgani, J. Robbens and C. R. Janssen (2015). “Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques, occurrence
and effects” Marine Environmental Research 111: 5-17

Van Cauwenberghe, L. and C. R. Janssen (2014). “Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption.” Environmental Pollution 193: 65-70
Van Cauwenberghe, L., A. Vanreusel, J. Mees and C. R. Janssen (2013). “Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments.” Environ Pollut 182: 495-499
Van Franeker, J.A. (2010) Fulmar Litter EcoQO Monitoring in the Netherlands 1979-2008 in relation to EU Directive 2000/59/EC on Port Reception
Facilities. IMARES Report Nr C027/10. IMARES Wageningen UR.

van Franeker, J. A., C. Blaize, J. Danielsen, K. Fairclough, J. Gollan, N. Guse, P.-L. Hansen, M. Heubeck, J.-K. Jensen, G. Le Guillou, B. Olsen, K.-O. Olsen,
J. Pedersen, E. W. M. Stienen and D. M. Turner (2011). “Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea.” Environ-
mental Pollution 159(10): 2609-2615

van Franeker, J. A., C. Blaize, J. Danielsen, K. Fairclough, J. Gollan, N. Guse, P. L. Hansen, M. Heubeck, J. K. Jensen, G. Le Guillou, B. Olsen, K. O. Olsen,
J. Pedersen, E. W. Stienen and D. M. Turner (2011). “Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea.” Environ
Pollut 159(10): 2609-2615

van Franeker, J. A. and K. L. Law (2015). “Seabirds, gyres and global trends in plastic pollution.” Environmental Pollution 203: 89-96

van Sebille, E., C. Wilcox, L. Lebreton, N. Maximenko, B. D. Hardesty, J. A. van Franeker, M. Eriksen, D. Siegel, F. Galgani and K. L. Law (2015). “A global
inventory of small floating plastic debris.” Environmental Research Letters 10(12): 124006

Vandermeersch, G., H. M. Lourenço, D. Alvarez-Muñoz, S. Cunha, J. Diogène, G. Cano-Sancho, J. J. Sloth, C. Kwadijk, D. Barcelo and W. Allegaert (2015).
“Environmental contaminants of emerging concern in seafood–European database on contaminant levels.” Environmental Research 143: 29-45

Vandermeersch, G., L. Van Cauwenberghe, C. R. Janssen, A. Marques, K. Granby, G. Fait, M. J. Kotterman, J. Diogène, K. Bekaert and J. Robbens (2015).
“A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms.” Environmental Research 143: 46-55

Vasseur, P. and C. Cossu-Leguille (2006). “Linking molecular interactions to consequent effects of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) upon popula-
tions.” Chemosphere 62(7): 1033-1042

Veenstra, T. S. and J. H. Churnside (2012). “Airborne sensors for detecting large marine debris at sea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3): 63-68
Veitayaki, J. (2010). Pacific Islands Drowning in their Waste: waste management issues that threaten sustainability. In: proceedings of International Seminar
on Islands and Oceans. Ocean Policy Research Foundation, Nippon Foundation, pp. 19-33

Velzeboer, I., C. J. A. F. Kwadijk and A. A. Koelmans (2014). “Strong Sorption of PCBs to Nanoplastics, Microplastics, Carbon Nanotubes, and Fullerenes.”
Environmental Science & Technology 48(9): 4869-4876

Venrick, E. L., T. W. Backman, W. C. Bartram, C. J. Platt, Thornhil.Ms and R. E. Yates (1973). “Man-made Objects on Surface of Central North-Pacific
Ocean.” Nature 241(5387): 271-271

Verschoor, A. (2014). “Quick scan and Prioritization of Microplastic Sources and Emissions.” RIVM Letter report 2014-0156

Vianello, A., A. Boldrin, P. Guerriero, V. Moschino, R. Rella, A. Sturaro and L. Da Ros (2013). “Microplastic particles in sediments of Lagoon of Venice, Italy:
First observations on occurrence, spatial patterns and identification.” Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 130: 54-61

Vignola, R., S. Klinsky, J. Tam and T. McDaniels (2013). “Public perception, knowledge and policy support for mitigation and adaption to Climate Change
in Costa Rica: Comparisons with North American and European studies.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18(3): 303-323
Vignola, R., T. L. McDaniels and R. W. Scholz (2013). “Governance structures for ecosystem-based adaptation: Using policy-network analysis to identify

251
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

key organizations for bridging information across scales and policy areas.” Environmental Science & Policy 31: 71-84

Walker, T. R., K. Reid, J. P. Y. Arnould and J. P. Croxall (1997). “Marine debris surveys at Bird Island, South Georgia 1990-1995.” Marine Pollution Bulletin
34(1): 61-65
Waluda, C. M. and I. J. Staniland (2013). “Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 74(1): 244-252
Watnick, P. and R. Kolter (2000). “Biofilm, city of microbes.” J Bacteriol 182(10): 2675-2679

Watts, A. J. R., C. Lewis, R. M. Goodhead, S. J. Beckett, J. Moger, C. R. Tyler and T. S. Galloway (2014). “Uptake and Retention of Microplastics by the
Shore Crab Carcinus maenas.” Environmental Science & Technology.

Webber, D. N.; Parker, S. J. (2012) Estimating Unaccounted Fishing Mortality In The Ross Sea Region And Amundsen Sea (CCAMLR Subareas 88.1 And
88.2) Bottom Longline Fisheries Targeting Antarctic Toothfish, CCAMLR SCIENCE 19: 17-30

Weiss, B. (2006). “Anogenital Distance: Defining ‘Normal’”. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(7): A399-A399

Whittle, D. and O. R. Santos (2006). “Protecting Cuba’s Environment: Efforts to Design and Implement Effective Environmental Laws and Policies in
Cuba.” Cuban studies 37(1): 73-103

Widmer, W. M. and R. A. Reis (2010). “An Experimental Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Beach Ashtrays in Preventing Marine Contamination.” Brazilian
Archives of Biology and Technology 53(5): 1205-1216

Wilcox, C., G. Heathcote, J. Goldberg, R. Gunn, D. Peel and B. D. Hardesty (2015). “Understanding the sources and effects of abandoned, lost, and
discarded fishing gear on marine turtles in northern Australia.” Conservation Biology 29(1): 198-206

Wilcox, C., E. Van Sebille and B. D. Hardesty (2015). “Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing.” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 112(38): 11899-11904

Woodall, L. C., C. Gwinnett, M. Packer, R. C. Thompson, L. F. Robinson and G. L. Paterson (2015). “Using a forensic science approach to minimize
environmental contamination and to identify microfibres in marine sediments.” Marine pollution bulletin.

Woodall, L. C., L. F. Robinson, A. D. Rogers, B. E. Narayanaswamy and G. L. Paterson (2015). “Deep-sea litter: a comparison of seamounts, banks and a
ridge in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans reveals both environmental and anthropogenic factors impact accumulation and composition.” Frontiers in Marine
Science 2: 3

Woodall, L. C., A. Sanchez-Vidal, M. Canals, G. L. J. Paterson, R. Coppock, V. Sleight, A. Calafat, A. D. Rogers, B. E. Narayanaswamy and R. C. Thompson
(2014). The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris.

World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company (2016). “The New Plastics Economy — Rethinking the future of plastics”.

WSC (2014). Survey results for containers lost at sea – 2014 update. World Shipping Council, 3pp

Wu, N., T. Herrmann, O. Paepke, J. Tickner, R. Hale, E. Harvey, M. La Guardia, M. D. McClean and T. F. Webster (2007). “Human exposure to PBDEs:
Associations of PBDE body burdens with food consumption and house dust concentrations.” Environmental Science & Technology 41(5): 1584-1589

Wyles, K. J., S. Pahl and R. C. Thompson (2014). “Perceived risks and benefits of recreational visits to the marine environment: Integrating impacts on the
environment and impacts on the visitor.” Ocean & Coastal Management 88: 53-63

Yang, D., H. Shi, L. Li, J. Li, K. Jabeen and P. Kolandhasamy (2015). “Microplastic Pollution in Table Salts from China.” Environmental Science & Tech-
nology 49(22): 13622-13627

Zardus, J. (2008). “The silent deep: the discovery, ecology and conservation of the deep sea, by Tony Koslow.” Marine Biology Research 4(3)

Zardus, J. D., B. T. Nedved, Y. Huang, C. Tran and M. G. Hadfield (2008). “Microbial biofilms facilitate adhesion in biofouling invertebrates.” The Biological
Bulletin 214(1): 91-98

Zettler, E. R., T. J. Mincer and L. A. Amaral-Zettler (2013). “Life in the “Plastisphere”: Microbial Communities on Plastic Marine Debris.” Environmental
Science & Technology 47(13): 7137-7146

252