Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697643435835.pdf (Australia)
The threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia and Australian waters, with particular reference to: a. the review of current research and scientific understanding of plastic pollution in the marine environment; Government must significantly increase funds for proper scientific research in marine plastic pollution.

An up-to-date thorough research report on the volume of marine plastic pollution is needed by a reputable body such as CSIRO.
The true impact of plastic is difficult to assess due to its ubiquity.

Organisations such as Clean Up Australia and Greenpeace are able to outline broad plastic waste statistics that affect our marine life.

However, due to the difficulties in assessing the effects of the litter volume, (as opposed to the litter items), our knowledge on the true harm is unknown.

For example, plastic bottles and cans are a large part of the litter volume and may therefore be more hazardous than litter statistics suggest.
Additional dangers must be recognised through the small parts of bottle parts (such as the tamper evident band) that can be found ingested or hazardously wrapped around sea mammals.
While Clean Up Australia statistics assert that plastics account for 30% of major rubbish found (http://www.cleanup.org.au/PDF/au/2014-new-south-wales.pdf), one may only make an educated guess as to how much ends up in the waters, what the true damage is to marine life, and further, what volume of plastic causes the danger to marine life.

Research must extend, through government funding, to better assess what damage is caused by the volume of plastic as opposed to simply litter statistics found on land.
Further, data must be collected that is broad and far-reaching.

Plastic litter is known to be found in highly remote areas, which establishes its ubiquitous effects (http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we- do/oceans/Stop-Trashing-Australia/).

Research must therefore mirror the prevalent effects of plastic on our marine life, and extend far.

Research must also consider the need to implement a change in cultural behaviour towards littering.
Whilst campaigns such as “Don’t be a Tosser” appropriately target the behavioural aspect of littering, there is little mention of the far-reaching effects on our sea life.

Education must be bolstered to ensure that people understand the effects of their behaviour.

There are many images of mangled and stunted sea animals available that demonstrate the destructive effects of plastic (http://www.boredpanda.com/environmental- pollution/).
Additional research in this area should include alternatives to the use of plastic and how these can be implemented in the wider public space.

‘The throwaway society’ must be acknowledged, our waste and our “plastic wrapped world” (http://www.ted.com/talks/capt_charles_moore_on_the_seas_of_plastic) must undergo a change to accept the detriment of non-reusable materials.

Further, research must extend to a solution based-response which then must be implemented.
Whilst a call for submissions demonstrates an appropriate level of involvement with knowledgeable bodies and communities, Government must also include significant research into international approaches of understanding plastic pollution.

From understanding the details of effects, we will be in the best position to consider the most effective approaches to reducing the harm that plastic pollution poses to our marine life.
More research must also be prepared in terms of where the large sources of plastic waste come from, and a collation of which industries are most involved in the production of single-use plastic.

These industries must be targeted by new policy measures that restrict their plastic output and environmental damage.
Threat of marine plastic pollution in AustraliaSubmission 23 b. sources of marine plastic pollution; As mentioned above, the issue with assessing the true impact of marine plastic pollution is that the volume of hazardous material does not equate to the number.

Therefore it is challenging to realise the most detrimental sources of marine plastic pollution.

However, it is known that plastic is a globally destructive material for our waterways.
Marine Conservation suggests that marine plastic pollution is easily transferrable from land to sea.

As they state: “It blows in from bins and garbage dumps, or flows through stormwater drains into our waterways and eventually the sea” (http://www.marineconservation.org.au/pages/plastic- pollution.html).

They have also stated that at Sydney beaches, for example 90% of marine debris is plastic, including bottles, caps and straws.
While Sydney beaches are heavily populated areas, and therefore hot spots for litter, this gives a snapshot of the kind of threats our marine life faces.

Beaches present a particular problem as dens of litter, with up to 80% of rubbish that ends up in the ocean coming from either beaches or stormwater drains (with most of this being plastic) (http://www.marineconservation.org.au/data/pdf/PlasticsAreForeverCyclePoster.pdf).
Littering is a highly problematic issue for our marine life, and our excessive use of plastic is a driving factor in this.

The below poster sums up the detriment of plastic on our waters, as a non-biodegradable hazard that irrevocably damages our sea life: http://www.marineconservation.org.au/pages/plastic-pollution-posters.html The effects of microplastics are particularly concerning in terms of their hostile effects on marine life.
As Science Daily confirms, “many plankton organisms are unable to separate plastic particles from their natural Threat of marine plastic pollution in AustraliaSubmission 23 food and they therefore also ingest plastic” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131203091457.htm).

It is important to note, that this article also affirms that the vast majority of these microplastics originate from consumer goods.
This consequence of our consumer culture must be addressed head-on, through the collaboration of government, corporations and consumers to effectively change our current consumption methods.

c. the impacts of marine plastic pollution, including impacts on species and ecosystems, fisheries, small business, and human health; Marine plastic pollution is responsible for some of the most horrific and disturbing images of human-caused atrocities to other species.
Australia’s excessive use of plastic (including bottles, packaging, bags and other goods for consumption) is damaging the lives of many marine animals, and along with it, their ecosystems and environment.

A recently released article asserts that if current patterns of marine pollution continue, “99% of the world’s seabirds will be ingesting plastic by 2050” (http://www.marineconservation.org.au/data/pdf/PlasticsAreForeverCyclePoster.pdf).
This is a devastating statistic that shows how serious and prevalent this issue is, and how our local actions whether they be in small towns or large cities effect sea life everywhere.

Further, the article states that the southern edges of Australia was one of the highest risks, globally, for large birds to ingest debris.

This is a deplorable title for Australia to hold, and it is a national embarrassment that we are amongst the worst emitters of marine pollution for large birds.
Plastic can devastate the lives of marine species, through the poison from ingesting plastic, getting trapped in plastic or distorting their shape entirely through entanglement, as seen in the picture of the turtle below: (http://www.boredpanda.com/tortoise-trapped-in-plastic/) Threat of marine plastic pollution in AustraliaSubmission 23 That our thoughtless human consumption of plastic could have such devastating effects is grueling to imagine, however it remains a plight on our culture of repeat consumption and the ignorance of our actions.
The CSIRO has reported that on a global scale, one third of turtles have likely ingested plastic debris (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwjP2N7 YnunHAhVn3KYKHerLDjQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csiro.au%2F~%2Fmedia%2FOnA%2FFiles%2FMarineDebris 4ppFactsheet- DOC.docx&usg=AFQjCNEBvx8NNPzFUiUCVqEBHuBNgY7j6A&sig2=qArB_x64qpCGIOa6aqEdDg&bvm=bv.102 022582,d.dGY).
As an example of what was found in the stomach of a sea bird: “We found toothbrushes, doll arms, cigarette lighters, the little ties on the bottoms of balloons – pretty much anything that can fir inside a seabird, we’ve found inside a seabird” (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-01/scientists-warn-almost- all-seabirds-will-ingest-plastic-by-2050/6738862).
Sea animals often mistake plastic items that have ended up in or near water for food, which can cause death from inability to digest, or a distressing experience choking on plastic (http://www.ntepa.nt.gov.au/waste-pollution/plastic-bag- ban/enviroimpacts).

Further, our plastic rubbish is increasing dramatically, and requires 500 years to degrade (http://theconversation.com/marine-debris-biodiversity-impacts-and-potential-solutions-2131).
In other words, it is having an unprecedented effect on our marine life and ecosystems, and most distressingly, will continue to due to the permanency of plastic.

The number of species effected by plastic has been listed by the CSIRO.

It is not by any means an exhausted list, however, it includes seabirds, turtles, crocodiles, dolphins, whales, dugongs, sharks, rays, fish and crabs.
It effects the entire sea population, and if not directly, then indirectly through the marine food web which passes through the permanence of microplastics.

While the consequences for the marine ecosystem are evidently far-reaching and drastic, humans are not excluded from these effects.

Microplastics are known to enter into the food web through being ingested by zooplankton, which many marine species depend on for food.
When ingested, this plastic produces toxins that are released into the food chain and passed through species that ingest the initial source (http://theconversation.com/marine-debris-biodiversity-impacts-and-potential-solutions-2131).

This means that when humans consume fish and marine life, we are also consuming the same toxins that were ingested by the fish.
This is a widespread health epidemic that is caused by plastic pollution, and we must address it and acknowledge it as an emergency to prevent further damage.

Public and health authorities must act not only for marine life welfare but ultimately, for our own.

d. Measures and resourcing for mitigation; and Good policies must be implemented by governments to try to mitigate the disastrous impact that plastic is having on our marine life.
This involves a collaborative approach between corporations, businesses, organisations and communities.

In order to address the ubiquitous use of plastic, everybody at all levels must be involved.

Government must facilitate this through consultation, research, funding and revised policy that prioritises the need to drastically reduce our national dependence on plastic.

Below, I will list measures that are needed to move in the direction towards achieving a marine ecosystem untainted by human plastics.
To begin with, Government must not pander to or be intimidated by vested interests, such as the international brand of Coca Cola.

The beverage industry has a huge stake in the use of plastic and government must not allow itself to be bullied by their claws to survive.

Companies must adapt to find new approaches that work in conjunction with good environmental policy and law, which should work to drastically minimise Australia’s consumption of plastic.
Positive schemes such as recycling refund schemes are being stymied by the fierce campaigning and pressure by Coca Cola, who are threatened by their own survival under such schemes (http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we-do/oceans/Stop-Trashing- Australia/).

To achieve change, we cannot allow ourselves to be ruled by the interests of multinational corporations.

These are precisely the large-scale perpetrators of plastic pollution that we must denounce, and push them into finding other methods.
Threat of marine plastic pollution in AustraliaSubmission 23 If we consider the use of recycling refund schemes, or container deposit schemes, we can begin to see opportunities to make a dent in the current rates of plastic pollution.

For example, in South Australia, people may return their plastic bottles or containers and receive 10c back from the purchase.
The impact of this has been drastic: 81% of their bottles are recycled, which doubles the rate of other states (http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we-do/oceans/Stop-Trashing-Australia/).

Further, this article affirms a Clean Up Australia statistic, that the community service sector will earn around $70 million annually to adopt the container recycling schemes nationally.
Between13-14 million drinking bottles are bought by Australian every year; 7 billion of which end up as waste and of course, a significant part of this in our ocean.

The beverage industry speaks for its own survival, not that of others, and must not be given a chance to control this very dire situation.

Further, deposits should be available nationally on all cans, bottles and cartons.

This benefits the consumer and encourages environmental action.
Government must pass law to only allow plastic bags to be used when fully biodegradable.

This would have significant results on many levels, but particularly on the consumption industries (food, and shopping industries).

Initiatives such as those done by companies such as Target to place a cost on plastic bags are positive.

However the move against plastic bags must be implemented by policy to achieve the level of change needed on marine pollution.
Government could also support cafes and restaurants in their use of compostable cups and containers, perhaps in funding or through supplying the resources needed to make such a transition.

Further, education on excessive use of plastic may be useful in assisting staff to understand such a transition and to follow such a movement.

Cafes and restaurants should also offer reusable bottles and cups.
For this to occur, there must be considerable negotiation with the food industry, in order to transition into a more environmentally- friendly approach that aligns with new policies.

There should also be a restaurant café initiation program into the use of free water refills and the selling of re-usable bottles.

Any eateries should also have proper storage for recycling and encourage customers to make environmentally appropriate choices.
This could work through incentives, such as that already in existence with discounts being offered to those who bring a Keep Cup, or re-usable cup or bottle.

Available drinking fountains should replace the prevalence of sales for water bottles, along with a re-boosted education campaign on the detrimental effects of sugar drinks for health, including impacts on obesity and cognitive effects.

Concerts and festivals should have a significantly more conscientious approach in their use of plastic.
All festivals that do not adhere to re-usable bottles or cups should be banned from operating in the future.

Again, I highlight the increased need for water fountains as an alternative to plastic here.

Companies that use packaging, of which there are many, must adhere to strict laws about unnecessary packing material, such as tetra pac with foil lines.

There could also be incentives to return packaging for re- use, in a similar fashion to a container deposit.
Finally, an increased boost to public education on where plastic often ends up.

Whilst there are many anti- littering campaigns currently supported by the government (http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/litter/prevent- litter.htm), there needs to be a higher focus on the impacts of plastic for marine life.

As suggested above, there are many images available that powerfully demonstrate the adverse effects of plastic.
Hot spots for littering such as around beaches should be targetted areas, providing information and resources to minimise the use of plastic and to ensure that there are appropriate disposals (if possible, for an incentive).

e. Other: There are case studies of towns in Australia, such as Bundanoon, becoming bottle-free towns (http://www.australiaontap.com.au/#).
This required partnerships and the mutual goal to go bottle-free, Threat of marine plastic pollution in AustraliaSubmission 23 with 20 businesses agreeing to the initiative.

The subsequent involvement of the community who overwhelmingly supported the idea meant that this initiative was formally adopted in 2009, making the town the world’s first bottle free town.
Initiatives such as these need to attract more attention as solutions to our necessary reduction of plastic, and Government bodies must liaise with participating businesses in order to replicate the successful model in other precincts.

Australia On Tap (http://www.australiaontap.com.au/#) also details other initiatives, often started by concerned members of the community.
The University of Canberra has now phased out bottled water and instead chosen to increase the provision of free drinking water around campus.

With a university population of 13000, such an initiative has given us an outstanding model for large-scale changes to use across other areas.

Threat of marine plastic pollution in AustraliaSubmission 23