S YN

SI
E
H
T

S

FROM POLLUTION
TO SOLUTIONA GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF MARINE LITTER
AND PLASTIC POLLUTION

For the rationale and background of this assessment, see Annex 1.

© 2021 United Nations Environment Programme
ISBN: 978-92-807-3881-0
Job number: DEP/2379/NA
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form
for educational or non-profit services without special permission from the
copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The
United Nations Environment Programme would appreciate receiving a
copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial
purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United
Nations Environment Programme. Applications for such permission,
with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should
be addressed to the Director, Communication Division, United Nations
Environment Programme, P. O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, Kenya.
Disclaimers
Mention of a commercial company or product in this document does
not imply endorsement by the United Nations Environment Programmeor the authors. The use of information from this document for publicity
or advertising is not permitted. Trademark names and symbols are usedin an editorial fashion with no intention on infringement of trademark or
copyright laws.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Environment
Programme. We regret any errors or omissions that may have been
unwittingly made.
© Maps, photos and illustrations as specified
Front cover image © Shutterstock/Nguyen Quang Ngoc Tonkin
Suggested citation
United Nations Environment Programme (2021). From Pollution to Solution:
A global assessment of marine litter and plastic pollution. Synthesis. Nairobi.
Production
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and GRID-Arendal
Supported by

UNEP promotes environmentally sound practices globally and in its own
activities. Our distribution policy aims to reduce UNEP carbon footprint.

KEY FINDINGSEmissions of plastic waste into aquatic
ecosystems are projected to nearly triple
by 2040 without meaningful action.

The scale and rapidly increasing volume of marine litterand plastic pollution are putting the health of all the world’s
oceans and seas at risk. Plastics, including microplastics, arenow ubiquitous. They are a marker of the Anthropocene, thecurrent geological era, and are becoming part of the Earth’s
fossil record. Plastics have given their name to a new marine
microbial habitat, the “plastisphere”.
Despite current initiatives and efforts, the amount of plastics inthe oceans has been estimated to be around 75-199 million tons.
Estimates of annual global emissions from land-based sources
vary according to the approaches used. Under a business-asusual scenario and in the absence of necessary interventions,the amount of plastic waste entering aquatic ecosystems could
nearly triple from some 9-14 million tons per year in 2016 to a
projected 23-37 million tons per year by 2040. Using anotherapproach, the amount is projected to approximately double
from an estimated 19-23 million tons per year in 2016 to around53 million tons per year by 2030.

litter and plastics present
2 Marinea serious threat to all marine life,

while also influencing the climate.

Plastics are the largest, most harmful and most persistent fractionof marine litter, accounting for at least 85 per cent of total marine
waste. They cause lethal and sub-lethal effects in whales, seals,
turtles, birds and fish as well as invertebrates such as bivalves,plankton, worms and corals. Their effects include entanglement,
starvation, drowning, laceration of internal tissues, smotheringand deprivation of oxygen and light, physiological stress, andtoxicological harm.
Plastics can also alter global carbon cycling through their effecton plankton and primary production in marine, freshwater andterrestrial systems. Marine ecosystems, especially mangroves,seagrasses, corals and salt marshes, play a major role insequestering carbon. The more damage we do to oceans andcoastal areas, the harder it is for these ecosystems to both offset
and remain resilient to climate change.
When plastics break down in the marine environment, theytransfer microplastics, synthetic and cellulosic microfibres,
toxic chemicals, metals and micropollutants into waters andsediments and eventually into marine food chains.
Microplastics act as vectors for pathogenic organisms harmful
to humans, fish and aquaculture stocks. When microplastics areingested, they can cause changes in gene and protein expression,
inflammation, disruption of feeding behaviour, decreases in growth,changes in brain development, and reduced filtration and respiration
rates. They can alter the reproductive success and survival of marineorganisms and compromise the ability of keystone species andecological “engineers” to build reefs or bioturbated sediments.

health and well-being
3 Humanare at risk
Risks to human health and well-being arise from the open
burning of plastic waste, ingestion of seafood contaminatedwith plastics, exposure to pathogenic bacteria transported onplastics, and leaching out of substances of concern to coastal
waters. The release of chemicals associated with plastics throughleaching into the marine environment is receiving increasing
attention, as some of these chemicals are substances of concern
or have endocrine disrupting properties.
© Shutterstock/Tunatura

amount of marine litter and plastic
1 The
pollution has been growing rapidly.

SYNTHESIS

3

Microplastics can enter the human body through inhalation andabsorption via the skin and accumulate in organs including theplacenta. Human uptake of microplastics via seafood is likely
to pose serious threats to coastal and indigenous communities
where marine species are the main source of food. The links
between exposure to chemicals associated with plastics in themarine environment and human health are unclear. However,some of these chemicals are associated with serious healthimpacts, especially in women.
Marine plastics have a widespread effect on society and humanwell-being. They may deter people from visiting beaches
and shorelines and enjoying the benefits of physical activity,
social interaction, and general improvement of both physicaland mental health. Mental health may be affected by theknowledge that charismatic marine animals such as sea turtles,
whales, dolphins and many seabirds are at risk. These animals
have cultural importance for some communities. Images anddescriptions of whales and seabirds with their stomachs full ofplastic fragments, which are prevalent in mainstream media,
can provoke strong emotional impacts.

are hidden costs for the
4 Thereglobal economy.
Marine litter and plastic pollution present serious threats tothe livelihoods of coastal communities as well as to shipping
and port operations. The economic costs of marine plastic
pollution with respect to its impacts on tourism, fisheries andaquaculture, together with other costs such as those of cleanups, are estimated to have been at least United States dollars(US$) 6-19 billion globally in 2018. It is projected that by 2040
plastic leakage into the oceans could represent a US$ 100 billion
annual financial risk for businesses if governments requirethem to cover waste management costs at expected volumes
and recyclability. By comparison, the global plastic market in2020 has been estimated at around US$ 580 billion while themonetary value of losses of marine natural capital is estimatedto be as high as US$ 2,500 billion per year.

litter and plastics are
5 Marinethreat multipliers.
The multiple and cascading risks posed by marine litterand plastics make them threat multipliers. They can act
together with other stressors, such as climate change andoverexploitation of marine resources, to cause far greater
damage than if they occurred in isolation. Habitat alterations in
key coastal ecosystems caused by the direct impacts of marine
litter and plastics affect local food production and damage
coastal structures, leading to wide-reaching and unpredictableconsequences including loss of resilience to extreme eventsand climate change in coastal communities. The risks of marine
litter and plastics therefore need to be assessed across the wider
cumulative risks.

main sources of marine litter and
6 The
plastic pollution are land-based.
4

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

Approximately 7,000 million of the estimated 9,200 million tonsof cumulative plastic production between 1950 and 2017 became
plastic waste, three-quarters of which was discarded and placedin landfills, became part of uncontrolled and mismanaged waste
streams, or was dumped or abandoned in the environment,
including at sea. Microplastics can enter the oceans via thebreakdown of larger plastic items, leachates from landfill sites,
sludge from wastewater treatment systems, airborne particles(e.g. from wear and tear on tyres and other items containing
plastic), run-off from agriculture, shipbreaking, and accidental
cargo losses at sea. Extreme events such as floods, storms andtsunamis can deliver significant volumes of debris into the oceansfrom coastal areas and accumulations of litter on riverbanks,along shorelines and in estuaries. With global cumulative plastic
production between 1950 and 2050 predicted to reach 34,000
million tons, it is urgent to reduce global plastic production andflows of plastic waste into the environment.

movement and accumulation
7 Theof marine litter and plastics occur

over decades.

The movement of marine litter and plastics on- and offshore
is controlled by ocean tides, currents, waves and winds, withfloating plastics accumulating in the ocean gyres and sinking
items concentrating in the deep sea, river deltas, mud belts andmangroves. There can be significant time intervals between
losses on land and accumulation in offshore waters and deepsea sediments. More than half the plastics found floating insome gyres were produced in the 1990s and earlier.
There are now a growing number of hotspots in which there ispotential for long-term, large-scale risks to ecosystem functioning
and human health. Major sources include the MediterraneanSea, where large volumes of marine litter and plastic accumulate
due its enclosed nature, presenting risks to millions of people;
the Arctic Ocean because of potential damage to its pristinenature and harm to indigenous peoples and iconic species
through ingestion of plastics in marine food chains; and theEast and Southeast Asian region, where there are significant
volumes of uncontrolled waste in proximity to very large humanpopulations with a high dependency on the oceans.

advances and the
8 Technological
growth of citizen science activities

are improving detection of marine litterand plastic pollution, but consistency ofmeasurements remains a challenge.
There have been significant improvements in regard to effective
and affordable global observational and surveying systems,
as well as the protocols for detecting and quantifying litterand microplastics in physical and biotic samples. However,concerns remain among scientists about sampling biases in thedetermination of the absolute volumes of microplastics foundin different habitats owing to high variability in physical andchemical characteristics and the need for greater consistency
among different sampling and observation platforms and© Shutterstock/AlenaPaulus

instruments. There are currently 15 major operational monitoring
programmes linked to marine litter action co-ordination, datacollection frameworks, and large-scale data repository andportal initiatives, but the data and information from them arelargely unconnected. Alongside these programmes are indicator
processes and baseline data collection activities, supported
by a growing number of networks, citizen science projects andparticipatory processes worldwide.

recycling rates are less than
9 Plastic
10 per cent and plastics-related

greenhouse gas emissions are significant,but some solutions are emerging.
During the past four decades global plastic production has morethan quadrupled, with the global plastic market valued at around
US$ 580 billion in 2020. At the same time, the estimated global
cost of municipal solid waste management is set to increase
from US$ 38 billion in 2019 to US$ 61 billion in 2040 under abusiness-as-usual scenario. The level of greenhouse gas emissions
associated with the production, use and disposal of conventional
fossil fuel-based plastics is forecast to grow to approximately 2.1
gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) by 2040, or 19 percent of the global carbon budget. Using another approach, GHG
emissions from plastics in 2015 were estimated to be 1.7 GtCO2e
and projected to increase to approximately 6.5 GtCO2e by 2050, or
15 per cent of the global carbon budget.
A major problem is the low recycling rate of plastics, which iscurrently less than 10 per cent. Millions of tons of plastic waste
are lost to the environment, or sometimes shipped thousandsof kilometres to destinations where it is generally burned or
dumped. The estimated annual loss in the value of plastic
packaging waste during sorting and processing alone is US$ 80120 billion. Plastics labelled as biodegradable present anotherproblem, as they may take a number of years to degrade in theoceans and, as litter, can present the same risks as conventional
plastics to individuals, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

A single-solution strategy will be inadequate to reduce theamount of plastics entering the oceans. Multiple synergistic systeminterventions are needed upstream and downstream of plastic
production and use. Such interventions are already emerging. They
include circularity policies, phasing out of unnecessary, avoidable
and problematic products and polymers, fiscal instruments suchas taxes, fees and charges, deposit-refund schemes, extended
producer responsibility schemes, tradeable permits, removal of
harmful subsidies, green chemistry innovations for safer alternative
polymers and additives, initiatives to change consumer attitudes,and “closing the tap” in regard to virgin plastic production
through new service models and ecodesign for product reuse.

is being made at all levels,
10 Progresswith a potential global instrument

in sight.

A growing number of global, regional and national activities are
helping to mobilize the global community in order to bring an
end to marine litter and plastic pollution.
Cities, municipalities and large firms have been reducing waste
flows to landfills; regulatory processes are expanding, driven
by growing public pressure; and there has been an upsurge inlocal activism and local government actions including kerbside
collections, plastics recycling and community clean-ups. However,the current situation is a mixture of widely varying businesspractices and national regulatory and voluntary arrangements.
There are already some international commitments to reduce
marine litter and plastic pollution, especially from land-basedsources, as well as several applicable international agreements
and soft law instruments relating to trade in plastics or to reducing
impacts on marine life. However, none of the international
policies agreed since 2000 includes a global, binding, specificand measurable target limiting plastic pollution. This has led
many governments, as well as business and civil society, to callfor a global instrument on marine litter and plastic pollution.
SYNTHESIS5INTRODUCTION
Marine litter and plastic pollution are accumulating in theworld’s oceans at an unprecedented rate. The volume of plastics
currently in the oceans has been estimated at between 75 millionand 199 million tons1 (Jang et al. 2015; Ocean Conservancy
and McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment 2015; Law
2017; IRP 2019; Lebreton et al. 2019; Borrelle et al. 2020; Lau etal. 2020; The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020). Plastic
waste can be found in sea floor sediments, on beaches, and inmany other locations globally. Consequently, plastic pollution is
becoming part of the Earth’s fossil record and is a characteristicof the present geological era, the Anthropocene. A new marine
microbial habitat has been designated the “plastisphere”(Amaral-Zettler et al. 2020).
Marine litter enters the oceans directly and indirectly throughpathways including land, rivers and the atmosphere. The main
sources of plastics in the ocean include uncontrolled waste
streams on land, treated and untreated wastewater outflows,
wear and tear on plastic products including textiles and vehicle
tyres, run-off from land, leakages from plastics used in agriculture,and direct inputs from maritime industries (Geyer 2020).
Marine life and ecosystems are adversely impacted by litter,
including plastics and microplastics. In addition, microplastics inthese ecosystems present potential risks to human health, forexample through seafood consumption. Depending on theirtype, size and location, marine litter and plastics can cause lethaland sub-lethal effects on marine life through entanglement,
smothering, ingestion, and exposure to the chemicals
associated with plastics (Aliani and Molcard 2003; Rochman etal. 2016; Alomar and Deudero 2017; Franco-Trecu et al. 2017;
Lusher et al. 2017a; Reinert et al. 2017; Anbumani and Kakkar
2018; Fossi et al. 2018; Thiel et al. 2018; Alimba and Faggio 2019;
Bucci et al. 2019; Windsor et al. 2019; Woods et al. 2019). Thereis evidence that floating plastics can transport chemicals andpathogenic bacteria into coastal areas where they present risks
to both ecosystems and human health (Rech et al. 2016; Turner
2016; Besseling et al. 2019; Guo and Wang 2019; Yu et al. 2019).

2018; Bradney et al. 2019; Green et al. 2019; Reichert et al.
2019; Renzi et al. 2019; Saliu et al. 2019).
Effectively tackling the problems of marine litter and plastic
pollution requires a wide range of actions directed at thegeneration, disposal, management and leakage of waste fromland- and sea-based sources, as well as measures related toplastics’ overall production volumes and chemical make-up.
Plastics are among the most versatile materials ever produced.
They have changed the lives of billions of people and the global
economy. However, the environmental and social costs of theiruse are significant. The annual economic costs of marine plastic
pollution with respect to its impacts on tourism, fisheries andaquaculture, together with other costs including clean-up
activities, are estimated to be at least United States dollars (US$)
6-19 billion per year globally (Deloitte 2019). It is projected that by
2040 the expected mass of plastic leakage into the ocean could
result in a US$ 100 billion annual financial risk for businesses if
governments require them to cover waste management costs at
expected volumes and recyclability (The Pew Charitable Trusts
and SYSTEMIQ 2020). Global cumulative production of plastics
since 1950 is forecast to grow from 9.2 billion tons in 2017 to
34 billion tons by 2050 (Geyer 2020) (Figure I). Therefore, it isurgent to “turn off the tap” in regard to the production of virginplastics, reduce the volumes of uncontrolled or mismanaged
waste entering the oceans, and increase the level of plastic waste
recycling, currently estimated at less than 10 per cent (Andrades
et al. 2018; Boucher and Billard 2019; Geyer 2020). Plastic
manufacturing produces significant greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions (Shen et al. 2020), which contributes to their effects on
the climate (The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020).
Million tons
1 200

Incinerated
1 000 million tons

Still in use
2 900 million tons

Accumulation

Plastic fragments are the form of plastic waste most commonly
found on shorelines. Microplastics, which are mainly createdthrough the fragmentation of macroplastics, are ubiquitousin the marine environment. Microplastics can alter the
reproductive success and survival of marine organisms andcompromise the ability of keystone species and ecological“engineers”, such as corals and worms, to build reefs orbioturbate sediments (Sussarellu et al. 2016; Green et al. 2017;
Beckwith and Fuentes 2018; Bradney et al. 2019; Green et al.
2019; Reichert et al. 2019; Renzi et al. 2019; Saliu et al. 2019;
Maes et al. 2020). There is evidence that plastics can altercarbon cycling, hence contributing to climate change, throughtheir effect on primary production in marine, freshwater andterrestrial systems (Green et al. 2017; Beckwith and Fuentes
1. In this report tons refers to metric tons.

6

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

1 000

800

1950-2017
9 200 million tons
Recycled
700 million tons

Discarded

600

5 300 million tons
400

200

Yearly production
Resin and fibres
1950

1960

1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Year
Sources: UNEP 2021, adapted from Jambeck et al. 2018; PlasticsEurope 2019; Geyer 2020.
Illustrated by GRID-Arendal

Figure 1: Global plastic production, accumulation and future trends

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Environmental impacts
Marine litter and plastic pollution are harmful to the healthyfunctioning of oceans. Since the publication of the 2016 UNEP
report Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics – Global Lessons
and Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change,
substantial new research has shown the extensive damage thatmarine litter, especially plastics and their breakdown products,
causes to marine life and ecosystem functioning as well as
potential risks to human health (Figure 2).

by plankton, shellfish, fish and marine worms, all of which are
critical to ecosystem functioning (Browne et al. 2008; Carson etal. 2013; Wright et al. 2013a, b; Adimey et al. 2014; Hämer et al.
2014; Rochman et al. 2014; Au et al. 2015; Brennecke et al. 2015;
Desforges et al. 2015; Wilcox et al. 2015; Holland et al. 2016; Green etal. 2017; Lusher et al. 2017a; Anbumani and Kakkar 2018; Duncan
et al. 2018a; Duncan et al. 2018b; Hallanger and Gabrielsen
2018; McNeish et al. 2018; Reynolds and Ryan 2018; Arias et al.
2019; Battisti et al. 2019; Donohue et al. 2019; Nelms et al. 2019a
Sun et al. 2019; Landrigan et al. 2020; Vethaak and Legler 2021).

The lethal and sub-lethal effects of plastics include ingestion
by whales, seals, turtles, birds and fish, potentially leading to
starvation and lacerations in internal systems, and the smotheringof coral reefs, causing deprivation of oxygen and light; drowningof turtles, birds and mammals due to entanglement in abandoned
fishing gear and plastic packaging; and physiological stress andtoxicological harm arising from the ingestion of microplastics

When plastics break down in the marine environment,
microplastics, toxic chemicals and metals are transferred into open
surface waters and eventually into sediments, where they can be
assimilated into marine food chains (Arthur et al. 2009; Ashton etal. 2010; Mattsson et al. 2015; Haward 2018; Karlsson et al. 2018;
UNEP 2018a). The effects and causal mechanisms of harm frommicroplastics are unevenly studied in the field. However, underDirect risks from lost and leaked litter and plastics

MICROPLASTICS

MARINE LITTER AND MACROPLASTICS

Ingestion

Rafting

Raftinge.g. drinking water

380 taxa recorded on floating debris,
potentially leading to invasion of distant
habitats, e.g. damage to coral reefs andadverse impacts on human healthTransport ofpathogens into
coastal areas

Entanglement

Leading to physical damage,smothering or death

Ingestion
Plastics are found in
Marine mammals
Seabirds

e.g. collision
with floating
containers

Blockage

Propellers and shafts
entangled by marine
debris. Over 2 300
reported cases from2010 to 2015

Liability

Functional, fillers, colourants,
reinforcement in plastic products

Pathogenic agentse.g. Aeromonas sp. canpopulate floating plastics
Turtles

Benthic habitats

Considerably larger
concentrations in sediments
compared to the water column

Physical contact

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Death
Physical damage
Biodiversity reduction
Alteration of species assemblage
Creation of microbial habitats (the plastisphere)
Invasive species

Human health
Biological activity reduction
Disturbance of ecosystem processes
Increasing spread of bacteria
Reduction of fish population

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Mental health

Productivity reduction
Reduced confidence in products
Waste management issues

Physical health
Spending time at littered
coasts and ocean.
Experience of animals
affected by marine litter

Limited research

Applyprecautionary
approachChemicals/additives

The disease rate incorals increases from
5% to 89% when incontact with plastics

DamageNANOPLASTICS

Maritime workers
injured on sharp
litter, entangled,
and exposed tounsanitary items

Gender inequality
Working conditions

Sources: UNEP 2021.

SOCIETAL IMPACTS

Human well-being reduction
Reduced recreational experience
Heritage loss

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal

Figure 2: Direct risks and impacts of marine litter and plastics
SYNTHESIS

7

laboratory conditions they have been shown to cause changes ingene and protein expression, inflammation, disruption of feeding
behaviour, decreases in growth and reproductive success,changes in brain development, reduced filtration and respiration
rates, and a range of diseases leading to decreased survival (vonMoos 2012; Au et al. 2015; Cole et al. 2015; Nobre et al. 2015; PaulPont et al. 2016; Sussarellu et al. 2016; Cui et al. 2017; Lusher et al.
2017a; Anbumani and Kakkar 2018; Arthur et al. 2019; Bradney etal. 2019; Green et al. 2019; SAPEA 2019; European Union 2019a;
Jacob et al. 2020; Lindeque et al. 2020; Peng, L. et al. 2020; deRuijter et al. 2020; Silva et al. 2020; Xu et al. 2020).
Microplastics can also be responsible for physical changes in theenvironment, for example on beaches where they may causetemperature fluctuations which can affect the sex determinationin sea turtle eggs buried in the sand (Carson et al. 2011; Beckwith
and Fuentes 2018).
Microplastics can act as vectors of pathogenic organisms
which are harmful to both marine life and human health (suchas Vibrio sp., the bacterial family responsible for cholera, andAeromonas salmonicida, responsible for causing furunculosis andsepticaemia in salmonid fishes) and create conditions for plasmidtransfer in bacterial assemblages and for enhanced horizontaltransfer of gene encoding for antimicrobial resistance (Kirstein
et al. 2016; Viršek et al. 2017; Huang et al. 2019; Arias-Andres etal. 2018; Yang et al. 2019; Goel et al. 2021). The ever-decreasing
size of microplastics creates large surface areas where microbial“plastisphere” communities and biofilms may develop.
The release of chemicals associated with plastics throughleaching into the marine environment or post-ingestion into thetissues of marine life is receiving growing attention, as some ofthese chemicals, such as bisphenol A, have endocrine disrupting
properties while others are considered substances of concern(e.g. UNEP/IPCP 2016; Hermabessiere et al. 2017; Hong et al.
2017a; M’Rabat et al. 2018; Groh et al. 2019; Guo and Wang 2019;
Flaws et al. 2020; Thaysen et al. 2020; UNEP 2020d). Microplastics
have been demonstrated to sorb persistent organic pollutants(POPs) as well as trace metals (Anbumani and Kakkar 2018;
Camacho et al. 2019; Guo and Wang 2019; Fred-Ahmadu et al.
2020; Pozo et al. 2020). Natural sediments and organic matteralso have the capacity to adsorb hydrophobic organic chemicals(Koelmans et al. 2016; Prata et al. 2020a).
The extent of contamination and rate of transfer of chemicals
from microplastics into marine waters and the tissues of marineorganisms are highly dependent on chemical and physicalconditions such as the nature and strength of the chemicalbonds between the chemicals and polymers, pH, temperature,pressure, biofouling, the presence of surfactants, the volumesof different polymer types ingested, and gut concentrations andresidence time (Gouin et al. 2011; Koelmans et al. 2014; Bakir
et al. 2016; Herzke et al. 2016; Koelmans et al. 2016; Rummel
et al. 2016; Anbumani and Kakkar 2018; De Frond et al. 2019;
Koelmans et al. 2019; UNEP 2020d).
Other plastic breakdown products in the oceans include cellulosic
and synthetic microfibres and nanoplastics (Boucher and Friot
2017; Belzagui et al. 2019) that come directly from waste streams,
agricultural run-off, wastewater discharged from treatment plants
which may contain microfibres from washing of synthetic textiles,
and plastic particles created in the oceans by fragmentationand physical abrasion. Although synthetic microfibres andnanoplastics accumulate in sedimentary sinks where they canpersist for many years, most fibres in the oceans and in sediments
are composed of natural polymers which eventually degrade(Obbard et al. 2014; Remy et al. 2015; Woodall et al. 2015; Taylor
et al. 2016; Welden and Cowie 2016; Avio et al. 2017; Bagaev et al.
2017; Dris et al. 2017; Miller et al. 2017; Sanchez-Vidal et al. 2018;
Windsor et al. 2018; Henry et al. 2019; Primpke et al. 2019; Songet al. 2018; Ronda et al. 2019; Stanton et al. 2019b; Zambrano etal. 2019; Harris 2020; Suaria et al. 2020).
A rapidly expanding area of research concerns biodegradable
and bio-sourced plastics, their biological and environmental
impacts, and industry labelling and certification. The resultsof field studies show that when these plastics are outsideindustrial or controlled composting conditions, some canpersist for many years once they are in marine environments
without showing any signs of biodegradation (O’Brine andThompson 2010; Alvarez-Zeferino et al. 2015; Green et al. 2015;
Narancic et al. 2018; UNEP 2018a; Napper and Thompson 2019)(Figure 3). In the environment, therefore, these types of plastics

Managed facilities

Natural environment

Industrial
composting

Anaerobic
digestion

Home
composting

6-12 weeks
50-70°C

Single-stage 14 days
Two-stage 15-40 days

3-6 months
28°C

MarineFreshwater

30°C

21°C

Anaerobic aquatic
digestion
35°C

Soil
25°C

Renewable raw materials
PLA Polylactic acid
PHA - PHB Polyhydroxybutyrate
PBS Polybutylene succinate
TPS Thermoplastic starch

Fossil fuel-based raw materials
PBAT Polybutyrate adipate terephthalate
PCL Polycaprolactone
Biodegrades

Does not biodegrade

Unknown

Biodegradation according to ISO and ASTM standards

Figure 3: Bio-based plastics and their biodegradation
8

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

Source: UNEP 2021
Illustrated by GRID-Arendal

© Shutterstock/Joel Carillet

are likely to pose the same risks as conventional plastics(Alvarez-Zeferino et al. 2015; Green 2016; Green et al. 2016;
Green et al. 2017; Green et al. 2019; Napper and Thompson
2019; Zimmermann et al. 2020; UNEP 2021).

Human health impacts
The human health impacts of marine litter and plastic pollution
arise mainly from inadequate waste handling, especially on
land; ingestion of contaminated seafoods; and exposure topathogenic bacteria and substances of concern transported
into coastal waters by floating plastics (Landrigan et al. 2020).
Exposure to toxic fumes and carcinogenic chemicals associatedwith the burning of plastics in open pits and poor incinerationis considered a serious health risk, with known gendered effects
among waste workers in the informal sector (van den Bergh andBotzen 2015; ILO 2017; UNEP 2017; ILO 2019; UNESCAP 2019).

A

Inhalation per year
~121 000 particles
Large particles that are
not caught in the nose
may be deposited andlater eliminated bycoughing, blowing thenose, or sneezing

Individual inhalation has been estimated to
be 26-130 airborne microplastics per day
People who breathe more through their mouth
are likely to have more particles reach the lungs

Ingestion per year
~52 000 particles

Inhaled particles may activate
T-cells, be phagocytized by macrophages,
and be transported to the lymph nodes

Large particles may be deposities
in the tracheobronchial region
and, if soluble, enter the bodySome coarse particles may
reach the alveolar region
Microplastics may accumulate
in the liver and kidney

Microplastics inan adult per year
~163 000 particles

Microplastics have been foundin human stools, suggesting particles
may be widespread in the humanfood chain

Skin
Nanoparticles
may penetrate
the skinUltra fine particles (UFPs), e.g. in
air pollution hot spots due toroad vehicles, may penetratebiological membranes andtransfer to systemic circulation
Microplastics found in
the human placenta
Source: UNEP 2021.

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal/Studio Atlantis

Figure 4-A: Human exposure to microplastic and nanoplastic particles
SYNTHESIS

9B

Microplastics in the airin 50 cubic meters

Non-intentionally added substances

OutdoorIndoore.g. recycled plastics, food packaging

Dining room

Adsorption of pollutants by microplastics
Pollutants include hazardous chemicals,
antibiotics and heavy metals

Pathogens found on floating plastics
Vibrio spp., a well-known genus of bacteria
containing pathogenic strains to humans
and animals (e.g. cholera)

75 particles*

3 000 particles*

Microplastics in foodSources of toxic additives exposure
Plastic products

Personal care products

Functional
Stabilizers, antistatic agents,
flame retardants, plasticizers,
lubricants, slip agents,
curing agents, foaming
agents, biocides, etc.

Sugar
1 item per spoonfull*
Water(20 gr)49 items per glass*(250 ml)
Flooring

AdhesivesHoney
13 items per spoonfull*(20 gr)Fillers
Mica, talc, kaolin,clay, calcium
carbonate, barium
sulphate, etc.

GLUE

Beer
27 items per glass*(250 ml)Salt
14 items per spoonfull*(20 gr)Furniture
Construction

Fish and shellfish

Colourants
Pigments,
solubleazo-colorants,
etc.

Paint

Dust fallout*Maximum value referred

Main categories of plastic additives

N

H
C

N
CONH O

O
O
N
N
O

O

Cl

Cl
O

Reinforcement
Glass fibres,carbon fibres,
etc.

Transport
Packaged foodSource: UNEP 2021.

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal/Studio Atlantis© Shutterstock/pcess609

Figure 4-B: Human exposure to plastic particles and associated chemicals

10

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

More generally, microplastics and nanoplastics pose
potential risks to human health. Evidence from clinical studies
indicates that they can enter the human body via ingestion,
inhalation and absorption through the skin and accumulate
in organs including the placenta (Wright and Kelly 2017; Coxet al. 2019; Koelmans et al. 2019; WHO 2019, Landrigan etal. 2020) (Figure 4). Although a link to seafoods has not been
fully demonstrated, and overall exposure levels from marine
plastics as well as health impacts remain uncertain, there issubstantial evidence that chemicals associated with plastics
such as methylmercury, plasticizers and flame retardants
can enter the human body along these pathways and areassociated with serious health impacts, especially in womenand in certain coastal indigenous communities where marine
species are the main source of food (Dehaut et al. 2016;
Wright and Kelly 2017; Koelmans et al. 2019; WHO 2019;
Adyel 2020; Kögel et al. 2020; Prata et al. 2020; Landrigan etal. 2020; Tekman et al. 2020).

C
Neurodevelopmental disorders
Health conditions linked to chemicals
associated with plastics

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
AutismNeurobehavioural
IQ
Cognition

Plasticizers (phthalates)and bisphenol (monomer)
Flame retardants

Hormonal

Thyroid disease
Thyroid cancer

Respiratory disease
AsthmaCardiovascular disease

Metabolic disease

Type 2 diabetes
Childhood obesity
Increased waist circumference

Reproductive health - adults
Polycystic ovarian syndrome
Endometriosis
Male sub-fertility
Reduced sperm quality
Delayed time to pregnancy
Abnormal PAP smears
Pregnancy-induced hypertension
and/or pre-eclampsia

Metabolic disease

Serum lipid levels, e.g. totalcholesterol and LDL cholesterol

Pregnancy outcomes - offspring

Decreased antibody
response to vaccines

Gestational length
Birth weight
Delayed pubertal timing
Genital structure (ano-genital distance)
Pubertal onset

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal/Studio Atlantis

Source: UNEP 2021.

Figure 4-C: Human health impacts of exposure to plastic-associated chemicals

Social and economic impacts
Studies of the effects of marine litter and plastics on shipping,
port operations, fisheries and aquaculture emphasize that they
result in damage to ships from collisions and entanglement inpropellers and present navigational hazards (Jeffrey et al. 2016;
Hong et al. 2017b); disrupt port operations (IMarEST 2019);
reduce the efficiency and productivity of commercial fisheries
and aquaculture operations through physical entanglementand damage (Richardson et al. 2019; Deshpande et al. 2020);
pose direct risks to fish stocks and aquaculture (Lusher et al.
2017a); and can have profound visual and aesthetic impacts, forexample on tourists and other people who visit beaches (Munari
et al. 2015; Pasternak et al. 2017; UNEP 2017; Petrolia et al. 2019;
Williams and Rangel-Buitrago 2019).
The estimated US$ 6-19 billion annual costs of marine plastic
pollution, based on impacts including those on tourism,
fisheries and aquaculture and the expense of clean-ups (Deloitte2019), represent only a small percentage of the global plastic

market, valued at more than US$ 579 billion in 2020 (Statista
2021a). Owing to insufficient available research, these costs do
not include impacts on human health or marine ecosystems.
A lack of comprehensive figures for all economic costs related
to marine litter and plastic pollution is a common problem(Newman et al. 2015; UNEP 2017; Gattringer 2018).
Four types of economic costs generally need to be addressed:
actual expenditures required to prevent or recover from damage
caused by marine litter and plastic pollution; losses of output orrevenues; losses of plastics as valuable material withdrawn fromproduction; and welfare costs, including human health impacts
and losses of ecosystem services. The majority of published studies
have focused on economic damage or direct losses at regional,
national and local levels and the price adjustments needed tointernalize the social costs of plastics (Hall 2000; Ferreira et al. 2007;
MacFadyen 2009; Mouat et al. 2010; McIlgorm et al. 2011; Jang etal. 2014; Oosterhuis et al. 2014; Newman et al. 2015; Krelling etal. 2017; Gattringer 2018; Leggett et al. 2018; Dalberg Advisors,
WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative 2019; Qiang et al. 2020).
SYNTHESIS

11

Some studies have examined the non-market and intangible
environmental and social costs of marine litter and plastics.
For example, in a coastal fishing community on Thailand’s
Andaman Sea “increased garbage in the ocean” was ranked as
the highest environmental stressor (Lynn et al. 2017). Other
indirect measurements include avoided costs related to theinformal waste picking sector; for example, in 2016 informal
waste pickers were estimated to be responsible for collecting
55-64 per cent of plastics for recycling globally (Lau et al. 2020).
For many countries, however, economic data on the costs ofdamage caused by marine litter including plastics do not exist(Janssen et al. 2014; Jambeck et al. 2018).
At a regional scale more studies are looking at this issue. In the
Mediterranean Sea, acknowledged to be one of the seas mostaffected by marine litter and plastic pollution (Eriksen et al. 2014;
Cózar et al. 2015; UNEP/MAP 2015; Suaria et al. 2016; UNEP/MAP
2017; Campanale et al. 2019; Constantino et al. 2019; Dalberg
Advisors, WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative 2019; Fossi et al.
2020), annual losses of some US$ 696 million are sustained in
the three major sectors (fisheries and aquaculture, shipping, andtourism) combined, with around US$ 150 million per year lost in
the fishing sector alone (Dalberg Advisors, WWF Mediterranean
Marine Initiative 2019). These figures do not include income
losses or damage to ecosystem services caused by plastics.
In the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) countries theestimated annual economic costs of marine litter in 2008 were US$
1.26 billion (McIlgorm et al. 2008; McIlgorm et al. 2011), rising to
US$ 10.8 billion in 2015 (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 2017;
McIlgorm et al. 2020). These figures for the Asia-Pacific region
reflect increasing global plastic production. Statista (2021b)
estimates that cumulative global production was 8.3 million
tons in 2017 and will grow to 34 million tons in 2030. The world’s
maritime industries are also growing: as of 2019 the total value ofannual seagoing shipping trade alone was reported to be morethan US$ 14 trillion (International Chamber of Shipping 2021).
Estimating the costs of damage to ecosystem functioning ischallenging. Beaumont et al. (2019) used De Groot et al. (2012)
and Costanza et al. (2014), despite concerns about accuracy,
to derive an estimate of the reduction in the value of marine
natural capital in the oceans because of plastics of between
US$ 500-2,500 billion per year. Analysing the loss of benefits
that marine ecosystem services provide is an appropriate
method for estimating non-market, intangible costs of marine
plastics; before this method can be applied globally, however, acomprehensive, interdisciplinary analysis will be needed to takeaccount of the interdependencies between economic, socialand ecological systems (Gattringer 2018).
Compared to the size of the global plastic market in 2020,
estimated at around US$ 580 billion (Statista 2021a), the World
Trade Organization reports that the value of global merchandise
exports alone in 2020 was around US$ 17.65 trillion (compared
to US$ 19,014 trillion in 2019 and 19.55 trillion in 2018, before the
COVID-19 pandemic began) (WTO 2021). The value of trade flowsof plastics from raw materials to finished goods have recently
12

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

been calculated to amount to about US$ 1 trillion (UNCTAD
2020). However, the price of virgin plastics does not reflect the fullenvironmental, economic and social costs of their disposal. Instead,these costs are passed on, for example to coastal communities andthe maritime sectors. The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ(2020), using a business-as-usual scenario for 2040, projected that
4 billion people are likely to be without organized waste collection
services by that year and that businesses could face a US$ 100
billion annual financial risk if governments require them to coverwaste management costs at expected volumes and recyclability.
Figures such as these are indicative of widespread market
failures and underline the need for a systems-wide, solutionsbased approach that focuses on the challenges – technological(e.g. the scalability of different recycling technologies andsubstitute materials), economic (e.g. the relative cost of different
solutions), environmental (e.g. GHG emissions associated withdifferent solutions) and social (e.g. equity and social justice forwaste pickers) – that need to be met to prevent mismanaged
plastic waste and the subsequent costs of environmental
pollution entering the marine environment (Lau et al. 2020).
There is growing awareness worldwide that the marine environmentis under threat from plastic pollution as well as from overfishing(Lotze et al. 2018; Hartley et al. 2018b; Wyles et al. 2019). There isevidence that people experience well-being as a consequence ofknowing that marine animals will continue to exist even if they havenever seen these animals in person (Börger et al. 2014; Jobstvogt etal. 2014; Aanesen et al. 2015; Eagle et al. 2016). This is especiallytrue in the case of charismatic marine animals such as turtles,
whales, dolphins and seabirds, which often have cultural as wellas emotional importance for individuals. Images and descriptionsof whales or seabirds whose stomachs are full of plastic fragments,
prevalent in mainstream media (e.g. Reuters 2017), can have astrong detrimental impact in this regard (Lotze et al. 2018).
Failure to visit beaches and shorelines because the presence ofmarine litter and plastics can have health implications means there
is a lack of opportunity to enjoy benefits such as physical activity,
social interaction (e.g. strengthening of family bonds), and general
improvement of both physical and mental health (Ashbullby et al.
2013; Papathanasopoulou et al. 2016; Kiessling et al. 2017; Hartley
et al. 2018a; White et al. 2020). On the other hand, the need to rid
these areas of litter can stimulate citizen initiatives including beachclean-up activities (Brouwer et al. 2017; Hartley et al. 2018b).
Handling marine litter and plastics can have different impacts onparticular groups (e.g. women, children, waste workers, and coastal
communities where plastic waste is collected and burned) (ILO
2017; UNEP 2017; ILO 2019; UNESCAP 2019). It has been proposedthat the social costs of marine plastics should be included when theways in which plastics are produced, used, reused and reprocessed
are considered (van den Bergh and Botzen 2015). Marine litter andplastic pollution can infringe on a number of human rights. They
affect people in vulnerable conditions disproportionally, including
those living in poverty, indigenous and coastal communities,
and children, potentially aggravating existing environmental
injustices (United Nations General Assembly 2021).

RISK FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE LITTER AND
PLASTIC POLLUTION
al. 2018; Adam et al. 2019; Backhaus and Wagner 2019; UNDRR
2019; GESAMP 2020a; Peng, L. et al. 2020; Shen et al. 2020).
The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection (GESAMP) (2020a) has suggested thatno single approach to risk is suitable to assess the wide range ofpotential hazards and exposure routes associated with marine
litter and to take into account all the possible environmental,social and economic consequences. Therefore, setting out arisk framework and adopting a tiered approach for addressing
marine litter and plastic pollution has been proposed (Koelmans
et al. 2017; GESAMP 2020a). This approach reflects growing
experience with the development of tools for assessing hazard
and risk in a wide range of applications. The relevant factors to beconsidered vary. They include existing knowledge and urgency.
Social considerations and potential public or environmental
health risks are to be taken into account. The objective of sucha risk framework is to deliver “fit for purpose” risk framework
to ensure that non-priorities are set aside and to inform risk
management (Koelmans et al. 2017). Risk matrices can provide
a way to highlight the existence of knowledge gaps and assist
with problem formulation.

© Shutterstock/Magnus Larsson

The multiple and cascading risks that marine litter and plastics
present with regard to ecosystems and society mean they may
act as threat multipliers (UNDRR 2019). Plastics, in particular,
are stressors that can be understood to act together withother stressors (e.g. climate change and overexploitation ofmarine resources), resulting in far greater damage than when
they are considered in isolation (Backhaus and Wagner 2019).
For example, GHG emissions from the production, use anddisposal of fossil fuel-based plastics account for 19 per cent of
the total emissions budget allowable in 2040 if the world is to
avoid significant climate change (The Pew Charitable Trusts and
SYSTEMIQ 2020). Habitat alterations in key coastal ecosystems
caused by the direct impacts of marine litter, including plastics
and microplastics, not only affect local food production
and coastal protection, but may lead to wide-reaching andunpredictable secondary societal consequences throughimpairment of ecosystem resilience and the potential of coastal
communities to withstand extreme weather events and climatechange (Galloway et al. 2017; Carvalho-Souza et al. 2018; Woods
et al. 2019; GESAMP 2020a). These issues underscore the urgent
need for a coherent approach to managing the risks of marine
litter and plastic pollution (Hardesty and Wilcox 2017; Royer et

SYNTHESIS

13

SOURCES AND PATHWAYS OF MARINE LITTER,
INCLUDING PLASTICS AND MICROPLASTICS
Land- and sea-based sources
The volume of plastics in the oceans, which has been calculated
by a number of researchers , is estimated to be between 75 and
199 million metric tons (Jang et al. 2015; Ocean Conservancy
and McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment 2015; Law
2017; International Research Panel 2019; Lebreton et al. 2019;
Borrelle et al. 2020; Lau et al. 2020; The Pew Charitable Trusts and
SYSTEMIQ 2020). Between 1950 and 2017 roughly 7,000 million
tons out of the 9,200 million tons of global cumulative plastic
production became plastic waste, of which three-quarters
was discarded and ended up in landfills, dumps, uncontrolled
or mismanaged waste streams, or the natural environment,
including the oceans (Geyer 2020).
Marine litter comes mainly from land-based sources, including
agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, construction,transportation, unnecessary, avoidable and problematic plastic
products and polymers, and a wide variety of personal andhealth care products; approximately 60 per cent of macroplastic
leakage is from uncontrolled waste streams (UNEP 2018c; IRP
2019; van Truong et al. 2019; Geyer 2020; The Pew Charitable
Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020). Sea-based sources include fisheries
and aquaculture, shipping and offshore operations, and shipbased tourism (GESAMP 2015; IMarEST 2019; Ryan et al. 2019;
FAO 2020; GESAMP 2020b) (Figure 5). Personal protective
equipment, widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic, hasadded significantly to current volumes of plastic waste (Adyel
2020). Estimated annual global emissions of plastic waste fromland-based sources vary according to the approaches used.
The volume of plastic waste entering aquatic ecosystems
is projected to more than double from an estimated 19-23
million tons per year in 2016 to as much as 53 million tons per
year by 2030 (Borrelle et al. 2020). Emissions entering aquatic
ecosystems are projected to nearly triple from 9-14 million tons
per year in 2016 to 23-37 million tons per year by 2040 (Lau et al.
2020). Using another appraoch, Meijer et al. (2021) estimate that
0.8-2.7 million tons of plastic waste per year enter the oceansfrom riverine systems (Table 1).
Microplastics are present in leachates from landfill sites, sludge
from wastewater treatment plants, and agricultural run-off(Mason et al. 2016; Mahon et al. 2017; Li et al. 2018; Cowger et
al. 2019; He et al. 2019; Sun et al. 2019) (Figure 6). Agriculturalsoils can become sinks of microplastics through the intentional
application of sewage sludge and effluents, and plastic-coatedseeds and agrochemicals (e.g. controlled release fertilizers)(Nizzetto et al. 2016a,b; Piehl et al. 2018; Accinnelli et al. 2019;
Corradini et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019a,b).
Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear fromfisheries and aquaculture installations is the largest single
category by volume of debris found on beaches (Welden andCowie 2017; European Commission 2018a) and at sea (Veiga etTable 1: Estimates of annual global emissions of plastic waste from land-based sources
Estimated plastic
waste emissions(million tons per year)

14

Source-to-sea aspect

Projected plastic
waste emissions(million tons per year)

Approach used

19-23

Entered aquatic
ecosystems in 2016

53 by 2030

Integrating expected population
growth, annual waste generation
per capita, the proportion of plastic
in waste; incorporating an increasein plastic materials associated withpredicted production increases,
and the proportion of inadequately
managed waste by country (Borelle
et al. 2020)

9-14

Entered aquatic
ecosystems in 201623-37 by 2040
(equivalent to 50 kgof plastic per metre ofcoastline worldwide)

Modelled stocks and flows ofmunicipal solid waste and four
sources of microplastics throughthe global plastic system using
five scenarios (2016-2040) andassuming no effective action istaken (Lau et al. 2020)

0.8-2.7

Entered the oceans fromglobal riverine systems
in 2015--

Based on >1,000 rivers, calibratedusing field observations (Meijer et
al. 2021)

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

and ice - pathway
Reservoirs - source and sink Snow
Microplastics are found in

Plastics from atmospheric fallout,
streams and rivers. Temporary andlong-term storage and possible
infiltration into groundwater.

Cities - source

snow, ice and sea-ice,from the poles to remotemountain tops.

Clothes, synthetic
products such as
carpets, building Landfill - major source
materials, take-away
Exposed plastics can be
food containers etc.
transported by the wind
are sources of plastic
and plastic particles andparticles and fibres.
chemicals associatedwith plastics can leachfrom non-sanitary landfill
into surrounding
groundwater.

Lakes - close to rivers and ocean
Temporary and long-term storage.
A source under specific weather
patterns and hydrodynamic
regimes.

Rivers - direct pathway

Transport of plastic debris tothe ocean. Estimated 4.8 to12.7 million tons per year of
macro plastic.

Sediments - source and sink
Plastics coming from both the landand sea contribute to accumulationin sediments.

Agriculture soil - source and sinkUse of plastic films and large fibre textiles
in farming practises. Sewage sludge withplastic residue used as fertilizer. Irrigation
with plastic contaminated water. Artificial
fertilizer and seeds coated with a polymer.

Roads and traffic - source
Particles from the wear on tyres,road surfaces and paint.

Sewage and wastewater- source and pathway
Wastewater treatment plants
are a major source of
microplastics andnanoplastics in water bodies.

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal

Sources: UNEP 2021.

Airborne pathway
From anthropogenic activities
such as particles from vehicle
tyres and brakes and road paint,city dust, synthetic textiles, dried
sewage sludge.

Ocean plastic (1950-2017)
Current standing stock ofplastic is estimated to be
between 75 and 199
million tons.

199
75

Gyres - accumulation
Aquaculture - source
Fish, shellfish andmacroalgae farming.

Estimates of the time taken forplastics to be transported fromcoastal areas to mid-oceanislands and gyres range frommonths to years.

Shipping - source
Fishing activities - source
Galley waste thrown
overboard, abandoned, lost, orotherwise discarded fishinggear, marine coatings.

Direct littering from activities in the oceans

Galley waste thrown overboard,loss of shipping goods andplastic pellets, marine coatings.

Recreational boats - source
Galley waste and litter thrown
overboard, marine coatings.

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal

Source: UNEP 2021

Figure 5: Major pathways of human generated plastic waste in the marine environmental. 2016; Vlachogianni et al. 2017; Lebreton 2018; Stelfox et al.
2016; Fleet et al. 2021). Nets, ropes, cages and nylon lines canhave a disproportionate effect by damaging key habitat-forming
marine organisms such as corals and seagrasses through tissue
abrasion and smothering (Ballesteros et al. 2018), sometimes
significantly reducing their extent and functioning (Richards
and Beger 2011; Carvalho-Souza et al. 2018).
A major source of plastic contamination in some coastal areas is
shipbreaking (Science for Environment Policy 2016). In a study
in a shipyard in India the authors found thousands of small
plastic fragments, averaging 81 mg per kg of sediment, which
they reported to be the direct result of shipbreaking (Reddy etal. 2006). It is thought that 1 to 2 per cent of the 6 million boats
maintained in Europe (i.e. at least 80,000) reach end-of-life eachyear, but that only around 2,000 are adequately dismantled(European Commission 2017) (Figure 7).
Marine litter and plastic pollution enter the oceans along
multiple pathways such as run-off over land, riverine flows,
wastewater and greywater flows, and airborne transport, as
well as directly from maritime operations (Figures 6 and 7)(Alomar et al. 2016; Nizzetto et al. 2016a; Nizzetto et al. 2016b;
Auta et al. 2017; Lebreton et al. 2017; Alimi et al. 2018; Hortonand Dixon 2018; Best 2019; Akarsu et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2020;
Birch et al. 2020; Peng, L. et al. 2020). Extreme events such
SYNTHESIS

15

Use of plastic in agriculture
per year

INTENTIONAL
The agricultural sector intentionally releases
microplastics from the use of controlled releasefertilizer, fertilizer additives, plastic-covered seeds
and encapsulated pesticides.

Wind tunnels, greenhouses and silage film

End-of-use

Biosolids
8-10
million tons

Plastic mulche.g. burned or left
to breakdown

UNINTENTIONAL

approx.
4 million tons

Wastewater

Biosolids containing microplastics
and fibres are used as fertilizers on
agriculture fields. Most microplastics are likely exported to theaquatic environment, while fibres
are retained in the soil.

Wastewater treatment plants area major source of microplastics,
nanoplastics and synthetic
microfibres. Biosolids fromwastewater treatment containlarge amounts of these.

Plastic film andmulch to coversoil and crops
Discarded
after use

Microplastics insoil run-off

Yield reduction
Plant growth is affected byresidual plastic in the soil.
Source: UNEP 2021.

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal/Studio Atlantis

Figure 6: Agricultural practices contributing to marine litter and plastic pollution

AQUACULTURE DEBRIS
The largest component ofaquaculture-related marine
litter wear and tear on
aquaculture installations.
The material lost depends
on culture systems,
construction quality,
vulnerability to damage, andmanagement practices.

The majority of marine litter fromaquaculture activities originates fromequipment damage caused by:• regular wear and tear• catastrophic weather events• accidents and conflicts• inadequate waste management• poor maintenance and improper installation.

Waste management
Lack of incentives to recycle or reuse gear
Inadequate reception and storage facilities
for waste and consignment
Lack of operators to handle waste or gear

Comparision of volumes
Single-use plastic products
15 604tons
Fishery andaquaculture-related litter

Comparison of the contribution offishing gear and aquaculture towaste and marine litter (netting andnon-netting) in European waters
with that of single-use plastic
products

14%
Beach surveys in aquaculture areas
show significant amounts of plastics inthe form of nets and cage structures,lines and floating raft structures, andpoles, bags, lines and plastic sheeting.

15%

In sea floor surveys litter fromaquaculture accounted for 15
per cent of found items.

Figure 7: Fisheries and aquaculture practices contributing to marine litter and plastic pollution
16

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

11 000tons

as floods, storms and tsunamis can also deliver significant
volumes of debris from coastal areas and accumulations oflitter from riverbanks, estuaries and shorelines (Werbowski
et al. 2021) and from damage to coastal infrastructure into
the oceans (NOAA 2015; Lusher 2017b; Murray et al. 2018;
GESAMP 2019). Surveys of seafloor debris have helped todetermine the most likely pathways taken by litter andmicroplastics by using brand labels to identify their age andmost likely sources (Cau 2019).
Once litter and microplastics have entered the marine
environment, their movement is controlled by ocean tides,
currents, waves and winds. In coastal areas tides interact withshoreline characteristics and move litter on- and offshore,depending on its chemical composition, surface charge, density,
size and shape (Mattsson et al. 2015; Chubarenko et al. 2016; Fazey
and Ryan 2016; Kooi et al. 2016; Pedrotti et al. 2016; Zhang 2017;
Alimi et al. 2018; Chubarenko et al. 2018; Dussud et al. 2018a,b;
Lebreton et al. 2018; Castro-Jiménez et al. 2019; Lebreton et al.
2019; Napper and Thompson 2019; Onink et al. 2019; Peng, G.
et al. 2020; van Sebille et al. 2020; Harris et al. 2021 ) (Figure 8).

Floating marine litter, including plastics, becomes caught
up in gyres and eddies; it can sink or float, depending
on fragmentation rates, density, wind and waves, andinteractions with marine organisms, and they accumulate inlarge offshore gyres (Cózar et al. 2014; Law et al. 2014; Duhecet al. 2015; Díaz-Torres et al. 2017; Imhof et al. 2017; Lavers
and Bond 2017; Collins and Hermes 2019; Lebreton et al. 2019;van der Mheen et al. 2019; Wichmann et al. 2019; Dunlop etal. 2020). Nearly half the total mass of plastics in sub-tropicaloffshore waters consists of macroplastic fragments older
than 15 years (Lebreton et al. 2019). Shore deposition is an
important process, as abrasion and fragmentation of plastics
causes microplastics to form and toxic chemical and heavy
metals from plastics to be released (Nakashima et al. 2016;
Lavers and Bond 2017).
While the pathways and fate of plastics are broadly understood,
the absolute volumes, especially of microplastics, are still
not well known due to poor sampling coverage and lack ofstandardized sampling protocols (Galgani et al. 2021; Harris etal. 2021). Current global estimates have thus been determined

CAPTURE FISHERIES DEBRISAn important factor
influencing the composition of benthic litter is thetype of activities carriedout in the vicinity

Fisheries management
Lack of incentives torecycle or reuse gear

Main drivers for ALDFG* are:• limited life span of some items used at sea• waste mismanagement• inadequate facilities for waste handling at sea• inadequate reception and storage facilities for waste and consignment• lack of operators to handle waste or gear• lack of incentives to recycle or reuse gear• accidental and sometimes irretrievable loss of discarded fishing gear

End-of-life for vessels and recreational boats
1-2 % of the 6 million boats maintained inEurope reach their end-of-life each year.
Approx. 80 000 vessels, of which
2 000 vessels wereregistered as
dismantled

Floating debris
At sea, 10 per cent of all worldwide
Port waste mismanagement
floating marine debris is lost or
discarded fishing gear.
Inadequate reception and Lack of operators to handle waste or
storage facilities for waste gear. Dumping at sea due to the10%
and consignment. high cost of waste handling in ports.

Potentially dumped at sea
Waste from ships, including fishing
30% vessels and recreational craft

Fisheries-related litter
The largest single
39% category by volume
found in beach litter

Source: UNEP 2021.

*ALDFG: Abandoned, Lost or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear
Illustrated by GRID-Arendal/Studio Atlantis

Figure 7 (continued)
SYNTHESIS

17

200
300

200
150

Shallow coastal environment

Wave-dominated estuary

7 000
Fjord

Beach sediments

Shelf mud belt

Tide-dominated estuary

CanyonFan system deposit

Weathering from
UV exposure

Drift deposit

Biofouling andbiologicaldegradation

Mechanical degradationfrom wave action

Microplastics
concentration*

Resuspension
in faeces

Particles per kiloHigher
1 000
200

Deep
water

Ingestion byzooplankton
and fishAggregation
andsedimentation

Microplastics concentration**
100 1 000

80

10 000 particles per kg

100

Lower

Plastic litter source* Limited data points** Based on 90 data points
Source: UNEP 2021.

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal© Shutterstock/Josephine Jullian

Figure 8: Natural processes affecting the distribution and fate of microplastics

primarily through modelling, based on proxies such as
population densities, rather than on direct measurements(Galgani et al. 2021). There can also be significant time intervals
between losses on land and accumulation in offshore waters
and deep-sea sediments; for example, plastics found floating
in some offshore gyres were produced several decades
previously (Kedzierski et al. 2018; Lebreton et al. 2019; vanSebille et al. 2020).
Regional hotspots for marine litter and microplastics havebeen identified where there is a potential for large-scale risks
to ecosystem functioning and human health. Examples include
the Mediterranean Sea, where large volumes are accumulating
because of its enclosed nature and the large quantities ofwaste flowing into it every year, posing risks to millions ofpeople living around the coastline (Dalberg Advisors, WWF
Mediterranean Marine Initiative 2019; Boucher and Bilard 2020);
the Arctic Ocean because of potential damage to its pristinenature and harm to iconic species and indigenous peoples
through the ingestion of plastics in the marine food chain andseafood (Sundet et al. 2016; Hallanger and Gabrielsen 2018;
Kanhai et al. 2018; Donohue et al. 2019; Kanhai et al. 2019); andthe East Asia and ASEAN region because of significant volumesof uncontrolled waste and an extensive coastline in proximity
to very large populations that are highly dependent on themarine environment for survival (Cai et al. 2017; Lyons et al
2019; Purba et al. 2019; Onda and Sharief 2021).

18

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

MEASURING AND MONITORING MARINE LITTER,
INCLUDING PLASTICS AND MICROPLASTICS

The main challenge now is the intercalibration of all techniques
in order to improve reliability and repeatability of results, so thatdata can be used for modelling and predicting the distribution

and quantities of marine litter and plastic pollution in different
habitats (Braun et al. 2018; GESAMP 2019; Maximenko et al.
2019). Scientists still have widespread concerns about samplingbiases among the different field and laboratory techniques for
identifying and determining the volume of microplastics in theenvironment. Intrinsic difficulties exist due to the high variability
in the size, shape, colour, and degree of degradation of plastics.
Without significant improvements in quality assurance andstandardization of sampling and analytical techniques, itwill remain difficult to harmonize published results and todemonstrate their reliability and repeatability.
Digital technologies, satellites, aircraft and drones, combinedwith shipborne sensors, samplers and autonomous platforms(e.g. floats, gliders, benthic landers and crawlers), ships-ofopportunity and modelling are opening up the possibility
for affordable global monitoring programmes to track anddetermine the densities of marine litter, notably plastics, fromrivers, coastal areas out into the open ocean and into the hadal
depths (Tekman et al. 2017; Zambianchi et al. 2017; Centurioni
et al. 2019; Franceschini et al. 2019; Maximenko et al. 2019;
Moltmann et al. 2019; Koelmans et al. 2019; Lebreton et al.

© Shutterstock/Haykirdi

There have been many improvements and modifications tolaboratory protocols, monitoring methods and surveying
techniques for marine litter and plastic pollution, in riverine,
atmospheric, shoreline, coastal and offshore environments(González-Fernández and Hanke 2017; Carvalho-Souza etal. 2018; Chiba et al. 2018; Galgani et al. 2018; GESAMP 2019;Karlsson et al. 2019; van Calcar and van Emmerik 2019; Enyohet al. 2019; GESAMP 2019; Prata et al. 2019; Schulz et al. 2019;
Stanton et al. 2019a; Forrest et al. 2020; UNEP 2020a,b,c).
Significant efforts have also been made to develop effective
sampling of microplastics, although the consistency between
different techniques has been questioned (Besley et al. 2017;
Costa and Duarte 2017; Lusher et al. 2017b; Blettler et al. 2018;
da Costa 2018; Borja and Elliott 2019; van Emmerik and Schwartz
2019; Koelmans et al. 2020; Ryan et al. 2020). Biotic sampling
has also improved with the development of different methods
to investigate dietary exposure to microplastics (Nelms et al.
2019b; Maes et al. 2020; Markic et al. 2020).

SYNTHESIS

19

MARINE LITTER ACTION COORDINATIONGEOGRAPHICAL RANGE

ACTIVITIESINCLUDES
CITIZENAPPLICATION AREA SCIENCE

GPML

Global Partnership on Marine Litter

Worldwide

yes

GEOSS

Global Earth Observation System of Systems’ Platform

Worldwide-

Living Atlas of the World

Worldwide

yes

ODIS

IOC Ocean data and information system

Worldwide-

ODP

Ocean Data Platform

Worldwide

yes

MDMAP

NOAA Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project

US west coast, Worldwide

yes

MSFD

Marine Strategy Framework Directive - EMODnet

European waters-

EMODnetEuropean Marine Observation and Data Network

European waters-

SeaDataNet

Pan-European infrastructure for ocean & marine data management

European waters-

Worldwide

yes-

DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORKS
TIDETrash Information and Data for Education and Solution-

LITTERBASEWorldwide

yes

Global Ghost Gear initiative - database and app

Worldwide

yes

GGGI
MEDITSWorldwide

yes

Mediterranean

-

US

yes

Resource Watch
International bottom trawl survey in the Mediterranean

LARGE-SCALE DATA REPOSITORY/PORTAL INITIATIVESCOASST-

Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team - Marine Debris

Pacific & Indian Oceans-

Pacific, Oceania

yes

DOME (Marine Environment) data portal - an ICES data portal

European waters1-

The Database of Trawl Surveys - an ICES data portal

European waters1-

Marine LitterWatch

European waters

yes

Deep-sea Debris Database - JAMSTEC*

AMDI

Australian Marine Debris initiative databaseDOME
DATRAS-

ACTIVITIES2
Data acqusition
Analysis

APPLICATION AREA2
Collection/compilation

Beach

Water column

Biological - ingested plastic

Coordination

Shoreline

Sea floor

Inland water bodies* Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
1 Baltic Sea, Skagerrak, Kattegat, North Sea, English Channel, Celtic Sea, Irish Sea, Bay of Biscay and the eastern Atlantic from the Shetlands to Gibraltar
2 Including but not limited to
Source: UNEP 2021.

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal

Figure 9: A selection of data coordination, collection, repository and portal initiatives
2019; Palatinus et al. 2019; Wichmann et al. 2019; Lebreton
et al. 2020; van Sebille et al. 2020). Although technologicalchallenges remain, the data coming from such platforms willbe especially important in determining volumes of marine
litter including plastics in surface waters, sediments andriverine discharges over large areas, particularly when usedwith ground calibration (Garaba et al. 2018; Martínez-Vicente
et al. 2019; Maximenko et al. 2019; van Sebille et al. 2020).
There are currently 15 major operational monitoring
programmes, in different geographical ranges, linked tothree types of activity: marine litter action coordination,
data collection frameworks, and large-scale data repositoryand portal initiatives (Maes et al. 2019). To date the data andinformation being collected remain largely unconnected
and fragmented, but efforts are under way to standardize
and harmonize collection, analysis and reporting methods(Maximenko et al. 2019; Michida et al. 2019) (Figure 9).
Alongside large-scale monitoring programmes, there areindicator processes and baseline data collection activities at
specific locations. These include programmes to meet the20

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

requirements of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs), for example SDG Indicator 14.1.1 (Index of eutrophicationand floating plastic debris density) (GESAMP 2019) and various
Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans with specific plans
for marine litter (see Annex 2). A growing number of networks,
citizen science projects and participatory processes involved inmeasuring and tackling marine litter and plastic pollution are
yielding results that can assist local decision-making (HidalgoRuiz and Thiel 2015; Wyles et al. 2016; González-Fernández and
Hanke 2017; Zettler et al. 2017; Kandziora et al. 2018; Rehn etal. 2018; Turrell 2019). The Global Partnership on Marine Litter(GPML) supports various efforts through the developmentof a multi-stakeholder digital platform,2 with the aims ofcompiling and crowd sourcing different resources includingfrom innovative sources; integrating data from source–to-sea
and throughout the plastic life cycle relevant to, for example,
SDGs 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), 11 (Sustainable Cities andCommunities), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)and 14 (Life Below Water); and connecting stakeholders in orderto guide and coordinate action.
2. https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org

TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR CERTIFICATION,
VERIFICATION, LABELLING AND TRACEABILITY
standards for the majority of unmanaged aquatic habitats, andlack of wider research on the biodegradation of plastic materials
under real-world conditions (Harrison et al. 2018).
In addition, there are very few verification schemes for the
manufacturing and processing of recyclates, and none that
require the listing of constituent polymers or chemical additives
in consumer products or provide traceability (UNEP and theInternational Trade Centre 2017). This lack of information
about recyclates is a barrier to increasing recycling rates andthe development of markets. Thus there is an urgent need to
improve the labelling standards and traceability of plastics. For
example, buying products designated as “made from ocean
plastic”, which are popular with consumers, will not keepplastics from entering the oceans.
The traceability of plastic products throughout their life cycle
is also vital to determine points where interventions are likely
to be most effective (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2016). Recent
advances have included the use of blockchain technologies totrace the chemicals added to plastics during production and theloss of materials along the supply chain (Roos et al. 2019).

© Shutterstock/DuxX

An important component in the management of marine litterand plastic pollution is the development of technical standards
for certification, labelling and verification processes. In the caseof beaches and coastal areas there are schemes such as the Blue
Flag Programme, Quality Coast Awards, Seaside Awards, Green
Coast Awards, and Bandera Azul Ecológica. For plastic products
there are a few internationally established and acknowledged
standards, and certification and verification schemes, for the
manufacturing and processing of plastics. They cover aspects ofbiodegradability, recycling and degradation during the industrial
composting process and in the marine environment (Harrison etal. 2018; UNEP 2018a; UNEP and Consumers International 2020).
Examples are International Organization for Standardization(ISO) standards ISO 15279 (recovery and recycling of plastic
waste); ISO 22526 (carbon and environmental footprint); ISO/
CD 22722 (disintegration of plastic materials in marine habitats);and ISO 18830 (biodegradation test). However, in a review of thebiodegradability of plastic bags current international standards
and regional test methods were shown to be insufficient in theirability to realistically predict the biodegradability of carrier bagsin wastewater, inland waters and marine environments due toshortcomings in existing test procedures, the absence of relevant

SYNTHESIS

21

CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES TO REDUCE
MARINE LITTER AND PLASTIC POLLUTION
Over the past four decades there has been a quadrupling of
global plastics production (Geyer 2020). Demand continues
to grow, with the size of the global plastic market in 2020
estimated to be around US$ 580 billion compared to an
estimated US$ 502 billion in 2016 (Statista 2021a). At the sametime, it is estimated that less than 10 per cent of the plastics
ever produced have been recycled (Dauvergne 2018; Zheng
and Suh 2019; Geyer 2020).

Concern by the general public, businesses and governments
is also growing (Avio et al. 2017; Borrelle et al. 2017; Maelandand Staupe-Delgado 2020), exacerbated by the volumes of© Shutterstock/Albert_Karimov

One of the main reasons for such a low recycling rate is lack of
information about the constituents of plastic products, with asubsequent loss of quality and value through mixing of waste
streams (Leslie et al. 2016; Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021).
This represents a loss in the value of packaging waste eachyear of some US$ 80-120 billion (Ellen MacArthur Foundation
2016). Ultimately it causes millions of tons of plastic waste to belost to the environment or shipped thousands of kilometres todestinations where the waste is generally burned or dumped inwaterways (UNEP 2019a).

Another challenge is the level of GHG emissions associated withthe global life cycle of conventional fossil fuel-based plastics;
in 2015 these were 1.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent(GtCO2e); they are projected to grow to approximately 6.5
GtCO2e by 2050, or 15 per cent of the global carbon budget(Zheng and Suh 2019). The other significant problem is thegrowing cost of managing plastic waste. It has been estimatedthat the global cost of municipal solid waste management
will grow from US$ 38 billion in 2019 to US$ 61 billion in 2040
under a business-as-usual scenario (Kaza et al. 2018). Even withincreased taxes and government regulations, constraints on
resources and reduced demand due to stockpiling (BusinessResearch Company 2020), annual ocean plastic pollution is
projected to triple by 2040 (The Pew Charitable Trusts and
SYSTEMIC 2020).

22

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

waste associated with the personal protective equipment
and other plastic items used during the COVID-19 pandemic(Adyel 2020).
While there is no single global treaty to reduce marine litterand plastic pollution (Muirhead and Porter 2019; Karasik
et al. 2020; Raubenheimer and Urho 2020), many global,
regional and national commitments and activities are helping
to mobilize the global community to bring an end to marine
plastic pollution (UNEP 2018b). For example, municipalities
and large firms have been reducing waste flows to landfills(Dauvergne 2018) and regulatory processes are expanding,driven by the growing evidence of the risks posed by plastics
and through public pressure (Koelmans et al. 2017a; GESAMP
2020a). There has also been an upsurge in local activism,
local government actions to increase kerbside collections
and recycling, community clean-ups and public awarenesscampaigns (Schneider et al. 2018). Successes at the local andnational levels are being supported by regional and national
legislative efforts which are already aiming to reduce marine
litter and plastic pollution directly (Black et al. 2019).
The various international commitments that do exist, include
those aimed at reducing plastic pollution and marine litter,
especially from land-based sources, for example as part ofthe 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goal 14), plus
international binding agreements, conventions, protocols,
initiatives and cooperation processes (United Nations General
Assembly 2015; UNEA 2017) (Figure 10). Among them are theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); theInternational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL), the London Convention on the Preventionof Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Mattersand the London Protocol preventing the dumping of waste
streams that contain plastic or similar synthetic materials
into the marine environment; the Basel Convention on theControl of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal; the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals
and Pesticides in International Trade; and the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) (Chen2015; Raubenheimer and McIlgorm 2018). In addition, there
are other international agreements and soft law instrumentsthat are applicable, as they relate to trade in plastics or support
the reduction of marine litter. They include the World Trade
Organization (WTO); the Convention on Biological Diversity;
the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals; theFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries and the United Nations Fish Stocks
Agreement; the Global Programme of Action for the Protectionof the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (UNEP/GPA 2020); the Honolulu Strategy; and the Strategic Approach
to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) (Lyons 2019;
Birkbeck 2020; Borrelle et al. 2020; The Pew Charitable Trusts
and SYSTEMIQ 2020).
Regional arrangements play a vital role in accelerating theuptake of policies and initiatives. Some of the most importantfor marine litter and plastics are the Regional Seas Conventions
and Action Plans,3 which include various measures to reduce
marine litter and plastic pollution, as well as monitoring andpublic awareness campaigns (UNEP 2018b). In Africa some
30 countries have agreed under the Bamako Convention,
the regional instrument related to the Basel, Rotterdam
and Stockholm Conventions, to strengthen managementof hazardous waste including plastics and electronic waste(e-waste). Some national actions can help reduce particular
types of plastic pollution (e.g. those specifically targeting
plastic grocery bags, products containing microbeads orplastic bottles, or anti-litter campaigns) (Xanthos and Walker
2017; Dauvergne 2018; Schuyler et al. 2018). In addition, Marine
Protected Areas and coastal zone management policies areimportant policy instruments for waste abatement, especially
if implemented on a catchment-wide or ecosystem basis(Windsor et al. 2019).
Overall, the current situation is a mixture of widely varying
business practices, increasing levels of plastic production, andvery different national regulatory and voluntary arrangements.
There is little policy coordination among countries and nationaland subnational policies are uneven, with loopholes, erratic
implementation and inconsistent standards (Dauvergne 2018;
Forrest et al. 2019; Birkbeck 2020). Increasing quantities of
discarded plastic waste are the product of multiple market
failures linked to the low price of fossil fuel feedstocks, thepresence of subsidies, poor waste management, low generation
and uptake of plastic recyclates, and widespread use and throw
away behaviour (Law 2017; UNEP 2019b; Borrelle et al. 2020; The
Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020).
As the pressures and complexities of tackling the marine litterand plastic pollution crisis mount up, there is a need to address
them through a governance process that takes account of theseriousness of the situation and helps to contextualize theproblem globally (Borrelle et al. 2017; Dauvergne 2018; Schneider
et al. 2018; Forrest et al. 2019; Maeland and Staupe-Delgado2020). However, none of the international policies agreed since2000 includes a global, binding, specific, measurable target
limiting marine litter and plastic pollution, leading to calls bysome governments, businesses and civil society for a binding
global treaty on marine litter and plastic pollution (Muirhead
and Porter 2019; Karasik et al. 2020; Raubenheimer and Urho
2020; WWF, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and BCG 2021).
No single-solution strategy can reduce the annual leakageof plastics to the ocean, even to below 2016 levels, by 2040
(Borrelle et al. 2020; Lau et al. 2020); rather, a number ofsynergistic system interventions will be needed both upstream
and downstream (The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ
2020). For example, in the absence of any pricing policies
for plastic waste (Matheson 2019) various fiscal instruments,
such as taxes, fees and charges, deposit-refund schemes,
extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, tradeable
3. Some of the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans have specific plans on
marine litter, as have other actors. See Annex II.

SYNTHESIS

23

permit schemes and subsidies can be used by governments toenhance waste management (Xanthos and Walker 2017; OECD
2019; Parts 2019; Walker et al. 2020). These instruments mayneed to be adapted to address plastics. For example, EPR is
widely considered a cornerstone of waste policy (Filho et al.
2019), but the key to its use in reducing plastic waste will be
to incentivize industry to increase recyclability and ecodesign(Forrest et al. 2019). A step towards this goal could be madethrough greater disclosure about the resins, chemicals andadditives used in plastic products, and guidance for consumers
and waste brokers on their safe reuse or disposal.

Concerted efforts at many levels will be needed to move towards
circularity with respect to plastics (IRP 2021). These efforts
will need to be contextualized and to link business processes
and social awareness with policies and consumer actions tosignificantly reduce the volume of fossil fuel-based plastics
being produced; improve the design of products to reduce levelsof waste; enhance decentralized recycling of materials (Joshi etal. 2019); eliminate unnecessary, avoidable and problematic
plastic waste streams; and improve standards for the regulationof materials such as biodegradable plastics (Dauvergne 2018;
Carney Almroth and Eggert 2019; Forrest et al. 2019; Zheng and
Suh 2019; Borrelle et al. 2020; Lau et al. 2020; The Pew Charitable
Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020; UNEP and Consumers International
2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2021; IRP 2021).

Overall reductions in the total amount of plastic pollution
generated will mean phasing out specific plastic products,
introducing EPR, and reshaping the established linear takemake-dispose economy to one in which material flows are partof closed-loop, resource-efficient, or circularity approaches(European Commission 2018b; Lieder and Rashid 2015; OECD
2016; European Union 2019b; Forrest et al. 2019; UNEP 2019a;
Karasik et al. 2020; Raubenheimer and Uhro 2020).

First reports ofadverse impacts ofmarine plastic debris
on marine species

RAMSAR Convention

1960

1971 1972 1973 1974

Convention on theConservation ofMigratory Species ofWild Animals (CMS)

London (Dumping)
Convention

MARPOL Convention

1978 1979

Applicable but not
specific to marine
debris and plastic

Rio+20 commitment The Future We Want

UNICPOLOS on “Marine
Debris, Plastics andMicroplastics”

Manila Declaration

G7 Action Plan to
Combat Marine Litter

2010

2013

2011

2012

2014

2015

2016

UN Environmental
Fifth International Assembly (UNEA) -1
Marine Debris
SDG Target 14.1
Conference
UNEA-2
Plastics in the ocean
Marineplastic
debrisraised as emerging issue
and microplastics
in UNEP Year Book
(UNEP 2016)
Source: UNEP 2021.

GlobalProgramme of
Action (GPA)

Second International
Conference on Marine
Debris (Honolulu)
1984

1989

1992

1994 1995 1996

Fourth International
Conference on Marine
Debris (Honolulu)

2000 2001

Sixth International Marine Debris Conference
G7 Ocean Plastics Charter
AHEG 1 & 2 (Ad-hoc open-ended expert group)
IMO Action Plan to Address
Marine Plastic Litter from Ships
Basel Convention Amendments
FAO Voluntary Guidelines for
the Marking of Fishing Gear
AHEG-3
G20 Implementation Framework
UNEA-3for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter
2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

The Marine Environment
Protection Committee
agreed actions to becompleted by 2025

2023

UNEA-4 AHEG-4
UNEA-5,First UN Ocean
UNEA-5, part 2
UN OceanConference onpart 1
Conference
SDG 14
From
Pollution
toG7 Bologna Roadmap
Solution - A global
Guidelines for theassessment of marine
Implementation oflitter and plastic
MARPOL Annex V
pollution, UNEP, 2021
G20 Action Plan on Marine Litter

Figure 10: Timeline for selected international marine litter and plastic pollution initiatives, laws and policies
24

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

2005

StockholmFirst Honolulu Basel Convention
LondonProtocolConvention
on First UN General
Conference on
on Persistent Assembly
Marine Debris Third International
Organic
Resolution referring
Conference
United Nations
Pollutants
to the issue ofonMarineDebrisConvention(POPs)
marine debris'(Miami)on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS)CBD - impacts of marine debris
and anthropogenic underwater
noise on marine and coastal
biodiversity

Global Partnership on
Marine Litter (GPML)

Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD)
Basel Ban
Amendment

MARPOL Protocol

UNEP Regional Seas
Programme launched

Marine litter andplastic specific

1982

Changing attitudes to the problems caused by plastic pollution
are causing politicians and industries to consider ways topromote ways to keep the value of plastics in the economy
through feedstock substitution and expansion of consumer
reuse options (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2016; UNEP and the

2024

2025

2026

Commitment to asignificant reductionof marine debris(SDG 14.1)

Illustrated by GRID-Arendal

© Shutterstock/vovashevchukInternational Trade Centre 2017; ten Brink et al. 2018; Borrelle etal. 2020; Lau et al. 2020; The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIC
2020; UNEP and Consumers International 2020). Many global
brand companies have already put in place plans to change
their approaches to packaging use, consistent with nationallevel collection and recycling schemes, and make all packaging
reusable, renewable or recyclable. Partnerships such as the Basel
Plastic Waste Partnership, the Global Partnership on Marine
Litter, the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment and the
National Plastic Action Partnerships can help move economies
and societies in this direction by showing that recycling works,
for example, by making used plastic a valuable commodity,
incentivizing recovery, and accelerating the industrializationof polymer-to-polymer technologies (Forrest et al. 2019; Ellen
MacArthur Foundation 2020).
Several initiatives aim to “turn off the tap” regarding virginplastic production (Birkbeck 2020; Borrelle et al. 2020; The Pew
Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020) through elimination,
expansion of consumer reuse options, or new delivery models,
implemented in conjunction with other strategies such as
substitution, improving collection and recycling, and secure
disposal of residual waste for maximum reduction of plastic
pollution flows. Such initiatives may offer the largest reductionsof plastic pollution; they can represent a net savings in costs
to consumers and producers while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions (The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020).
Some actions, such as increasing the volume of bio-based

products, may involve heavy reliance on agriculture (Posen etal. 2017; Spierling et al. 2018). Alternatively, green chemistry canhelp provide significant improvements in materials that are notfossil fuel-based through the design of molecules, materials andproducts that are more easily recycled and up-cycled than thosecurrently on the market (UNEP 2021).
The production of hundreds of different plastic polymers andproducts complicates the recycling potential of plastics (Geyer
et al. 2016; Zink et al. 2018). The current level of recycling(less than 10 per cent of all plastic waste) is well below global
recycling rates for other commodities and resources (Dauvergne
2018; Geyer 2020). Plastic recycling is currently carried out using
mechanical and chemical processes. Mechanical recycling
is used for non-fibre plastics and, increasingly, for recycled
polyester yarns. Chemical recycling, which combines various
plastic-to-fuel and plastic-to-plastic technologies, turns plastics
into liquids or gases which can be used to make new plastics.
Most recycled nylon comes from manufacturing waste andpost-consumer waste, such as fishing nets and carpets.
Even if it were scaled up, it would address only a small percentageof the total volume of waste and has high energy requirements(The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ 2020).
Although research on all aspects of marine litter and plastic
pollution is growing rapidly, Maes et al. (2019) conclude thatmuch of this research is still “in its adolescence”. They found that
SYNTHESIS

25

risk assessment, plastic fragmentation and assessment tools
were under-represented. This is particularly important where
uncertainties exist such as the potential risks from chemicals
associated with plastics (Burns and Boxall 2018), intercalibrationof methods and technologies is needed, or integrative
approaches are required (Temmerman et al. 2013). There is alsoa need for research to provide answers and inputs to policy
analyses and assessments, based on evidence and rigorous risk
assessments that are fit-for-purpose (Hurley and Nizzetto 2018;
Besselling et al. 2019; Karn and Jenkinson 2019; Maeland andStaupe-Delgado 2020).

• Definition of core sets of indicators, from source to sea, acrossthe Drivers Pressures State Impacts Response framework inorder to monitor progress on the reduction of marine litterand plastic pollution;

Overall, the current state of knowledge can provide a reasonablebasis upon which to identify research priorities in general, as
well as to identify areas where there has been limited researchand development funding despite policy and societal needs(de Sá et al. 2018; Carney Almroth and Eggert 2019; Maes et al.
2019). Addressing marine litter and plastic pollution requires
multidisciplinary, integrated research coupled with wide
cooperation among academic researchers and professionals
from different specialist areas and industry.

• Green chemistry innovation to minimize the use of additives
and develop alternative polymers and materials including biobased ones, based on a full life cycle approach, that are safer
and more easily disposed of or recycled, and development ofpathways for switching to alternatives;

Based on the findings of the assessment, a number of systemicareas can be identified that would benefit from further
investigation. They include cross-cutting issues such as genderand intersectionality (age, marginalized and vulnerable groups),
especially in relation to exposure, health effects, attitudes to
new innovative technologies and ocean literacy, where there
has been virtually no research published in the peer reviewed
literature, plus the following:• Development of small-scale waste management andrecycling technologies that can be located close to sources ofplastics waste to help avoid or reduce plastics leakage into theenvironment;• Evaluation of the full life cycle for key plastic products,
including environmental and health impacts of marine
plastics, microplastics and nanoplastics, social and economic
costs, loss of ecosystem services, potential implications of
new materials, gendered impacts of plastics and alternatives,
and risks and impacts of chemicals associated with plastics infood production, aquaculture, agriculture and food safety;• Development of a risk framework, based on a full life cycle formarine litter and plastic pollution from source to sea, covering
ecological, social, economic and health effects;• Definition of the health and toxicological criteria and testingneeded to establish the exposure of humans and wildlife tomicroplastics in aquatic environments;• Implementation of open access platforms to enable global
mass balance modelling of marine litter and plastics
and the fluxes and flows of plastics entering the marine
environment from rivers, wastewater treatment plants,
waste management, storm sewers as a result of catastrophic
events, and maritime sectors;

26• Establishment of informatics and harmonized monitoring
frameworks, including standard methodologies for sampling,laboratory testing and data collection, to quantify the fluxes
and flows of plastics into the environment, the distribution ofplastics and microplastics, and the toxicology of microplastics
and additives in the environment emanating from plastic
pollution, in order to be able to measure the effectiveness andimpacts of different interventions and mitigation efforts;

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION• Development of ecodesign principles across all major use
sectors where plastics are used extensively, and developmentof cost roadmaps;• Development of standards for plastic certification, traceability
and labelling schemes for all plastics linked to consumer use,
including biodegradability;• Policy research on effective measures to reduce plastics including
microplastics, such as extended producer responsibility (EPR)
schemes, reinforcement of fiscal instruments, standards forplastic certification, traceability and labelling schemes for all
plastics used by consumers, and encouraging ecodesign andgreen chemistry to develop new materials;• Assessment of social issues related to marine litter and plastic
pollution, including gender, consumer perceptions and social
drivers, integrating a human rights-based approach that includes
meaningful public participation and access to remedies;• Development of literacy and educational programmes to raiseawareness of the issue of marine litter and plastic pollution
and to help change human behaviours towards those that
reduce mismanagement of plastic waste;• Behavioural economics and education research on nudges,
norms and educational processes beyond knowledge
acquisition to influence behavioural changes.

CONCLUSION
Finding solutions to the problem of marine litter and plastic
pollution, requires greater engagement by civil society,businesses, industries and governments to bring about necessarychanges in policies, attitudes and practices (Uyarra and Borja 2016;
Hartley et al. 2018b; Ashley et al. 2019). Citizens continue to havea major role to play, including by taking action and changing theirown behaviours in order to substantially reduce marine litter andplastic pollution. The businesses and industries in which changes

will be needed include oil and gas extractors and plastic resin
producers, extruders and product manufacturers, automotive
manufacturers and textile manufacturers, consumer productcompanies, packaging companies, retailers, waste hauliers andlandfillers, materials recovery operators, waste brokers andrecyclers. Policymakers have the opportunity to create the rightmix of legislative and fiscal instruments to incentivize greater
disclosure, support data sharing and transparency, provide
financing, establish a transparent and effective regulatoryenvironment, and support research and development to address
the challenge of marine litter and plastic pollution.

© Shutterstock/Itsanan Sampuntarat

This report, emphasizes the urgent need for action on all levels
to address the issue of marine litter and plastic pollution

SYNTHESIS

27

ANNEX I: RATIONALE
The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) has adopted several
key resolutions on marine litter and plastic pollution, at its meetings.4
In 2016 UNEP published a report, Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics– Global Lessons and Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change(UNEP 2016). This report focused on identifying the key sources andpathways, along with possible measures and the best available techniquesand environmental practices to prevent marine litter and microplastics
accumulation in the marine environment.
In 2019 the Executive Director of UNEP was requested to “strengthenscientific and technological knowledge with regard to marine litter
including marine plastic litter and microplastics” by providing an updateto the 2016 assessment based on “available scientific and other relevant
data and information… on sources, pathways and hazards of litter,
including plastic litter and microplastics pollution, and its presencein rivers and oceans; scientific knowledge about adverse effects on

ecosystems and potential adverse effects on human health; andenvironmentally sound technological innovations”.
The new 2021 assessment, From Pollution to Solution: A Global Assessmentof Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution, examines the magnitude andseverity of the problem and reviews existing solutions and actions. It
provides a comprehensive update on current research and knowledge
gaps concerning direct impacts on marine life, the risks posed toecosystems and human health, and social and economic costs. The
assessment describes and quantifies, where possible, the sources ofmarine litter and plastic pollution and their direct and indirect pathways
into and within the oceans, citing improvements in monitoring systems,
observation technologies and analytical methods. An overview ispresented of the potential effectiveness of different actions and policies,
including remedial processes, and a range of economic, technologicaland legislative solutions.

4. UNEP/EA.1/Res.6: Marine plastic debris and microplastics (2014); UNEP/EA.2/Res.11: Marine plastic litter and microplastics (2016); UNEP/EA.3/Res.7: Marine litter andmicroplastics (2017); UNEP/EA.4/Res.6: Marine plastic litter and microplastics (2019); UNEP/EA.4/Res.9: Addressing single-use plastic products pollution (2019).

28

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

ANNEX II: REGIONAL ACTION PLANS ON MARINE LITTER5
Name

Organization/entity

Year

Link

Regional Action Plan on Marine
Litter in the Arctic

Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment(PAME)

2021

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/10017

Regional Action Plan for Marine
Litter in the Baltic Sea

Helsinki Convention/Baltic Marine
Environment Protection Commission(HELCOM)

2015

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/197

Black Sea Marine Litter Regional
Action Plan

Bucharest Convention/Commission theProtection of the Black Sea Against Pollution

2018

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/194

Regional Action Plan on
Marine Litter

Coordinating Body for the Seas of East Asia
(COBSEA)

2019

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/196

Regional Plan on Marine
Litter Management in the
Mediterranean

Convention for the Protection of theMediterranean Sea Against Pollution(Barcelona Convention)/Mediterranean
Action Plan2013

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/198

Regional Action Plan for Prevention
and Management of Marine
Litter in the North-East Atlantic

OSPAR Commission / Convention for theProtection of the Marine Environment of theNorth-East Atlantic

2014

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/201

NOWPAP Regional Action Plan
on Marine Litter

Northwest Pacific Action Plan(NOWPAP)2008(update expected 2021)

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/200

Pacific Regional Action Plan –Marine Litter (2018-2025)

Noumea Convention/Secretariat of the
Pacific Regional Environment Programme(SPREP)2018https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/205

Regional Action Plan for the
Sustainable Management ofMarine Litter in the Red Sea andGulf of Aden

Regional Organization for the Conservationof the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulfof Aden (PERSGA)

2018

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/203

Regional Marine Litter Action
Plan for South Asia Seas Region

South Asia Co-operative Environment
Programme (SACEP)

2019

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/204

Basura Marina en la Region delPacifico Sudeste

Permanent Commission for the South Pacific(CPPS)

2007https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/238

Western Indian Ocean Regional
Action Plan on Marine Litter

Nairobi Convention

2018

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/199

Regional Action Plan on Marine
Litter Management for the Wider
Caribbean Region

Cartagena Convention – UNEP Caribbean
Environment Programme (CEP)

2014https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/195

ASEAN Regional Action Plan for
Combating Marine Debris in the
ASEAN Member States

Association of Southeast Asia Nations(ASEAN)2021

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/10008

G7 Action Plan to Combat
Marine Litter

Group of 72015

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/190

G20 Action Plan on
Marine Litter

Group of 20

2017https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/191

Action Plan to Address Marine
Plastic Litter from Ships

International Maritime Organization
(IMO)

2018

https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
action_plan/237

APEC Roadmap on
Marine Debris

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation(APEC)

2019https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/
project/177

5. The development of draft Regional Action Plans on Marine Litter is under way in the Caspian, Northeast Pacific, and Western, Central and South Africa regions.

SYNTHESIS

29

REFERENCES
Aanesen, M., Armstrong, C., Czajkowski, M., Falk-Petersen, J., Hanley, N. andNavrud, S. (2015). Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: Preserving
cold-water coral in Norway. Ecological Economics 112, 53-67. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.007. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Andrades, R., Martins, A.S., Fardim, L.M., Ferreira, J.S. and Santos, R.G. (2016).
Origin of marine debris is related to disposable packs of ultra-processed
food. Marine Pollution Bulletin 109(1), 192-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.05.083. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Accinnelli, C. Abbas, H.W., Shier, W.T., Vicari, A., Little, N.S. et al. (2019).
Degradation of microplastic seed film-coating fragments in soil. Chemospehere
226 645-650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.161

Arias-Andres, M., Klümper, U., Rojas-Jimenez, K. and Grossart, H.P. (2018).
Microplastics pollution increases gene exchange in aquatic ecosystems.
Environmental Pollution 237, 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2018.02.058. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Adam, V., Yang, T. and Nowack, B. (2019). Toward an ecotoxicological risk
assessment of microplastics: Comparison of available hazard and exposure
data in freshwaters. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 38(2), 436447. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4323. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Adimey, N., Hudak, C., Powell, J.R., Bassos-Hull, K., Foley, A., Farmer, N.A. et
al. (2014). Fishery gear interactions from stranded bottlenose dolphins,
Florida manatees and sea turtles in Florida, U.S.A. Marine Pollution Bulletin81(1), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.008. Accessed
11 January 2021.
Adyel, T.M. (2020). Accumulation of plastic waste during COVID-19. Science369(6509), 1314-1315. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9925. Accessed
11 January 2021.
Akarsu, C., Kumbura, H., Gökdağb, K., Kıdeyş, A.E. and Sanchez-Vidal,
A. (2020). Microplastics composition and load from three wastewater
treatment plants discharging into Mersin Bay, north eastern Mediterranean
Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 150, 110776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.110776. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Aliani, S., and Molcard, A. (2003). Hitch-hiking on floating marine debris:
Macrobenthic species in the western Mediterranean Sea. Hydrobiologia
503,
59-67.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HYDR.0000008480.95045.26.
Accessed 11 January 2021.
Alimba, C.G. and Faggio. C. (2019). Microplastics in the marine environment:
Current trends in environmental pollution and mechanisms of toxicological
profile. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 68, 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2019.03.001. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Alimi, O.S., Budarz, J.F., Hernandez, M.L. and Tufenkji, N. (2018). Microplastics
and nanoplastics in aquatic environments: Aggregation, deposition, andenhanced contaminant transport. Environmental Science and Technology
52, 1704-1724. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b05559.
Accessed 11 January 2021.
Alomar, C., Estarellas, F. and Deudero, S. (2016). Microplastics in the
Mediterranean Sea: Deposition in coastal shallow sediments, spatial variationand preferential grain size. Marine Environmental Research 115, 1-10.
Alomar, C. and Deudero. S. (2017). Evidence of microplastic ingestion in the
shark Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810 in the continental shelf off thewestern Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Pollution 223, 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.015. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Alvarez-Zeferino, J.C., Beltrán-Villavicencio, M. and Vázquez-Morillas,
A. (2015). Degradation of plastics in seawater in laboratory. Open
Journal of Polymer Chemistry 5 (4), 55-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/
ojpchem.2015.54007. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Amaral-Zettler, L.A., Zettler, E.R., and Mincer, T.J. (2020). Ecology of theplastisphere. Nature Reviews in Microbiology 18, 139-151. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41579-019-0308-0 Accessed 20 January 2021
American Chemistry Council (2020).The Roadmap to Reuse.Plastic Solutions
for America 2020. American Chemistry Council. https://www.plasticmakers.
org/advocacy/roadmap-to-reuse-2020-report. Accessed 13 July 2021.
Anbumani, S. and Kakkar, P. (2018). Ecotoxicological effects of microplastics
on biota: A review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25,
14373-14396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1999-x. Accessed 11
January 2021.
30

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

Arias, A.H., Ronda, A.C., Oliva, A.L. and Marcovecchio, J.E. (2019). Evidence of
microplastic ingestion by fish from the Bahía Blanca estuary in Argentina,
South America. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
102(6), 750-756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-019-02604-2. Accessed
11 January 2021.
Arthur, C., Baker, J., Bamford, H., Barnea, N., Lohmann, R., McElwee, K.
et al. (2009). Summary of the international research workshop on theoccurrence, effects, and fate of microplastics marine debris. In Proceedingsof the International Research Workshop of the Occurrence, Effects, andFate of Microplastics Marine Debris, 9-11 September 2009. Arthur, C., Baker,
J. and Bamford, H. (eds.). Silver Spring, MD: United States National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration. 7-17. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/
proceedings-international-research-workshop-microplastic-marinedebris. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Ashbullby, K.J., Pahl, S., Webley, P. and White, M.P. (2013). The beach as asetting for families’ health promotion: A qualitative study with parents andchildren living in coastal regions in Southwest England. Health and Place
23, 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.06.005. Accessed
11 January 2021.
Ashley, M., Pahl, S., Glegg, G. and Fletcher, S. (2019). A change of mind:
Applying social and behavioural research methods to the assessment of
the effectiveness of ocean literacy initiatives. Frontiers in Marine Science 6,228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00288. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Ashton, K., Holmes, L. and Turner, A. (2010). Association of metals withplastic production pellets in the marine environment. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 60(11), 2050-2055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.07
014. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) (2017). Capacity Building for
Marine Debris Prevention and Management in the APEC Region. Singapore:
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat. https://www.apec.org/
Publications/2017/12/Capacity-Building-for-Marine-Debris-Preventionand- Management-in-the-APEC-Region. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Au, S.Y., Bruce, T.F., Bridges, W.C. and Klaine, S.J. (2015). Responses of
Hyalella azteca to acute and chronic microplastic exposures. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 34(11), 2564-2572. https://doi.org/10.1002/
etc.3093. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Auta, H.S., Emenike, C.U. and Fauziah, S. H. (2017). Distribution and importanceof microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the sources, fate,effects, and potential solutions. Environment International 102, 165-176.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Avio, C.G., Gorbi, S. and Regoli, F. (2017). Plastics and microplastics in theoceans: From emerging pollutants to emerged threat. Marine Environmental
Research 126, 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.05.012.
Accessed 11 January 2021.
Backhaus, T. and Wagner, M. (2019). Microplastics in the environment:
Much ado about nothing? A debate. Global Challenges 4(6), 1900022.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201900022. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Bagaev, A., Mizyuk, A., Khatmullina, L., Isachenko, I., and Chubarenko,
I. (2017). Anthropogenic fibres in the Baltic Sea water column: Field
data, laboratory and numerical testing of their motion. Scienceof the Total Environment, 599, 560-571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.04.185. Accessed 11 January 2021

Bakir, A., O’Connor, I.A., Rowland, S.J., Hendriks, A.J. and Thompson, R.C.
(2016). Relative importance of microplastics as a pathway for the transfer
of hydrophobic organic chemicals to marine life. Environmental Pollution
219, 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.046. Accessed 11
January 2021.
Ballesteros, L.V., Matthews, J.L. and Hoeksema, B.W. (2018). Pollution andcoral damage caused by derelict fishing gear on coral reefs around Koh
Tao, Gulf of Thailand. Marine Pollution Bulletin 135, 1107-1116. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.033. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Battisti, C., Staffieri, E., Poeta, G., Sorace, A., Luiselli, L. and Amori, G. (2019).
Interactions between anthropogenic litter and birds: A global review witha ‘black-list’ of species. Marine Pollution Bulletin 138, 93-114. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.017. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Beaumont, N.J., Aanesen, M., Austen, M.C., Börger, T., Clark, J.R., Cole, M.
et al. (2019). Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine
plastic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 142, 189-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.03.022. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Beckwith, V. K., and Fuentes, M. M. (2018). Microplastic at nesting
grounds used by the northern Gulf of Mexico loggerhead recovery
unit. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 131, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.04.001 Accessed June 9 2021

Borrelle, S.B., Rochman, C., Liboironc, M., Bond, A.L., Lusher, A., Bradshaw,
H. et al. (2017). Why we need an international agreement on marine plastic
pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(38), 99949997. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714450114. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Borrelle, S.B., Ringma, J., Law, K.L., Monnahan, C.C., Lebreton, L., McGiverb,
A. et al. (2020). Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate
plastic pollution. Science 369(6510), 1515-1518. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aba3656. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Boucher, J. and Friot, D. (2017). Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global
Evaluation of Sources. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/
library/files/documents/2017-002-En.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Boucher, J. and Bilard, G. (2020). The Mediterranean: Mare plasticum.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x+62 pp https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/
library/files/documents/2020-030-En.pdf Accessed 30 June 2021
Bradney, L., Wijesekara, H., Palansooriya, K.N., Obadamudalige, N., Bolan,
N.S., Ok, Y.S. et al. (2019). Particulate plastics as a vector for toxic traceelement uptake by aquatic and terrestrial organisms and human healthrisk. Environment international 131, 104937.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2019 104937. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Belzagui, F., Crespi, M., Álvarez, A., Gutiérrez-Bouzán, C. and Vilaseca,M. (2019).
Microplastics’ emissions: Microfibres’ detachment from textile garments.
Environmental Pollution 248, 1028-1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2019.02.059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.02.059. Accessed
11 January 2021.

Braun, U., Jekel, M., Gerdts, G., Ivleva, N. P. and Reiber, J. (2018). Microplastics
Analytics. Sampling, Preparation and Detection Methods. Discussion Paper
within the scope of the research of the Bundesministerium für Bildung und
Forschung. Plastics in the Environment: Sources, Sinks, Solutions. Berlin.
https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/publication/2018/discussion_paper_
mp_analytics_en.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Besley, A., Vijver, M.G., Behrens, P. and Bosker, T. (2017). A standardized
method for sampling and extraction methods for quantifying microplastics
in beach sand. Marine Pollution Bulletin 114(1), 77-83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.055. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Brennecke, D., Ferreira, E.C., Costa, T.M., Appel, D., da Gama, B.A. and Lenz, M.
(2015). Ingested microplastics (>100 μm) are translocated to organs of thetropical fiddler crab Uca rapax. Marine Pollution Bulletin 96(1-2), 491-495.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.05.001. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Besseling, E., Redondo-Hasselerharm, P., Foekema, E.M. and Koelmans, A.A.
(2019). Quantifying ecological risks of aquatic micro-and nanoplastic. Critical
Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 49(1), 32-80. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1531688. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Brooks, A.L., Wang, S. and Jambeck, J.R. (2018). The Chinese import ban andits impact on global plastic waste trade. Science Advances 4(6), eaat0131.
http://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat0131. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Best, J. (2019). Anthropogenic stresses on the world’s big rivers. Nature
Geoscience12(1),7-21.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0262-x.
Accessed 11 January 2021.

Brouwer, R., Hadzhiyska, D., Ioakeimidis, C. and Ouderdorp, H. (2017).
The social costs of marine litter along European coasts. Ocean
and Coastal Management 138, 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2017.01.011. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Birch, Q.T., Potter, P.M., Pinto, P.X., Dionysiou, D.D. and Al-Abed, S.R. (2020).
Sources, transport, measurement and impact of nano and microplastics inurban watersheds. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology
19, 275-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-020-09529-x. Accessed
11January 2021.

Browne, M.A., Dissanayake, A., Galloway, T.S., Lowe, D.M. and Thompson,
R.C. (2008). Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory
system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.). Environmental Science andTechnology 42(13), 5026-5031. https://doi.org/10.1021/es800249a.
Accessed 11 January 2021.

Birkbeck, C.D. (2020). Strengthening International Cooperation to Tackle Plastic
Pollution: Options for the WTO. Global Governance Brief No. 01. Graduate
Institute Geneva, Global Governance Centre. https://static1.squarespace.
com/static/5b0520e5d274cbfd845e8c55/t/5e25683a556e15498ad1e7
3f/1579509842688/Plastic_Trade_WTO_Final.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Bucci, K., Tulio, M. and Rochman, C.M. (2019). What is known and unknown
about the effects of plastic pollution: A meta‐analysis and systematic
review. Ecological Applications 30(2), e02044. https://doi.org/10.1002/
eap.2044. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Black, J.E., Kopke, K. and O’Mahony, C. (2019). A trip upstream tomitigate marine plastic pollution – a perspective focused on the MSFD
and WFD. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2019.00689. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Cai, L., Wang, J., Peng, J., Tan, Z., Zhan, Z., Tan, X. et al. (2017). Characteristics
of microplastics in the atmospheric fallout from Dongguan city, China:
Preliminary research and first evidence. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research 24(32), 24928-24935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356019-06979-x. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Blettler, M.C., Abrial, E., Khan, F.R., Sivri, N. and Espinola, L.A. (2018).
Freshwater plastics pollution: Recognizing research biases and identifying
knowledge gaps. Water Research 143, 416-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.06.015. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Campanale, C., Suaria, G., Bagnuolo, G., Baini, M., Galli, M., de Rysky, E.
et al. (2019). Visual observations of floating macro litter around Italy(Mediterranean Sea). Mediterranean Marine Science 20, 271-281. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.19054. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Börger, C.M., Lattin, G.L., Moore, S.L. and Moore, C.J. (2010). Plastic
ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central gyre.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(12), 2275-2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2010.08.007. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Carney Almroth, B. and Eggert, H. (2019). Marine plastics pollution: Sources,
impacts and policy issues. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy
13, 317-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez012. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Borja, A.M. and Elliott, J. (2019). So when will we have enough papers on
microplastics and ocean litter? Marine Pollution Bulletin 146, 312-316.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.069. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Carson, H.S., Colbert, S.L., Kaylor, M.J. and McDermid, K.J. (2011). Small
plastics debris changes water movement and heat transfer throughbeach sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(8), 1708-1713. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.032. Accessed 12 January 2021.
SYNTHESIS

31

Carson, H.S., Nerheim, M.S., Carroll, K.A. and Eriksen, M. (2013). The plasticassociated microorganisms of the North Pacific gyre. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 75(1-2), 126-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.054.
Accessed 12 January 2021.

Costa, M.F. and Duarte, A.C. (2017). Microplastics sampling and sample
handling. In Comparative Analytical Chemistry 75. Rocha-Santos,
T.A.P. and Duarte, A.C. (eds.). Elsevier. 25-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/
bs.coac.2016.11.002. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Carvalho-Souzaa, G.F., Llope, M., Tinôco, M.S., Medeiros, D.V., MaiaNogueira, R. and Sampaio, C.L.S. (2018). Marine litter disrupts ecologicalprocesses in reef systems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133, 464-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.049. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I.,
Farber, S. et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services.
Global Environmental Change 26, 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2014.04.002. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Castro-Jiménez, J., González-Fernández, D., Fornier, M., Schmidt,
N. and Sempere, R. (2019). Macro- litter in surface waters from theRhone River: Plastics pollution and loading to the NW Mediterranean
Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 146, 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.05.067. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Cowger, W., Gray, A.B. and Schult, R.C. (2019). Anthropogenic littercleanups in Iowa riparian areas reveal the importance of near-stream andwatershed scale land use. Environmental Pollution 250, 981- 989. http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.052. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Cau, A., Bellodi, A., Moccia, D., Mulas, A., Porcu, C., Pusceddu, A. et al.
(2019). Shelf-life and labels: A cheap dating tool for seafloor macro litter?
Insights from MEDITS surveys in Sardinian sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin
14, 430-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.004. Accessed 12
January 2021.
Centurioni, L., Chen, Z., Lumpkin, R., Braasch, L., Brassington, G., Chao, Y. et
al. (2019). Multidisciplinary global in situ observations of essential climate
and ocean variables at the air-sea interface in support of climate variability
and change studies and to improve weather forecasting, pollution, hazard
and maritime safety assessments. Frontiers in Marine Science, 30 August.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00419. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Chen, C.-L. (2015). Regulation and management of marine litter. In Marine
Anthropogenic Litter. Bergmann, M., Gutow, L. and Klages, E. (eds.). Springer
Open. 395-428. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm%3A978-3-31916510-3%2F1.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2021. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Cózar, A., Echevarría, F., González-Gordillo, J.I., Irigoien, X., Úbeda, B.,
Hernández-León, S. et al. (2014). Plastic debris in the open ocean.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(28), 10239- 10244.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314705111. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Cózar, A., Sanz-Martin, M., Marti, E., González-Gordillo, J.I., Ubeda, B.,
Gálvez, J.A., Irigoen, X. and Duarte, C. M. (2015). Plastic accumulation in the
Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 10(4), e0121762. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0121762. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Cui, R., Kim, S.W. and An, Y.J. (2017). Polystyrene nanoplastics inhibit
reproduction and induce abnormal embryonic development in the
freshwater crustacean Daphnia galeata. Scientific Reports 7(1), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12299-2. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Chen, G., Feng, Q. and Wang, J. (2020). Mini-review of microplastics in theatmosphere and their risks to humans. Science of The Total Environment
703, 135504. http:/doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019 135504. Accessed 12
January 2021.

da Costa, J. (2018). Micro- and nanoplastics in the environment: Research andpolicymaking. Current Opinions in Environmental Science and Health 1,12-16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2017.11.002. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Chiba, S., Saito, H., Fletcher, R., Yogi, T., Kayo, M., Miyagi, S. et al. (2018).
Human footprint in the abyss: 30 year records of deep-sea plastic debris.
Marine Policy 96, 204-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03 022.
Accessed 12 January 2021.

Dalberg Advisors, WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative (2019). Stop the
Flood of Plastic: How Mediterranean Countries Can Save Their Sea. WWFWorld Wide Fund for Nature. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/a4_
plastics_reg_low.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Chubarenko, I., Bagaev, A., Zobkov, M. and Esiukova, E. (2016). On somephysical and dynamical properties of microplastic particles in marine
environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 108(1-2), 105-112. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.04.048. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Dauvergne, P. (2018). Why is the global governance of plastic failing theoceans? Global Environmental Change 51, 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2018.05 002. Accessed 11 January 2021.

Chubarenko, I.P., Esiukova, E.E., Bagaev, A.V., Bagaeva, M.A. and Grave, A.N.
(2018). Three- dimensional distribution of anthropogenic microparticles
in the body of sandy beaches. Science of The Total Environment 628-629,
1340-1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.167. Accessed12
January 2021.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C. and Galloway, T.S. (2015).
The impact of polystyrene microplastics on feeding, function and fecundity
in the marine copepod Calanus helgolandicus. Environmental Scienceand Technology 49(2), 1130-1137. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504525u.
Accessed 12 January 2021.
Collins, C. and Hermes, J.C. (2019). Modelling the accumulation and transportof floating marine microplastics around South Africa. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 139, 46-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.028.
Accessed 12 January 2021.
Constantino, E., Martins, I., Sierra, J.M.S. and Bessa, F. (2019). Abundanceand composition of floating marine macro litter on the eastern sector of
the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 138, 260-265. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.008. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Corradini, F., Pablo Meza, P., Eguiluz, R., Casado, F., Huerta-Lwanga, E. andGeissen, V. (2019). Evidence of microplastic accumulation in agriculturalsoils from sewage sludge disposal. Science of The Total Environment 671,
411-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.368. Accessed 12
January 2021.
32

Cox, K., Covernton, A., Davies, H., Dower, J., Juanes, F. and Dudas, S.
(2019). Human consumption of microplastics. Environmental Science andTechnology 53(12), 7068-7074. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517.
Accessed 12 January 2021.

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

de Frond, H.L., van Sebille, E., Parnis, J.M., Diamond, M.L., Mallos, N.,
Kingsbury, T. et al. (2018). Estimating the mass of chemicals associatedwith ocean plastic pollution to inform mitigation efforts. Integrated
Environmental Assessment Management 15, 596-606. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ieam.4147. Accessed 11 January 2021.
De Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L.,
Christie, M., et al. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems andtheir services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1: 50–61. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005 Accessed 30 November 2020.
Dehaut, A., Cassone, A.L., Frere, L., Hermabessiere, L., Himber, C., Rinnert etal. (2016). Microplastics in seafood: Benchmark protocol for their extraction
and characterization. Environmental Pollution 215, 223-233. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.018. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Deloitte (2019). The Price Tag of Plastic Pollution: An Economic Assessmentof River Plastic. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nl/
Documents/strategy-analytics-and-ma/deloitte-nl-strategy-analytics-andma-the-price-tag-of-plastic-pollution.pdf Accessed 12 February 2021.
de Ruijter, V.N., Redondo-Hasselerharm, P.E., Gouin, T., and Koelmans, A.A. (2020).
Quality criteria for microplastic effect studies in the context of risk assessment:
A critical review. Environmental Science and Technology 54(19), 11692-11705.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03057. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Desforges, J P., Galbraith, M. and Ross, P.S. (2015). Ingestion of microplastics
by zooplankton in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Archives of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology 69, 320-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00244-015-0172-5. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Deshpande, P.C., Philis, G., Brattebø and Fet, A.M. (2020). Using material
flow analysis (MFA) to generate the evidence on plastic waste managementfrom commercial fishing gears in Norway. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling: X 5,100024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100024.
Accessed 11 January 2021.
Díaz-Torres, E.R., Ortega-Ortiz, C.D., Silva-Iñiguez, L., Nene-Preciado, A. andTorres Orozco, E. (2017). Floating marine debris in waters of the Mexican
Central Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin 115 (1-2), 225-232. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.065. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Donohue, M.J., Masura, J., Gelatt, T., Ream, R., Baker, J.D., Faulhaber, K. etal. (2019). Evaluating exposure of northern fur seals, Callorhinus ursinus,
to microplastic pollution through faecal analysis. Marine Pollution Bulletin
138, 213-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.036. Accessed
12 January 2021.
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Mirande, C., Mandin, C., Guerrouache, M., Langlois, V.
et al. (2017). A first overview of textile fibres, including MPs, in indoor andoutdoor environments. Environmental Pollution 221, 453-458. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.013. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Duhec, A.V., Jeanne, R.F., Maximenko, N. and Hafner, J. (2015). Compositionand potential origin of marine debris stranded in the Western Indian
Ocean on remote Alphonse Island, Seychelles. Marine Pollution Bulletin96(1-2), 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.05.042. Accessed
12 January 2021.
Duncan, E.M, Broderick, A.C., Fuller, W.J., Galloway, T.S., Godfrey, M.H.,
Hamann, M. et al. (2018a). Microplastic ingestion ubiquitous in marine
turtles. Global Change Biology 25, 744-752. https://doi.org/10.1111/
gcb.14519. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Duncan, E.M., Arrowsmith, J., Bain, C., Broderick, A.C., Lee, J., Metcalfe,
K. et al. (2018b). The true depth of the Mediterranean plastic problem:
Extreme microplastic pollution on marine turtle nesting beaches in
Cyprus. Marine Pollution Bulletin 136, 334-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.09019 . Accessed 12 January 2021.
Dunlop, S.W., Dunlop, B.J. and Brown, M. (2020). Plastic pollution inparadise: Daily accumulation rates of marine litter on Cousine Island,
Seychelles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 151, 110803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019 110803. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Dussud, C., Meistertzheim, A.L., Conan, P., Pujo-Pay, M., George, M., Fabre,
P. et al. (2018a). Evidence of niche partitioning among bacteria living onplastics, organic particles and surrounding seawaters. Environmental
Pollution 236, 807-816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.027.
Accessed 12 January 2021.
Dussud, C., Hudec, C., George, M., Fabre, P., Higgs, O., Bruzuad, S. et al.
(2018b). Colonization of non- biodegradable and biodegradable plastics
by marine microorganisms. Frontiers in Microbiology 9, 1571. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01571. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Eagle, L., Hamann, M. and Low, D.R. (2016). The role of social marketing,marine turtles and sustainable tourism in reducing plastic pollution.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 107(1), 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.03.040. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016). The New Plastics Economy:
Rethinking the Future of Plastics and Catalysing Action. https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/NPECHybrid_English_22-11-17_Digital.pdf. . Accessed 12 January 2021.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017). Global commitment: A circular
economy for plastic in. which it never becomes waste. https://www.
newplasticseconomy.org/projects/global-commitment. Accessed 12
January 2021.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2020). Global Plastic Action Partnership:
A word without plastic waste and pollution is possible. https://globalplasticaction.org. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Ellen MacArthus Foundation (2021). Upstream innovations. A guideto packaging solutions. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/upstream-innovation.
Accessed 13 July 2021
Enyoh, C.E., Verla, A.W., Verla, E.N., Ibe, F.C. and Amaobi, C.E. (2019).
Airborne microplastics: A review study on method for analysis, occurrence,
movement and risks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 191, 668.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7842-0. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C., Carson, H.S., Thiel, M., Moore, C.J., Borerro, J.C. et
al. (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), e111913.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913. Accessed 12 January 2021.
European Commission (2017). Nautical Tourism. Commission Staff Working
Document. Brussels, 30.3.2017 SWD(2017) 126 final https://ec.europa.
eu/oceans-and-fisheries/system/files/2021-03/swd-2017-126_en.pdf
Accessed 31 January 2021
European Commission (2018a). Reducing Marine Litter: Action on singleuse plastics and fishing gear Accompanying the document Proposal
for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
reduction of the impact of certain plastics products on the environment.
Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment 28.5.2018
SWD(2018) 254 final PART 1/3 Brussels. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.
html?uri=cellar:4d0542a2-6256-11e8-ab9c-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/
DOC_1&format=PDF. Accessed 25 May 2021.
European Commission (2018b). A European Strategy for Plastics in a
Circular Economy. Brussels, 16.1.2018 COM(2018)28. https://ec.europa.
eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_18_3909
Accessed 12
January 2021.
European Union (2019a). Environmental and Health Risks of Microplastic
Pollution. Group of Chief Scientific Advisors Scientific Opinion 6/2019(Supported by SAPEA Evidence Review Report No. 4). Scientific Advice
Mechanism (SAM). https://doi.org/10.2777/65378. Accessed 12 January 2021.
European Union (2019b). Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the
impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Official Journal of
the European Union L 155/1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/
TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0904. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Fazey, F.M. and Ryan, P.G. (2016). Biofouling on buoyant marine plastics:
An experimental study into the effect of size on surface longevity.
Environmental Pollution 210, 354-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.01.026. Accessed 12 January 2021.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) (2020). The
State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Rome. http://www.fao.org/
state-of-fisheries-aquaculture. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Ferreira, S., Convery, F. and McDonnell, S. (2007). The most popular tax
in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environmental andResource Economics 38, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9059-2.
Accessed 12 January 2021.
Filho, W.L., Saari, U., Fedoruk, M., Iital, A., Moora, H., Klöga, M. et al. (2019).
An overview of the problems posed by plastic products and the role ofextended producer responsibility in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production
214, 550-558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.256. Accessed 12
January 2021
Flaws, J., Damdimopolou, P., Patisaul, H.B., Gore, A., Raetzman, L., andVandenberg, L.N. (2020). Plastics, EDCs and Health. Guide for public interest
organisations and policy-makers on endocrine disrupting chemicals andplastics. Endocrine Society and IPEN. https://www.endocrine.org/-/media/
endocrine/files/topics/edc_guide_2020_v1_6chqennew-version.pdf
Accessed 25 May 2021.
Fleet, D., Vlachogianni, T. and Hanke, G., (2021). A Joint List of Litter
Categories for Marine Macrolitter Monitoring. EUR 30348 EN, Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978- 92-76-214458. https://doi.org/10.2760/127473 , JRC121708
SYNTHESIS

33

Forrest, A., Giacovazzi, L., Dunlop. S., Reisser, J., Tickler, D., Jamieson, A.
et al. (2019). Eliminating plastic pollution: How a voluntary contribution
from industry will drive the circular plastics economy. Frontiers in Marine
Science 6, 627. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00627. Accessed 12
January 2021.
Forrest, S.A., Bourdages, M.P.T., and Vermaire, J.C. (2020). Microplastics infreshwater ecosystems. In Handbook of Microplastics in the Environment.
Rocha-Santos, T., Costa, M., and Mouneyrac, C., (eds.). Cham: Springer. 1019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10618-8_2-1. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Fossi, M.C., Panti, C., Baini, M. and Lavers, J.L. (2018). A review of plasticassociated pressures: Cetaceans of the Mediterranean Sea and Eastern
Australian Shearwaters as case studies. Frontiers in Marine Science 5, 173.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00173. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Fossi, M.C., Vlachogianni, T., Galgani, F., Innocenti, F.D., Zampetti, G. andLeone, G. (2020). Assessing and mitigating the harmful effects of plastic
pollution: The collective multi-stakeholder driven Euro- Mediterranean
response. Ocean and Coastal Management 184, 105005. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105005. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Gewert, B., Plassmann, M.M. and Macleod, M. (2015). Pathways for
degradation of plastic polymers floating in the marine environment.
Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts 17, 1513-1521. https://doi.
org/10.1039/c5em00207a. Accessed 11 January 2021
Geyer, R. (2020). Production, use and fate of synthetic polymers in plastic
waste and recycling. In Plastic Waste and Recycling: Environmental Impact,
Societal Issues, Prevention, and Solutions. Letcher, T.M. (ed.). Cambridge, MA:
Academic Press.13-32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
B9780128178805000025?via%3Dihub. Accessed 11 January 2021.
Geyer, R., Kuczenski, B., Zink, T. and Henderson, A. (2016). Common
misconceptions about recycling. Journal of Industrial Ecology 20(5), 10101017. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12355 . Accessed 11 January 2021.

Franceschini, S., Mattei, F., D’Andrea, L., Nardi, A. Di, Fiorentino, F., Garofalo,
G. et al. (2019). Rummaging through the bin: Modelling marine litter
distribution using Artificial Neural Networks. Marine Pollution Bulletin 149,
110580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110580. Accessed 12
January 2021.

Goel, N., Fatima, S.W., Kumar, S., Sinha, R., and Khare, S.K. (2021).
Antimicrobial resistance in biofilms: exploring marine actinobacteira as
a potential source of antibiotics and biofilm inhibitors. Biotechnology
Reports, 30, e00613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2021.e00613 Accessed
8 June 2021

Franco-Trecu, V., Drago, M., Katz, H., Machin, E. and Marin, Y. (2017). With
the noose around the neck: Marine debris entangling otariid species.
Environmental Pollution 220 (Part B), 985-989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.11.057. Accessed 12 January 2021.

González-Fernández, D. and Hanke, G. (2017). Toward a harmonizedapproach for monitoring of riverine floating macro litter inputs to themarine environment. Frontiers in Marine Science 4, 86. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00086. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Galgani, F., Brien, A.So., Weis, J. et al. (2021). Are litter, plastic and microplastic
quantities increasing in the ocean? Microplastics and Nanoplastics. 1, 2.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43591-020-00002-

Gouin, T., Roche, N., Lohmann, R. and Hodges, G. (2011). A thermodynamic
approach for assessing the environmental exposure of chemicals absorbed
to microplastic. Environmental Science and Technology 45(4), 1466-1472.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es1032025. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Galloway, T.S., Cole, M. and Lewis, C. (2017). Interactions of microplastic
debris throughout the marine ecosystem. Nature Ecology and
Evolution 1(5), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0116. Accessed
12 January 2021.
Garaba, S.P. and Dierssen, H.M. (2018). An airborne remote sensing casestudy of synthetic hydrocarbon detection using short wave infraredabsorption features identified from marine- harvested macro- andmicroplastics. Remote Sensing of Environment 205, 224-235. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.11.023. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Gattringer, C.W. (2018). A revisited conceptualization of plastic pollution
accumulation in marine environments: Insights from a social ecologicaleconomics perspective. Marine Pollution Bulletin 96, 221-226. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.036. Accessed 12 January 2021.
GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection) (2015).Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics
in the Marine Environment: A Global Assessment. Kershaw, P.J. (ed.). IMO/
FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP. https://ec.europa.
eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor- 10/pdf/
GESAMP_microplastics%20full%20study.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2021.
GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection) (2019). Guidelines for the Monitoring andAssessment of Plastics Litter in the Ocean. IMO/FAO/UNESCO- IOC/UNIDO/
WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP.
http://www.gesamp.org/publications/guidelines-for-themonitoring-and-assessment-of-plastic-litter-in-theocean. Accessed 11 January 2021
GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection) (2020a). Proceedings of the GESAMPInternational Workshop on Assessing the Risks Associated with Plastics andMicroplastics in the Marine Environment. Kershaw, P.J., Carney Almroth,B., Villarrubia- Gómez, P., Koelmans, A.A. and Gouin, T. (eds.). IMO/
FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/ UNEP/UNDP/ISA.http://www.
gesamp.org/publications/gesamp-international-workshop-on- assessingthe-risks-associated-with-plastics-and-microplastics-in-the-marineenvironment. Accessed 11 January 2021
34

GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection) (2020b). Sea-based Sources of Marine Litter –A Review of Current Knowledge and Assessment of Data Gaps. Second
Interim Report of GESAMO Working Group 43. June 2020. Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome: http://www.fao.
org/3/cb0724en/cb0724en.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2021

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

GPML (Global Partnership for Marine Litter) (2021). GPML Digital Platform.
https://digital.gpmarinelitter.org/ Accessed 13 July 2021
Green, D.S. (2016). Effects of microplastics on European flat oysters, Ostrea
edulis and their associated benthic communities. Environmental Pollution
216, 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05 043. Accessed 12
January 2021.
Green, D.S., Boots, B., Blockley, D.J., Rocha, C. and Thompson, R. (2015).
Impacts of discarded plastic bags on marine assemblages and ecosystem
functioning. Environmental Science and Technology 49(9), 5380-5389.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00277. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Green, D.S., Boots, B., Sigwart, J., Jiang, S. and Rocha, C. (2016). Effects of
conventional and biodegradable microplastics on a marine ecosystemengineer (Arenicola Marinamarina) and sediment nutrient cycling.
Environmental Pollution 208, 426-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2015.10.010. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Green, D.S., Boots B., O’Connor, N.E. and Thompson, R. (2017). Microplastics
affect the ecological functioning of an important biogenic habitat.
Environmental Science and Technology 51(1), 68-77. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04496. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Green, D.S., Colgan, T.J., Thompson, R.C. and Carolan, J.C. (2019). Exposure
to microplastics reduces attachment strength and alters the haemolymph
proteome of blue mussels (Mytilus edulis). Environmental Pollution 246, 423434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.12.017. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Groh, K.J., Backhaus, T., Carney-Almroth, B., Gueke, B., Inostroza, P.A.,
Lennquist, A. et al. (2019). Overview of known plastic packagingassociated chemicals and their hazards. Science of The Total Environment
651, 3253-3268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.015. Accessed
12 January 2021.
Guo, X. and Wang, J. (2019). The chemical behaviours of microplastics inmarine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 142, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.019. Accessed 12 January 2021.

Hall, K. (2000). Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil: Economic and Social Costs
to Coastal Communities. Lerwick, Shetland, United Kingdom: Kommunenes
Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon (KIMO). https://www.kimointernational.
org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/KIMO_Impacts-of-Marine-Debrisand-Oil_Karen_Hall_2000.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hallanger, I.G. and Gabrielsen, G.W. (2018). Plastics in the European Arctic.
Brief Report No. 045, Norwegian Polar Institute. http://www.synturf.org/
images/NPI_Report_-_Kortrapport45.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hämer, J., Gutow, L., Köhler, A., Saborowski, R., Hämer, J., Gutow, L. et al.
(2014). Fate of microplastics in the marine isopod Idotea emarginata.
Environmental Science and Technology 48(22), 13451-13458. https://doi.
org/10.1021/es501385y. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hanke, G., Walvoort, D., Van Loon, W., Addamo, A.M., Brosich, A., delMar Chaves Montero, M. et al. (2019). EU Marine Beach Litter Baselines:
Analysis of a Pan-European 2012-2016 Beach Litter Dataset. EUR 30022.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.
org/10.2760/16903. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hardesty, B.D. and Wilcox, C. (2017). A risk framework for tackling marine
debris. Analytical Methods, 9: 1429. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/
articlepdf/2017/ay/c6ay02934e Accessed 20/6/2021
Harris, P.T. (2020). The fate of microplastic in marine sedimentary
environments: A review and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 158,
111398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111398. Accessed 10
February 2021.
Harris, P.T., Tamelander, J., Lyons, Y., Neo. M.L. and Maes, T. (2021). Taking
a mass-balance approach to assess marine plastics in the South China
Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 171, 112 708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2021.112708. Accessed 20 June 2021.
Harrison, J.P., Boardman, C., O’Callaghan, K., Delort, A.M. and Song, J.
(2018). Biodegradability standards for carrier bags and plastics films inaquatic environments: A critical review. Royal Society Open Science 5,171792. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171792. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hartley, B.L., Pahl, S., Veiga, J., Vlachogianni, T., Vasconcelos, L., Maes, T. et al.
(2018a). Exploring public views on marine litter in Europe: Perceived causes,
consequences and pathways to change. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133, 945-955.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.061. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hartley, B.L., Pahl, S., Holland, M., Alampei, I., Veiga, J. and Thompson,
R.C. (2018b). Turning the tide on trash: Empowering European educatorsand school students to tackle marine litter. Marine Policy 96, 227-234.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2018.02.002.Accessed 12 January 2021.
Haward, M. (2018). Plastic pollution of the world’s seas and oceans as acontemporary challenge in ocean governance. Nature Communications 9,667. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03104-3. Accessed 12 January 2021
He, P., Chen, L., Shao, L., Zhang, H. and Lu, F. (2019). Municipal solid waste(MSW) landfill: A source of microplastic? – Evidence of microplastics inlandfill leachate. Water Research 159, 38-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2019.04.060. Accessed 12 January 2021.
HELCOM (2017). Measuring Progress for the Same Targets in the Baltic
Sea. The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission. http://www.
helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP150.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2021.
HELCOM (2018). HELCOM Guidelines for Monitoring Beach Litter. The Baltic
Marine Environment Protection Commission. https://www.helcom.fi/wpcontent/uploads/2019/08/Guidelines-for-monitoring-beach-litter.pdf.
Accessed 12 January 2021.
Henry, B., Laitala, K. and Grimstad Klepp, I. (2019). Microfibres from appareland home textiles: Prospects for including microplastics in environmental
sustainability assessment. Science of The Total Environment 652, 483-494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.166 . Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hermabessiere, L., Dehaut, A., Paul-Pont, I., Lacroix, C., Jezequel, R., Soudant,
P. et al. (2017). Occurrence and effects of plastic additives on marine

environments and organisms: A review. Chemosphere 182, 781-793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.096. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Herzke, D., Anker-Nilssen, T., Nøst, T.H., Götsch, A., Christensen-Dalsgaard,
S., Langset, M. et al. (2016). Negligible impact of ingested microplastics ontissue concentrations of persistent organic pollutants in northern fulmars offcoastal Norway. Environmental Science and Technology 50(4), 1924-1933.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04663. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hidalgo-Ruiz, V. and Thiel, M. (2015). The contribution of citizen scientists tothe monitoring of marine litter. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Bergmann,M., Gutow, L. and Klages, E. (eds.). Cham: Springer. 429-447. https://www.
springer.com/gp/book/9783319165097. https://www.springer.com/gp/
book/9783319165097.Accessed 12 January 2021.
Holland, E.R., Mallory, M.L. and Shutler, D. (2016). Plastics and otheranthropogenic debris in freshwater birds from Canada. Science of The Total
Environment 571, 251-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07
158. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hong, S.H., Shim, W.J. and Hong, L. (2017a). Methods of analysing chemicals
associated with microplastics: A review. Analytical Methods 9, 1361 https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ay02971j. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Hong, S., Lee, J. and Lim, S. (2017b). Navigational threats by derelict fishinggear to navy ships in the Korean Seas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 119(2),100-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04 006. Accessed 12
January 2021.
Horton, A.A. and Dixon, S.J. (2018). Microplastics: An introduction toenvironmental transport processes. WIREs Water 5(2), e1268. https://doi.
org/10.1002/wat2.1268. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Huang, F.Y., Yang, K., Zhang, Z.X., Su, J.Q., Zhu, Y.G. and Zhang, X. (2019).
Effects of microplastics on antibiotic resistance genes in estuarine
sediments. PMID 40(5), 2234-2239 [in Chinese]. https://doi.org10.13227/j.
hjkx.201810108; English abstract athttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/31087861/. Accessed 12 January 2021.
ICIS [Independent Commodity Intelligence Services] (2020). Post corona
virus what will change? https://icis.com/explore/resources/news/2020/04/
30/10502603/post-corona-what-will-change. Accessed 13 July 2021
ILO (International Labour Organization) (2017). Cooperation among
Workers in the Informal Economy: A Focus on Home-based Workers andWaste Pickers. A Joint ILO and WIEGO Initiative. Geneva. https://www.ilo.
org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/---coop/documents/
publication/wcms_567507.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2021.
ILO (2019). Waste Pickers’ Cooperatives and Social and Solidarity Economy
Organizations. Cooperatives and the World of Work Series No. 12. Geneva.
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/--coop/documents/publication/wcms_715845.pdf. Accessed 12 January 2021
IMarEST (Institute of Marine Engineering Science and Technology) (2019).
Steering towards an Industry Level Response to Marine Plastic Pollution:
Roundtable Summary Report. London. https://www.imarest.org/policy-news/
thought-leadership/1039-marine-plastics/file. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Imhof, H.K., Sigl, R., Brauer, E., Feyl, S., Giesemann, P., Klink, S. et al.
(2017). Spatial and temporal variation of macro-, meso- and microplastic
abundance on a remote coral island of the Maldives, Indian Ocean.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 116, 340-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2017.01 010. Accessed 12 January 2021.
International Chamber of Shipping (2021). Shipping and world trade.
https://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-fact/shipping-and-world-tradedriving-prosperity/. Accessed 10 September 2021.
IRP (International Resource Panel) (2019). Global Resources Outlook
2019: Natural Resources for the Future We Want. Oberle, B., Bringezu, S.,
Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hellweg, S., Schandl, H., Clement, J., and Cabernard,
L., Che, N., Chen, D., Droz-Georget , H. et al. A Report of the International
Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya.
https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-resources-outlook.
Accessed 15 June 2021
SYNTHESIS

35

IRP (2021). Policy options to eliminate additional marine plastic litter by 2050
under the G20 Osaka Blue Ocean Vision. Fletcher, S., Roberts, K.P., Shiran, Y.,
Virdin, J., Brown, C., Buzzi, E., Alcolea, I.C., Henderson, L., Laubinger, F., Milà i
Canals, L., Salam, S., Schmuck, S.A., Veiga, J.M., Winton, S., Youngblood, K.M.
A Report of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment
Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. https://www.resourcepanel.org/sites/default/
files/documents/document/media/policy_options_to_eliminate_additional_
marine_plastic_litter.pdf Accessed 13 July 2021.
Jacob, H., Besson, M., Swarzenski, P.W., Lecchini, D. and Metian, M. (2020).
Effects of virgin micro- and nanoplastics on fish: Trends, meta-analysis, andperspectives. Environmental Science and Technology 54(8), 4733−4745.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05995. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Jambeck, J., Hardesty, B.D., Brooks, A.L., Friend, T., Teleki, K., Fabres, J. etal. (2018). Challenges and emerging solutions to the land-based plastic
waste issue in Africa. Marine Policy 96, 256-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2017.10.041. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Jang, Y.C., Hong, S., Lee, J., Lee, M.J. and Shim, W.J. (2014). Estimation oflost tourism revenue in Geoje island from the 2011 marine debris pollution
event in South Korea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 81, 49-54. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.021 . Accessed 12 January 2021.
Jang, Y.C., Lee, J., Hong, S., Choi, H.W., Shim, W.J. and Hong, S.Y. (2015).
Estimating the global inflow and stock of plastic marine debris usingmaterial flow analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Marine
Environment and Energy 18, 263-273.
Janssen, C., de Rycke, M. and van Cauwenberghe, L. (2014). Marine
Pollution along the East Africa Coast: Problems and Challenges.
International Workshop – Sustainable Use of Coastal and Marine Resourcesin Kenya: From Research to Societal Benefits. Laboratory of Environmental
Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology, Environmental Toxicology Unit Lab(GhenToxLab), University of Ghent, Belgium. http://www.vliz.be/kenya/sites/vliz.be.kenya/files/public/KMFRIdocuments/Colin%20Janssen.pdf.
Accessed 12 January 2021.
Jeffrey, C.F., Havens, K.J., Slacum, H.W., Bilkovic, D.M., Zaveta, D., Scheld, A.M.
et al. (2016). Assessing Ecological and Economic Effects of Derelict FishingGear: A Guiding Framework. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William andMary. http://doi.org/10.21220/V50W23. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Jobstvogt, N., Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Kenter, J. and Witte, U. (2014). Twenty
thousand sterling under the sea: Estimating the value of protecting deepsea biodiversity. Ecological Economics 97, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2013.10.019. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Joshi, C., Seay, J. and Banadda, N. (2019). A perspective on locally managed
decentralized circular economy for water plastic in developing countries.
Environmental Programmes in Sustainable Energy 38, 3-11. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ep.13086. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Kandziora, J.H., van Toulon, N., Sobralb, P., Taylor, H.L., Ribbink, A.J.,
Jambeck, J.R. et al. (2018). The important role of marine debris networks
to prevent and reduce ocean plastic pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin
141, 657-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.01.034. Accessed
12 January 2021.
Kanhai, L.D.K., Gårdfeldt, K., Lyashevska, O., Hesselhöv, Thompson, R.C. andO’Conner, I. (2018). Microplastics in sub-surface waters of the Arctic Central
Basin. Marine Pollution Bulletin 130, 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.03.011. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Kanhai, L.D.K., Johansson, C., Frias, J.P.G.L., Gårdfeldt, K., Thompson, R.C.
and O’Connor, I. (2019). Deep sea sediments of the Arctic Central Basin:
A potential sink for microplastics. Deep-Sea Research I Oceanography
Research Papers 145, 137-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2019.03.003.
Accessed 12 January 2021.
Karasik, R., Vegh, T., Diana, Z., Bering, J., Caldas, J., Pickle, A., Rittschof, D.
and Virdin, J. (2020). 20 Years of Government Responses to the Global
Plastic Pollution Problem. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Solutions, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States. https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications/20-years-government-responsesglobal-plastic- pollution-problem. Accessed 12 January 2021.
36

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

Karlsson, T.M., Arneborg, L. Bronström, G., Carney Almroth, B., Gipperth,L. and Hassellöv, M. (2018). The unaccountability case of plastic pellet
pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin 129, 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.01.041. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Kaza, S.L.C., Yao, P., Bhada-Tata, P. and Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development
Series. Washington, D.C.: World BankGroup. https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Kedzierski, M., d’Almeida, M., Magueresse, A., Le Grand, A., Duval, H., César,G. et al. (2018). Threat of plastic ageing in marine environments. Adsorption/
desorption of micropollutants. Marine Pollution Bulletin 127, 684-694.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.059. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Kiessling, T., Salas, S., Mutafoglu, K. and Thiel, M. (2017). Who cares about
dirty beaches? Evaluating environmental awareness and action on coastal
litter in Chile. Ocean and Coastal Management 137, 82-95. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.029. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Kirstein, I.V., Kirmizi, S., Wichels, A., Garin-Fernandez, A., Erler, R., Martin, L. et
al. (2016). Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially pathogenic Vibrio
spp. on microplastics particles. Marine Environmental Research 120, 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.07.004. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Koelmans, A.A., Besseling, E. and Foekema, E.L. (2014). Leaching of plastics
additives to marine organisms. Environmental Pollution 187, 49-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.12.013. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Koelmans, A.A., Bakir, A., Burton, G.A. and Janssen C.R. (2016). Microplastic
as a vector for chemicals in the aquatic environment: Critical review andmodel-supported reinterpretation of empirical studies. Environmental
Science and Technology 50(7), 3315-3326. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.5b06069. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Koelmans, A.A., Besseling, E., Foekema, E., Kooi, M., Mintenig, S., Ossendorp,
B.C. et al. (2017). Risks of plastic debris: Unravelling fact, opinion, perception
and belief. Environmental Science and Technology 51(20), 11513-11519.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02219. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Koelmans, A.A., Mohamed Nor, N.H., Hermsen, E., Kooi, M., Mintenig, S.M. and
De France, J. (2019). Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water: Criticalreview and assessment of data quality. Water Research 155, 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.054. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Koelmans, A.A., Redondo-Hasselerharm, P.E., Nor, N.H.M. and Kooi, M.
(2020). Solving the nonalignment of methods and approaches used in
microplastic research to consistently characterize risk. Environmental
Science and Technology, 54 (19), 12307-12315. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.0c02982. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Kögel T., Refosco A. and Maage A. (2020). Surveillance of seafood for
microplastics. In Handbook of Microplastics in the Environment. RochaSantos, T., Costa, M. and Mouneyrac, C. (eds.). Cham: Springer. 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10618-8_28-1. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Kooi, M., Reisser, J., Slat, B., Ferrari, F.F., Schmid, M.S., Cunsolo, S. et al. (2016).
The effect of particle properties on the depth profile of buoyant plastics inthe ocean. Scientific Reports 6, 33882. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33882.
Accessed 12 January 2021.
Krelling, A.P., Williams, A.T and Turra, A. (2017). Differences in perception
and reaction of tourist groups to beach marine debris that can influencea loss of tourism revenue in coastal areas. Marine Policy 85, 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.021. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Landrigan, P.J., Stegeman, J., Fleming, L., Allemand, D., Anderson, D., Backer, L.
et al. (2020) Human health and ocean pollution. Annals of Global Health 86(1)151, 1-64. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2831. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Lau, W.Y., Shiran, Y., Bailey, R.M., Cook, E., Stutchey, M.R., Koskella, J. etal. (2020). Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science369(6510), 1455-1461. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9475; or https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/10/08/
plastic-pollution- rampant-worldwide-could-be-cut-by-80-percent-in-20years (free access link also on this page). Accessed 13 January 2021.

Lavers, J.L. and Bond, A.L. (2017). Exceptional and rapid accumulation ofanthropogenic debris on one of the world’s most remote and pristineislands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(23), 60526055. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619818114. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1619818114.Accessed 13 January 2021.
Law, K.L., Morét-Ferguson, S.E., Goodwin, D.S., Zettler, E.R., DeForce, E.,
Kukulka, T. et al. (2014). Distribution of surface plastic debris in the eastern
Pacific Ocean from an 11-year data set. Environmental Science andTechnology 48(9), 4732-38. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4053076. Accessed
13 January 2021.
Law, K.L.L. (2017). Plastics in the marine environment. Annual Review
of Marine Science 9, 205-29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevmarine-010816-060409. Accessed 13 January 2021. https://doi.
org/10.7846/JKOSMEE.2015.18.4.263. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Lebreton, L.C., van der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J.W., Slat, B., Andrady, A. and Reisser, J.
(2017). River plastics emissions to the world’s oceans. Nature Communications
8, 5611. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R.
et al. (2018). Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly
accumulating plastic. Scientific Reports 8, 4666 https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-018-22939-w. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Lebreton, L., Egger, M. and Slat, B. (2019) A global mass budget for positively
buoyant macroplastic debris in the ocean. Scientific Reports 9, 12922 [alsosee Lebreton, L., Egger, M. and Slat, B. (2020). Author correction: A global
mass budget for positively buoyant macroplastic debris in the ocean.
Scientific Reports 10, 1841, below]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-01949413-5. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Lebreton, L., Egger, M. and Slat, B. (2020). Author correction: A global mass
budget for positively buoyant microplastic debris in the ocean in theocean. Scientific Reports 10, 1841. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-02058755-4. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Lusher, A.L., Welden, N.A., Sobral, P. and Cole, M. (2017b). Sampling,
isolating and identifying microplastics ingested by fish and invertebrates.
Analytical Methods 9, 1346. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02415G.
Accessed 13 January 2021.
Lynn, H., Rech, S. and Samwel-Mantingh, M. (2017). Plastics, Genderand the Environment: Findings of a Literature Study on the Lifecycle of
Plastics and its Impacts on Women and Men, from Production to Litter. The
Netherlands, France and Germany: Women Engage for a Common Future(WECF). https://www.wecf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/PlasticsgenderandtheenvironmentHighRes- min.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Lyons, Y., Su, T.L. and Meo, M.L. (2019). A Review of Research on Marine Plastics
in Southeast Asia. Who Does What? National University of Singapore, British
High Commission Singapore, UK Science & InformatioNetwork. https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/813009/A_review_of_research_on_marine_plastics_
in_Southeast_Asia_-_Who_does_what.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T. and Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, Lost or
Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies
No.185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 523. Rome.
http://www.fao.org/3/i0620e/i0620e00.htm. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Maeland. C.E. and Staupe-Delgado, R. (2020). Can the global problem ofmarine litter be considered a crisis? Risks, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy
11, 87-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12180. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Maes, T., Perry, J., Alliji, K., Clarke, C. and Birchenough, A.N.R. (2019). Shadesof grey: Marine litter research developments in Europe. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 146, 274-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.019.
Accessed 13 January 2021.
Maes, T., van Diemen de Jel, J., Vethaak, A.D., Desender, M., Bendall, V.A.,
van Velzen, M., and Leslie, H.L. (2020) You are what you eat, microplastics inPorbeagle Sharks from the North East Atlantic: Method development andanalysis in spiral valve content and tissue. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5 May
2020, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00273. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Leggett, C., Schere, N., Haab, T.C., Bailey, R., Landrum, J.P. and Domanski,
A. (2018). Assessing the economic benefits of reductions in marine debris
at southern California beaches: A random utility travel cost model. Marine
Resource Economics 33(2), 133-153. https://doi.org/10.1086/697152.
Accessed 13 January 2021.

Mahon, A.M., O’Connell, B., Healy, M.G., O’Connor, I., Officer, R., Nash, R. et al.
(2017). Microplastics in sewage sludge: Effects of treatment. Environmental
Science and Technology 51(2), 810-818. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.6b04048. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Leslie, H.A., Leonards, P.E.G., Brandsma, S.H., J. de Boer, and Jonkers, N. (2016)
Propelling plastics into the circular economy – weeding out the toxics first.
Environmental International 94, 230-234. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0160412016301854. Accessed 25 May 2021.

Markic, A., Gaertner, J.C., Gaertner-Mazouni, N. and Koelmans, A.A.
(2020). Plastic ingestion by marine fish in the wild. Critical Reviews inEnvironmental Science and Technology 50(7), 67-697. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10643389.2019.1631990. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Li, L. F., Zhang, X., Luan, Z. D., Du, Z. F., Xi, S. C., Wang, B., et al. (2018). In
situ quantitative raman detection of dissolved carbon dioxide and sulfate
in deepsea high-temperature hydrothermal vent fluids. Geochemical
Geophysical Geosystems 19:7445. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GC007445
Accessed 20 June 2021

Martínez-Vicente, V., Clark, J.R. Corradi, P., Aliani, S., Arias, M., Bochow, M. etal. (2019). Measuring marine plastic debris from space: Initial assessmentof observation requirements. Remote Sensing 11, 2443. https://doi.
org/10.3390/rs11202443. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Lieder, M. and Rashid, A. (2015) Towards circular economy implementation:
a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 115: 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.12.042 Accessed 20 June 2021
Lindeque, P.K., Cole, M., Coppock, R.L., Lewis, C.N., Miller, R.Z., Watts, A.J.R.
et al. (2020). Are we underestimating microplastic abundance in themarine environment? A comparison of microplastic capture with nets ofdifferent mesh-size. Environmental Pollution 265, Part A, 114721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020 114721. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Lotze, H.K., Guest, H., O’Leary, J., Tuda, A. and Wallace, D. (2018). Public
perception of marine threats and protection from around the world.
Ocean and Coastal Management 152, 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2017.11 004. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Lusher, A.L., Hollman, P.C.H. and Mendoza-Hill, J.J. (2017a). Microplastics
in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Status of Knowledge on Their Occurrence
and Implications for Aquatic Organisms and Food Safety. FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 615. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/ai7677e.pdf.http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7677e.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Mason, S.A., Garneau, D., Sutton, R., Chu, Y., Ehmann, K., Barnes, J. et al. (2016).
Microplastics pollution is widely detected in US municipal wastewater
treatment plant effluent. Environmental Pollution 218, 1045-1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.056. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Matheson, T. (2019). Disposal is Not Free: Fiscal Instruments to Internalize
the Environmental Costs of Solid Waste. International Monetary
Fund Working Paper 19/283. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/
WP/Issues/2019/12/20/Disposal-is-Not-Free-Fiscal-Instruments-toInternalize-the-Environmental-Costs-of-Solid-Waste-48854.https://www.
imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/12/20/Disposal-is-Not-FreeFiscal-Instruments-to-Internalize-the-Environmental-Costs-of-SolidWaste-48854. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Mattsson, K., Hansson, L.-A. and Cedervalla, T. (2015). Nano-plastics in theaquatic environment. Environmental Sciences: Processes and Impacts 17,1712.https://doi.org/10.1039/c5em00227C Accessed 13 January 2021.
Maximenko, N., Corradi, P., Law, K.L., Van Sebille, E., Garaba, S.P., Lampitt,
R.S. et al. (2019). Toward the Integrated Marine Debris Observing
System. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 447. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2019.00447. Accessed 13 January 2021.
SYNTHESIS

37

McIlgorm, A., Campbell H. F. and Rule M. J. (2008). Understanding the
economic benefits and costs of controlling marine debris in the APEC
region (MRC 02/2007). A report to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
Marine Resource Conservation Working Group by the National Marine
Science Centre (University of New England and Southern Cross University),
Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia, December. https://www.apec.org/
Publications/2009/04/Understanding-the-Economic-Benefits-and-Costsof-Controlling-Marine-Debris-In-the-APEC-Region Accessed 27 July 2021
McIlgorm, A., Campbell, H.F. and Rule, M.J. (2011). The economic costand control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean
and Coastal Management 54(9), 643-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2011.05.007. Accessed 13 January 2021.
McIlgorm, A., Raubenheimer, K. and McIlgorm, D.E. (2020). Update of 2009
APEC Report on Economic Costs of Marine Debris to APEC Economies.
Report to the APEC Oceans and Fisheries Working Group by the Australian
National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), Universityof Wollongong, Australia. https://www.apec.org/Publications/2020/03/
Update-of-2009-APEC-Report- on-Economic-Costs-of-Marine-Debris-toAPEC-Economies.https://www.apec.org/Publications/2020/03/Updateof-2009-APEC-Report-on-Economic-Costs-of-Marine-Debris-to-APECEconomies. Accessed 13 January 2021.
McNeish, R.E., Kim, L.H., Barrett, H.A., Mason, S.A, Kelly, J.J. and Hoellein, T.J.
(2018). Microplastic in riverine fish is connected to species traits. Scientific
Reports 8(1), 11639. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29980-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29980-9.Accessed 13 January 2021.
Meijer, J.J., van Emmerik, T., van der Ent, R. Schmidt, C. and Lebreton, L.
(2021). More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic
emissions into the ocean. Science Advances 7(18), eaaz5803. https://doi.
org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803. Accessed 30 May 2021
Michida, Y., Chavanich, S., Cózar Cabañas, A., Hagmann, P., Hinata, H., Isobe,
A. et al. (2020). Guidelines for Harmonizing Ocean Surface Microplastic
Monitoring Methods. Version 1.1, June 2020. Ministry of the EnvironmentofJapan.
https://www.env.go.jp/en/water/marine_litter/guidelines/
guidelines.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Miller, R.Z., Watts, A.J., Winslow, B.O., Galloway, T.S. and Barrows, A.P.W. (2017).
Mountains to the sea: River study of plastic and non-plastic microfibre
pollution in the northeast USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 124(1), 245-251.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.07.028. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Mouat, J., Lozano, R.L. and Bateson, H. (2010). Economic Impacts ofMarine Litter. KIMO (Kommunernes International Miljøorganisation/
Local Authorities International Environmental Organisation). http://
www.kimointernational.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/KIMO_
Economic-Impacts-of-Marine-Litter.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Moltmann, T., Turton, J., Zhang, H.-M., Nolan, G., Gouldman, C., Griesbauer,
L. et al. (2019). A Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), delivered
through enhanced collaboration across regions, communities, and newtechnologies. Frontiers in Marine Science 6, 291. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2019.00291. Accessed 13 January 2021.
M’Rabat, C., Pringault, O., Zmerli-Triki, H., Héla, B.G., Couet, D. and Kéfi-Daly
Yahia, O. (2018). Impact of two plastic-derived chemicals, the Bisphenol A andthe di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate, exposure on the marine toxic dinoflagellate
Alexandrium pacificum. Marine Pollution Bulletin 126, 241-249. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.090. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Muirhead, J. and Porter, T. (2019). Traceability in global governance. Global
Networks 19(3), 423-443. https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12237. https://doi.
org/10.1111/glob.12237.Accessed 13 January 2021.
Munari, C., Corbau, C., Simeoni, U. and Mistri, M., (2015). Marine litter on
Mediterranean shores: Analysis of composition, spatial distribution andsources in north-western Adriatic beaches. Waste Management 49, 483490. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Murray, C.C., Maximenko, N. and Lippiatt, S. (2018). The influx ofmarine debris from the great Japan Tsunami of 2011 to North America
shorelines. Marine Pollution Bulletin 132, 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.01.004. Accessed 13 January 2021.
38

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

Nakashima, E., Isobe, A., Kako, S., Itai, T., Takahashi, S. and Guo, X. (2016).
The potential of oceanic transport and onshore leaching of additivederived lead by marine macro-plastic debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin
107, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.03.038. Accessed
13 January 2021.
Napper, I.E. and Thompson, R.C. (2019). Environmental deteriorationof biodegradable, oxo biodegradable, compostable, and conventional
plastics carrier bags in the sea, soil, and open-air over a 3-year period.
Environmental Science and Technology 53(9), 4775-4783. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06984. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Narancic, T., Verstichel, S., Chaganto, S.R., Morales-Gamez, L., Kenny,
S.T., De Wilde, B. et al. (2018). Biodegradable plastic blends create new
possibilities for end-of-life management of plastics but they are not apanacea for plastic pollution. Environmental Science and Technology
52(18),10441-10452. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02963. Accessed
13 January 2021.
Nelms, S.E., Barnett, J., Brownlow, A., Davison, N.J., Deaville, R.,
Galloway, T.S. et al. (2019a). Microplastics in marine mammals strandedaround the British coast: Ubiquitous but transitory? Scientific Reports
9(1), 1075. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37428-3. Accessed 13
January 2021.
Nelms, S.E., Parry, H.E., Bennett, K.A., Galloway, T.S., Godley, B.J., Santillo,
D. et al. (2019b). What goes in, must come out: Combining scat‐based
molecular diet analysis and quantification of ingested microplastics in amarine top predator. Methods in Ecological Evolution 10(10), 1712-1722.
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13271. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Newman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., ten Brink, P. and Schweitzer, J.P. (2015).
The economics of marine litter. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Bergmann,M., Gutow, L. and Klages, E. (eds.). Cham: Springer Open Access. 367394.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_14.
Accessed 13 January 2021.
Nizzetto, L., Futter, M. and Langaas, S. (2016a). Are agricultural soils dumps
for microplastics of urban origin? Environmental Science and Technology
50(20), 10777-10779. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04140. Accessed
13 January 2021.
Nizzetto, L., Bussi, G., Futter, M.N., Butterfield, D. and Whitehead, P.G.
(2016b). A theoretical assessment of microplastic transport in rivercatchments and their retention by soils and river sediments. Environmental
Science: Processes and Impacts 18(8), 1050-1059. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C6EM00206D. Accessed 13 January 2021.
NOAA (United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)(2015). Detecting Japan Tsunami Marine Debris at Sea: A Synthesis of Efforts
and Lessons Learned. NOAA Marine Debris Program, US Department ofCommerce, Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-51. https://marinedebris.
noaa.gov/sites/default/files/JTMD_Detection_Report.pdf Accessed 20
November 2020.
Nobre, C.R., Santana, M.F.M., Maluf, A., Cortez, F.S., Cesar, A., Pereira, C.D.S. etal. (2015). Assessment of microplastic toxicity to embryonic developmentof the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea).
Marine Pollution Bulletin 92(1-2), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2014.12 050. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Northwest Pacific Action Plan (2017). NOWPAP Medium-term Strategy 20182023. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/27258. Accessed 13
January 2021.
Obbard, R.W., Sadri, S., Wong, Y.Q., Khitun, A.A., Baker, I. and Thompson, R.C.
(2014). Global warming releases microplastics legacy frozen in Arctic Sea
ice. Earth’s Future 2(6), 315-320. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EF000240.
Accessed 13 January 2021.
O’Brine, T. and Thompson, R.C. (2010), Degradation of plastic carrier bags in
the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 2279-2283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.005. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment(2015). Stemming the Tide; Land-based Strategies for a Plastic-freeOcean.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/
our-insights/stemming-the-tide-land-based-strategies-for-a-plastic-freeocean. Accessed 13 January 2021.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2016).
Extended Producer Responsibility: Updated Guidance for Efficient Waste
Management. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256385-en. Accessed 13
January 2021.
OECD (2019). Waste Management and the Circular Economy in SelectedOECD Countries. Evidence from Environmental Performance Reviews.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309395-en. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Onda, D.F., and Sharief, K.M. (2021). Identifcation of microorganisms
related to microplastics. Handbook of Microplastics in the Environment. T.
Rocha-Santos et al. (eds) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10618-8_40-1
Accessed 20 June 2021.
Onink, V., Wichmann, D., Delandmeter, P. and van Sebille, E. (2019). The roleof Ekman currents, geostrophy, and Stokes drift in the accumulation of
floating microplastic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 124, 14741490. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014547. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Piehl, S., Leibner, A., Loder, M.G., Dris, R., Bogner, C. and Laforsch, C. (2018).
Identification and quantification of macro- and microplastics on an
agricultural farmland. Scientific Reports 8, 17950. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-018-36172-y. Accessed 13 January 2021.
PlasticsEurope (2019). Plastics – The Facts 2019. An Analysis of European
Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. https://www.plasticseurope.
org/en/focus-areas/strategy-plastics. https://www.plasticseurope.org/
application/files/9715/7129/9584/FINAL_web_version_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Posen, I.D., Jramillo, P., Landis, A.E. and Griffin, W.M. (2017). Greenhousegas mitigation for U.S. plastics production: Energy first, feedstocks later.
Environmental Research Letters 12, 034024. https://iopscience.iop.org/
article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa60a7/meta. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa60a7/meta.Accessed 13 January 2021.
Prata, J.C., da Costa, J.P. Duarte, A.C. and Rocha-Santos, R. (2019). Methods
for sampling and detection of microplastics in water and sediment: A
critical review. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 110, 150-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.10.029. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Oosterhius, F., Papyrakis, E. and Boteler, B. (2014). Economic Instrument andmarine litter control. Ocean and Coastal Management 102, 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.08.005. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Prata, J.C., da Costa, J.P. Lopes, I., Duarte, A.C. and Rocha-Santos, T. (2020).
Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible humanhealth effects. Science of The Total Environment 702, 13445. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455. Accessed 13 January 2021.

OSPAR (2020). Monitoring and assessing marine litter: Marine litter
indicator assessments. https://www.ospar.org/work-areas/eiha/marinelitter/assessment-of-marine-litter. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Primpke, S., Dias, P.A. and Gerdts, G. (2019). Automated identification andquantification of microfibres and microplastics. Analytical Methods 11, 21382147. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9AY00126C. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Palatinus, A., Kovač Viršek, M., Robič, U., Grego, M., Bajt, O., Šiljić, J. et al. (2019).
Marine litter in the Croatian part of the middle Adriatic Sea: Simultaneousassessment of floating and seabed macro and micro litter abundanceand composition. Marine Pollution Bulletin 139, 427-439. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.12.038. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Purba, N.P., Handyman, D.I.W., Pribadi, T.D., Syakti, A.D., Pranowo, W.S.,
Harvey, A., and Ihsan, Y. (2019) Marine debris in Indonesia: a review of
research and status. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 146: 1340144. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.057 Accessed 20 June 2021

Papathanasopoulou, I., White, M.P., Hattam, C., Lannin, A., Harvey, A. andSpencer, A., (2016). Valuing the health benefits of physical activities in themarine environment and their importance for marine spatial planning.
Marine Policy 63, 144-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.10.009.
Accessed 13 January 2021.
Parts, C. (2019). Waste not want not: Chinese recyclable waste restrictions,
their global impact, and potential U.S. responses. Chicago Journal ofInternational Law 20(1), article 8. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/
cjil/vol20/iss1/8.
Pasternak, G., Zviely, D. and Ribic, C.A. (2017). Sources, composition andspatial distribution of marine litter along the Mediterranean coast of
Israel. Marine Pollution Bulletin 114, 1036-1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.11.023. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Paul-Pont, I., Lacroix, C., Fernández, C.G., Hégaret, H., Lambert, C., Le Goïc,N. et al. (2016). Exposure of marine mussels Mytilus spp. to polystyrene
microplastics: toxicity and influence on fluoranthene bioaccumulation.
Environmental Pollution 216,
Pedrotti, M.L., Petit, S., Elineau, A., Bruzaud, S., Crebassa, J.-C., Dumontet, B.
et al. (2016). Changes in the floating plastics pollution of the Mediterranean
Sea in relation to the distance to land. PLoS ONE 11(8), e0161581. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161581. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Peng, G., Bellerby, R., Zhang, F., Sun, X. and Li, D. (2020). The ocean’s ultimate
trashcan: Hadal trenches as major depositories for plastics pollution.
Water Research 168,15121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019 115121.
Accessed 13 January 2021.
Peng, L., Du, D., Qi, H., Lan, C.Q., Yu, H. and Ge, C. (2020) Micro- and nanoplastics in marine environment: Source, distribution and threats – a review.
Science of The Total Environment 698, 134254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.134254. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Petrolia, D.P., Penn, J., Quainoo, R., Caffey, R.H. and Fannin, J.M. (2019). Know thebeach: Values of beach condition information. Marine Resource Economics
34, 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1086/706248. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Qiang, M., Shen, M. and Xie, H. (2020). Loss of tourism revenue
induced by coastal environmental pollution: a length-of-stayperspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(4): 550-567. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669582.2019 1684931. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Raubenheimer, K. and McIlgorm, A. (2018). Can the Basel and Stockholm
conventions provide a global framework to reduce the impact of marine
plastics litter? Marine Policy 96, 285-290. . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2018.01.013.Accessed 13 January 2021.
Raubenheimer, K. and Uhro, N. (2020). Rethinking global governanceof plastics – the role of industry. Marine Policy, 113, 103802. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103802. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Rech, S., Borrell, Y. and García-Vazquez, E. (2016). Marine litter as a vector for
non-native species: What we need to know. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 113(12), 40-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.08.032. Accessed 13
January 2021
Reddy, M. S., Shaik Basha, Adimurthy, S. & Ramachandraiah, G. (2006).
Description of the small plastics fragments in marine sediments along
the Alang–Sosiya ship-breaking yard, India. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science, 68(3–4), 656–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecss.2006.03.018
Accessed 20 June 2021.
Rehn, A.C., Barnett, A.J. and Wiber, M.G. (2018). Stabilizing risk using public
participatory GIS: A case study on mitigating marine debris in the Bay of
Fundy, Southwest New Brunswick, Canada. Marine Policy, 96, 264-269.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.033. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Reichert, J., Arnold, A.L., Hoogenboom, M.O., Schubert, P. and Wilke, T.
(2019). Impacts of microplastics on growth and health of hermatypic corals
are species-specific. Environmental Pollution 254, Part B, 113074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113074. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Remy, F., Collard, F., Gilbert, B., Compoére, P., Eppe, G. and Lepoint, G. (2015).
When microplastic is not plastic: The ingestion of artificial cellulose fibres
by macrofauna living in seagrass macrophytodetritus. Environmental
Science and Technology 49(18), 11158-11166. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.5b02005. Accessed 13 January 2021
SYNTHESIS

39

Renzi, M., Grazioli, E. and Blašković, A. (2019). Effects of different microplastic
types and surfactant- microplastic mixtures under fasting and feeding
conditions: A case study on Daphnia magna. Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 103(3), 367-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00128- 019-02678-y. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Saliu, F., Montano, S., Leioni, B., Lasagni, M. and Galli, P. (2019). Microplastics
as a threat to coral reef environments: Detection of phthalate esters
in neuston and scleractinian corals from the Faafu Atoll, Maldives.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 142, 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.03.043. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Reinert, T.R., Spellman A.C. and Bassett, B.L. (2017). Entanglement in andingestion of fishing gear and other marine debris by Florida manatees,
1993 to 2012. Endangered Species Research 32, 415-427. https://doi.
org/10.3354/esr00816. Accessed 13 January 2021.

Sanchez-Vidal, A., Thompson, R.C., Canals, M., and de Haan, W.P. (2018).
The imprint of microfibres in southern European deep seas. PLoS ONE 13,
e0207033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone 0207033.

Reuters (2017). Plastic bags found clogging stomach of dead whale in
Norway, 3 February. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-whale/
plastic-bags-found-clogging-stomach-of-dead-whale-in-norwayidUSKBN15I2EI Accessed 12 February 2021.
Reynolds, C. and Ryan, P.G. (2018). Micro-plastic ingestion by waterbirds
from contaminated wetlands in South Africa. Marine Pollution Bulletin
126, 330-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.021. Accessed
13 January 2021.
Richards, Z.T. and Beger, M. (2011). A quantification of the standing
stock of macro-debris in Majuro lagoon and its effect on hard coral
communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(8), 1693-1701. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06 003. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Richardson, K., Asmutis-Silvia, R., Drinkwin, J., Gilardi, K.V.K., Giskes, I.,
Jones, G. et al. (2019). Building evidence around ghost gear: Global trends
and analysis for sustainable solutions at scale. Marine Pollution Bulletin
138, 222-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.031. Accessed
13 January 2021.
Rochman, C.M., Kurobe, T., Flores, I. and Teh, S.J. (2014). Early warning signsof endocrine disruption in adult fish from the ingestion of polyethylene withand without sorbed chemical pollutants from the marine environment.
Science of The Total Environment 493, 656-661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2014.06 051. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Rochman, C.M., Cook, A.M. and Koelmansk, A.A. (2016). Plastic debris andpolicy: Using current scientific understanding to invoke positive change.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35(7), 1617-1626. https://doi.
org/10.1002/etc.3408. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc 3408. Accessed 13
January 2021.
Ronda, A.C., Arias, A.H., Oliva, A.L. and Marcovecchio, J.E. (2019). Synthetic
microfibres in marine sediments and surface seawater from the Argentinean
continental shelf and a Marine Protected Area. Marine Pollution Bulletin
149, 110618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110618. Accessed
13 January 2021.
Roos, S., Jönsson, C., Posner, S., Arvidsson, R. and Svanström, M. (2019).
An inventory framework for inclusion of textile chemicals in life cycle
assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24(5), 838-847.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1537-6. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Royer, S.-J., Ferrón, S., Wilson, S.T. and Karl, D.M. (2018). Production of
methane and ethylene from plastic in the environment. PLoS ONE, 13(8),e0200574. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574. Accessed 13
January 2021.
Rummel, C.D., Löder, M.G.J., Fricke, N.F., Lang, T., Griebeler, E-M., Janke, M.
et al. (2016). Plastic ingestion by pelagic and demersal fish from the North
Sea and Baltic Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 102, 134-141. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.043. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Ryan, P.G., Dilley, B.J., Ronconi, R.A. and Connan, M. (2019). Rapid increase
in Asian bottles in the South Atlantic Ocean indicates major debris inputs
from ships. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (42),20892-20897. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909816116. Accessed 13
January 2021.
Ryan, P.G., Suaria, G., Perolda, V., Pierucci, A., Bornman, T.G. and Aliani,S. (2020). Sampling microfibres at the sea surface: The effects of meshsize, sample volume and water depth. Environmental Pollution 258,
113413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113413. Accessed 13
January 2021
40

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTIONSAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies) (2019). A Scientific
Perspective on Microplastics in Nature and Society. https://doi.org/10.26356/
microplastics. Accessed 13 January 2021. Accessed 13 January 2021
Schneider, F., Parsons, S., Clift, S., Stolte, A. and McManus, M.C. (2018).
Collected marine litter – A growing waste challenge. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 128, 162-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01 011.
Accessed 13 January 2021.
Schulz, M., Walvoort, D.J.J., Barry, J., Fleet, D.M. and van Loon, W.G.M. (2019).
Baseline and power analyses for the assessment of beach litter reductionsin the European OSPAR region. Environmental Pollution 248, 555-564.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.02.030. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Schuyler, Q.A., Hardesty, B.D., Lawson, T.J., Opie, K. and Wilcox, C. (2018).
Economic incentives reduce plastic inputs to the ocean. Marine Policy
96, 250-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.009. Accessed 13
January 2021.
Science for Environment Policy (2016). Ship recycling: reducing humanand environmental impacts. Thematic Issue 55. Issue produced for theEuropean Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication
Unit, UWE, Bristol. http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/
ship_recycling_reducing_human_and_environmental_impacts_55si_
en.pdf Accessed 20 June 2021
Shen, M., Huang, W., Chen, M., Song, B., Zeng, G. and Zhang, Y. (2020). (Micro)
plastic crisis: Un- ignorable contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions
and climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production 254, 120138. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.120138. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Silva, M.S.S., Oliveira, M., Lopéz, D., Martins, M., Figueira, E. and Pires, A.
(2020). Do nanoplastics impact the ability of the polychaeta Hediste
diversicolor to regenerate? Ecological Indicators 110, 105921. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105921. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Song, Y.K., Hong, S. H., Eo, S., Jang, M., Han, G. M., Isobe, A., and Shim, W. J.
(2018). Horizontal and vertical distribution of microplastics in Korean coastal
waters. Environmental Science and Technology 52(21), 12188-12197. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04032. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Spierling, S., Knüpffer, E., Behsen, H., Mudersbach, M., Krieg, H., Springer,
S. et al. (2018). Bio-based plastics – a review of environmental, social andeconomic impact assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production 185, 476-491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.014. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Stanton, T., Johnson, M., Nathanail, P., Gomes, R.L., Needham, T. and Burson,
A. (2019a). Exploring the efficacy of Nile red in microplastics quantification:
A costaining approach. Environmental Science and Technology Letters
6(10), 606-611. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00499. Accessed 13
January 2021.
Stanton, T., Johnson, M., Nathanail, P., MacNaughtan, W. and Gomes, R.L.
(2019b). Freshwater and airborne textile fibre populations are dominatedby ‘natural’, not microplastic, fibres. Science of The Total Environment 666,
377-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.278. Accessed 13
January 2021.
Statista (2021a). Global plastic market size 2016-2028 (published by Tiseo,I. 24 June 2021). https://www.statista.com/statistics/1060583/globalmarket-value-of-plastic/. Accessed 12 September 2021.
Statista (2021b). Cumulative plastic production volume worldwide from1950 to 2050. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1019758/plasticsproduction-volume-worldwide/. Accessed 11 February 2021.

Cumulative plastic production volume worldwide from 1950 to 2050.
Published by Ian Tiseo, 27 January 2020. https://www.statista.com/
statistics/1019758/plastics-production-volume-worldwide/. Accessed 11
February 2021.
Stelfox, M., Hudgins, J. and Sweet, M. (2016). A review of ghost gearentanglement amongst marine mammals, reptiles and elasmobranchs.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 111(102), 6-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.06.034. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Suaria, G., Avio, C.G., Mineo, A., Lattin, G.L., Magaldi, M.G., Belmonte,
G. et al. (2016). The Mediterranean Plastic Soup: Synthetic polymers inMediterranean surface waters. Scientific Reports 6, 37551. https://doi.
org/10.1038/srep37551. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Suaria, G., Achtypi, A., Perold, V., Lee, J.R., Peirucci, A., Bornmans, T.G.,
Aliani, S., and Ryan, P.G. (2020). Microfibers in oceanic surface waters: a
global characterization. Science Advances, 6, eaay8493 http://advances.
sciencemag.org/
Sun, J., Dai, X., Wang, Q., van Loosdrecht, M.C. and Ni, B.J. (2019).
Microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: Detection, occurrence
and removal. Water Research 152, 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.12.050. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Sundet, J.H., Herzke D. and Jenssen, M. (2016). Svalvards Miljøvernfond.
Forekomst og kilder i mikroplastikk i sediment, og konsekvenser forbunnlevende fisk og evertebrater på Svalbard. RIS- prosjekt nr. 10495.
https://www.pame.is/document-library/desktop-study-on-marine-litterlibrary/additional-documents/annexes-literature-from-the-desktop-study/
table-2-4-abundance-of-microplastics-observed-in-sediments/508-sundet2016-forekomst-og-kilder-av-mikroplasti/file. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Sussarellu, R., Suquet, M., Thomas, Y., Lambert, C., Fabioux, C., Pernet, M.E.J.
et al. (2016). Oyster reproduction is affected by exposure to polystyrene
microplastics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(9), 24302435. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519019113. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Taylor, M.L., Gwinnett, C., Robinson, L.F. and Woodall, L.C. (2016). Plastic
microfibre ingestion by deep-sea organisms. Scientific Reports 6, 33997.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33997. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Tekman, M.B., Krumpen, T. and Bergmann, M. (2017). Marine litter on
deep Arctic seafloor continues to increase and spreads to the North at
the HAUSGARTEN observatory. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic
Research Papers 120, 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2016.12.011.
Accessed 13 January 2021.
Tekman, M.B., Wekerle, C., Lorenz, C., Primpke, S., Hasemann, C., Gerdts, G.
et al. (2020). Tying up loose ends of microplastic pollution in the Arctic:
Distribution from the sea surface through the water column to deep-sea
sediments at the HAUSGARTEN Observatory. Environmental Science andTechnology 54(7), 4079-4090.
ten Brink, P., Schweitzer, J-P., Watkins, E., Janssens, C., De Smet, M., Leslie,
H. et al. (2018). Circular Economy Measures to Keep Plastics and their
Value in the Economy, Avoid Waste and Reduce Marine Litter. Economics
Discussion Papers 2018-3. Kiel Institute for the World Economy. http://
www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2018-3/.
Accessed 13 January 2021.
Thaysen, C., Sorais, M., Verreault, J., Diamond, M.L., and Rochman, C.M.
(2020). Bidirectional transfer of halogenated flame retardants between
the gastrointestinal tract and ingested plastics in urban- adapted ringbilled gulls. Science of The Total Environment 730, 138887. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138887. Accessed 13 January 2021.
The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ (2020). Breaking the Plastics
Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways towards Stopping Ocean
Plastic Pollution. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/resource/breakingplastic-wave-comprehensive-assessment-pathways-towards-stoppingocean-plastic. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Thiel, M., Luna-Jorquera, G., Álvarez-Varas, R., Gallardo, C., Hinojosa, I.A.,
Luna, N. et al. (2018). Impacts of marine plastic pollution from continental
coasts to subtropical gyres – fish, seabirds, and other vertebrates in the

SE Pacific. Frontiers in Marine Science 5, 238. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2018.00238. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Turner, A. (2016). Heavy metals, metalloids and other hazardous elements
in marine plastic litter. Marine Pollution Bulletin 111(1-2), 136-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.07.020. Accessed 13 January 2021.
Turrell, W. (2019). Spatial distribution of foreshore litter on the northwest
European continental shelf. Marine Pollution Bulletin 142, 583-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.04.009. Accessed13 January 2021.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development)(2020). Global Trade in Plastics: Insights from the First Life-cycle Trade
Database. UNCTAD Research Paper No. 53. https://unctad.org/fr/
node/32014. Accessed 13 January 2021.
UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) (2019).
Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2019. Distillationand full report. Geneva. https://gar.undrr.org/report-2019. Accessed 11
January 2021.
UNEA [United Nations Environment Assembly] (2018). Combating Marine
Plastic Litter and Microplastics: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of
Relevant International, Regional and Subregional Governance Strategies
and Approaches – Summary for Policy Makers. UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/3.
Nairobi. https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/unep_aheg_
2018_1_inf_3_summary_policy_make rs.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2021.
UNEP (2016). Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics: Global Lessons andResearch to Inspire and Guide Policy Change. Nairobi. https://wedocs.
unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/7720. Accessed 14 January 2021.
UNEP (2017). Marine Litter:Socio-Economic Study. https://wedocs.unep.
org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26014/Marinelitter_socioeco_study.
pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 14 January 2021.
UNEP (2018a). Exploring the Potential for Adopting Alternative Materials
to Reduce Marine Plastic Litter. Nairobi. https://www.unenvironment.org/
resources/report/exploring-potential-adopting-alternative-materialsreduce-marine-plastic-litter. Accessed 14 January 2021.
UNEP (2018b). Addressing Marine Plastics: A Systemic Approach –Recommendations for Action. Notten, P. (author). Nairobi. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/repor t/addressing-marine plastics-systemic-approach-recommendations-actions.https://www.
unenvironment.org/resources/report/addressing-marine-plasticssystemic-approach-recommendations-actions
UNEP (2018c). Mapping of Global Plastics Value Chain and Plastics Losses
to the Environment: With a Particular Focus on Marine Environment https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/mapping-global-plastics-valuechain-and-plastics-losses-environment-particular Accessed 16/6/2021
UNEP (2019a). The Role of Packaging Regulations and Standards in Driving
the Circular Economy. Nairobi. http://sos2019.sea-circular.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/11/FINAL_THE-ROLE-OF- PACKAGING-REGULATIONS-ANDSTANDARDS-IN-DRIVING-THE-CIRCULAR-ECONOMY.pdf. Accessed 14
January 2021.
UNEP (2019b). Measuring Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the Context of the
Sustainable Development Goals. Nairobi. https://wedocs.unep.org/
bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28111/FossilFuel.pdf?sequence=1&isAllo
wed=y. Accessed 14 January 2021.
UNEP (2020a). Monitoring Plastics in Rivers and Lakes: Guidelines for the
Harmonization of Methodologies. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/
handle/20.500.11822/35405/MPRL.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=yAccessed 6 May 2021.
UNEP (2020b). Monitoring Plastics in Rivers and Lakes: Guidelines for the
Harmonization of Methodologies. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/
handle/20.500.11822/35405/MPRL.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=yAccessed 6 May 2021.
UNEP (2020c).Water Pollution by Plastics and Microplastics: A Review ofTechnical Solutions from Source to Sea. https://www.unep.org/resources/
SYNTHESIS

41

report/water-pollution-plastics-and-microplastics-review-technicalsolutions-source-sea. Accessed 14 January 2021
UNEP (2020d). Catalogue of Technologies to Address the Risks ofContamination of Water Bodies with Plastics and Microplastics. https://www.
unep.org/resources/report/water-pollution-plastics-and-microplasticsreview-technical-solutions-source-sea Accessed 14 January 2021
UNEP (2020e) An Assessment Report on Issues of Concern: Chemicals
and Waste Issues Posing Risks to Human Health and the Environment.
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/33807/ARIC.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Accessed 7 June 2021.
UNEP (2021a). Green and Sustainable Chemistry: Framework Manual.
https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/34338. Accessed 7
June 2021.
UNEP (2021b) World Environment Situation Room 14.1.1(a) Index ofcoastal eutrophication; and (b) plastic debris density. https://wesr.unep.
org/indicator/index/14_1_1 Accessed 13 July 2021
UNEP/IPCP (International Panel on Chemical Pollution) (2016). Overview
Report I: A Compilation of Lists of Chemicals Recognized as Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) or Suggested as Potential EDCs. Geneva. https://
wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/12218. Accessed 14 June 2021.
UNEP/MAP (Mediterranean Action Plan) (2015). Marine Litter Assessmentin the Mediterranean. Athens.https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/
uploads/marine_litter_assessment_in_the_mediterranea2015.pdf.
Accessed 14 June 2021.
UNEP/MAP (Mediterranean Action Plan) (2017). Integrated Monitoringand Assessment Programme of the Mediterranean Sea and Coast andRelated Assessment Criteria. Athens. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/
handle/20.500.11822/17012/imap_2017_eng.pdf?sequence=5a
ndisAllowed=y. Accessed 14 June 2021.
UNEP and Consumers International (2020). Can I Recycle This? A Global
Mapping and Assessment of Standards,Labels and Claims on Plastic
Packaging. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/resource/can-i-recycleglobal-mapping-and-assessmentstandards-labels-and-claims-plasticpackaging. Accessed 14 January 2021.
UNEP/GPA (Global Programme of Action) (2020). Governing the Global
Programme of Action. https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/
oceans-seas/what-we-do/addressing-land-based-pollution/governingglobal-programme
UNEP and the International Trade Centre (2017). Guidelines for Providing
Product Sustainability Information: Global Guidance on Making Effective
Environmental, Social and Economic claims, to Empower and Enable
Consumer Choice. Geneva. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/resource/
guidelines-providing-product-sustainability- information
UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia andthe Pacific) (2019). Closing the Loop: Regional Policy Guide. Innovative
Partnerships with Informal Workers to Recover Plastic Waste, in an Inclusive
Circular Economy Approach. https://www.unescap.org/resources/closingloop- regional-policy-guide. Accessed 11 January 2021.
UN General Assembly (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/
files/publications/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20
Development%20web.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2021.
UN General Assembly (2021). Report of the Special Rapporteur on theimplications for human rights of the environmentally sound managementand disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, Marcos Orellana: Thestages of the plastics cycle and their impacts on human rights. United
Nations General Assembly Seventy-sixth session, 22 July 2021. A/76/207.
https://undocs.org/A/76/207. Accessed 18 October 2021.
Uyarra, M.C. and Borja, A. (2016). Ocean literacy: A ‘new’ socio-ecologicalconcept for a sustainable use of the seas. Marine Pollution Bulletin
104, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.02.060. Accessed 14
January 2021.
42

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION

van Calcar, C.J. and van Emmerik, T.H.M. (2019). Abundance of plastic
debris across European and Asian rivers. Environmental Research Letters
14, 124051. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5468/
meta. Accessed 12 January 2021.
van den Bergh, J. and Botzen, W. (2015). Monetary valuation of the social costof CO2 emissions: A critical survey. Ecological Economics 114, 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.015. Accessed 12 January 2021.
van der Mheen, M., Pattiaratchi, C. and van Sebille, E. (2019). Role of Indian
Ocean dynamics on accumulation of buoyant debris. Journal of GeophysicalResearch: Oceans 124, 2571–2590. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014806.
Accessed 12 January 2021.
van Emmerik, T. and Schwarz, A. (2019). Plastic debris in rivers. WIREs Water
7(1), e1398. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1398. Accessed 12 January 2021.
van Sebille, E., Aliani, S. , Law, K.L. , Maximenko, N., Alsina, J.M., Bagaev,
A. et al. (2020). The physical oceanography of the transport of floating
marine debris. Environmental Research Letters 15, 023003. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6d7d. Accessed 12 January 2021
van Truong, N. and Ping, C.B. (2019). Plastic marine debris: Sources, impacts
and management, International Journal of Environmental Studies 76(6),953-973. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2019.1662211. Accessed 12
January 2021.
Veiga, J.M., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Nilsson, P., Vlachogianni, T., Werner, S.
et al. (2016). Identifying Sources of Marine Litter. MSFD GES TG Marine
Litter Thematic Report; JRC Technical Report; EUR 28309. https://doi.
org/10.2788/018068. Accessed 12 January 2021.
Velis, C.A. and Cook, E. (2021). Mismanagement of Plastic Waste throughOpen Burning with Emphasis on the Global South: A Systematic Review
of Risks to Occupational and Public Health.Environmental Science andTechnology, 55, 11, 7186–7207. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08536
Accessed 13 July 2021
Vethaak, A.D., and Legler, J. (2021). Microplastics and human health.
Science 371, 672-674. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe5041. Accessed
15 February 2021.
Viršek, M.K., Lovšin, M.N., Koren, Š., Kržan, A. and Peterlin, M. (2017).
Microplastics as a vector for the transport of the bacterial fish pathogen
species Aeromonas salmonicida. Marine Pollution Bulletin 125(1-2),
301-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.024. Accessed 14
January 2021.
Vlachogianni, T., Anastasopoulou, A., Fortibouni, T., Ronchi, F. and Zeri,C. (2017). Marine Litter Assessment in the Adriatic and Ionian seas. IPAAdriatic DeFishGear Project, MIO-ECSDE, HCMR and ISPRA. https://mioecsde.org/project/5054/. Accessed 12 January 2021.
von Moos, N., Burkhardt-Holm, P. and Köhler, A. (2012). Uptake and effectsof microplastics on cells and tissue of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. afteran experimental exposure. Environmental Science and Technology 46(20),11327-11335. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302332w. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Walker, T., Gramlich, D. and Dumont-Bergeron, A. (2020). The case for aplastic tax: A review of its benefits and disadvantages within a circular
economy. In Sustainability. Business and Society 360, Vol. 4. Wasieleski,
D.M. and Weber, J. (eds.). Emerald Publishing Limited.185-211. https://doi.
org/10.1108/S2514-175920200000004010. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Wang, J., Liu, X., Li, Y., Powell, T., Wang, X., Wang, G. et al. (2019a).
Microplastics as contaminants in the soil environment: A mini-review.
Science of The Total Environment 691 848-857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.07.209. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Wang, J., Coffin, S., Sun, C., Schlenk, D. and Gan, J. (2019b). Negligible
effects of microplastics on animal fitness and HOC bioaccumulation inearthworm Eisenia fetida in soil. Environmental Pollution 249, 776-784.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.102. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Welden, N.A. and Cowie, P.R. (2017). Degradation of common polymer
ropes in a sublittoral marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 118

(1-2), 248-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.02 072. Accessed
14 January 2021.
Werbowski, L.M., Gilbreath, A.N., Munno, K., Zhu, X., Grbic,J., Wu, T., Sutton, R.,
Sedlak, M.D. Deshpande, A.D., and Rochman, C.M. (2021). Urban stormwaterrunoff: a major pathway for anthropogenic particles, black rubbery fragments,and other types of microplastics to urban receiving waters. American
Chemical Society Environmental Science &Technology Water 1 (6), 14201428 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.1c00017 Accessed 23 June 2021
WHO (2019). Microplastics in Drinking-water. Geneva. https://apps.who.
int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/326499/9789241516198-eng.pdf?ua=1.
Accessed 14 January 2021.
White, M.P., Elliott, L.R., Gascon, M., Roberts, B. and Fleming, L.E. (2020).
Blue space, health and well- being: a narrative overview and synthesis ofpotential benefits. Environmental Research 191, 110169- 110169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110169. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Wichmann, D., Delandmeter, P. and van Sebille, E. (2019). Influence of nearsurface current on the global dispersal of marine microplastic. JGR Oceans
124(8), 6086-6096. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JC015328. Accessed 14
January 2021.
Wilcox, C., van Sebille, E., and Hardesty, B.D. (2015). Threat of plastic
pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 38, 11899-11904. http://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1502108112. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Williams, A.T. and Rangel-Buitrago, N. (2019). Marine litter: Solutions for amajor environmental problem. Journal of Coastal Research 35(3), 648663. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-18- 00096.1. Accessed 14
January 2021.
Windsor, F.M., Durance, I., Horton, A.A., Thompson, R.C., Tyler, C.R. andOrmerod, S.J. (2018). A catchment-scale perspective of plastic pollution.
Global Change Biology 25, 1207-1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14572.
Accessed 14 January 2021.
Windsor, F.M., Tilley, R.M., Tyler, C.R. and Omerod, S.J. (2019). Microplastic
ingestion by riverine macroinvertebrates. Science of The Total Environment
646, 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.271. Accessed 14
January 2021.
Woodall, L.C., Robinson, L.F., Narayanaswamy, B.E. and Paterson, G.L.J.
(2015). Deep-sea litter: A comparison of seamounts, banks and a ridgein the Atlantic and Indian Oceans reveals both environmental andanthropogenic factors impact accumulation and composition. Frontiersin Marine Science, 2 February. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00003.
Accessed 14 January 2021.
Woods, J.S., Rødder, G. and Verones, F. (2019). An effect factor approach forquantifying the entanglement impact on marine species of macroplastic
debris within the life cycle impact assessment. Ecological Indicators
99, 61-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.018. Accessed 14
January 2021.

Wright, S.L., and Kelly, F.J. (2017). Plastic and human health: A micro issue?
Environmental Science and Technology 51(12), 6634-6647. https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00423. Accessed 14 January 2021.
WTO (World Trade Organization) International trade statistics. https://data.
wto.org. Accessed 10 September 2021.
Wyles, K.J., Pahl, S., Holland, M., and Thompson, R.C. (2016). Can beachcleans do more than clean-up litter? Comparing beach cleans to othercoastal activities Environment and Behavior 49(5), 509-535. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916516649412. Accessed 14 January 2021.
WWF, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and BCG (2020). The business case for
a UN treaty on plastic pollution. WWF. https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/
hubfs/4783129/Plastics/UN%20treaty%20plastic%20poll%20report%20
a4_single_pages_v15-web-prerelease-3mb.pdf Accessed 13 July 2021
Xanthos, D. and Walker, T.R. (2017). International policies to reduce plastic
marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): A
review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(1-2), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2017.02.048. Accessed 14 January 2021
Xu, S., Ma., J., Ji, R., Pan, K. and Miao, A-J. (2020). Microplastics in aquatic
environments: occurrence, accumulation and biological effects. Scienceof The Total Environment 703, 134699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.134699. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Yang, Y., Liu, G., Song, W., Ye, C., Lin, H., Li, Z. et al. (2019). Plastics in themarine environment are reservoirs for antibiotic and metal resistancegenes. Environment International 123. 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2018.11.061. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Yu, F., Sun, Y., Yang, M. and Ma, J. (2019). Adsorption mechanism and effectof moisture contents on ciprofloxacin removal by three-dimensional
porous graphene hydrogel. Journal of Hazardous Materials 374, 195-202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.04.021. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Zambianchi, E., Trani, M. and Falco, P. (2017). Lagrangian transport ofmarine litter in the Mediterranean Sea. Frontiers in Environmental Science,
1 February. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00005. Accessed 14
January 2021.
Zambrano, M.C., Pawlak, J.J., Daystar, J., Ankeny, M., Cheng, J.J. and Venditti,
R.A. (2019). Microfibres generated from the laundering of cotton, rayon andpolyester based fabrics and their aquatic biodegradation. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 142, 394-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.062.
Accessed 14 January 2021.
Zettler, E.R., Takada, H., Monteleone, B., Mallos, N., Eriksen, M. and AmaralZettler, L.A. (2017). Incorporating citizen science to study plastics in theenvironment. Analytical Methods 9, 1392-1403. http://doi.org/10.1039/
C6AY02716D. Accessed 14 January 2021.
Zhang, H. (2017). Transport of microplastics in coastal seas. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 199, 74-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecss.2017.09.032. Accessed 14 January 2021.

WTO (World Trade Organization) (2019). Global trade growth loses
momentum as trade tensions persist, 2 April. https://www.wto.org/
english/news_e/pres19_e/pr837_e.h. Accessed 14 January 2021.

Zheng, J. and Suh, S. (2019). Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprintof plastics. Nature Climate Change 9, 374-378. http://doi.org/10.1038/
s41558-019-0459-z. Accessed 14 January 2021.

Wright, S.L., Rowe, D., Thompson, R.C. and Galloway, T.S. (2013a).
Microplastic ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Current
Biology 23, R1031-R1033. https://doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.068. Accessed
14 January 2021.

Zimmermann, L., Dombrowski, A., Völker, C. and Wagner, M. (2020). Are
bioplastics and plant-based materials safer than conventional plastics?
In vitro toxicity and chemical composition. Environment International
145, 106066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106066. Accessed 13
January 2021.

Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C. and Galloway, T.S. (2013b). The physicalimpacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review. Environmental
Pollution 178, 483-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02 031.
Accessed 14 January 2021.

Zink, T., Geyer, R. and Startz, R. (2018). Toward estimating displaced primary
production from recycling. Journal of Industrial Ecology 22, 314-326.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12557. Accessed 14 January 2021.

SYNTHESIS43

44

FROM POLLUTION TO SOLUTION