Recommended citation:
UNEP (2016). Marine plastic debris and microplastics – Global lessons and research to inspire action and guide policy change. United
Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2016
ISBN No: 978-92-807-3580-6
Job No: DEP/2010/NA
The Government of Norway is gratefully acknowledged for providing the necessary funding that made the production of this publication “Marine
plastic debris and microplastics – Global lessons and research to inspire action and guide policy change“ possible.

Acknowledgements:
Members of the Advisory Group (Government and Major Groups and Stakeholder nominated experts): Chris Wilcox (CSIRO),
Elchin Mammadov (Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, Azerbadjan), Flavia Pereira (Ministry of Environment, Brazil), Jacinthe Séguin
(Environment and Climate Change Canada), Hao Chen (Institute of Water Environment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental
Sciences, China), Gustavo Alfonso Lacera (Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Colombia), Paivi Munne (Finnish
Environment Institute, Finland), Marion Gust (Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, France), Marine Arabidze (National
Environmental Agency, Georgia), Cindy Badore (Environmental Protection Agency), Agus Sudaryanto (Technology Center for Marine Survey,
Indonesia), Porfirio Alvarez-Torres (International Affairs Coordination Unit - Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, Mexico), Felicia
Mogo (Nigeria Maritime Management and Safety Agency, Nigeria), Geir Wing Gabrielsen (Norwegian Polar Institute, Norway), Sonia Beatriz
Aranibar Tapia (Ministry of Environment, General Directorate of Environmental Quality, Peru), Maricris T Laciste (Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Philippines), Jude Bijoux (Seychelles Fishery Authority, Seychelles), Sankoh Salieu (Natural Resources Management
Specialist, Sierra Leone), Jesús Gago Piñeiro (Spanish Institute of Oceanography, Spain), Pradeep Kumara (Marine Environment Protection
Authority, Sri Lanka), Susanne Tumlin (Rya Wastewater Treatment Plant, Gryaab AB, Sweden ), Judith Wehrli (Institute of European andInternational Economic Law, Switzerland), IliIssaria Mangalili (Division of Environment, Vice President’s Office, Tanzania), Nawarat Krairapanond(Natural Resources & Environmental Management coordination Division, Thailand), Meryem Arslan (Ministry of Environment and Urbanization,
Turkey), Jenna Jambeck (University of Georgia, U.S.A), Michail Papadoyannakis (Marine Environment Unit, EC), Anthony Akpan (Gender andWater Alliance, Nigeria), Veronique Garny (CEFIC), Semia Gharbi (Association Abel Granier, Tunisia).
Peer reviewers: Emily Grilly (CCAMLR), Julian Augusto Reyna Moreno (CPPS), Tarub Bahri (FAO), Muhammad Ilyas (Marine Environment
and Fisheries, Indonesia), Joan Fabres (Grid Arendal), Monika Stankiewicz, Marta Ruiz (HELCOM), Patrick Ten Brink (IEEP), Sara Regina
Purca Cuicapusa (Instituto del Mar del Perú - IMARPE), Stefan Micallef, Edward Kleverlaan, Fredrik Haag (IMO), Gaetano Leone, Tatjana
Hema (MAP), Kevin Victor Thomas (Norwegian Institute for Water Research), Alexander Tkalin (NOWPAP), Darius Campbell (OSPAR),
Anne-Marie Hanson ( Gender and Water Alliance), Keith Christman (American Chemistry Council), Sarah Da Silva (Environment and Climate
Change Canada), Rolph Payet (Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions) Sarah Smith, (International Whaling Commission), Heidrun
Frisch (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species), Gabriele Goettsche-Wanli, Alice Hicuburundi, Charlotte Salpin, Michele Ameri,
Shawn Stanley, Valentina Germani, Yoshinobu Takei, Lorna Joseph-Pal (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), Heidi Savelli,Kaisa Uusimaa, Petter Malvik, Elisa Tonda, Helena Rey, Surendra Shresta, Shunichi Honda, Mushtaq Memon, Agnes Rube, Jing Zhang, Paulina
Guerrero (UNEP).
Contributors: Members of the GESAMP Working Group 40: Linda Amaral-Zettler, Anthony Andrady, Sarah Dudas, Joan Fabres, Francois
Galgani, Denise Hardesty, Valeria Hidalgo-Ruz, Sunny Hong, Peter Kershaw. Laurent Lebreton, Ramani Narayan, Sabine Pahl, James Potemra,
Chelsea Rochman, Sheck A. Sherif, Joni Seager, Won Joon Shim, Paula Sobral, Shige Takada, Patrick ten Brink, Martin Thiel, Richard
Thompson, Alexander Turra, Lisbeth Van Cauwenberghe, Erik van Sebille, Dick Vethaak, Kayleigh Wyles, Erik Zettler and Patrizia Ziveri; Tarub
Bahri, Uwe Barg, Francis Chopin, Petri Suuronen and Jogeir Toppe of FAO;Giulia Gitti, Marianne Kettunen, Konar Mutafoglu, Daniela Russi,
Jean-Pierre Schweitzer, Patrick ten Brink, Emma Watkins and Sirini Withana of IEEP; Sean Baker of ACC and employees of Tetra Tech; Britta
Denise Hardesty and Chris Wilcox of CSIRO.
Main Author: Dr Peter J Kershaw (Independent Consultant),
Design: Viola Kup Cover Design: Virginia Njoroge
Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its
authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decisionor the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constituteendorsement.

UNEP promotes
environmentally sound practices
globally and in its own activities.
This publication is printed on recycled paperwith plant-based ink. Our distribution policy aims
to reduce UNEP’s carbon footprint.

ii

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS& MICROPLASTICSGLOBAL LESSONSAND RESEARCHTO INSPIRE ACTION
AND GUIDEPOLICY CHANGE

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSGLOSSARYGLOSSARY
ORGANISATIONS AND OTHER TERMS

ALDFG
BAT
BEP
BoBLME
CBD
CCAMLR
CMS
CSIRO
DFG
FAO
GEF
GESAMP
GGGI
GISIS
GPA
GPML
GPWM
HELCOM
ICC
IEEP
IOC
IMO
IUCN
IUU
IWC
LC/LP
LME
MARPOL
MAP
MSFD
NOAA
NOWPAP
OECD
OSPAR
PCCP
RSCAP
SIDS
SPREP
UNEP
UNDP
UNGA
WACAF
WAP
WCR
WWF

Abandoned Lost or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear
Best Available Technique/Technology
Best Environmental Practice
Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem
Convention of Biological Diversity
Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation
Discarded Fishing Gear
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
Global Environment Facility
Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Pro-tection
Global Ghost Gear Initiative
Global Integrated Shipping Information System
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Environment from Land-based Activities
Global Partnership on Marine Litter
Global Partnership on Waste Management
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission
International Coastal Clean-up
Institute for European Environmental Policy
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
International Maritime Organisation
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing
International Whaling Commission
London Convention and Protocol
Large Marine Ecosystem
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
Mediterranean Action Plan
Marine Strategy Framework Directive
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Northwest Pacific Action Plan
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment in the North-East Atlantic
Personal Care and Cosmetics Products
Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans
Small Island Developing States
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations General AssemblyWest and Central Africa Region (Abidjan Convention)
World Animal Protection
Wider Caribbean Region
World Wildlife Fundiv

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSGLOSSARYCOMMON POLYMERS

ABS
AC
EP
PA
PCL
PE
PE-LD
PE-LLD
PE-HD
PET
PGA
PLA
PP
PS
EPS (PSE)
PU (PUR)
PVA
PVC
PU (PUR)
SBR
TPU

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
Acrylic
Epoxy resin (thermoset)
Polyamide 4, 6, 11, 66
Polycaprolactone
Polyethylene
Polyethylene low density
Polyethylene linear low density
Polyethylene high density
Polyethylene terephthalate
Poly(glycolic acid)
Poly(lactide)
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Expanded polystyrene
Polyurethane
Polyvinyl alcohol
Polyvinyl chloride
Polyurethane
Styrene-butadiene rubber
Thermoplastic polyurethanev

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................... x

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

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

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

Rationale for the report ................................................................................................................................ 21.
1.1 Marine plastic debris is a global issue .......................................................................................................... 2
1.2 United Nations Environment Assembly(UNEA) ................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Governance frameworks of relevance to marine plastic debris.................................................... 52.
2.1 Agenda 2030 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals ................................................................... 5
2.2 International Legal Frameworks...................................................................................................................... 8
The United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). ............................................................................................................... 8
Litter prevention at sea...................................................................................................................................10
Litter prevention from land-based sources - GPA ...................................................................................13
Conventions for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity ................................................ 14
Regulation of harmful substances ...............................................................................................................16
Other international agreements .................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Regional Cooperation ....................................................................................................................................18
Regional seas bodies .....................................................................................................................................18
Major transboundary river basins .................................................................................................................20
Regional Fisheries Management Organisations and Arrangements (RFMO/As) ..............................20
European Union ...............................................................................................................................................20
Other examples of regional cooperation. ...................................................................................................21
3.

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

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

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.
Sources of macro and microplastics ....................................................................................................35
5.1 Generating plastic waste ...............................................................................................................................35
5.2 Land-based sectors generating macroplastic litter .................................................................................36
Sources in brief................................................................................................................................................36
Plastic recyclers...............................................................................................................................................36
Packaging .........................................................................................................................................................38
Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................38
Construction .....................................................................................................................................................38
Coastal tourism ................................................................................................................................................38
5.3 Land-based sectors generating microplastics ..........................................................................................38
Sources in brief................................................................................................................................................38
Cosmetics and personal care products .....................................................................................................38
Textiles and clothing .......................................................................................................................................41
Terrestrial transportation ................................................................................................................................41
Plastic producers and fabricators ................................................................................................................41
Ship maintenance and ship dismantling .....................................................................................................41
5.4 Management of waste from land-based sources .....................................................................................42Plastics in wastewater ....................................................................................................................................42Plastics in solid waste ....................................................................................................................................42
5.5 Sea-based sectors generating macroplastic litter ...................................................................................43
Types of materials involved............................................................................................................................43
Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................................44
Aquaculture ......................................................................................................................................................44
Commercial shipping and offshore industries...........................................................................................45
Maritime–based tourism ................................................................................................................................45
Recreational activities.....................................................................................................................................45
5.6 Sea-based sectors generating microplastics ...........................................................................................45
Types of material involved ..............................................................................................................................45
5.7 Estimating land-based inputs of macro and microplastics to the ocean– a regional perspective ................................................................................................................................47
Patterns of waste generation ........................................................................................................................47
Inputs via rivers and other waterways .........................................................................................................49
Solid waste management and the global waste trade ............................................................................53
Coastal tourism ................................................................................................................................................56
5.8 Estimating sea-based inputs of marine plastics and microplastics to the ocean– a regional perspective ................................................................................................................................57
Shipping ............................................................................................................................................................57
Fisheries ............................................................................................................................................................59
Aquaculture ......................................................................................................................................................62
5.9 Regional case study – relative contributions of different sources ........................................................63
Distribution and fate ....................................................................................................................................65
6.
6.1 Marine compartments and transport pathways.........................................................................................65
Ocean circulation ............................................................................................................................................65
Transfer between compartments .................................................................................................................65
6.2 Regional patterns and ‘hot spots’ ................................................................................................................68
Shoreline and nearshore ‘hot spots’............................................................................................................68
Coastal waters and Large Marine Ecosystems ........................................................................................69
Long-distance transport of floating litter and mid-ocean hot spots .....................................................69
Utilizing modelling techniques to simulate the distribution of macro and microplastics .................. 74
SIDS and mid-ocean island hot spots ........................................................................................................80
Water column ...................................................................................................................................................83
Seabed ..............................................................................................................................................................84
Hot spots related to fisheries and aquaculture .........................................................................................84
Biota ...................................................................................................................................................................86vii

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.
7.1

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

8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5

Closing the loop .......................................................................................................................................... 111
Towards a circular economy .......................................................................................................................112
The Precautionary Approach and adaptive management .....................................................................117
Improved governance ...................................................................................................................................119
Stakeholder engagement............................................................................................................................ 122
Improving corporate responsibility and partnership .............................................................................. 125
Public private partnerships ......................................................................................................................... 125
Extended producer responsibility ............................................................................................................. 126
The role of Life-Cycle Assessment .......................................................................................................... 126
8.6 Utilising the GPML and GPWM for dissemination of good practice ................................................ 128

9.
9.1

A selection of different types of measures ..................................................................................... 130
Encouraging changes in behaviour ...........................................................................................................131
Attitudes towards marine litter....................................................................................................................131
Changing behaviour..................................................................................................................................... 132
Fishing industry ............................................................................................................................................. 133
Coastal tourism ............................................................................................................................................. 133
Education and citizen science ................................................................................................................... 134
The role of special interest groups ............................................................................................................137
9.2 Reduction measures – BATs, BEPs, MBIs and legislation.................................................................. 139
Technical measures in brief ........................................................................................................................ 139
Utilising BATs to reduce loss of fishing gear .......................................................................................... 139
Using legislation to reduce the impact of fishing activities ................................................................. 139
Utilising BATs to improve solid waste management ............................................................................. 140
Provision of bins for recycling and waste collection in public spaces...............................................142
Deposit-refund schemes - MBI ................................................................................................................. 143
Payments and subsidies - MBI .................................................................................................................. 143
Taxes and fees - creating incentive while raising revenues - MBI ..................................................... 144
Taxes to meet the needs of SIDS and other small ocean islands ...................................................... 145
Port reception facilities - MBI .................................................................................................................... 145
Imposing fines – part-MBI .......................................................................................................................... 146
9.3 Removal measures – BEPs ........................................................................................................................ 148
Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing g65ear (ALDFG) ................................................... 148

viii

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fishing for litter ..............................................................................................................................................151
Rescue and recovery of trapped animals – BEP....................................................................................151
Shorelines .......................................................................................................................................................151
BATs for litter capture and removal in rivers and harbours.................................................................. 153
Removing plastics from mid-ocean .......................................................................................................... 154
9.4 Imposing product bans ............................................................................................................................... 155
10. Risk assessment and guideline for selecting measures ............................................................ 156
10.1 Defining risk ....................................................................................................................................................157
Risk perception ............................................................................................................................................. 159
10.2 Identifying intervention points - risk assessment frameworks ............................................................. 159
Risk assessment frameworks .................................................................................................................... 159
Identifying priority areas for intervention.................................................................................................. 160
10.3 Guidelines for selecting the approach ..................................................................................................... 162
Choosing the Response (DPSIR) ............................................................................................................. 162
Criteria for evaluating Best Practices ...................................................................................................... 165
Criteria for selecting Best Available Techniques ................................................................................... 165
Criteria for selecting Market-based Instruments (MBIs) ...................................................................... 165
11. Monitoring and assessment ...................................................................................................................167
11.1 Summary of monitoring methods ...............................................................................................................167
Rivers ...............................................................................................................................................................167
Shorelines .......................................................................................................................................................167
Upper ocean ...................................................................................................................................................167
Seabed observations ................................................................................................................................... 168
Sampling biota ...............................................................................................................................................170
Automated systems ......................................................................................................................................170
11.2 Setting baselines, indicators and targets .................................................................................................170
Baselines .........................................................................................................................................................170
What makes a good indicator? ..................................................................................................................171
Setting realistic targets ................................................................................................................................173
Examples of indicators and trends.............................................................................................................173
Developing an indicator framework ...........................................................................................................176
11.3 Harmonisation of approaches.....................................................................................................................178
Monitoring and assessment ........................................................................................................................178
12. Summary of key conclusions ................................................................................................................ 181
13. Summary of key research needs ......................................................................................................... 183
13.1 Governance ................................................................................................................................................... 184
13.2 Properties of plastics ................................................................................................................................... 184
13.3 Sources and pathways of plastics and microplastics .......................................................................... 184
Sources and pathways of macroplastics ................................................................................................ 184
Sources and pathways of microplastics.................................................................................................. 184
13.4 Distribution and fate..................................................................................................................................... 185
Factors controlling degradation ................................................................................................................ 185
Presence, transport and fate of plastics in the marine environment ................................................. 185
13.5 Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................... 185
Quantifying impacts on biota ..................................................................................................................... 185
Social impacts............................................................................................................................................... 186
Economic impacts ........................................................................................................................................ 186
13.6 Fisheries and aquaculture .......................................................................................................................... 186
13.7 Risk assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 187
13.8 Economic dimensions ................................................................................................................................. 187

ix

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSFOREWORD

FOREWORD

reduce our use of single-use plastic items, and phaseout microbeads in cosmetics and other products
where it can be substituted with non-harmful alternatives. Unfortunately, the need for clean-up actions will
still be there, and even increase in many areas.
Clean-up of vulnerable areas needs to be prioritized.

The global production of plastics in 2014 was 311
million tonnes. It has been estimated that in 2010
alone, between 4.8-12.7 million metric tons of plastic
found their way into our oceans. Plastic debris andmicroplastics is transported by ocean currents acrossborders. It is found everywhere, even on the remotest
shores of uninhabited islands, in the Arctic ice, thedeep ocean and in a broad array of marine organisms.
Whether due to poor waste and wastewater management, accidental losses that could have been prevented, or illegal dumping, the “leakage” of this debris
into our oceans has serious environmental, social andeconomic consequences. It harms wildlife, safety ofsea transport, fisheries, tourism, recreation, it threatens marine ecosystems and morally should be considered a common concern of mankind.

Marine litter is a transboundary concern, requiring collaborative action — not simply from governments, butfrom industry and consumers as well. Regional cooperation and action plans, and cooperation through the
Global Partnership on Marine Litter, is recommended
to prevent further pollution at all levels. Strengthened
International cooperation and local action are bothnecessary to follow up on the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, including reaching the
Sustainable Development Goal on Oceans.
This report is accompanied by a stand-alone set ofpolicy recommendations. They are intended to guidedecision makers to take action that can be adapted todifferent local, national, regional and global contexts.
In the 60 years since its large-scale introduction, plastic
has become a natural and necessary part of our daily
life. However, its negative consequences when ending
up in the environment can no longer be ignored.

Microplastic particles are found in a large variety ofmarine organisms, including species we consume as
seafood. The sparse knowledge on levels and effects
does not indicate a health risk to humans now, but theuncertainty is high. The smallest plastic particles –the nanoplastics, are of even larger concern. They areso small that some can enter organs and body fluidsof organisms, and due to their high surface/volume
ratio they can carry larger amounts of environmental
toxicants. Plastic debris breaks down very slowly inthe marine environment, especially under cold anddark conditions. Levels of nanoplastics in the oceans,and how much of the plastic which is ultimately fully
degraded, is not known.

It is our hope that this report and the recommendations
will inspire and catalyze immediate action at all levels– it is only through joint efforts that we can have an
impact and improve the state of our oceans for future
generations. We need stronger international commitment to combat the plastic pollution of our oceans.
The time to act is now. We have no time to lose.

While our knowledge of the impact of plastics in our
oceans is incomplete, what we already know shows
we should not wait before taking action.
This report presents both short- and long-term
approaches to the problem of marine plastic debris
and microplastics. It provides an overview of the latest
science and experiences, identifies priority areas ofaction, and points out areas requiring more research.
Improved waste management is urgently needed toreduce the flow of plastic into our oceans. We needto spread knowledge on why and how, and changesocial attitudes.

Achim Steiner

Vidar Helgesen

We need to get smarter about plastic, adopting amore circular economic model. We need to drasticallyx

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSFOREWORD

Achim Steiner

Vidar HelgesenUnited Nations Under-Secretary-Generaland UNEP Executive Director

Minister of Climate and the Environment,
Government of Norwayxi

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
POLICY-RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONSPOLICY-RELEVANT
RECOMMENDATIONS(c) Review existing regulatory frameworks, institutional arrangements and other instruments
related to marine litter and their enforcement to
identify synergies and gaps as well as potential
solutions to address gaps globally and regionally;(d) Strengthen and increase cooperation at alllevels, including international multi-stakeholder
initiatives such as the Global Partnership on
Marine Litter;In the light of the evidence and findings contained in
the study entitled “Marine plastic debris andmicroplastics: global lessons and research to inspire
action and guide policy change”, and in order toaddress problems related to marine litter in the mostefficient and effective way, it is recommended that
States:(e) Invite international bodies to address andtake into account as emerging issues of concern
those aspects of the marine litter issues identified
in the report, including microplastics and nanoplastics, that are of particular relevance to them.
For example:(i) The Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions in relation to the sound management ofchemicals and wastes;(ii) Appropriate bodies, such as the Strategic
Approach to International Chemicals
Management and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development,
to consider macroplastics, microplastics
and nanoplastics;(iii) World Trade Organization in relation to tradeand environment;(iv) Institutional financing bodies (e.g., Global
Environment Facility, World Bank);(v) Non-traditional groups such as trade organizations;(vi) Organizations already addressing marine littersuch as UNEP, IMO and FAO;(a) Take cognizance of the study and its main
findings, including that:(i) The accumulation of plastic litter in the ocean
is a common concern for humankind owing to
its far-reaching environmental, social and economic impacts;(ii) While prevention is key, improving waste collection and management is the most urgent
short-term solution to reducing plastic inputs,
especially in developing economies;(iii) Long-term solutions include improved governance at all levels as well as behaviouraland system changes, such as a more circular
economy and more sustainable production
and consumption patterns;(iv) Stormwater overflows and runoffs as well as
inadequate waste water treatment contribute
substantially to marine plastic and microplastic
pollution, and their improvement will have additional far-reaching socioeconomic benefits;(v) Stakeholder engagement, including the private sector, as well as legislation, the use of
market-based instruments, best environmental
practices and best available techniques, playa key role in marine plastic pollution mitigation;(f) Quantify the relative contributions of all criticalland-based and sea-based sources and investigate pathways of marine litter, including macrolitterand microlitter;(g) Prioritize actions for marine litter mitigation,
including through the identification of hotspots
and the examination of future scenarios, by theuse of best available technologies (e.g., models
and simulations);(b) Strengthen the implementation and enforcement of existing international and regionalframeworks, encourage States that have not yet
ratified such frameworks to do so and promotecompliance with frameworks and instruments,
including stringent environmental assessment
practices according to national and regional circumstances;(h) Develop cost-effective monitoring and assessment strategies with regard to marine litter at alllevels, taking into account existing programmes,xii

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
POLICY-RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS

especially at the regional level. In the developmentof such strategies, States:(i) Promote harmonization and standardization of
methods (e.g., protocols, sampling) for marine
litter, including for assessment and monitoringof marine litter contamination;(ii) Establish monitoring programmes for marine
litter with a view to establishing baselines,
e.g., for quantities of litter along coastlines,
in water columns, on the ocean floor, in theupper ocean and in biota;(iii) Report on actions they have taken in order toprevent, reduce and control marine littering,and evaluate the results thereof;(iv) Strengthen international cooperation for dataand information exchange, including capacitybuilding for States that need it;(v) Improve identification, allocation and analysis
of material flow cost accounting;(vi) Develop key performance indicators to trackand monitor the success of monitoring andassessment;(vii)Share information (e.g., through a global orregional platform) on marine litter on a regularbasis;(l) Develop global and regional marine litter indicators to guide the prioritization of targeted interventions;(m) Using the precautionary principle and taking
into account that there is unequivocal and quantified evidence of the degree of impact of marine
plastic debris, reduce marine litter sources
through measures such as market-based instruments and regulatory frameworks, including
through:(i) A drastic reduction or ban of single-use plastic
products;(ii) The promotion of measures to reduce plastic
material use and of other incentives for behavioural change towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns;(iii) The promotion of eco-friendly and recyclable
materials in industrial production;(iv) A phase-out of non-recoverable plastic materials that potentially accumulate in marine
environments (e.g., microplastics in personalcare products);(v) The promotion of extended producer responsibility programmes and life cycle assessments;(vi) The promotion of technological innovation toaddress sources;(vii) The promotion of the “6Rs” framework:
redesign-reduce-remove-reuse-recycle-recover;(i) Promote synergies with implementation andmonitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals
and related processes;(j) Promote willing and informed stakeholder participation in marine litter prevention and reduction
strategies and policies, including by:(i) Mapping out relevant stakeholders prior tointerventions in order to ensure their inclusion;(ii) Providing and protecting a right to accessto relevant information on marine plastics,
including microplastics and nanoplastics;(iii) Enabling the needs and considerations of vulnerable groups to be taken into account;(iv) Recognizing gender aspects in the generationand prevention of marine litter;(n) Consider the economic, social and environmental
costs of marine litter in investments and the development of waste management policies and practices, and encourage:(k) Assess socioeconomic and environmental
costs associated with marine litter impacts (costs
of inaction) and enhance cost-effective andcost-benefit analysis of mitigation and clean-up
measures (costs of action); and facilitate financing,
public-private partnerships, capacity-building andtechnology transfer;xiii(i) Improved waste delivery, including to port
reception facilities, collection, sorting andrecycling;(ii) Improved effectiveness of waste andwastewater infrastructure;(iii) Proper management and control of dumpsites, especially when situated close tocoasts;(iv) The promotion of integrated waste management;(v) The re-evaluation of plastic waste as aresource;(vi) Appropriate recycling activities to improve
recovery, in addition to providing economic
opportunities and supporting alternative livelihoods;

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
POLICY-RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS(o) Support efforts to promote a life cycle
approach to plastic products, including the consideration of the degradation of different polymers and the rate of fragmentation (in the marine
environment) by:(i) Internalizing the environmental and social
costs of products (cost internalization);(ii) Enhancing the process of closing the loop in
product and process development and manufacturing as well as in life cycle chains of plastic
products;(iii) Improving the lifespan of products;(iv) Promoting green public and private procurement;(v) Considering green engineering principles andframeworks, eco-design and eco-labelling,
among others;(vi) Strengthening the ability of private actors,
including small and medium-sized enterprises,
to shift to greener activities;(p) Be aware that, until there is an internationallyagreed definition of biodegradability (in the marine
environment), the adoption of plastic products
labelled as “biodegradable” will not bring about asignificant decrease either in the quantity of plastic
entering the ocean or the risk of physical andchemical impacts on the marine environment;(q) Promote cost-effective activities and instruments as well as cooperation at all levels withregard to risk-based and environmentally soundclean-up activities for marine litter in rivers andcoastal and marine areas, according to national
circumstances; and facilitate financing, publicprivate partnerships, and capacity-building and, inthat regard, develop and utilize international criteria
for collective removal actions, clean-up and restoration including with regard to quantities, population, sensitivity of ecosystem, feasibility;(r) Strengthen education and awareness measures on marine litter by:(i) Introducing elements into educational curricula at all educational levels;(ii) Providing educational and outreach materials
targeted to specific interest groups and rangeof ages to promote behavioural change.

xivPhoto: © Akhtar Soomro / Reuters

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
POLICY-RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS

xv

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

xvi

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Plastic debris, or litter, in the ocean is now ubiquitous. Society’s adoption of plastics as a substitutefor traditional materials has expanded almost exponentially since the 1950s, when large-scale plastic
production began. Durability is a common feature ofmost plastics, and it is this property, combined withan unwillingness or inability to manage end-of-lifeplastic effectively that has resulted in marine plastics
and microplastics becoming a global problem. As formany pollutants, plastic waste is a trans-boundary,complex, social, economic and environmental problem with few easy solutions. Warnings of what was
happening were reported in the scientific literature in
the early 1970s, with little reaction from much of thescientific community. It is only in the past decade thatthe scale and importance of the problem has received
due attention. This report was prepared at the requestof the first United Nations Environment Assembly,
which took place 23-27 June 2014, hosted by UNEPin Nairobi, Kenya (Resolution 16/1). It is intended tosummarise the state of our knowledge on sources,
fate and effects of marine plastics and microplastics,
and describe approaches and potential solutions toaddress this multifaceted conundrum. Plastic litter inthe ocean can be considered a ‘common concern of
humankind’.
The report is divided into four main sections:
Background, Evidence Base, Taking Action,
and Conclusions and Key Research Needs. The
Background section describes the rationale for thereport, noting that marine plastic litter is a global
concern, and summarises the UNEA process. Thisis placed within the context of existing governanceframeworks, at international and regional scales, andlinked to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
under Agenda 2030.
The Evidence Base section provides the basis forthe later discussion of potential reduction measures.
It is divided into four chapters: Plastics, Sources,
Distribution and fate, and Impacts. Plastics production increased rapidly from the 1950s, with global
production reaching about 311 million tonnes in
2014. Plastics have been used increasingly in placeof more traditional materials in many sectors, includ-ing construction, transportation, household goods
and packaging. They have also been used for many
novel applications including medical. There are manydifferent varieties of polymer produced but in volume
terms the market is dominated by a handful of maintypes: polyethylene (PE, high and low density), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP),polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS, including
expanded EPS) and polyurethane (PUR). Most plastics are synthesised from fossil fuels, but biomass
can also be used. Packaging accounts for about one
third of production, and much of this is designed forsingle-use. Plastics intended for more durable applications may be manufactured with additive chemicals
to improve the material properties. These include
plasticisers to soften the product, colouring agents,
UV-resistance and flame-retardation, an important
property for applications in transportation and electronics. Some of these chemicals have harmful properties when released into the environment.
Microplastics are routinely defined as small particles
or fragments of plastic measuring less than 5 mm indiameter. Some microplastics are purposefully manufactured for industrial and domestic purposes (‘primary’ microplastics). These include ‘microbeads’ usedin cosmetic and personal healthcare products, suchas toothpaste. ‘Secondary’ microplastics are createdby the weathering and fragmentation of larger plastic
objects. Weathering and fragmentation is enhancedby exposure to UV irradiation. The process becomes
extremely slow once this is removed, as in much of
the ocean. Plastics marked as ‘biodegradable’ do notdegrade rapidly in the ocean.
Sources of plastics and microplastics to the ocean
are many and varied, but the actual quantities
involved remain largely unknown. Reliable quantitative comparisons between the input loads of macroand microplastics, their sources, originating sectors
and users are not possible at present, and this represents a significant knowledge gap. Estimates ofsome sources, such as municipal solid waste, havebeen made. These are useful to focus attention but
the numbers should be treated with some caution
due to the large uncertainties involved. Some of themost important land-based sources of larger plastic
objects (macroplastics) include: construction,
household goods, packaging, coastal tourism, andfood and drink packaging. How much of this material
enters the ocean will be dependent largely on theextent and effectiveness of wastewater and solid
waste collection and management. Land-basedsources of microplastics include: cosmetics and personal care products, textiles and clothing (syntheticxvii

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

fibres), terrestrial transport (dust from tyres), and plastic
producers and fabricators (plastic resin pellets used inplastics manufacture). A variable proportion of
microplastics will pass through wastewater treatment
plants, depending on the sophistication of the equipment and procedures adopted, and regional differences are likely to be very significant. Sea-basedsources appear to be dominated by the fisheries andshipping sectors.
The quantities and types (size, shape, density, chemical composition) of material, together with the entry
points to the ocean, will determine to a great extent
the subsequent distribution and impact. Land-based
inputs may be direct from shorelines or via rivers
and wastewater pipelines. Inputs at sea may be fromnormal operations, accidental losses or deliberate
discarding. There are likely to be significant regional
differences in inputs to the ocean from land- andsea-based sources. Inadequate solid waste collection and management is considered to result in
substantial leakages of plastics to the ocean. Rivers
appear to act as conduits for significant but largely
unquantified amounts of macro and microplastics,
especially where catchments serve urbanised orindustrial centres. Losses from commercial shipping
correlate with busy shipping routes. Abandoned, lostor otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) gear
tends to be concentrated in fishing grounds, but it
can be transported considerable distances if floatation
devices remain intact. Locally, aquaculture structures
can produce significant quantities of plastic debris if
damaged by storms.
Marine plastics are distributed throughout the ocean,from the Arctic to the Antarctic. This is due to the
durability of plastics, the global nature of potential
sources and the ease to which surface currents will
carry floating plastics. The surface circulation is wellknown and is amenable to modelling. There are several
persistent features such as the five sub-tropical gyres
in the Indian Ocean, North and South Atlantic, andNorth and South Pacific. These are areas with relatively high concentrations of floating microplastics.
However, higher abundances of plastics (especiallymacroplastics) are also found in coastal waters, particularly in regions with: high coastal populations withinadequate waste collection and management; intensive fisheries; and, high levels of coastal tourism.
Larger floating objects are also driven by winds,
accumulating on mid-ocean islands and on shores
distant from the source. Many types of plastic aredenser than seawater so will sink once any initial
buoyancy is removed. For example, empty drinks bottles
made with the plastic PET are very common litter

items on shorelines, but their ultimate fate is often theocean sea floor. Most fishing gear will sink if thefloatation buoys are removed. For this reason, muchof the plastic debris in the ocean is out of sight, andwill remain so for the foreseeable future. It is also thereason why no reliable estimate of the total quantity ofplastic in the ocean has been made.
Marine plastics can have significant ecologicalimpacts. The impacts of macroplastics on biota are
best known. Images of a dolphin or seal entangled infishing gear, or the stomach of a young dead albatross full of plastic objects are arresting and can be
distressing for the observer. However, some of thespecies affected are rare or endangered (IUCN redlist) so there is concern also from a conservation
perspective. Macro-debris can also cause damage
to sensitive and at-risk habitats such as cold andwarm water coral reefs. Microplastics have beenfound in many fish and shellfish species, and somecetaceans, but the impact is much more difficult toquantify and remains a knowledge gap. All sizes ofplastic can provide an additional habitat for sessileorganisms. This can have important implications, forexample, in the success of jellyfish to extend theirrange. The rafting of species to a different region
provides an additional mechanism for the introduction of non-indigenous species, most clearly demonstrated on the coast of North America as aconsequence of the Japanese tsunami in 2011.
Marine plastics can have direct social and economic impacts. Floating debris represents a navigation hazard and has been implicated in many
accidents, some of which have resulted in fatalities.
From the available limited evidence, it is concluded
that microplastics in seafood do not currently represent a human health risk, although many uncertainties remain. However, there is great uncertainty
about the possible effects of nano-sized plastic
particles, which are capable of crossing cell walls.
Economic losses include the cost of non-action(loss of income) and the cost of action (e.g. beachclean-ups). Marine plastic debris may cause areduction in income as a result of reduced fishingdays or reduced tourist numbers, if people are discouraged from visiting by the presence of litter.
‘Ghost’ fishing by derelict fishing gear results insignificant losses of potential food for human consumption. The extent of the social and economic
impact, and the options for remedying losses, aredependent on the social and economic context.
This includes better understanding perceptions
and attitudes and the economic circumstance as towhy littering takes place.

xviii

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Improving wastewater and solid waste collection andmanagement presents the most urgent short-term
solution to reducing plastic inputs, especially in developing economies. This will also have other societal
benefits in terms of human health, environmental degradation and economic development. Other priority
areas include improving wastewater treatment andreducing ALDFG. However, a more sustainable solution in the longer term will be moving towards a morecircular economy, in which waste is designed out ofthe production and use cycle, and society adopts
more sustainable consumption patterns. There is sufficient evidence that marine plastics and microplastics arehaving an unacceptable impact to invoke thePrecautionary Approach. This means that society
should not wait until there is unequivocal and quantified evidence of the degree of impact before acting to
reduce plastic inputs to the ocean. But this needs tobe accompanied by an adaptive management
approach. This should allow for sufficient flexibility to
be built into governance frameworks, or technicalmeasures, to permit for adjustment as more knowledge becomes available. In this way perverse incentives and unforeseen negative consequences can beremoved as soon as they are recognised.
Improved governance is of overarching importance,
which includes looking at the effectiveness of existingmeasures and the extent to which they are succeedingin bringing about the intended solutions. Stakeholder
engagement is key to designing and agreeing moresustainable production patterns, and in bringing
about and implementing effective litter reduction andremoval measures. This needs to take account of all
representatives of each community, with due accountgiven to gender and other demographic factors, andbuild effective partnerships, including between the
public and private sectors. The private sector has animportant role in fulfilling the expectation of extended
producer responsibility (EPR) and including the environmental impact of waste plastics when carrying out
Life-Cycle Analysis.

Risk assessment is a key element in identifying
appropriate intervention points and establishing
which stakeholder groups need to be involved inhelping to define the problem and potential solutions
to ‘close the loop’ and prevent plastics escaping tothe ocean. Criteria are presented to help select themost appropriate measures. Indicators of the state of
the environment are needed to establish trends, set
reduction targets and evaluate the effectiveness ofany measures that are introduced. Harmonisation ofmonitoring and assessment approaches will help toselect, implement and oversee measures for marine
plastics reduction on regional scales.
There is a great need to improve the sharing of
knowledge and expertise, to encourage a more multidisciplined approach, to develop public-private partnerships and empower citizen-led movements. The
Global Partnerships on Marine Litter (GPML) and
Waste Management (GPWM) should be utilised tothis end, together with other local-, national- andregional-scale arrangements.
There are several areas of research that should be
pursued to gain a better understanding of the relative importance of different sources, and the fate andeffects of marine macro and microplastics. Fillingthese knowledge gaps will help direct most cost-effectively the efforts taken to reducing further inputsof plastic to the ocean and mitigate the impacts ofplastic debris that is already there.

Examples of measures are presented to bring aboutmarine litter reduction and removal. These include
Best Environmental Practices (BEPs), Best
Available Techniques/Technologies (BATs), MarketBased Instruments (MBIs), legislation or some otherintervention. These illustrate measures which havebeen successful, and which may have the potential tobe replicated elsewhere. It is recognised that for mostinterventions to be fully successful there needs to bewillingness by society to agree to the implementation,
which is why the areas of education and awarenessraising are important.

xix

KEY
MESSAGESxx

KEY MESSAGES
1

6
Plastic debris/litter and microplastics are ubiquitousin the ocean, occurring on remote shorelines, incoastal waters, the seabed of the deep ocean andfloating on the sea surface; the quantity observed
floating in the open ocean in mid-ocean gyres
appears to represent a small fraction of the total input;

Stakeholder engagement is essential – partnerships are particularly useful for communities or
nations that may have common concerns but be
geographically isolated, such as SIDS;

7
2

There are many land- and sea-based sources ofplastic debris and microplastics, with significant
regional differences in the relative importance ofdifferent sources and pathways to the ocean;

There is a moral argument that we should notallow the ocean to become further polluted withplastic waste, and that marine littering should beconsidered a ‘common concern of humankind’.
8
3
There is a clear need to move towards a morecircular economic model for the plastic production cycle, to minimise waste generation; thiscan be summarised as Reduce (raw materialuse) – Redesign (design products for re-use or
recycling) – Remove (single-use plastics whenpractical) – Re-use (alternative uses or for refurbishment) – Recycle (to avoid plastics going towaste) – Recover (re-synthesise fuels, carefully
controlled incineration for energy production);‘Leakage’ of plastics into the ocean can occur at
all stages of the production-use-disposal cycle,
especially due to inadequate wastewater and solid
waste collection and management, but the amountof marine plastic is so far poorly quantified;

9
Marine plastics have a social, economic and ecological impact – marine litter has been shown tohave significant ecological impacts, causing welfare and conservation concerns, especially forthreatened or endangered species; social impacts
can include injury and death; and economic
losses in several sectors can be substantial;

4
A Precautionary Approach is justified – however the case for making an intervention should
be informed by making a risk-based assessment,
backed up by an adaptive management approach;10
From the available limited evidence, it is concluded that microplastics in seafood do not currently represent a human health risk, althoughmany uncertainties remain;

5
An improved governance framework is needed- the existing governance landscape provides abasis for an expanded governance framework, butneeds to take account of the goals and targets of
the Agenda 2030, and improved implementationof existing arrangements is essential;

xxi

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
KEY MESSAGES

11
Social attitudes are important – they have a significant effect on littering behaviour and the acceptance of reduction measures;

12
Reduction measures are essential to minimise
leakage of plastic to the ocean – measures canbe based on best practice, most appropriatetechnologies and techniques, education, awareness raising, voluntary agreements and legislation,
but the choice must take into account the socialand economic circumstances of the community
or region, and should be guided by a risk-based
approach;13
Improving waste collection and management presents the most urgent solution to reducing plastic
inputs, especially in developing economies. This
will also have other societal benefits in terms ofhuman health, environmental degradation andeconomic development

14
Recovery and restoration may be justified where
there is clear, unacceptable damage or loss of an
ecosystem service;

15
There is a need to strengthen and harmonisemonitoring and assessment effects to meet global
commitments under the UN SDG targets, and totarget and gauge the effectiveness of reduction
measures;xxii

BACKGROUND

1

1

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRATIONALE FOR THE REPORT

1. RATIONALE
FOR
THE REPORT

Fortunately, there are initiatives in most parts of theworld that are starting to successfully reduce theinputs of plastic to the ocean, and to recover andrestore sensitive habitats, where this is practicable. These provide good examples of what can beachieved. However, there are some underlying issues,
including the social and economic circumstances ofmany communities, which must also be addressed formarine litter reduction to be tackled on a global scale(Chapter 8).
This report attempts to provide a background on
marine plastic debris, including a definition of what itis, why it occurs, in what way it is a global problem,
and what measures can be taken to reduce its impact.

1.1
MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS IS A GLOBAL ISSUE
Society has benefitted enormously from the development of plastics (see definitions in Chapter 4).
They have become indispensable in our economic
and social development, and have offered a great
many benefits to humanity covering every sector fromhealth and food preservation, through to transportation and enhancing the digital age. We have become
very good at designing plastics for a host of applications, but this has been accompanied by a significant social, economic and ecological cost. One of
the more familiar aspects of any visit to the coast is
the sight of plastic debris1 on the shoreline or floatingin the sea. Plastics are now ubiquitous in the ocean,found in every ocean and on every shoreline from the
Arctic through the tropics to the Antarctic. Both seaand land-based activities are responsible for this continuing plastic pollution of the marine environment.

1.2

One of the best-known properties of plastic is its durability. This is also the reason why plastics persist in theocean for many years after first being introduced. The
large quantities of plastics now in the ocean are there
as a result of our failure to deal with plastics in a moreconsidered and sustainable manner. It is not inevitablethat this pattern will continue, but it will require a greatcollective effort to improve our production and use ofplastics, and to minimise the proportion of end-of-lifeplastic that enters the waste stream.

Marine plastic debris and microplastics was one of anumber of issues highlighted by the UNEA as beingof particular concern. Delegates from more than 160
countries adopted Resolution 1/6 on ‘Marine plastic
debris and microplastics’ (Annex I). This report has been
prepared in response to Resolution 1/6, specifically to arequest at Paragraph 14 to the Executive Director:

1

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT ASSEMBLY(UNEA)The inaugural session of the UNEA took place in
Nairobi on 23-27 June 2014 as a consequence ofagreements made at Rio+20 to strengthen the roleof UNEP as the leading UN environmental and coordinating body. The meeting was attended by over1000 delegates, representing 163 countries, NGOs,
youth groups, UN staff, stakeholders and the media.
One of the intentions was for the outcome of the
UNEA to inform the development of the Sustainable
Development Goals discussed by the UN General
Assembly (UNGA) in September 2015 (Chapter 2.1)2.

‘… building on existing work and taking into accountthe most up-to-date studies and data, focusing on:

The terminology used to describe discarded plastic objects, particles and fragments in the ocean has the potential to cause confusion amongst different stakeholders, and is a matter of debate. Other
terms that are frequently used include marine plastic debris, marine
litter, marine plastic litter and ocean trash. ‘Litter’ and ‘debris’ are also
used to describe naturally-occurring material in the ocean, such aswood, pumice and floating vegetation.

2

2

Lee, G.E. 2014. UNEA 2014: Ground-Breaking Platform for
Global Environmental Sustainability [Online]. Available at: http://
climate-exchange.org/2014/07/02/unea-2014-ground-breaking-platform-for-global-environmental-sustainability/ [accessed 22
December 2015]

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

The intention was to provide a basis for designing possible actions and developing policy-relevant recommendations to inform discussions at UNEA-2 in May
2016. An Advisory Group was established with experts
nominated by governments and major groups andstakeholders who served on it in their individual capacity and developed policy relevant recommendations.

Photo: © Siu Chiu / Reuters33

http://www.gesamp.org/publications/publicationdisplaypages/reports-and-studies-no.-90

1

2

4

2. GOVERNANCE
FRAMEWORKS
OF RELEVANCETO MARINEPLASTIC DEBRIS

development agenda. It represents a plan of action
which encompasses 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs, Box 2.1) and 169 targets. Goals 11,
12 and 14 appear particularly relevant to the issueof marine plastics, although all 17 goals are in someway involved. The preamble of the resolution includes
this statement:‘All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan. We areresolved to free the human race from the tyranny ofpoverty and want and to heal and secure our planet.
We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift theworld on to a sustainable and resilient path. As weembark on this collective journey, we pledge that noone will be left behind.

2.1… The Goals and targets will stimulate action overthe next 15 years in areas of critical importance forhumanity and the planet. ‘

AGENDA 2030 AND THE UN SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT GOALS

Photo: © Cheryl Ravelo / Reuters

Any collective attempt to address the multi-facetted
problem of marine plastic debris needs to takeaccount of regional and international frameworks,
intended to enhance marine environmental protection, that are either in place or currently under development (Bürgi 2015). These can be considered aspart of the complex systems of governance that society uses to ensure the effective operations of institutions. In a narrow sense, governance can be definedas ‘the exercise of authority, control, management andpower of government’ (World Bank 1991). However,public and private sector organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs, sometimes referred toas not-for-profit), charitable bodies and other lessformal citizens’ groups all depend on various internal
systems of effective governance in order to achieve
their objectives. With regard to organisations concerned with the production or use of plastics, governance includes producer responsibility for thesustainable use of resources, minimising material loss
and energy usage, and effective design to reduce
end-of-life waste generation (Chapter 11).
It is appropriate to consider the UN sustainable
development agenda as providing an overarchingframework to place other international, regional,
national and local initiatives in context. Resolution
70/1, ‘Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development’ was adopted by the
UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015.
The UNGA adopted an outcome document of
the UN summit for the adoption of the post-2015

5

2

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

Box 2.1

Goal 6– ensure
availability andsustainable
managementof water andsanitation for all

Goal 11– make cities
and humansettlements
inclusive, safe,
resilient andsustainable

Goal 14– conserve andsustainably
use the oceans,seas and marine
resources forsustainable
development

6

Goal 12– ensuresustainableconsumption
and production
patterns

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS2

Box 2.2. A guide for stakeholders to become moreaware and start to become involved in the SDG process
has been published (SDSN 2015).

Under each of these overarching goals are sets ofmore specific targets. Eleven targets under Goals 11,
12 and 14 are of relevance to reducing marine plastics
with those of most relevance highlighted in bold in

Box 2.2

SDG TARGETS RELATED TO MARINE LITTER:

6.3

By 2030, the proportion of untreated wastewater should be halved

11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying
special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management
12.1 Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production,
all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account thedevelopment and capabilities of developing countries
12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
12.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes
throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly
reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on humanhealth and the environment
12.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling andreuse
12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable
tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
14.1 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular fromland-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution
14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant
adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for theirrestoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans
14.7 By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed
countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable
management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism
14.a Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology,
taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines
on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance thecontribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particularsmall island developing States and least developed countries
14.c Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing
international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for theconservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158
of The Future We Want
15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the lossof biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species(UNSDG 2014)

7

2.2
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKSThe United Nations General Assembly and theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS).
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) provides the overarching framework,within which all the activities in the oceans and theseas must be carried out. It entered into force inNovember 1994 and has 167 parties, including theEuropean Union. Many provisions of the Convention,
including some relevant with regard to the issue
under consideration (e.g. art. 192), reflect customaryinternational law which, as such, is binding also on
states that are not parties to the Convention.
UNCLOS Part XII deals with ‘Protection and preservation of the marine environment’4 and requires states
to take, individually or jointly as appropriate, all measures consistent with UNCLOS which are necessary
to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine
environment from any source, using for this purposethe best practicable means at their disposal and inaccordance with their capabilities, and to endeavour
to harmonize their policies in this connection. These
measures have to include, inter alia, those designed
to minimize to the fullest possible extent the release of
toxic, harmful or noxious substances. Part XII includes
detailed provisions on land-based sources of pollution,
pollution from vessels, seabed activities, dumping, andpollution from or through the atmosphere.

Photo: © NOAA CREP

2

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRISThe UN General Assembly routinely has an agenda
item on oceans and the law of the sea and on sustainable fisheries. The work of the General Assembly was
informed, in particular, by the consideration of the
topic ‘marine debris’ at the 6th meeting of the United
Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process
on Oceans and the Law of the Sea in 2005, which
resulted in the introduction of provisions relating tomarine debris into the annual resolution on oceans
and the law of the sea. At the 70th session in December
2015, resolution 70/235 was adopted which included
the decision (paragraph 312) that the 17th meetingof the United Nations Informal Consultative Process
on Oceans and the Law of the Sea would focus its
discussions on the topic ‘Marine debris, plastics andmicroplastics’. This is due to take place in June 2016.

UNCLOS Part XII Article 192 General Obligation:‘States have the obligation to protect andpreserve the marine environment’
Article 194: ‘States shall take, individuallyor jointly as appropriate, all measures within
this Convention that are necessary to prevent,reduce and control pollution of the marine
environment from any source’4

A provision under UNCLOS of 10 December 1982
relates to the Conservation and Management ofStraddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement).
This includes reference to reducing the impact offishing gears, gear marking and the retrieval of
ALDFG (Box 2.3). This is relevant to the discussion
on the social, ecological and economic impact of
ALDFG (Chapter 7).

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_
overview_convention.htm

8

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS2

Box 2.3

UNITED NATIONS FISH STOCKS AGREEMENT

The Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement). The
Agreement provides, inter alia, for the conservation and sustainable use of these stocks andmechanisms for international cooperation in this regard. In particular, it contains the obligation to:‘minimize pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species,
both fish and non-fish species, (hereinafter referred to as non-target species) and impacts on
associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species, through measures including, tothe extent practicable, the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective
fishing gear and techniques’ (article 5(f)).
It also lists amongst the duties of flag States the taking of measures including:‘requirements for marking of fishing vessels and fishing gear for identification in accordance withuniform and internationally recognizable vessel and gear marking systems, such as the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Standard Specifications for the Marking and
Identification of Fishing Vessels’ (article 18(3)(d)).
Furthermore, the Agreement assigns an important role to regional fisheries management organizations
and arrangements (RFMO/As) for the conservation and management of these fish stocks and sets out,
inter alia, the functions of such RFMO/As.
The Review Conference on the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement in 2006 recommended States
individually and collectively through regional fisheries management organizations to, inter alia, “[e]nhance efforts to address and mitigate the incidence and impacts of all kinds of lost or abandoned
gear (so-called ghost fishing), establish mechanisms for the regular retrieval of derelict gear andadopt mechanisms to monitor and reduce discards” (A/CONF.210/2006/15, Annex, para. 18(h)). In
response, States and RFMO/As have taken action to address lost or abandoned fishing gear anddiscards (see, e.g., A/CONF.210/2010/1, paras. 124-129). The resumed Review Conference to beheld from 23 to 27 May 2016 may further address this issue.

9

2

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

Litter prevention at sea
MARPOL Convention
MARPOL Annex V of the IMO MARPOL Convention
provides regulations for the prevention of pollution by
garbage from ships. This prohibits the discharge of garbage into the ocean from all vessels of whatever type,
except as provided in specific regulations (Table 2.1).5

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

A revised version of Annex V entered into force on 1
January 2013 (Table 2.1), following a review by anintersessional correspondence group of the Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). This
took account of resolution 60/30 of the UN General
Assembly which had invited IMO to conduct a review
in consultation with relevant organisations andbodies, and to assess its effectiveness. The MEPC
also adopted the 2012 Guidelines for the development of garbage management plans (resolution
MEPC.220(63)).
Under the revised MARPOL Annex V, garbage includes:‘all kinds of food, domestic and operational waste,
all plastics, cargo residues, incinerator ashes, cooking oil, fishing gear, and animal carcasses generated
during the normal operation of the ship and liable tobe disposed of continuously or periodically. Garbage
does not include fresh fish and parts thereof generated as a result of fishing activities undertaken during
the voyage, or as a result of aquaculture activities’.

5

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

10

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

Table 2.1
Ships outside
special areas

Ships insidespecial areas

Offshore
platforms andall ships within 500m
of such platforms

Discharge
permitted

Discharge
permitted

Discharge
permitted≥ 3 nm from the nearest landand en route≥ 12 nm from the nearest
land and en route≥ 12 nm from the nearest
land

Discharge
permitted

Discharge
prohibited

Discharge
prohibited

Discharge
prohibited

Discharge
prohibited

Discharge only
permitted in
specific circumstances**

Discharge
prohibitedType of garbage

Food waste
comminuted or ground

Food waste notcomminuted or ground≥ 12 nm from the nearest
land and en route

Cargo residues*
not contained in wash
water

Discharge
permitted≥ 12 nm from the nearest
land and en route

Cargo residues*
contained in wash waterand ≥ 12 nm from the nearest land and en route

Cleaning agentsand additives
contained
in cargo holdwash water

Discharge
permitted

Discharge only
permitted in specificcircumstances**and ≥ 12 nm from the nearest land and en route

Cleaning agents andadditives* contained indeck and externalsurfaces wash water

Carcasses of animals
carried on board as cargo
and which died during thevoyageAll other garbage including
plastics, domestic wastes,cooking oil, incinerator
ashes, operational wastes
and fishing gear

Mixed garbage

Discharge
prohibited

Discharge
permitted

Discharge
prohibited

Discharge permitted
As far away from the nearest
land as possible and en route

Discharge prohibited

Discharge prohibited

Discharge prohibited

Discharge prohibited

Discharge prohibited

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

Simplified overview of the discharge provisions of the revised MARPOL Annex V,
which entered into force on 1 January 2013 (www.imo.org)* These substances must not be harmful to the environment** According to regulation 6.1.2 of MARPOL Annex V, the discharge shall only be allowed if: (a) both the port of departure and the next portof destination are within the special area (Box 2.4) and the ship will not transit outside the special area between these ports (regulation
6.1.2.2); and (b) if no adequate reception facilities are available at those ports (regulation 6.1.2.3).

11

2

2

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

Box 2.4
London Convention and Protocol
The ‘Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972’ (i.e.
The London Convention, LC) came into force in
1975.6 Its objective is to provide effective control of all
sources of marine pollution and take all practical steps
to prevent pollution by dumping of wastes or othermatter at sea. Currently 87 States are Parties to theConvention. The London Protocol (LP) was agreed in
1996 to modernise, and eventually replace theConvention. It came into force in March 2006 and there
are currently 46 Parties to the Protocol (Figure 2.1).

SPECIAL AREAS ESTABLISHEDUNDER MARPOL ANNEX V

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mediterranean Sea area
Baltic Sea area
Black Sea area
Red Sea area
Gulfs area
North Sea area
Wider Caribbean area
Antarctic area

Under the Convention wastes are categorised
according to a black- and grey-list approach. For
black-list, dumping is prohibited, while for grey-list a
waste, dumping is allowed provided a special permit
is issued by a designated authority, and it has to takeplace under strict controls. All other non-list materials
can be dumped provided a general permit is issued.

Annex V also obliges Governments to ensure: ‘theprovision of adequate reception facilities at ports andterminals for the reception of garbage without causing undue delay to ships, and according to the needsof the ships using them’. This is discussed further in
Chapter 9.

Figure 2.1

6

http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/LCLP/Pages/default.
aspx

Parties to the London Convention and Protocol

Map showing current LC/LP Parties (as of December 2015):
green – Protocol Parties, yellow – Convention Parties, red – Non-Party States (www.imo.org).

12

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

Under the Protocol, a precautionary approach isadopted whereby all dumping is prohibited unlessexplicitly permitted (the ‘reverse list’ approach). The
LC and LP prohibit disposal at sea of persistent plastic
and other synthetic materials, for example netting andropes (LC annex I, paragraph 2 and LP annex 1). The
export of waste for dumping and incineration at sea
are also prohibited. There is an obligation on States
to ensure that waste disposal at sea is carried out inaccordance with the LC/LP, equivalent regional
agreements or UNCLOS (article 210).

FAO instruments
The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries7
contains a series of provisions and standards, someof which are relevant to marine litter. The Code isvoluntary and global in scope, and is directed atboth members and non-members of FAO, and at alllevels of governance. Provisions concerning marine
litter include the provision of port-reception facilities,
storage of garbage on board and the reduction inabandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear
(ALDFG) (Box 2.5).

One area of concern has been the possibly of plastics
and microplastics becoming associated with the various waste streams under the LC/LP. Accordingly, theSecretariat of the LC/LP commissioned a ‘Reviewof the current state of knowledge regarding marine
litter in wastes dumped at sea under the London
Convention and Protocol’. The work was undertaken within the framework of the UNEP-led Global
Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML, Chapter 9), andis designed to stimulate further discussion about
the nature and extent of marine litter in the waste
streams under the LC/LP, in particular plastics andmicroplastics. Sewage sludge and dredged material
were considered to be most likely to contain plastic
litter (Chapter 5.8).

Litter prevention from land-basedsources – GPA
The Global Programme of Action for the Protection of
the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities(GPA) is the only global intergovernmental mechanism directly addressing the connectivity between

Photo: © NOAA Marine Debris Program

7

13

http://www.fao.org/fishery/code/en2

2

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

Box 2.5

FAO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES – ARTICLE 8

8.4
Fishing activities
8.4.6 States should cooperate to develop and apply technologies, materials and operational
methods that minimize the loss of fishing gear and the ghost fishing effects of lost or
abandoned fishing gear.
8.4.8 Research on the environmental and social impacts of fishing gear and, in particular, on
the impact of such gear on biodiversity and coastal fishing communities should be promoted.
8.7
Protection of the aquatic environment
8.7.1 States should introduce and enforce laws and regulations based on the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78).
8.7.2 Owners, charterers and managers of fishing vessels should ensure that their vessels are
fitted with appropriate equipment as required by MARPOL 73/78 and should consider fitting a
shipboard compactor or incinerator to relevant classes of vessels in order to treat garbage
and other shipboard wastes generated during the vessel‘s normal service.
8.7.3 Owners, charterers and managers of fishing vessels should minimize the taking aboardof potential garbage through proper provisioning practices.
8.7.4 The crew of fishing vessels should be conversant with proper shipboard procedures inorder to ensure discharges do not exceed the levels set by MARPOL 73/78. Such proceduresshould, as a minimum, include the disposal of oily waste and the handling and storage of
shipboard garbage.
8.9
Harbours and landing places for fishing vessels
8.9.1 States should take into account, inter alia, the following in the design and constructionof harbours and landing places:c.
waste disposal systems should be introduced, including for the disposal of oil, oily water andfishing gear;

terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems. It aims to be a source of conceptual andpractical guidance to be drawn upon by national
and/or regional authorities for devising and implementing sustained action to prevent, reduce, control and/or eliminate marine degradation fromland-based activities. UNEP hosts the GPA andcoordinates some activities in support of the programme. Intergovernmental Review Meetings areorganized every five years to review the progress
made by countries in the implementation of the
GPA through their respective National Action
Plans. Marine litter is wa priority source category
under the GPA.

Conventions for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity cameinto force in December 1993. It is supported primarily by funding from member governments andoperated by the Global Environment Facility(GEF). Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention are
particularly relevant to the impact of marine plastic debris (Box 2.6). The Secretariat commissioned a major review of the impacts of marine
litter on biodiversity, which was published in 2012(SCBD 2012).

14

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS2

Box 2.6

UN CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Article 6 General measures for conservation and sustainable use
Each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with its particular conditions and capabilities:
(a)

(b)

(a)
d)
(e)
(f)

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

Based on the recommendations in these reports, the
CMS adopted resolution 11.30 in November 2014 on
the ‘Management of marine debris’8 that referred to:

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals (CMS or the Bonn
Convention) was adopted in June 1979. It addresses
the conservation of species or populations that crossnational jurisdictional boundaries, as well as of theirhabitats.

i

identifying knowledge gaps in the managementof marine debris (paragraphs 5-13)
ii commercial marine vessel Best Practice(paragraphs 14-17)
iii public awareness and education campaigns(paragraphs 18-23)

In 2014, upon a request contained in resolution 10.4 on‘Marine Debris’, CMS published three comprehensive
reports, now available as UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.27
Report I: Migratory Species, Marine Debris and its
Management, giving an overview of the issue andidentifying knowledge gaps relevant to species
conservation, UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.28 Report II:
Marine Debris and Commercial Marine Vessel Best
Practice, and UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.29 Report
III: Marine Debris: Public Awareness and Education
Campaigns.

This is very relevant to the identification and implementation of litter reduction measures discussed in
Chapter 9.

815

http://www.cms.int/en/news/marine-debris-%E2%80%93-cmsand-ascobans-point-out-some-local-solutions-global-problem

2

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRISThe International Whaling Commission (IWC)The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs) was adopted in 2001 and cameinto force in May 200410. It was established to protect human life and the environment from chemicals
that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate inhumans and wildlife, have harmful effects and havethe potential for long-range environmental transport.
Chemicals classified as POPs under the Convention
have a number of undesirable effects, including disruption of the endocrine system, carcinogenicity anddamage to the central and peripheral nervous system.
POPs are widespread in the environment, but tend to
be more concentrated in organic matter, for example
in seabed sediments. Many are lipophilic, meaning
they are readily absorbed by oils and fats, hence concentrations tend to be higher in oily fish than nonoily fish, in the same waters. For this reason, plastic
tends to absorb organic contaminants, and POPs areroutinely found in plastic particles. Some of the additive chemicals that were used several years ago tomodify the properties of plastics, (e.g. to make theplastic resistant to fire, see Chapter 4.1), are nowclassified as POPs. This means that plastics havebecome carriers of POPs in the ocean. A system isin place to periodically review and add new chemicals to the Annexes of the Convention as appropriate.
A global monitoring plan has been designed to provide comparable datasets on a regional and global
basis. Clearly there is a potential synergy between
POPs monitoring under the Stockholm Convention
and monitoring the occurrence of plastic particles(Chapter 9). An annual meeting takes place to ensure
cooperation and coordination between regional centres under the Basel and Stockholm Conventions11.

The IWC was set up in 1946 under the auspicesof the International Convention for the Regulationof Whaling (ICRW). The Commission has a membership of 88 Contracting Governments. The ICRW
contains an integral Schedule which sets out specific measures that the IWC has collectively decided
are necessary in order to regulate whaling and othermethods/mechanisms to conserve whale stocks. In
addition, the IWC undertakes co-ordinates and funds
conservation work on many species of cetacean.
Through its Scientific Committee it undertakes extensive study and research on cetacean populations,develops and maintains scientific databases, andpublishes its own peer-reviewed scientific journal,
the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management.
The IWC began formally to consider marine debris
in 2011 following its endorsement of the United
Nations
Environment
Programme’s
HonoluluCommitment. Subsequent work has shown thatmarine debris, such as ALDFG and plastics, including microplastics, can be a conservation and welfare
concern for cetaceans throughout the oceans. In
addition to regular work by its Scientific Committee,
the IWC has held two expert workshops on marine
debris (IWC 2014 and IWC/65/CCRep04)9, and three on large whale entanglement in all fishing gear, including ALDFG (IWC, 2012; IWC,
2013 and SC/66a/COMM2); established a global
network for disentanglement of whales from gear,
including a training and support programme for new
teams around the world; and increased its efforts tostrengthen international collaboration.

The Basel Convention on the Control ofTransboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal was adopted in March 1989
and came into force in 1992 (Box 2.7). One of themain drivers for doing so was the realisation in the
1970s and 1980s of the extent of the traffic in toxic
wastes to Africa and other developing regions12.
The trade was driven by a desire to reduce disposal
costs, against a background of a lower level of environmental awareness and a lack of regulation andenforcement in countries in Eastern Europe and theRegulation of harmful substances
Several International Conventions and Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs) have been introduced to control the release of harmful substances
into the environment. These are only relevant insofar as some plastics are produced containing compounds known to have toxic properties, and mostplastics have a tendency to absorb organic pollutants
and hence have the potential to impart a chemical
impact if ingested or otherwise brought into close
contact with marine organisms or people.

9

https://iwc.int/marine-debris

1610

http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/Overview/tabid/3351/Default.
aspx

11

http://www.brsmeas.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4624

12

http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/tabid/1271/Default.
aspx

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS2

Box 2.7
developing world. The Basel Convention is of relevance, as much of the waste trade involves plastics,
and some of these contain relatively high levels ofadditive chemicals which are in Annex I or II of theConvention. These have known toxicological effects,
with serious human health implications. This is discussed later in the report (Chapters 5.6 and 7.3).
The Convention also requires Parties to: ‘ensure thatthe generation of hazardous wastes and other wastes
are minimised.’ The Rotterdam Convention covers
the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International
Trade13, and forms another important restraint on theunregulated trade in waste. Again, plastics may be
included if they contain substances listed within theConvention Annexes.

BASEL CONVENTION ON THE
CONTROL OF TRANSBOUNDARYMOVEMENTS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES AND THEIR DISPOSAL

Principal aims:

Other international agreementsi.

the reduction of hazardous waste
generation and the promotion ofenvironmentally sound managementof hazardous wastes, wherever theplace of disposal;ii.

the restriction of transboundary
movements of hazardous wastes
except where it is perceived to bein accordance with the principles
of environmentally soundmanagement; andiii.

a regulatory system applying to cases
where transboundary movements are
permissible

Where measures are introduced (e.g. labelling,
market-based instruments – see Chapter 11) they
have to be consistent with existing legal arrangements, including World Trade Organisation law.

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

13

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

14

http://www.sids2014.org/

17

2

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

2.3
REGIONAL COOPERATION
Regional seas bodies
Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans(RSCAPs) play a critical role in encouraging cooperation and coordination amongst countries sharing
a common resource. There are 18 Regional Seas
Conventions and Action Plans, six of which are administered directly by UNEP: Mediterranean (Barcelona
Convention), Wider Caribbean (WCR), East Asia
Seas, Eastern Africa (Nairobi Convention), Northwest
Pacific (NOWPAP), and West and Central Africa(WACAF). The RSCAPs are instrumental in supporting the implementation of the Global Programme of
Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities (GPA) at regional levels.
Several RSCAPs have developed or are in the process of developing regional action plans on marine
litter (see Box 2.8, Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2

Regional action plan for marine litter

Regional action plans on marine litter
Baltic Sea
North-East
Atlantic

Black Sea

North West
Pacific

Mediterranean
Sea
Wider Caribbean
ROPME
Sea
East Asian
Seas

Pacific

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

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

18

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS OF RELEVANCE TO MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS2

Box 2.8

REGIONAL ACTION PLANS ON MARINE LITTER•

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

•

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

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

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

•

Northwest Pacific Action Plan on Marine Litter (2008).

•

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

19

2

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

a mechanism which, potentially, could be utilised toreduce the introduction of plastic and microplastics
to waterways and hence reduce their introduction tothe ocean. For example, the International Commission
for the Protection of the Danube (ICPDR) provides
an overall legal instrument for cooperation and transboundary management of the Danube16. It covers a
range of issues including water quality and the transboundary transport of hazardous substances, and has
been ratified by 15 contracting parties. The ICPDRJoint Action Plan includes measures to reduce waterpollution.

The regional action plans have been developed taking
account of the specific environmental, social andeconomic context of each region. They vary in the
degree of detail and the extent to which actions are
required or recommended by States. For example,
the strategic framework adopted on the managementof marine litter in the Mediterranean contains legallybinding obligations to take measures to prevent andreduce the impacts of litter in the Mediterranean fromland and sea sources. In contrast, HELCOM has
adopted several specific recommendations directly or
indirectly related to marine litter:i.

Recommendation 28E/10 on application of the
No-special-fee system to ship-generated wastes
and marine litter caught in fishing nets in the Baltic
Sea Area and agreement to raise public awarenesson the negative environmental and socio-economic
effects of marine litter in the marine environment;
ii. Recommendations 10/5 concerning guidelines
for the establishment of adequate reception facilities in ports (1989);
iii. Recommendation 10/7 concerning general
requirements for reception of wastes (1989);
iv. Recommendation 19/14 concerning a harmonized system of fines in case a ship violatesanti-pollution regulations (1998);
v. Recommendation 19/9 (supplemented by22/1) concerning the installation of garbage
retention appliances and toilet retention systems
and standard connections for sewage on board
fishing vessels, working vessels and pleasurecraft (1998); andvi. Recommendation 31E/4 concerning proper
handling of waste/landfilling (2010).

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations
and Arrangements (RFMO/As)
RFMO/As have a responsibility to sustainably
manage living resources, either for a specific highly
migratory species (e.g. bluefin tuna) or for resources
more generally in a particular geographic region. The
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources17 (CCAMLR) is an example of thelatter type. It was established in 1982, with the objective of conserving marine life, and ensuring controlled
harvesting is carried out within an ecosystem-based
approach. The subject of the management of marine
debris, in order to monitor and minimize the impactof fisheries related activities in the Convention Area,
has been an integral part of the CCAMLR agenda
since 1984. Each year since 1989, members havecollected data on beached debris, entanglement ofmarine mammals, marine debris associated with seabird colonies and animals contaminated with hydrocarbons at various sites around Antarctica (Chapter
6/10). CCAMLR has also been instrumental at introducing mitigation measures to reduce the impact ofmarine debris on marine life (Chapter 9).

Major transboundary river basins
River systems and other types of waterway represent
a major route for carrying waste, including plastics, tothe ocean (Chapter 5.6). When a waterway crosses
a national boundary it is defined as a transboundary waterway. Almost half the Earth’s land surface(excluding Antarctica) falls within transboundarybasins (including ground water and lakes) and there isa large number of multilateral agreements dealing withtransboundary river basins, some of which addressenvironmental concerns15. Such agreements provide

15

European Union
The European Union (EU) has adopted a number ofmeasures on waste management, packaging and environmental protection that are relevant to the reduction in marine plastic debris. These apply to all 28
Member States of the EU. An overview of European
Commission (EC) policies, legislation and initiatives

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/
Trans-boundaryWaterManagement20

16

http://www.icpdr.org/main/17

https://www.ccamlr.org/en

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

related to marine litter was published in 2012 (EC2012). These relate both to specific initiatives within
the EU and overarching international obligations.
For example, the requirement for States to provide
port reception facilities, under MARPOL Annex V, isenshrined in a Directive of 2000 (EC 2000).

The Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries(CPSC)The CPSC has recognised the importance of marine
litter, highlighted the key economic and environmental impacts and recommended a number of actions.
These are contained in the CPSC Lisbon Declaration,
approved in June 201520. The CPSC consists ofrepresentatives from Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde,
Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique,Portugal, São Tome and Principe, and East Timor.

One of the most relevant pieces of European legislation is the Marine Strategy Framework Directive(MSFD)18 in which marine litter is one of eleven‘descriptors’ of the environmental state of European
Seas. The MSFD includes provision for setting indicators, and targets for litter reduction (Chapter 9).
The principal aim of the MSFD is to achieve Good
Environmental Status (GES) of EU marine waters by
2020. The Directive defines GES as: ‘The environmental status of marine waters where these provide
ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas
which are clean, healthy and productive’.

ASCOBANS
Marine litter is also a concern of regional conservation
bodies such as the Agreement on the Conservationof Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic,
North and Irish Seas (ASCOBANS)21.

Photo: © NOAA Marine Debris Program

A ‘European Strategy on Plastic Waste in theEnvironment’ was published as a Green Paper in2013 (EC 2013). This looked at aspects of plastics
production, use, waste management, recycling andresource efficiency, posing a series of questions tofacilitate the development of more effective waste
management guidelines and legislation. This has
been followed by revision of existing legislation, forexample on reducing the consumption of lightweightplastic bags (< 50 μm thick), adopted in April 2015
(EC 2015).
The EC has commissioned several studies on thegeneration of marine litter, more specifically marine
plastic litter, and potential impacts and mitigation
measures. These are referred to in the report whereappropriate (Chapters 5, 6, 9).

Other examples of regional cooperation.
The East Asia Civil Forum on Marine LitterThis is a network of non-profit organizations devoted
to addressing the marine litter issue in Asia19. The
current membership consists of organisations fromSouth Korea, Japan, China (mainland and Taiwan),
Bangladesh, Philippines and Brunei, and an Englishversion newsletter is published twice per year.

18

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htm

20

http://www.cplp.org/id-2595.aspx

19

www.osean.net

21

http://www.ascobans.org/en/publication/oceans-full-plastic

21

2

3

22

3. SCOPE AND
STRUCTURE
OF THE REPORT

iv. Modelling component (engaging wider modelling/
oceanographic community) (UNEP in press b); andv. Socio-economic
component(engaging
researchers and universities to look at social
aspects/welfare impacts and economic effects)(UNEP in press c), and Market-based instruments(Gitti et al. 2015).
The author of the present report has attempted tocapture the most relevant aspects of these morein-depth studies. However, they are being publishedas separate reports to which the reader is referred.

The report has been designed to address the requestfrom the UNEA to the Executive Secretary ‘…toundertake a study on marine plastic debris and marine
microplastics…’. It is divided into four major sections:
Background (Chapters 1-3), Evidence Base
(Chapters 4 - 7), Taking action (Chapters 8 - 11) andConclusions and Key Research Needs (Chapters 12- 13). The Evidence Base section covers: the natureof synthetic plastics and microplastics; the main landand sea-based sources; the distribution and fate ofmarine plastics and microplastics in the ocean; themain social, economic and ecological impacts ofplastics and microplastics; and, the social and economic context of sources and impacts. The Taking
Action section covers: monitoring and assessment,
including the use of indicators; risk-based assessment of impacts and identifying intervention points;
and, a series of measures for ‘closing the loop’,
including Best Available Techniques (BATs) and Best
Environmental Practices (BEPs). The relationshipbetween the main sections and chapters in the report
and the five elements in Resolution 1/6 Paragraph 14
are indicated in Table 3.1. This also provides a guideto the relevant UN SDG Targets. Although the reportfocuses on the specific UNEA requests, it also provides an introduction to marine plastics and an explanation of the current state of knowledge about the
behaviour and impacts of plastics in ocean. This is toprovide a more robust evidence base for developing
and implementing cost-effective solutions to reducethe input and impact of marine plastic.

The report does not attempt to quantify the totalabundance of plastic debris in the ocean, nor of
the overall inputs from all sources. There are too
many knowledge gaps about existing and emerging
sources to provide a meaningful analysis. In addition,
plastic debris covers an enormous size range, fromnanometres to several metres in diameter, and occurs
throughout the ocean (sea surface, water column,
shorelines, seabed, biota), presenting a number ofchallenges in terms of statistically valid sampling andanalysis. A number of estimates have been publishedon the scale of some sources and the quantities ofdebris in some categories, and these are referred toin Chapter 5 (sources) and Chapter 6. Such studies
are very useful in order to focus further assessmentof possible litter reduction measures, investment
decisions, monitoring programmes or research.
However, all such estimates are limited by: the availability of representative data; the range of sources
considered (sea-based, land-based); the type andlocation of debris included (floating and non-floating,nano- to mega-plastics); and, a reliance on modelling
approaches, which necessitate making assumptions
about the system being modelled and the reliabilityof the data. The oft-quoted figure that 80% of marine
plastic debris comes from land is based on remarkably little evidence, as are figures for how long it takes
various materials to degrade in the ocean. It is a reasonable assumption that all the plastic macro andmicroplastic debris that has entered the ocean is stillthese, in one form or another. What can be said withsome certainty is that the sources, distribution andimpacts of marine plastic debris and microplastics
show great regional heterogeneity (Chapters 5 – 7),
and that the development of cost-effective reduction
measures will need to reflect this (Chapter 9).

In addition to reviewing the extensive published literature on the topic, it was intended that the report
should reflect the findings of several related but separate studies supported principally by UNEP:
i.

Core study focusing on strengthening the evidencebase with regard to microplastics (GESAMP 2016);
ii. Study on the impact of microplastics on fisheries and aquaculture (FAO/UNEP, in preparation);
iii. Compilation of Best Available Techniques (BATs)(UNEP in press a);23

3MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSSCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

Table 3.1
Report section

Resolution 1/6,
Paragraph 14

SDG Target

4. Plastics(a)6.3, 12.1, 12.2

5. Sources(a)6.3, 12.1, 12.2

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

7. Impacts(b)14.1, 14.2, 15.5

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

9. A selection of different types of measure(b)

6.3, 11.6, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5, 14.1,
14.2, 14.7, 14.1, 14.c , 15.5

10. Risk-based assessment of impacts andinterventions(b)

6.3, 11.6, 12.4, 12.5, 12.b, 14.1, 14.2,
15.5

11. Monitoring and assessment(b)

14.2, 14.a

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

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

EVIDENCE BASE

TAKING ACTION

CONCLUSIONS & KEY RESEARCH NEEDS

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

24

4

25

4. PLASTICS

and, in lay terms, has come to be the most common
use of the term. In engineering, soil mechanics,
materials science and geology, plasticity refers to
the property of a material able to deform without
fracturing. Thermoplastic is capable of being repeatedly moulded, or deformed plastically, when heated.
Common examples include polyethylene (PE, highand low density), polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polystyrene (PS, including expanded EPS). Thermoset
plastic material, once formed, cannot be remouldedby melting. Common examples include polyurethane(PUR) and epoxy resins or coatings. Plastics arecommonly manufactured from fossil fuels, but biomass (e.g. maize, plant oils) is increasingly being
used. Once the polymer is synthesised, the material
properties will be the same whatever the type of raw
material used.

4.1
PRODUCTION, TYPES, USES, TRENDS
Plastic types and production
Large-scale production of plastics began in the
1950s. Production increased rapidly responding toan increasing demand for manufactured goods andpackaging to contain or protect foods and goods.
This was accompanied by an increasing diversification of types and applications of synthetic polymer.

About 311 million tonnes of plastic were produced
globally in 2014 (Plastics-Europe 2015). Many different types of plastic are produced globally, but
the market is dominated by four main classes ofplastics: PE (73 million tonnes in 2010), PET (53million tonnes), PP (50 million tonnes) and PVC(35 million tonnes). There are also appreciable
quantities of PS (including expanded EPS) and
PUR produced. In addition to the main polymer
classes, there has been a proliferation of new polymers and co-polymers to meet new expectations
and markets, mostly driven by new combinationsof existing monomers. Four regions dominate production: China, Asia (excluding China), Europe andNorth America. If current production and use trends
continue unabated then production is estimated toincrease to approaching 2 000 million tonnes by
2050 (Figure 4.2).

The term ‘plastic’, as commonly applied, refers to agroup of synthetic polymers (Box 4.1). There are twomain classes: thermoplastic and thermoset (Figure4.1). Thermoplastic has been shortened to ‘plastic’Box 4.1

DEFINITION OF POLYMERSAND MONOMERSPolymers are large organic molecules
composed of repeating carbon-based
units or chains that occur naturally andcan be synthesised. Common naturalpolymers include chiton (insect andcrustacean exoskeleton), lignin (cellwalls of plants), cellulose (cell walls ofplants), polyester (cutin) and protein
fibre (wool, silk).

Bio-derived plastics
These plastics are derived from biomass such asorganic waste material or crops grown specificallyfor the purpose. Utilising waste material can be seen
as fitting into the model of the circular economy, closing a loop in the resource-manufacture-use-waste
stream. The latter source could be considered to bepotentially more problematic as it may require land
to be set aside from either growing food crops, at atime of increasing food insecurity, or from protecting
sensitive habitat, at a time of diminishing biodiversity.
One current feature of biomass-based polymers isthat they tend to be more expensive to produce thanthose based on fossil fuels (Sekiguchi et al. 2011,
Pemba et al. 2014).

Monomers are molecules capableof combining, by a process calledpolymerisation, to form a polymer. For
example, the monomer ethylene (C2H4)
is polymerised, using a catalyst, to form
polyethylene.

26

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Figure 4.1

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

27

4

4

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Figure 4.2

Global plastic production...

1 800

Million tonnes, 2013

1 500
Commonwealth of
Independent States
7
Japan 11

EU
50

49
North
America

62

18

12

Middle East
and Africa

41

China

Asia
(excluding China
and Japan)

Latin
America

1 000

800

600

...and future trends
Million tonnes
400

200

1950

1970

1990

2010

2030

2050

Source: Ryan, A Brief History of Marine Litter Research, in M. Bergmann, L.
Gutow, M. Klages (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter, Berlin Springer, 2015;
Plastics Europe
Global plastic production trends (taken from
Marine Litter Vital Graphics in preparation)

28

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS‘Biodegradable’ plastics

of types and properties of common plastics has been
published recently (UNEP 2015). Examples of products made from different polymer types are shown in
Figure 4.1, and the demand by sector in the European
market in Figure 4.3.

Some plastics have been designed to be more susceptible to degradation, depending on the environmental conditions to which they are subject. These
can range from inside the human body to inside anindustrial composter. Such conditions do not exist in
the marine environment, and the fate of such materials in the ocean remains unclear. Some common
non-biodegradable polymers, such as polyethylene,
are sometimes manufactured with a metal-based
additive that results in more rapid fragmentation(oxo-degradable). This will increase the rate of
microplastic formation, but there is a lack of independent scientific evidence that biodegradation will
occur any more rapidly than unmodified polyethylene.

Microplastics and microbeads
Microplastics have been defined as particles of plastic< 5 mm in diameter (GESAMP 2015). Primary
microplastics are particles that have been manufactured to a particular size to carry out a range of specific functions. They are used extensively in industry
and manufacturing, for example: as abrasives in air/water-blasting to clean the surfaces of buildings andships’ hulls; as powders for injection moulding; and,more recently, for 3D printing (Figure 4.4). They arealso used in so-called personal care and cosmetic
products (PCCPs), often to improve the cleaning
function or impart colour, and are sometimes referred
to as microbeads. PCCPs containing microplastics/
microbeads include toothpaste, cosmetics, cleansing
agents and skin exfoliators (Napper et al. 2015).

In a recent UNEP report it was concluded that the
adoption of products labelled as ‘biodegradable’ or‘oxo-degradable’ would not bring about a significant
decrease either in the quantity of plastic entering theocean or the risk of physical and chemical impacts
on the marine environment, on the balance of current
scientific evidence (UNEP 2015a). In addition, mixing
of such plastics with normal plastics in the recycling
stream may compromise the properties of the newly
synthesised polymer22. The terminology surrounding
the degradation of plastics is described in more detailin section 4.2.

An additional important category of primary
microplastics comprises plastic resin beads. These
are spherical or cylindrical, a few mm in diameter,
and are the form ‘raw’ plastics are produced in, fortransport to production facilities for further processing. The influence of particles on the potential impactof microplastics on marine organisms is discussed in
section 7.

Notwithstanding the comments above, there may bemarine applications where the use of biodegradable
plastics can be justified. Perhaps most obvious is thedesign and construction of fish traps and pots, withbiodegradable panels or hinges, to minimise ghost
fishing if the gear cannot be retrieved (Chapter 9.2).

Additive chemicals
Many plastics often contain a wide variety of additional compounds that are added to modify theproperties of the finished item. For example, these
may help to make the polymer more flexible, resist
UV-degradation, add colour or impart flame retardation (Table 4.1). A comprehensive guide to the occurrence, uses and properties of hazardous substancesin plastics is provided by Hansen et al. (2013). Of
these, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and similar compounds and Alkanes C10-13 (Short Chain
Chlorinated Paraffins SCCP) are both proposed tobe listed in Stockholm Convention.

Applications
Plastics have gradually replaced more traditional
materials due to their many advantages. One of theprincipal properties sought of many plastics is durability. This allows plastics to be used for many applications that formerly relied on stone, metal, concreteor timber. There are significant advantages, for foodpreservation, medical product efficacy, electricalsafety, improved thermal insulation and lower fuelconsumption in aircraft and automobiles. A summary22

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

29

4

4

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Figure 4.3

European plastics demand by segment 2013
(data from Plastics-Europe 2014)

Figure 4.4

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

30

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Table 4.1
Short form

Full nameExamples of function

DBP

Dibutyl phthalate

Anti-cracking agents in nail varnish

DEP

Diethyl phthalate

Skin softeners, colour and fragrance fixers

DEHP

Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Plasticizer in PVC

HBCD

Hexabromocyclododecane

Flame retardant in durable goods

PBDEs

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers(penta, octa & deca forms)
nonylphenol

Flame retardants in durable goods(e.g. electronics, furnishings)
Stabilizer in PP, PS

Phthalates

Phthalate esters

Improve flexibility and durability

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

Table 4.2
Plastic type

Common applications

Density (kg m-3)

Polyethylene

Plastic bags, storage containers

0.91–0.95

Polypropylene

Rope, bottle caps, gear, strapping

0.90–0.92

Polystyrene (expanded)

Cool boxes, floats, cups

1.01–1.05

Polystyrene

Utensils, containers

1.04–1.09

Polyvinyl chloride

Film, pipe, containers

1.16–1.30

Polyamide or Nylon

Fishing nets, rope

1.13–1.15

Poly(ethylene terephthalate)Bottles, strapping, textiles

1.34–1.39

Polyester resin + glass fibre

Textiles, boats>1.35

Cellulose Acetate

Cigarette filters

1.22–1.24

Pure water

1.000

Seawater

1.027

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

1.005 – 1.012

Densities and common applications of plastics found in the marine environment (GESAMP 2015)31

4

they are subjected. Weathering-related degradation results in a progression of changes: the loss inmechanical integrity, embrittlement, further degradation and fragmentation into (‘secondary’) microplastics. Further degradation by microbial action is termed
biodegradation. Once biodegradation is complete
the plastic is said to have been mineralized; i.e. converted into carbon dioxide, water and other naturally
occurring compounds, dependent on the surrounding environmental conditions (Box 4.2). National
and international standards have been developed todefine terms such as ‘compostable’ and ‘biodegradable’ which refer exclusively to terrestrial systems,
most typically to industrial composting in which temperatures are expected to exceed 50oC for extended
periods of weeks or months (UNEP 2015a).

Some of these additive chemicals are quite benign,
whereas others have been shown to have significant
toxicological effects on human and non-human populations through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. This is discussed further in section 7. Additives
that are mixed into the plastic during manufacture
may be released into the environment over time,
especially when the plastic begins to degrade. Thesechemicals may then be re-absorbed to other plastic
particles or to lipids (fats) and hence enter the foodchain by a secondary route. The relative proportionof these additives varies greatly by polymer type andintended application. In addition, some monomers
used in the production of certain plastics have a tendency to desorb. The known example is bisphenol A(BPA), used in the production of polycarbonate andsome epoxy resins, for example, used to line foodcontainers. BPA acts as a synthetic oestrogen andis readily absorbed by the body. Most of the population of developed countries have detectable levels of
BPA, but the degree to which it causes health effects
is a matter of intense debate.

4.2

BEHAVIOUR IN THE OCEAN
Floating or sinking
Different types of polymers have a wide range ofproperties, and this influences their behaviour in theenvironment. Of these, one of the most important is
its density relative to that of seawater. Densities ofcommon plastics range from 0.90 to 1.39 (kg m-3)
(Table 4.2). The density of pure water is 1.00 andfor seawater approximately 1.027 (1.020 – 1029
kg m-3), depending on the temperature and salinity
which vary geographically and with water depth. On
this basis, only PE and PP would be expected to float
in freshwater, with the addition of EPS in seawater.
However, the buoyancy of a plastic particle or object
will be dependent on other factors such as entrapped
air, water currents and turbulence. This explains why
drinks bottles made of PET (density 1.34 – 1.39 kgm-3) can commonly be found both floating in coastal
waters and deposited on the seabed

Photo: © Heidi Savelli / UNEP

4

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Plastic degradation
Plastics will tend to degrade and start to lose theirinitial properties over time, at a rate depending on thephysical, chemical and biological conditions to which

32

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS4

Box 4.2

DEGRADATION OF PLASTICS – SOME DEFINITIONS

Degradation

The partial or complete breakdown of a polymer as a result of e.g. UV radiation,oxygen attack, biological attack. This implies alteration of the properties, suchas discolouration, surface cracking, and fragmentation

Biodegradation

Biological process of organic matter, which is completely or partially converted
to water, CO2/methane, energy and new biomass by microorganisms (bacteria
and fungi).

Mineralisation

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

Biodegradable

Capable of being biodegraded

Compostable

Capable of being biodegraded at elevated temperatures in soil under specified
conditions and time scales, usually only encountered in an industrial composter(standards apply: ISO 17088, EN 13432, ASTM 6400)

Oxo-degradable Containing a pro-oxidant that induces degradation under favourable conditions.
Complete breakdown of the polymers and biodegradation still have to be proven.
UNEP 2015

Figure 4.5

Microplastic fragments from the shoreline near
Plymouth UK (image courtesy of M. Browne & R.
Thompson, Plymouth Univ.)33

4MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
PLASTICS

Figure 4.6

Figure 4.6 Factors affecting the degradation and fragmentation ofplastic in different ocean compartments (GESAMP 2015)

Chemical characteristics

In an ocean setting the principal weathering agent
is UV irradiation. This is most pronounced on
shorelines, especially in equatorial regions, andweathering is accelerated by physical abrasion
due to wave activity. Secondary microplastics
are formed from the fragmentation of larger items
through a combination of physical, chemical andbiological processes (Figure 4.5). For example,
mechanical abrasion during the washing of synthetic clothing and other textiles causes the breakdown and release of plastic fibres to wastewater.
Mechanical abrasion of vehicle tyres made fromsynthetic rubber produces dust that is washedinto drains and waterways.

The ocean is contaminated with a wide range oforganic and inorganic compounds as a legacy of decades of industrial development and economic growth.
Transport in the ocean and atmosphere has carried
pollutants to all regions of the planet. Many organic
pollutants are lipophilic, meaning they sorb readily tofats and oils in fish, mammals and other organisms.
This includes pollutants classified as POPs under the
Stockholm Convention, as well as other emerging
Persistent, Bioaccumulating and Toxic compounds(PBTs). Plastics have similar properties to natural fats,acting as a ‘sponge’ to remove and concentrate contaminants from the water column. If an animal, suchas a fish, bird or marine mammal, ingests plastic particles then there is the potential for transfer of theseabsorbed chemicals into the tissue. Because of thepersistence of such compounds, humans and otheranimals continue to be exposed long after a chemicalhas been withdrawn from production (e.g. PCBs).

The extent to which biodegradation takes placein the ocean is difficult to estimate but is considered to be extremely slow. Once plastic becomesburied, enters the water column or gets coveredin biological and inorganic coatings, which happens rapidly in seawater, then the rate of degradation becomes extremely slow (Figure 4.6).
This is due to decreased UV exposure, lower
temperature and lower oxygen levels. Objects
such as PET bottles and fishing gear observed on
the seafloor often do not appear to be degraded(section 6.2).

Some additive chemicals, such as PBDEs, are notstrongly bound within the matrix of the polymer. They
can be present in relatively high concentrations andcan desorb out of the plastic, acting as a source ofcontaminants (section 7).

34

5

35

5. SOURCES
OF MACRO ANDMICROPLASTICS

Our continuing failure to take account of the unsustainable nature of the present ‘plastic economy’, in termsof the increasing levels of marine plastic debris,
appears to make it inevitable that future generations
will be deprived of at least some ecosystem services
we now take for granted. Clearly, this failure is notconfined to plastics production and use, but is symptomatic of a more pervasive tendency, of pursuingeconomic growth whilst neglecting the impact on
ecosystems and society (Turner and Fisher, 2008).

5.2

5.1

LAND-BASED SECTORS GENERATING
MACROPLASTIC LITTER

GENERATING PLASTIC WASTE

Sources in brief

The drivers of plastic use include food provision,energy demand, transport, housing provision andleisure pursuits, which will tend to vary as a functionof the social and economic climate. Current economic models tend to measure economic successin terms of the rate of economic growth (e.g. GDP),
with less attention paid to the extent to which consumption patterns and societal demands are sustainable in the longer term. This will influence, in turn,the direction on technological innovation, politicaldecisions (e.g. trade agreements), product design,consumer demand, waste generation and treatment.
Unfortunately, there has been a failure of the market
economy to take into account environmental externalities, in this case the social, ecological and economic
impacts of marine litter. The current ‘plastic economy’has been characterised by a linear pattern of production and consumption, generating unprecedented
volumes of waste, which ultimately is very inefficienteconomically (Figure 5.1; Defra 2011, WEF/EMF/
MCKINSEY 2016). Leakage of plastic to the ocean
can occur at every stage in this process, and the
response has been generally patchy and ineffective.

The main types of land-based sources of macroplastics,
and the pathways by which macroplastics reach theocean, are shown in Figure 5.2. Pathways may be via
waterways, the atmosphere or direct into the ocean (e.g.
from shoreline littering). There are very significant
regional differences in the degree to which waste is subject to collection and management, either as wastewateror solid waste. The quantities that reach the sea, on a
global scale, are unknown. Table 5.1 provides a summaryof the main sectors involved, the types of plastic products
or waste and the typical entry points to the ocean.

Plastic recyclers
The plastic recycling sector regards plastic as a valuable resource, rather than something to be used andthen discarded. Losses from this sector are unquantified but can be expected to be relatively low, provided
good waste management practices are followed.
However, losses may be much greater from poorlymanaged municipal facilities and the informal waste
recycling sectors.

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1 Simplified representation of a linear approach to plastics production anduse, indicating potential leakage points to the ocean (original by P. J. Kershaw).

36

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.2

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

Table 5.1
SectorDescription

Entry points

Relative importance*

Retail

Packaging, household goods,
consumer goods

Rivers, coastal,
atmosphere

High

Food and drink

Single-use packaging

Rivers, coastal,
atmosphere

High

Households

Packaging, household goods,
consumer goods

Rivers, coastal,
atmosphereHigh

Tourism industry

Packaging, household goods, consumer goods,

Rivers, coastal,
atmosphereHigh

Plastic recyclers

Packaging, household goods,
consumer goods

Rivers, coastal,
atmosphere

MediumConstruction

EPS, packaging,Rivers, coastal,
atmosphere

Low

Agriculture

Films/sheets, pots, pipes,

Rivers, coastal,
atmosphere

Low

Terrestrial
Transportation

End-of-life vehicles and tyres

Rivers, shorelines

Low

Potential land-based sources of macroplastics by sector, examples of plastic waste, common
entry points to the ocean and probable importance (adapted from GESAMP 2016)* qualitative estimate, likely to be regionally-dependent; variables include the extent and effectivenessof solid waste and wastewater collection and treatment, and storm water overflow capacity

37

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Packaging

Coastal tourism

Around 40% of all plastic production is used for
packaging. A substantial proportion of this is used to
package food and drink and there are clear benefits indoing so, to minimise food wastage and avoid contamination (FAO 2011). In some regions, for example in
Sierra Leone, Ghana and Ecuador, the population
relies on plastic bottles or bags for the provision ofclean drinking water. Clearly this is a case of utilisingthese products as a necessity, rather than casual consumer choice. Food and drink packaging is also widelyused for convenience and in fast food containers,
often when consumers are away from home wherewaste disposal may be poorly developed, such as at
the beach. Such items are frequently found as marine
litter (OSPAR 2007, Ocean Conservancy 2013).

Coastal tourism is based around a variety of sought
after amenities, such as beaches, sunshine, water,
marine biodiversity, food, and cultural and historic
heritage. This leads to the creation of services,
jobs and infrastructure (e.g. hotels, resorts, restaurants, ports, marinas, fishing and diving outlets).
Unfortunately, coastal tourism has been recognised
as a significant source of plastic waste, very often bydirect deliberate or accidental littering of shorelines(Arcadis 2012). The range of activities and facilities
involved mean that there are multiple routes by which
littering can take place. Tourism continues to growin most countries. In 2014 the total export earnings
from international tourism were estimated to be US$
1.5 trillion (US$ 1.5 x 1012), spread between Europe(41%), Asia and the Pacific (30%), the Americas(22%), the Middle East (4%) and Africa (3%). What
proportion of this is focussed on coastal tourism isunclear. However, countries bordering popular destinations such as the Mediterranean will have a greater
proportion of coastal tourists, both international andinternal. Some areas which feature as popular destinations are also areas with high biodiversity or sensitive habitats (Conservation International, 2003).
Tourism is expected to expand from 940 million(2010) to 1.8 billion by 2013, expressed as international tourist arrivals (UNWTO 2015).

Agriculture
Plastics are used in many aspects of agriculture,including: irrigation pipes, planting containers andprotective meshes and sheets. There have beenreports of such materials ending up in the oceanand, in at least one instance, being ingested bymarine organisms (de Stephanis et al. 2013).
In addition, synthetic polymers are being used
increasingly to encapsulate fertiliser pellets toensure controlled release (nutrient ‘prill’, Gambash
et al. 1990), with clear benefits both for crop production and a reduction in excessive nutrient concentrations in rivers and coastal waters. To what
extent more conventional and newer uses of plastics in agriculture contribute to the marine litterburden is unknown.

5.3
LAND-BASEDSECTORSMICROPLASTICS

GENERATING

Sources in brief
The main land-based sources and entry points of primary and secondary microplastics to the ocean are
shown in Figure 5.3. The type of material involved issummarised in Table 5.2. There are no reliable global
estimates of the total quantities of microplastics
entering the ocean. However, there have been several
in-depth national reports published recently that provide a useful summary of the relative proportions andabsolute quantities of material involved (section 5.7).

Construction
The construction industry is a major user of plastics(Figure 4.3), although its potential as a source ofmarine litter has not been well defined. Construction
plastics will enter the solid waste stream and thedegree to which it contributes to marine plastics will
depend on the effectiveness of solid waste management. Joint sealants (polymer-based) used in theconstruction industry in the 1950s-1980s used tocontain PCBs. This has been identified as a significant diffuse source of PCBs to the environment(Kohler et al. 2005). Concentrations of PCBs in the
blubber of cetacean strandings on UK shorelines
have plateaued after declining up til the mid 1990s,
and it is believed this is due to this plastic-related
source (Law et al. 2012).

Cosmetics and personal care products
Microplastic particles are widely used as abrasive
agents and fillers in a wide range of cosmetic products
and personal care and cosmetic products (PCCPs),
such as facial scrubs and shower gels, while nano-38

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.3

Photo: © CC BY MPCA Photos

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

39

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.2
SectorSecondary microplastics

Entry points

Relative
importance*

Tourism industry

Fragmented packaging,household goods, consumer goods,

Wastewater, rivers,
coastal, atmosphere

High

Food and drink

Fragmented single-use
packaging

Wastewater, rivers,
coastal, atmosphereHigh

Wastewater, rivers,
coastalMediumPlastic producers

Primary microplastics

Plastic
resin pellets

RetailFragmented packaging,household goods, consumer goods

Wastewater, rivers,
coastalMediumHouseholds

Fragmented packaging,household goods, consumer goods

Wastewater, rivers,
coastalMediumWastewater

MediumWastewater, rivers

MediumPersonal care andcosmetic products(PCCPs)Terrestrial
Transportation

Tyres wear dust

Cleaning ships’
hulls, buildings

Abrasive powders

Wastewater, rivers,
coastalMediumManufacturing

Powders for injection
moulds, powders for3D printing

Wastewater, rivers

Low

Plastic recyclers

Fragmented packaging,household goods, consumer goods

Wastewater, rivers

Low

Construction

Fragmented EPS, packaging,

Wastewater, rivers,
coastalLow

Agriculture

Fragmented films/sheets,
pots, pipes,

Rivers, coastal,
atmosphere

Low

Potential land-based sources of microplastics by sector, examples of plastic waste,common entry points to the ocean and probable importance (adapted from GESAMP 2016).

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

40

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

particles are used in sunscreens (Sherrington et al.
2016). They are sometimes referred to as microbeads.
These particles will inevitably be released to wastewater systems upon washing or directly to aquatic
environments via recreational bathing. The total numbers of microplastics in a typical cosmetic productcan be considerable; for example, it has been estimated that 4 600 – 94 500 microbeads may bereleased per application of a skin exfoliant (Napper et
al. 2015). It is considered inevitable that substantial
numbers of microbeads will enter waterways, depending on the existence and efficacy of wastewater treatment facilities (Magnusson and Norén 2014, Essel etal. 2015, DEPA 2015). However, some modern
plants in Sweden and St Petersberg, for example, arereported to retain over 96% of microplastics by filtration23. Although the use of microplastics in PCCPs
may appear to represent a significant source, it is relatively small compared with other sources or primaryand secondary microplastics in to the environment, in
terms of tonnage involved (Sundt et al. 2014).

potentially a major source of microplastic contamination
to the sea (NEA 2014, Verschoor 2014). Part of thedust flies as particulate matter into the air, the rest lands
directly on the soil around the roads, rainwater flows into
the sewer or ends up in surface waters and in the sea,or becomes incorporated with snow and may be re-distributed if the snow is removed. Car tyres are largely
made of styrene-1.3-butadene rubber (SBR) and recycled products made from tyre rubber. Every year, anestimated quantity of 17 000 tonnes of rubber tyre-wear
is released into the Dutch environment (Verschoor2014). Annual emission estimates of tyre rubber dust
for Norway, Sweden and Germany are 4 500, 10 000
and 110 000 tonnes respectively (NEA 2014). Average
emissions of car tyre dust for the mentioned countries
range between 1 and 1.4 kg capita-1 year-1.

Plastic producers and fabricators
The plastics industry tends to produce and transport
plastics as circular or cylindrical resin pellets, a few
mm in diameter. These are transported to other facilities where the plastic is further processed and ultimately used in the manufacture of either a finishedproduct or component for a more complex product.
There have been many instances of accidental lossof resin pellets during transport, transhipment or atmanufacturing facilities. Resin pellets have become
widely distributed in the marine environment as aresult. Examples are provided in section 5.6.

Textiles and clothing
Release of fibres from textiles and clothing is recognised as a major potential source of microplastic
sized pieces, especially during mechanical washing24.
As in the case of microplastics in PCCPs, a variable
proportion will be retained by wastewater treatment
plants, depending on the existence, design and efficacy of treatment facilities. However, it is apparent
that a significant number of textile fibres do enter
the marine environment, being found in relatively
large numbers in shoreline and nearshore sediments
close to urban population centres (Browne et al. 200,
Karlsson 2015). Significant regional differences may
be expected due to differences in choice of fabrics(synthetic vs. natural, length of spun threads), accessto mechanical washing facilities, the type of detergents used and frequency of washing.

Ship maintenance and ship dismantling
Ship hulls need to be cleaned regularly to remove
biological growth and allow re-painting. Traditionally
this would have involved air blasting with sand grains,
but plastic particles are now sometimes used
(Browne et al. 2007). They are also used to clean theinside of tanks. This gives the potential for two typesof microplastic to be released to the environment:
the original plastic abrasive powder (primary), andflakes of paint (secondary), which often contain apolymer base.

Terrestrial transportation
The emission of plastic particle dust (mainly < 80
micrometer) from tyre wear has been recognised
recently, in Norway, the Netherlands and Germany, as

23

https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/MARINE LITTER CONFEREN
CE-317/default.asp

24

http://life-mermaids.eu/en/

Approximately 70% of commercial ships are dismantled in South Asia (India, Bangladesh and Pakistan),very often on exposed shorelines, with a further 19%
in China. The main materials recycled are steel andother metals, with hazardous substances including oils
being removed. Although plastics represent a small
fraction of the total mass of material, plastics and plastic
fragments (such as paint flakes) will occur and willenter the ocean unless prevented (Reddy et al. 2006).

41

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

5.4

it would be possible to introduce more effective filtration for microplastics, but the justification might bedifficult to make in terms of cost-benefit, dependingon the social and economic context of the municipality or country. Tertiary treatment provides options to
disinfect and remove nutrients and pharmaceuticals.
It is relatively expensive for many countries and may
only be carried out when there is a sensitive habitat orquestion of human health involved.

MANAGEMENT OF WASTE FROM LAND-BASED
SOURCES
Plastics in wastewater
Wastewater provides a pathway for dissolved chemicals as well as solid particles to be transported into
aquatic habitats. This includes macroplastics andmicroplastics. Large solid items enter the wastewater system with sewage via toilets and can include
nappies, tampons, contraceptives and cotton buds.
Theoretically these should be removed by primary
sewage treatment preventing their entry to the environment. However, in conditions of heavy rainfall sewage
systems can become overwhelmed by the volume ofwater passing through them and material can escapeto water courses untreated via overflows. For example,
this happens frequently in London, a 21st Century citywith 19th Century sewers (Cadbury 2003). As a consequence, items of sewage related debris are commonly reported in marine litter surveys. In addition tomacroplastics, microplastic particles originating fromcosmetics or from washing of textiles (Browne 2011,
Karlsson 2015) can be carried via wastewater, andthere is evidence (Browne 2015) that some of thesesmall particles have the potential to pass throughsewage treatment into aquatic habitats. In some cities
in areas of high winter snowfall, such as Helsinki in
Finland, accumulated snow may be dumped directly
into coastal waters, bypassing the usual wastewater
treatment system and providing an additional pathway
for microplastics to the ocean25.

Plastics in solid waste
Plastics form approximately 10% (7-13%) of municipal solid waste globally (Hoorweg and Bhada-Tata
2012, D-Waste 2014). Waste management options
can range from open waste tips or dumps to landfill,varying levels of incineration, waste to energy conversion and/or recycling. However, even within a waste
stream some material can escape to the environment.
For example, unless dumps or landfill sites are contained, waste will be transported away by winds, andmay subsequently enter rivers or the sea. In addition,
there are coastal dumps where waste is deposited
close to or directly on the shoreline and then carried away by the sea. The collection of solid waste isoften inadequate, partly due to the littering activities
of individuals, even where waste collection facilities
have been provided. In many countries, the informal
waste recycling community may intercept significant
quantities of plastic packaging. For example, one
study estimated that recovery rates were up to 90%
in Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco (BiPRO 2013).
An estimate has been made of the possible contribution of mismanaged municipal waste to the inputof marine plastics by country (Jambeck et al. 2015).
The authors used published data from the WorldBank (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012) on solid
waste generation, coastal population density andeconomic status to estimate the proportion of plastic
in the waste stream, the proportion of waste thatwas mismanaged and hence the quantity of plastic available for transport into the ocean. Inevitably
there are large uncertainties associated with thisapproach, but it does serve to demonstrate therelative importance of this source and expected
regional differences. For the year 2010, the authors
estimated the generation of 275 million tonnes ofplastic waste by countries with a coastal border,
with 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes entering the ocean.
They predicted this would double by 2025, without significant improvements in waste management.
This figure also assumes that production, use anddiscarding of plastic will continue unabated.

There are very significant regional differences in theextent to which wastewater is collected and in the
degree of subsequent treatment. In some European
countries nearly 100% of municipal wastewater iscollected and subject to some form of tertiary treatment. In contrast, it is estimated that approximately
90% of all wastewater generated in developing
countries is discharged without primary treatment(Corcoran et al. 2010). Primary wastewater treatment
is usually designed to remove relatively large solids
and would not be expected to capture microplastics.
Secondary treatment is designed to remove dissolved and suspended biological matter. At this stage

25

https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/MARINE%20LITTER%20CONFERENCE-317/default.aspx

42

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.3
Source sector

Description*

Entry points

Relative
importance**

Fisheries

Fishing gear, strapping bands, storage boxes,
packaging, personal goods

Coastal, Marine

High

Aquaculture

Buoys, lines, nets, structures, storage boxes,
packaging, personal goods

Coastal, Marine

MediumShipping/
Offshore industry

Cargo, packaging, personal goods

Coastal, Marine

MediumShip-based tourism

Packaging, personal goods

Coastal, Marine

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

Figure 5.4

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

MAC-

fishing gear, ropes). The principal sources andentry routes are illustrated in Figure 5.4, and thetypes of material are further described in Table 5.3.

Maritime activities utilise a wide variety of different
types of plastics, both those intended for shortterm use (e.g. packaging) and longer-term use (e.g.

Sectors such as fisheries or aquaculture may use particular types or quantities of plastics more than othersectors, but a cruise ship, carrying several thousand
passengers more represents a medium-sized floating
community or town, with a similar scale of demands forgoods and services and potential to generate waste.

5.5
SEA-BASED SECTORSROPLASTIC LITTER

GENERATING

Types of materials involved

43

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Fisheries

Regional differences in the type and quantities of fisheries-related marine litter will be due to many factors,
including:

The commercial fisheries sector has adopted plastics
widely, because of the many advantages plastics offer
over more traditional natural fibres. Losses in the fisheries sector comprise loss of fishing gear (e.g. nets,
ropes, floats, fishing line), loss of ancillary items (e.g.
gloves, fish boxes, strapping bands), galley waste andrelease of fibres and other fragments due to normal
wear and tear (e.g. use of ground ropes). Fishinggear may be lost at sea by accident, abandonment ordeliberate disposal. This is commonly referred to as
abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear
(ALDFG), and probably represents the largest category in terms of volume and potential impact out of all
the sea-based sources (Figure 5.5). Abandoned, lostor otherwise discarded fishing gear can have a significant impact both on depleting commercial fish andshellfish stocks and causing unnecessary impacts on
non-target species and habitats. The importance of
this issue was recognised formally at the 16th meeting of the FAO Committee on Fisheries in 1985, andled to publication of a key report by FAO and UNEP
(Macfadyen et al. 2009). The quantities of ALDFG
lost each year are not well known. A very crude estimate based on Macfadyen et al. (2009) gives a global
figure of 640 000 tonnes per year.

• The existence and effectiveness of governance and management (e.g. artisanal vs. largescale commercial fisheries; Illegal, Unreported
and Unregulated (IUU) fishing)• The type of fishing gear• Gear conflicts• Fishing environment, including seabed conditions (e.g. hard ground), water and weather conditions• Working with very long nets or fleets of nets
• Working with more gear than can be hauledregularly• Education and training levels of the crew

Aquaculture
Marine-based (coastal) aquaculture includes production operations in the sea and intertidal zones aswell as those operated with land-based (onshore)
production facilities and structures (FAO, 2014).
Although inland aquaculture growth has outpaced
marine aquaculture growth since 1980, global

Figure 5.5

Examples of different types of derelict fishing gear
(Image: Karen Grimmer, MBNMS, NOAA)44

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

production has continued to expand (FAO, 2014,
Campbell, 2013).

trend in ‘eco-tourism’ has led to increasing number ofvessels visiting more remote locations, including theAntarctic. To what extent such tours result in contamination by macro or microplastics is unclear.

Aquaculture structures are either suspended
from the sea surface (generally in waters of
10-50 m depth) or placed in intertidal and shallow
subtidal zones directly on the bottom. The majorityof activities use lines, cages or nets suspended frombuoyant structures, often consisting of plastics (airfilled buoys), and EPS (expanded polystyrene). These
structures also require many lines (mostly non-buoyant plastics) and cages of various types (thin andthick filament net plastics, buoyant or non-buoyant).
Aquaculture structures are lost due to wear and tearof anchor ropes, because of storms, and due to accidents/conflicts with other maritime users. Severe
weather conditions can cause widespread damage
to aquaculture structures, at times generating large
quantities of marine debris (Lee et al. 2014).

Recreational activities
Many recreational users of the ocean, particularly
those in the diving and surfing communities, take anenvironmentally responsible approach to their activities. Indeed, some have been at the forefront of leading anti-litter and recovery campaigns (section 11.6).
Unfortunately, there are others with a less responsible
approach. Fishing line and hooks from recreational
fishers are commonplace in some regions, such as
NW Europe and the Korean Peninsula, although theactual quantities lost are not known.

5.6
Commercial shipping and offshore industries
SEA-BASEDSECTORSMICROPLASTICS

There should be no deliberate disposal of plastics
from ships, or offshore structures, under the terms ofAnnex V of the MARPOL Convention. This includes
waters outside national jurisdiction. Unfortunately,
there is evidence to suggest that this practice still
continues. There is an inherent difficulty in enforcing
regulations. In addition to illegal disposal there havebeen many occurrences of loss of cargo, particularly
containers which in some cases resulted in spillagesof pellets. A review into the reasons for container
loss concluded that there were several contributory
factors: overloading of individual containers, fixingsin poor condition, placing heavy containers on top oflighter ones, and a lack of appreciation by crews of
the additional loadings placed on container stacks inheavy seas and winds leading to a failure to adjust
ship speed and heading (Frey and De Vogelaere
2014; see section 5.6, shipping routes).

GENERATING

Types of material involved
A number of maritime activities result in the releaseof microplastics directly into the ocean. A summary of
the main sea-based sources of primary and secondary microplastics is shown in Figure 5.6 and types ofmaterial involved in Table 5.4.

Primary microplastics
The main source of primary microplastics at sea is dueto the introduction of plastic resin beads as a resultof accidental loss of cargo. A more minor source isrepresented by the use of PCCPs, most notably bypassengers on cruise ships.

Maritime–based tourism

Secondary microplastics.

A cruise ship typically houses several thousandpeople. It is rather like a large floating village and generates an equivalent amount of macro and microplastic
waste. Modern vessels have very sophisticated liquidand solid waste management systems, but very often
solid waste is put ashore at ports on small islands
with inadequate waste infrastructures. In addition,some cruise companies also indulge in the dubious
practice of multiple balloon releases, despite theclear ecological damage this can cause. A growing

Routine wear and tear of fishing gear and otherequipment will result in the introduction of a variety of
secondary microplastics. The use of groundropes onsome types of bottom trawls, such as otter trawls26,

2645

http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/306/en

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.5

Sources of sea-based primary and secondary
microplastics (original by P J Kershaw)

Table 5.4
Source sector

Primary
microplastics

Secondary microplastics

Entry points

Relative
importance*

Fisheries

Fragments and fibres fromoperational use of fishing gear,ropes

Coastal, Marine

High

Aquaculture

Fragments and fibres fromoperational use of nets, ropesand (EPS) buoys

Coastal, Marine

MediumShipping

Accidental lossof plastic resin
pellets

Coastal, Marine

MediumShip-based tourism

PCCPs

Coastal, Marine

Low

Sources of microplastics by maritime sector* qualitative estimate, likely to be regionally-dependent

46

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

to project the main fishing gear may be a significant
source of synthetic fibres in some regions but robust
evidence is unavailable.

patterns of plastic use it is reasonable to assume, toa first approximation, that the influx of plastic to theocean from urbanised communities will be in proportion to the density of the population (Figure 5.7).

5.7

The absolute quantities and relative proportions ofdifferent types of plastics and microplastics being
generated, and the percentage that reaches theocean, will also depend on the nature of the industrial and commercial sectors, and the social practicesof the population. There have been three comprehensive studies of the generation of microplastics inEuropean countries, in Germany (Essel et al. 2015),
Denmark (Lassen et al. 2015) and Norway (Sundt etal. 2014) (Box 5.1). All three studies emphasised that
dust from vehicle tyres represented the largest single
source of microplastics. This was a previously overlooked contribution. It would be possible to estimate
regional and global patterns of microplastic generation from this source by correlating with car numbers,
or average mileages per vehicle.

ESTIMATING LAND-BASED INPUTS OF
MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS TO THE OCEAN– A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Patterns of waste generation
Urbanised communities
Approximately half the world’s population lives within
60 km of the ocean, with 75% of all large cities
located on the coast (GESAMP 2016). In China andSoutheast Asia 260 million and 400 million people,
respectively, live within 50 km of the coast. Manyothers live adjacent to rivers or waterways and soare connected indirectly to the sea. Given known

Figure 5.7

Figure 5.7 Coastal population within 100 km of the coast(2010 millions), displayed on an outline of Large Marine Ecosystems(taken from TWAP 2016)

47

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.5
Source group

Upstreamsource(tonnes)

Pathway tosea

Probableshare tosea*

Fraction tosea (tonnes)

Consumer products, all40

Drain past STP

Small

4

Commercial products, all100

Drain, sea

Medium50

Transport spill

250

Sea

Large

225

Production discharge

200

Drain or sea

Large

180

Ship paint330

Sea, coastal

Large

297

Marinas400

Sea, coastal

Large

360

Building repair

270

Sewer, dump

Medium135

Laundries

100

Drain

Medium50

Laundry

600

Drain past STP

Small

60

Dust

450

Drain, air

Small

45

Road paint

320

Sewer, air

Medium160

Exterior
paint

130

Sewer, air

Small

13

Tyre dust

4500

Sewer, air

Medium

2250

Dust

130

Sewer, air

Small

20

Illegal dumping, paint100

Soil, sea

Large

90

Biowaste

336

Soil, water

Small

34

Paper recycle

60

Water

WEE and ELW

10Air, water

Household

City dust outdoor

Indoor city

54

Medium5§ small = 10%, medium = 50%, large = 90%(adapted from Sundt et al. 2014)* Estimated sources of microplastics, pathways to the sea and fraction entering the sea in Norway(adapted from Sundt et al. 2014)* small = 10%, medium = 50%, large = 90%

48

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS(van der Wal et al. 2015). In contrast, seasonal fluctuations in the flow rate of the Pearl River appear
responsible for observed variations in plastic occurrence in Hong Kong (Fok and Cheung 2015).

Inputs via rivers and other waterways
Rivers represent a key entry point of macro andmicroplastics to the ocean. From the limited data
available, it would appear that river catchments,
especially those draining areas with high population
densities and industrial development, can carry asignificant plastic load to the ocean. A summary ofobserved concentrations of microplastics in rivers isprovided in Annex III. However, there is a great lackof information on the quantities entering the ocean
globally by this entry point, which sources are mostimportant, what measures may be effective at controlling these sources and how all these aspects
differ regionally.

A comparative study of four major European rivers
found significant variations in the quantities and characteristics of plastic litter (van der Wal et al. 2015;
Box 5.2, Table 5.5). River water was sampled using a
combination of floating nets and screens and pumped
water samples and particle numbers counted and a
proportion were characterised chemically.
What is striking is that even for a catchment whichis relatively remote (i.e. River Dalålven), with a low
resident population density (250 000), the riverappears to contain a large number of microplastics.
In this case it is thought that it may be due partly tothe popularity of the region for recreational angling,supported by the higher number of nylon fibres. The
composition of the particles varied between rivers,
but in each case was dominated by PE. The authors
estimated annual load of 530 tonnes being delivered to the Black Sea is more than a factor of two
below that of Lechner et al. (2014). But it is important to stress that achieving representative sampling of large river catchments, reflecting temporaland spatial variations in flow, multiple source inputs
and the influence of previous events, is extremely
challenging. The published figures should betreated as an indicator of possible loadings, withlarge uncertainties.

The effectiveness of wastewater and solid waste
management will be an important factor in modifying
the input to waterways, whatever the nature of theland-based sources concerned. For these reasons,significant regional differences may be expected.
Concentrations of microplastics reported for rivers
are highly variable (up to a factor of 109, Dris 2015).
This may be due partly to variations in the methodologies used but also due to the proximity of sources
and whether sampling sites were upstream or downstream from cities and industrialised centres. Manyrivers experience significant variation in flow rates,on a diurnal, weekly, monthly, annual or multi-yearbasis. For example, a high rainfall event after a periodof drier conditions may result in higher than averagequantities being transported during a limited period

Table 5.6
River

Annual discharge(m3 s-1)

Receiving sea

Catchment area
(km2)

Catchmentcharacteristics

Rhine

2 378

North Sea

200 000

Highly urbanised
and industrialisedDalålven~ 300

Baltic Sea

29 000Nature reserve

Danube~ 6500Black Sea

800 000

Agricultural catchmentof the tributary of theSiret River

Po

1 470

Mediterranean Sea

71 000Moderately urbanised

River inputs case study – characteristics of four European river catchments(Van der Wal et al. 2015)49

5

Table 5.7
River

WSF27 sampler (> 3.2 mm)
Particle numbers a-1

WSF127 sampler (> 3.2 mm)
Tonnes a-1

Manta net (>330 μm)
Particle numbers a-1

Rhine

8x107 – 3x108

20 – 3110x1010 – 3x1011

Dalålven*--

5x1010Danube1x1010530

2x1012

Po

7x108

120

7x1011Marine input plastic particles
Estimated annual input of plastic particles to the sea from four European rivers.
The sampling methods are described in section 11(adapted from van der Wal et al. 2015)* Unable to operate the WSF sampler at the study site.

Plastic litter is also transported along the river bed,
although this is much harder to quantify. A study inthe upper estuary of the River Thames in London,using bottom-anchored nets (‘fyke’ nets designed
to catch eels) captured considerable quantities ofdebris, most of which was plastic and over 20% comprised sanitary items (Morritt et al. 2014).
Extreme flooding events have the potential to mobilise plastic that would not otherwise be transported
to the ocean. The effects of heavy rainfall are exacerbated by unsustainable land-use practises (e.g.
deforestation, compacted soils). There is evidence
that extreme events are becoming more common as aconsequence of global warming.27

27

https://wastefreewaters.wordpress.com/

Photo: © CC BY Jason Karn

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

50

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.8
Plastic resin pellets
Rivers will be particularly important where thecatchment serves urbanised populations andindustrial development. For example, resin pellets
have been observed in abundance deposited on
the engineered banks of the highly industrialised
estuary the Westerschelde in the Netherlands, andin amongst floating vegetation (Figure 5.8; personal communication, Tanka Cox, Fauna & FloraInternational). The Port of Antwerp, which lies
upstream of the sampling site, is the location for
one of Europe’s largest petrochemical and plastics
production hubs.
Resin pellets have been reported to occur in large
quantities in the River Danube, together with a variety
of other drifting plastics (Figure 5.9; Lechner et al.
2014). In the Danube study, the authors estimateda total transport of over 1 550 tonnes a-1 into theBlack Sea, claiming this was likely to be an underestimate based on under-sampling of microplastics <500 μm, under-sampling of larger items (> 50mm),
and less effective wastewater treatment in countries downstream of Austria. Sampling took place in2010 and 2012, with significant differences in thevariety and quantities sampled. For example, industrial pellets, spherules and flakes represented 64%of the total load (number of items) in 2010 and 31%
in 2012. The Danube is the most transboundary of
any river, draining 19 countries, with a catchment ofover 800 000 km-2. A wide variety of sectors makeuse of the river, including plastics production, and
it is heavily used for transportation. All these factors will make introducing reduction measures very
challenging.
Plastics production is a global industry but there
are clear regional patterns, China is the single
largest producer, with the rest of Asia, Europe andNorth America each a few per cent lower. This is
likely to influence the occurrence of resin pellets
in the environment near production and manufacturing sites. However, the trade in plastics is also
global so pellets produced in one country may betransported to another for further processing, withthe potential for losses en route due to accidental
release.

Plastic resin pellets in the Westerschelde,
Netherlands (images courtesy of Tanya Cox
and Fauna & Flora International).

51

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.9a

Figure 5.9a

Occurrence of microplastics in the River Rhine: a) Number of microplastic particles (300 μmí5 mm) 1000 mí3
in categories at all sampling sites (ǻ). The horizontal columns present microplastic abundance 1000 mí3 andthe respective fraction of categories. L: left bank, M: mid-river, R: right bank, T: transect (position in the rivercross section); b) Typical microplastic categories in the Rhine. Left: Duisburg sample consisting of 65% opaquespherules, further fragments and fibres, bar: 2 mm. (a/b) transparent spherules with gas bubbles, polymethylmethacrylate (Zuilichem), bars: 1 mm; (c/d) opaque spherules, polystyrene (Duisburg, Rees), bars: 500 μm.
(reproduced from Mani et al.2015, courtesy of ICPR, 2011)52

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Solid waste management and theglobal waste trade

countries to have higher per capita waste generation,
which may be offset by larger populations in somepoorer countries (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012)29.
Inadequate waste management occurs on every continent. Some current practices in developing countries that are now condemned (e.g. burning plastic
coatings from copper wire), were commonplace inthe richer countries of North America and Europe justa few decades ago. To a certain extent, the improvement in waste management in richer countries has
been achieved by exporting waste to third countries.

State of economic development
The state of economic and social development will
have a significant influence on a number of factors
related to both the generation and management ofwaste. To some extent this can be defined in indicators such as GDP per capita and the Human
Development Index (HDI), which is a composite
indicator encompassing the degree of poverty, literacy and other social measures. Although the HDI
has increased globally over the past 25 years, significant regional differences remain (Figure 5.10).
Increasing use of plastics has been linked to rising
relative incomes, although GDP has risen at a much
faster rate than the HDI28. This implies the capacity to
manage waste effectively has not kept pace with thebuying power of consumers.
The quantities of waste produced by each country depend on the per capita waste generation andthe population. There is a general pattern for richer

The sophistication of waste management practices
varies enormously between countries, from well-controlled sanitary landfills to poorly controlled open
dumpsites. A comprehensive guide to the fifty waste
dumps considered to be of greatest concern globallyhas been published recently (D-Waste 2014). These
are distributed mainly in Africa (18) and Asia (17), but
are also found in Latin America (8), the Caribbean(5) and Europe (2) (Figure 5.11). However, they may
contain waste that has been imported from otherregions, so it could be argued that responsibility for2829

http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n12.html

https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/08/which-countries-producethe-most-waste/

Figure 5.10
Human development classiﬁcation
Very high0.800 or greater

Latin America &the Caribbean
Europe & Central Asia
East Asia & the Paciﬁc
Arab StatesHigh0.700–0.799

Medium0.550–0.699

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa
LowLess than
0.550

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2014

Changes in the UNDP Human Development Index by region, 1975-2004(Human Development Report 2015, Work for Human Development, UNDP 2015)

53

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

cutions. The transfer of toxic and hazardous wastes iscontrolled under the Basel Convention (Chapter 2).
The plastics associated with electronic waste often
contain high concentrations of certain chemicals, inparticular flame retardants. Poorly managed sites act
as sources of contaminated plastics to nearby waterways and hence to the ocean, both directly and via
the atmosphere.

improving waste management at such sites may beshared by many countries. Many of these sites areclose to the coast or to waterways.
A helpful development would be for countries to map
and quantify the extent of informal and illegal waste
dumps and poorly controlled landfill sites, especiallywhere these are adjacent to the coastal or otherwater bodies.

Jambeck et al. (2015) estimated that 16 of the top
20 contributors to plastic marine litter were frommiddle-income countries, where economic growth is
rapidly occurring (Chapter 5.4). The top five countries (China, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka andVietnam) accounted for more than 50% of ‘mismanaged’ plastics, on the basis of this analysis (Figure5.12).

The trade in waste
Tighter regulation on waste management in many
developed nations, especially for electrical and electronic goods, has led to a burgeoning market for
waste materials. This includes the legitimate trade in
end-of life plastics, for example from Europe to China,
for large-scale recycling. However, it has also led tothe more dubious practice of exporting ‘second-hand’(legal) and discarded (illegal) electronics goods todeveloping countries, particularly in West Africa andAsia. Key reasons for this are the lower wage costs,
a lack of scrutiny, and a lack of consideration andenforcement of adequate human and environmental protection policies. Thus the domestic appliancetaken for ‘recycling’ at an established waste treatment
centre in North America or Europe can end up in theinformal recycling sector in West Africa where waste
is discarded and transferred to large open dumpsites. Incidents of illegal transport, often motivated bygreed, are reported regularly and have led to prose-

SIDS can face particular problems with managing
waste related to: remoteness; small and sparse populations with limited potential economies of scale; ashortage of land for sanitary landfill; limited institutional and human resources capacity; and, the stateand pace of economic and social development (Box5.3). They can also be subject to tsunamis and otherextreme events, leading to the potential for increased
inputs to the ocean.

Figure 5.11

Distribution of the 50 largest dumpsites (D-Waste 2014)54

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

5

Figure 5.12

Plastic waste produced and mismanaged
NorwayDenmark

Canada
EU 27 plus Norway

UnitedKingdom
Ireland
Belgium
FranceUnited States

SwedenFinlandTunisia

Morocco
Cuba

Guatemala
El Salvador
Coastal population
Million people
Less than 1
1 to 2
2 to 1010 to 50
50 to 263

North
Korea

UkraineCroatia
Italy

Spain
PortugalMexicoRussiaNetherlands
Germany
PolandJapan

TurkeySyria
Greece
Iran
Cyprus Lebanon
Israel
KuwaitHaiti

Honduras

Dominican Republic
Puerto Rico

Libya

Egypt

Trinidad and Tobago

Nicaragua

SenegalVenezuela

Costa Rica
PanamaAlgeria

UAE
Saudi Arabia

Yemen

Oman

Hong
Kong

India

MyanmarVietnamPhilippines

ThailandNigeria

Colombia

Somalia

Cote d'Ivoire

EcuadorTaiwanBangladesh

Ghana

Guyana

South
Korea

China

Pakistan

Sri Lanka

Malaysia
Singapore

Papua New Guinea

Indonesia
Peru

AngolaBrazilLand locked country
Plastic waste production
Thousand tonnes per day, 2010

Mauritius
Australia

Chile
Uruguay37
Total plastic waste
producedSouth Africa

Argentina

10
1
0,2

Portion of plastic
mismanaged

New Zealand

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

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

Box 5.3

WASTE MANAGEMENT IN PACIFIC SIDS

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

www.sprep.org

55

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.13

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

Waste and informal land reclamation

Coastal tourism

In some coastal regions, such as Sierra Leone, vehicle tyres and other debris have been used to reclaim
land, where land for housing is in short supply or too
expensive. The Kroo Bay slum in Freetown, on the
coast, is adjacent to two rivers and floods frequently(Figure 5.13). According to the IRIN news agency‘Kroo Bay…is a squalid slum so littered with rubbishthat the paths are made of compressed plastic, cansand toothpaste tubes, and patches of bare orange
earth are a rare sight…the average life expectancy is
35 years’30. Clearly the slum is the source of plastics
to the ocean. This experience is far removed from thatof many of those investigating the impacts of marine
litter and seeking potential solutions. But it does illustrate the reality of the lives of many people, in which
concern for litter may come a long way down their listof priorities.

Coastal tourism represents a major source of litterin many regions, with major ‘hot spots’ including
the Mediterranean, greater Caribbean, Southeast Asia and several SIDS. Casual recreationaluse near urban conurbations adds to the problem. Coastal littering causes social, economic andecological impacts. The problem is exacerbatedby poor waste management, a lack of resourcesin some regions and a disconnect between thosebenefitting from the activity (e.g. tourists, restaurant owners, tour operators) and those having todeal with the consequences (e.g. local communities). Catering for tourists in SIDS can lead tothe importation of very large quantities of food andother consumer goods, with the accompanying
packaging creating a huge challenge for effective
waste management.

30

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

56

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

The number of containers lost each year is disputed, but
was reported by the World Shipping Council (2014)31
to be approximately 550 per annum on average, notcounting catastrophic losses (regarded as lossesof > 50 containers in one incident). In 2011 there
was the grounding of the M/V Rena off New Zealand(Figure 5.18; 900 containers) and in 2013 there wasthe complete loss of the MOL Comfort in the Indian
Ocean (4 293 containers).

5.8
ESTIMATING SEA-BASED INPUTS OF MARINE
PLASTICS AND MICROPLASTICS TO
THE OCEAN – A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Shipping
Globalisation and the growth in shipping
Shipping represents a continuing source of marine
litter, both due to accidental release (collisions, storm
damage) and illegal disposal of plastics at sea, inbreach of Annex V of the MARPOL Convention.
Shipping accounts for approximately 90% of global
trade. The introduction of containerised cargo handlingin the 1960s brought about a step-change increasein the efficiency and decrease in the cost of shipping
goods. The change was pioneered on busy routes
between North America and Europe, where the highcapital investment was offset by a reduction in highlabour costs, and gradually spread to developing
economies, especially in Asia (Figure 5.14). There has
been a tendency to increase capacity by building larger
vessels. There has been a great expansion of trade in
manufactured goods from Asia to Europe and North
America, a significant fraction being composed of plastics, with most being transported by container vessels.

The impact of major accidental losses can be significant locally (Figure 5.15). On a lighter note, many
incidents have been reported in the media of familiar
items being washed up on shorelines; for example,
Nike™ training shoes (west coast of North America,
Ebbesmeyer and Sciano 2009), bath toys including
plastic ducks (Hohn 2011) and pieces of Lego™ (SWEngland32). The pattern of shipping accidents roughly
correlates with shipping traffic density, with the top
five regions for accidents being the seas of east Asia
(Korea, Japan, eastern China), the seas of southeast
Asia, the eastern and western Mediterranean and thewaters of the Bay of Biscay and NW European shelfseas (Butt et al. 2011).

Shoreline surveys adjacent to busy shipping routes(Figure 5.14), such as the southern North Sea
approaching Rotterdam, reveal a higher proportion ofshipping-related debris (van Franeker 2010). Someof this material may be casually thrown overboard, butsome arises from accidental losses.

31

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containers_
Lost_at_Sea_-_2014_Update_Final_for_Dist.pdf

32

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28367198, accessed 1 February 2016

Figure 5.14

Global shipping density (Kaluza et al 2010)

57

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Figure 5.14

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

Figure 5.16

Pre-production PP pellets washed ashore in Hong Kong, following a shipping
accident in 2012 (Reuters/SiuChiu)

Microplastics

Disposal of sewage sludge and dredged sediments
The disposal of sewage sludge and dredged sedimentis permitted under MARPOL Annex V, subject to certain conditions. Sewage sludge is likely to containplastic fragments, fibres and particles that were notremoved during initial treatment. In one Swedish
study it was concluded that >99% of microplastics
entering the wastewater treatment plant were retainedin sludge Magnusson and Norén 2014). Sewage
sludge is often used as an agricultural fertiliser and amethod using the presence of synthetic fibres has
been proposed as an indicator that sludge has been
applied (Zubris and Richards 2005). The quantities
involved will depend partly on the upstream management of waste streams, the shape, size and density ofthe particles, and the existence and sophistication ofwastewater treatment.

33

Maintenance dredging is an essential activity to allow
ports to function and provide safe passage for shipping. Currently there are no guidelines on the composition of material considered suitable for sea disposalthat include the plastic content. A report on the topic

Shipping accidents have also resulted in the introduction of microplastics directly into the ocean.
Probably the best-known incident was the loss of six
shipping containers from a freighter off Hong Kong,
during Typhoon Vincente in July 2013. It is thoughtthat 150 tonnes of pre-production PP pellets werelost initially, with many washing up on local beaches33.
This initiated a remarkable clean-up campaign, largely
based on volunteers. It is thought about 70% of thelost pellets were recovered.

http://plasticfreeseas.org/plastic-pellets.html

58

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

has been prepared34 and is being considered by the
Scientific Group of the LC and LP (March 2016).
Although little information is available on the plastic
content of dredged sediment, high levels of plastics,
including plastic pellets and fibres, have beenreported in shoreline and harbour sediments (Browne
et al. 2010, Claessens et al. 2011). Although it is notpossible to provide accurate figures on the input ofplastic via this route, it can be surmised that the quantities will vary dependent on factors such as shipping
intensity, coastal population density and the degreeof coastal industrialisation.

Ocean, Northern and Western Africa, the Caribbean
and Chile (Figure 5.17).
Macfadyen et al. (2009) provided a summary of estimates of ALDFG losses in different regions (Table
5.6). Clearly it is a global problem, but the incidence
is likely to be influenced by a number of regionallydependent factors, such as: the type of gear, the education level of the crew, inefficient fishing methods,
gear conflicts with other fishers and maritime users,
the value of the catch compared with the cost of the
net and the extent of IUU fishing (Gilman 2015). A
new study covering ALDFG from marine gillnet andtrammel net fisheries describes methods to estimate
ghost fishing mortality and synthesizes estimates ofmortality rates (Gilman et al. in press). This study
also assesses related measures of regional fisheries
bodies and arrangements for monitoring and managing ALDFG and ghost fishing.

Fisheries
Wild fish capture is an important source of highquality protein in many regions, but in particular inSoutheast Asia and Pacific SIDS, parts of the Indian34

IMO LC/SG 39/8/1 Annex

Figure 5.17

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

59

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.7
Examples of gear loss /abandonment/discard indicators from around the world

RegionFishery/gear type

Indicator of gear loss (data source)

North Sea
& NE Atlantic

Bottom-set gill nets

0.02-0.09% nets lost per boat per year
(EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338 (2003))

English Channel& North Sea(France)

Gill nets

0.2% (sole & plaice) to 2.11% (sea bass) nets lost
per boat per year
(EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338 (2003))

Baltic Sea(Poland & Lithuania)

Set nets

1 630 set nets lost in 2009 (Szulc 2013)

NW Atlantic

Newfoundland cod gill net fishery

5,000 nets per year (Breen, 1990)

Canadian Atlantic gill net fisheries

2% nets lost per boat per year
(Chopin et a., 1995)

Gulf of St. Lawrence snow crab

792 traps per year

New England lobster fishery20-30% traps lost per boat per year
(Smolowitz, 1978)

Chesapeake Bay

Up to 30% traps lost per boat per year
(NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 2007)

Guadeloupe trap fishery

20,000 traps lost per year,
mainly in the hurricane season(Burke & Maidens, 2004)

Gill nets

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

Indian Ocean

Maldives tuna longline

3% loss of hooks/set(Anderson & Waheed, 1988)

Gulf of Aden

Traps

c. 20% lost per boat per year
(Al-Masroori, 2002)

ROPME Sea Area
(UAE)

Traps

260,000 lost per year in 2002
(Gary Morgan, personal communication, 2007)

Atlantic Ocean

Caribbean

Mediterranean

Mediterranean

Indian Ocean

60

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Pacific Ocean

NE Pacific

Bristol Bay king crab trap fishery

7,000 – 31,000 traps lost in the fishery per year
(Stevens, 1996; Paul et al, 1994;
Kruse & Kimker, 1993)

Australia (Queensland)Blue swimmer crab trap fishery

35 traps lost per boat per year
(McKauge, undated)

Toothfish longline

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

Southern Ocean

Southern Ocean

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

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

70% by weight of floating macroplastic
debris, in the open ocean, is fishing-related(Eriksen et al. 2014)

Photo: © Sustainable Coastlines

Fishing-related debris is also common in the Southern
Ocean and is consistently the most frequent categoryof litter associated with wandering albatross colonies(CCAMLR 2015).

61

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Aquaculturecommon in Canada, NW Europe and southern Chile.
Aquaculture provides an important source of protein
in many countries (Figure 5.18).

Geographically Asian countries have been highlighted in terms of both production and consumption of cultured food (Figures 5.19). China is thenumber one producer among them (FAO, 2014 #86).
Mussel culture is common in North America, southern Chile and the Atlantic coast of Europe. Oysters
are cultured extensively in Asia, North America andparts of Europe. Scallop culture is concentrated in
subtropical regions, and clam culture is common in
many parts of Asia and North America. Shrimp cultures are most extensive in estuarine environmentsof tropical and subtropical regions. Fish culture is

The quantities of equipment lost generally havenot been quantified. Regional differences may be
expected due to the type of culture, the selection ofdesigns and materials, and exposure to adverse conditions. For example, EPS buoys are used extensively
in some regions of Asia for the hanging culture ofmussels and oysters. Loss and damage is particularly intense following the passage of tropical storms(Chapter 6.2, Lee et al. 2014).

Figure 5.18

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

Figure 5.19

Regional food provision by marine aquaculture, displayed as a relative scale byEEZ (oceanhealthindex)

62

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

5.9

examination of the probable origin (i.e. sector) ofmarine litter items, one in each of Europe’s four marginal seas (ARCADIS 2012): i) Oostende (Belgium)– North Sea; ii) Constanta (Romania) – Black Sea; iii)
Riga (Latvia) – Baltic Sea; and, iv) Barcelona (Spain)– Western Mediterranean (Figure 5.20, Table 5.7).

REGIONAL CASE STUDY – RELATIVECONTRIBUTIONS OF DIFFERENT SOURCES
It is sometimes possible to gain an indication of thesource of marine litter by carefully examining the typeof material encountered in surveys. Beach surveys
offer an opportunity to investigate spatial and temporal
trends in a relatively cost-effective manner, provided
harmonised sampling and analysis techniques areadhered to. In a pilot study commissioned by the EC,
four shoreline locations were selected for a careful

Details of the methodology for site selection and datacollection and analysis are provided by ARCADIS(2012). The study included stakeholder workshops
and the development of potential measures to closeloopholes in the ‘plastic cycle’.

Figure 5.20

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

63

5

5

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SOURCES OF MACRO AND MICROPLASTICS

Table 5.8
Broad sector category*

Oostende
North Sea

Constanta
Black Sea

Riga
Baltic Sea

Barcelona
Mediterranean

Maritime-based

50.51

18.2

18.18

16.08

Shoreline-based

29.11

48.58

27.69

35.09

Land-based

20.36

33.23

54.4

48.82

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

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

64

6

65

6. DISTRIBUTION
AND FATE

will influence currents at a more local scale. Withinthese broad patterns the circulation is highly complex
and variable, on multiple scales in space (mm – 100skm) and time (s – decades) (Figure 6.2). This will havea significant influence on the distribution of floating
plastics, providing an explanation for some of the spatial
and temporal variability in concentrations that havebeen observed. The water column is not uniform in temperature and salinity. The upper few metres of the ocean
will be mixed by wave action episodically. Attempts tomeasure and interpret the distribution and abundanceof floating plastics in the surface ocean need to beplaced in the context of this natural variability.

6.1
MARINE COMPARTMENTS AND TRANSPORTPATHWAYS

Ocean circulation
Transfer between compartments
The circulation of the surface waters of the ocean arecharacterised by a broad pattern of persistent surface
currents (Figure 6.1). These tend to dominate thepassive transport of any floating objects. The ocean
circulation is driven by the complex interaction of
atmospheric forcing (winds), the Coriolis force due tothe Earth’s rotation, density differences (temperatureand salinity) and deep-water formation in the Arctic
and sub-Arctic seas and Southern Ocean (ThermoHaline circulation due to the sinking of cold, densewater, produced through the formation of freshwaterice) (Lozier 2015). In coastal regions river outflows

The ocean can be divided into five compartments:
coastline, surface/upper ocean, the main watercolumn, the seabed and biota (Figure 6.3). Plastics
occur in all five compartments, and there will be processes acting both within and between compartments
which will affect the fate and distribution of the plastic material. Plastics that are inherently buoyant (e.g.
PE) can be expected to remain in the upper ocean,unless there is a change in density, for example by
the attachment and growth of sessile organisms. The
degree to which this may occur is unknown. Other

Figure 6.1

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

66

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.3
plastics are denser than water so may be expected tooccur on shorelines and the seabed. This differencein physical properties clearly will have a considerable
influence on both the observed and modelled distributions (Chapter 6.2). Plastics of all types may befound in the biota compartment.
The degree of transfer of plastics between thesecompartments is largely unknown. Transfer of material on and off shorelines is likely to be considerable
in some regions but often episodic, in response towave action, wind and rainfall events, the proximity ofsea- and land-based sources and the exposure of thecoastline. Non-buoyant plastic objects (e.g. fishingnets) that are supported by buoyant objects (e.g. fishing floats) will continue to float in the water column or
upper ocean until the buoyancy becomes ineffective,then will sink to the seabed. Transport from the nearshore environment to the deep seabed may be facilitated by the presence of canyons and debris slides(e.g. NW Mediterranean). Material may behave differently once fragmented. The relative importance ofsuch transfers will be regionally dependent.
Mesoscale eddies - false colour image of ocean
water colour, from NASA’s Aqua MODIS satellite, showing the complexity of the surface ocean
circulation, which will influence the distribution of
floating plastics. Image courtesy of NASA-GSFC.
The circular blue in the middle left is approximately
100km in diameter35.

35

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/ocean-mesoscale-eddies

Figure 6.3

Figure 6.3 Overview of compartments and fluxes of marine plastics (figure
based on a version by Erik van Sebille, taken from GESAMP 2016).

67

6

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.4
6.2
REGIONAL PATTERNS AND ‘HOT SPOTS’

Shoreline and nearshore ‘hot spots’
Macro and microplastics are found on shorelines
throughout the world’s oceans. The debris is a mixtureof locally-derived material and debris that has beentransported by wind and wave action and surface currents, sometimes for several thousand kilometres. A
number of consistent patterns have emerged from routine beach surveys, including the significant increase in
shoreline litter adjacent to urban centres and adjacentto nearshore shipping routes (Figure 6.4).
Data from the Ocean Conservancy annual international
clean-up programme reveal the influence of tourism
and beach use on the type and quantities of plastic
litter found on the shoreline (Ocean Conservancy2014). The International Coastal Clean-up (ICC)
counts the number of items, rather than the quantity of litter (volume and mass) so provides a rather
partial picture of the relative significance of different
items. For example, no fishing-related plastics wererecorded in the top ten items found most often (Table
6.1). However, it does represent one of the mostcomprehensive sets of data, recording relative distributions and trends on shorelines.

Results of shoreline surveys in the NOWPAP region(units: number of items/100m shoreline) (NOWPAP
CEARAC )transport or more permanent accumulation zones.
Undoubtedly, local oceanographic conditions willplay a key role. In some cases, higher concentrations
are due to the presence of poorly controlled or illegal
waste dumps, sometimes immediately adjacent to theshoreline (D-Waste 2014).

What remains uncertain is whether these local ‘hot
spots’ (Figure 6.5) act as sources for longer-distance

Table 6.1
Order

Description

NumberOrder

Description

Number1

Cigarette ends

2 248 065

6

Miscellaneous plastic bags

489 968

2

Food wrappers

1 376 133

7

Shopping bags

485 204

3

Plastic drinks bottles

988 965

8

Glass drinks bottles

396 121

4

Plastic bottle caps

811 871

9

Metal drinks cans

382 6085Straws & stirrers

519 911

10

Plastic cups & plates

376 479

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

68

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.5

Coastal community in Papua New Guinea, surveyed forlitter in 2015 ©Sustainable Coastlines Papua New Guinea

Coastal debris surveys often report an increase inbeach deposition of litter following tsunamis (Figure6.6), storms or river basin flooding, (Frost and Cullen
1997; Gabrielides et al. 1991; Vauk and Shrey 1987)
further supporting the importance of local contributions to marine litter.

The Mediterranean experiences high volumes of shipping, has high coastal populations and a very welldeveloped tourist industry. It also has a very restrictedexchange with the Atlantic. The high levels observedof floating, shoreline and seabed plastics are notunexpected. In the western Mediterranean the continental shelf is very narrow, with submarine canyons
extending from close to the shore into deep water.
These have the function of channelling waste deposited in coastal waters, directly or via river inflows,leading to significant ‘hot spots’ of plastics both in
the canyons and on the deep seafloor (Galgani et al.
1996, 2000).

Coastal waters and Large Marine Ecosystems
Coastal waters in many regions can be expected tohave higher concentrations of marine plastics being
the receiving body for land-based plastics and thezone where fisheries, aquaculture, commercial shipping and other maritime activities are concentrated.
‘Hot spots’ of floating plastic have been observedin coastal waters adjacent to countries with highcoastal populations and inadequate waste management in South–east Asia (Peter Ryan 2013). The
Strait of Malacca has a combination of high shipping
densities, fisheries and coastal population densities.
Large quantities of floating plastic debris have been
observed several tens of kilometres off the coast(Figure 6.7; Ryan 2013).

Long-distance transport of floating litter andmid-ocean hot spots
Reports of floating plastic fragments in open ocean
waters started to appear in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the early 1970s (Carpenter et al.
1972). Such observations were made as an addition
to the prime purpose of the study, which was usuallyconcerned with either the dynamics of plankton orwith fisheries research. In contrast, sampling for plastic
occurrence in some open ocean regions, such as the

69

6

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.6

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

Figure 6.7

Plastic debris in surface waters of the Strait of Malacca (images
courtesy of Peter Ryan)70

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

6

Indian Ocean, South Pacific and South Atlantic, hasonly taken place relatively recently (Ericksen et al.
2014, Ryan 2014).
Long-distance transport of floating plastics occurs
by a combination of ocean circulation and winds (forlarger objects). The surface circulation has been welldefined in terms of the overall circulation patterns
and relative transport rates. A feature of all the major
ocean basins (North Pacific, South Pacific, North
Atlantic, South Atlantic and Indian Oceans) is theformation of sub-tropical gyres, regions of slower
currents where material tends to collect and stay forsome time. Many studies have now confirmed thatthe gyres are characterised by relatively high concentrations of floating plastic (Figure 6.8). The term
‘The Great Pacific garbage patch’ was coined for the
North Pacific sub-tropical gyre. This description israther misleading, but it has entered the public lexicon(Box 6.1). Although the overall accumulation patterns
are quite consistent there are very large variations inconcentration at smaller scales (Law et al. 2014), due
to the complexity of ocean dynamics and interactions
with the wind.
Box 6.1‘THE GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH’

This term was coined following the discovery of an ‘accumulation zone’ of floating plastic debris in
the North Pacific in the late 1990s. It became widely used in the media and by advocacy groups toraise awareness of what had been a poorly recognised phenomenon. Unfortunately, use of the term
also generated a misconception on the part of the public as to what the ‘garbage patch’ consistedof, with visions of large piles of floating debris forming an ‘island’, variously described as being ‘thesize of Texas’ or other popular unit of area, and assumed to be visible from space.
In reality most of the plastic debris is too small to be seen easily from the deck of a ship, and has
to be sampled by towing a fine-mesh net (e.g. 330 μm). Concentrations are often presented as
numbers per unit area of sea. Although the number of particles may be recorded as over 200 000
km-2 (e.g. Law et al. 2010), that equates to less than one microplastic particle m-2. Larger items
do occur but much less frequently, and they are subject additionally to wind forcing and so may
have different transport rates and pathways, often being blown ashore. The phenomenon is notunique to the North Pacific and has been described for the five main sub-tropical gyres, where
small free-floating objects will tend to converge (Figure 6.1). Generally, material is quite dispersed,
but with very significant variations in concentration in space and time, due to the differing scalesof ocean circulation and turbulent mixing by waves. Microplastics also occur in the surface ocean
outside the gyres, although in lower concentrations71

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.8

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

Ericksen et al. (2014) have produced the most comprehensive collation of available data on macro andmicroplastic distribution so far, using both towed
nets (usually using a 330-micron mesh) and direct
observations of larger items to produce the firstglobal representation of our current knowledge ofthe distribution of floating plastic, based on observations (Figure 6.9, Table 6.2). The data set comprised 1571 sampling locations from 24 expeditions(2007-2013). These covered the five ocean gyres in
the North Pacific, South Pacific, South Atlantic, North
Atlantic and Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea,
Bay of Bengal and coastal waters of Australia, combining surface net tows (n=680) and visual surveys oflarge plastic debris (n=891).

It is interesting to note that fishing-related debris
accounted for 20% of the total by number but 70%
by weight, with floats/buoys predominating. Suchitems are a common component of shoreline debris in
mid-ocean islands. These data have formed the basisof a modelling study to estimate the total quantities
the sampling represents (see below). In some cases,
it is possible to prove the provenance of the fishinggear from gear marking. For example, debris fromthe Oregon Dungeness Crab fishery has been foundwashed up in Hawaii (Ebbesmeyer et al. 2012).
Buoyant plastics will tend to float at the sea surface
during calm conditions. However, wave action can
mix the water column, and smaller items of plastic, to72

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.9

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

Table 6.2
Category

Subcategory

Items% count% weight

Plastic fishing gear

Buoy

319

7.4

58.3

Line

369

8.6

11.1

Net

102

2.4

0.9

Other fishing gear

70

1.6

0.1

Bucket

180

4.2

15.0

Bottle

791

18.4

4.9

Foamed polystyrene

1 116

26.0

8.0

Plastic bag/film

420

9.8

0.8

Misc. plastic

924

21.5

0.8

4 291

100

100

Other plastics

Total

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

73

6

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

depths of several meters (Lattin et al. 2004, Lusher et
al. 2015, Reisser et al. 2015). This introduces someuncertainty into some of the observations of smaller
plastics collected with towed nets. This phenomenon
has been studied using both modelling (Kukulka et al.
2012) and observations with vertically stacked trawl
nets (Reisser et al. 2015). The sea state will also
affect the reliability of direct observations of larger
items. Both problems can be addressed provided
sampling protocols are designed with this in mind
(Chapter 11).

e) sea-based sources such as fisheries and aquaculturef) land-based sources such as coastal tourism
Such weaknesses do not invalidate the usefulnessof the modelling approach, but do introduce large
uncertainties into the results, something which isreadily admitted by the modelling community (e.g. van
Sebille et al. 2015).

Modelling the influence of different sources
Modelling can provide a means to investigate therelative importance of different sources, where moreaccurate data is absent. Lebreton et al. (2012) used
this approach to generate the relative contribution of
floating plastics from three sources, based on proxy
indicators: coastal population density, proportion ofurbanised catchment (i.e. liable to more rapid runoff) and shipping density. The authors simulated theresultant distribution of plastics in coastal and open
ocean waters using an ocean circulation model, into
which particles could be introduced in proportion to
the three indicators. The distributions were spatiallyresolved to fit the outlines of the 64 Large Marine
Ecosystems (LME) and then placed in five categories of relative abundance. Figure 6.10 shows the
distribution of microplastics by LME, with concentrations varying from highest to lowest in the order redorange-yellow-green-blue.36 Highest concentrations
occurred in SE Asia, around the Korean peninsula,
the Bay of Bengal and the Mediterranean. This is consistent with the available observations.

Utilizing modelling techniques to simulate the
distribution of macro and microplastics
Model simulations provide a useful interpretationof the distribution and relative abundance of floating plastics, filling in gaps in the distribution in theabsence of observations, allowing investigation of therelative importance of different processes and testing scenarios. Ocean circulation models are basedon a very good understanding of ocean physics andare validated with robust scientific data (e.g. satellite
observations, oceanographic measurements of temperature and salinity, current meter arrays, neutrally-buoyant floats). However, all models are based onsets of assumptions, the structure and complexity ofthe model and the state of knowledge of the systemthat is being investigated. Modelling the ocean inthree dimensions (i.e. including multiple depth layers)
is challenging computationally. A model will always
be a simplification of reality, which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. When considering the useof models it is worth remembering the adage: ‘All
models are wrong, but some are useful’ (Box 1976)

A second modelling study (UNEP 2016b) simulated
the distribution of floating plastic based on the estimated influx of plastic due to inadequate waste treatment, as defined by Jambeck et al. (2015). Figure
6.11 shows the simulated distribution of floating plastics originating from countries in SE Asia, indicating
significant transboundarytransport across the Bay of
Bengal.

‘All models are wrong, but some are useful’(Box 1976)

A fundamental weakness with many global-scale current modelling approaches is that they do not accountfor several important factors:a) non-buoyant plasticsb) fragmentationc) vertical transport to the seabedd) other environmental reservoirs (biota, seabed,water column, shoreline)

36

74

This study was a contribution to the GEF Transboundary Waters
Assessment Programme(IOC-UNESCO and UNEP 2016; www.geftwap.org).

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.10

Estimated relative distribution of microplastic abundance in 64 Large Marine Ecosystems, based on
Lebreton et al. 2012. Inputs of plastic ‘particles’ in the model were based on three proxy indicators ofprobable sources: coastal population density, proportion of urbanised watershed and shipping density.
Concentrations were divided into five equal-sized categories of relative concentration, varying from highest to lowest in the order red-orange-yellow-green-blue. (IOC-UNESCO and UNEP 2016)

75

6

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.11

Simulated distribution of floating plastic. Showing high concentrations in coastal waters,
using as the source term the estimated influx of plastics from SE Asia due to ‘mismanaged
waste’ (based on Jambeck et al. 2015), from 2004-2014 (from UNEP 2016b)

Modelling transport times
It can be difficult to assign how long plastic debris
has been in the ocean and where it has come from,but models can be very useful in indicating probable transport pathways and the average time takenfrom source to sampling site (Lebreton et al. 2012,
Maximenko et al. 2012, UNEP 2016b, van Sebille etal. 2015); Figure 6.12).
These estimates can be compared with the results ofother investigations into the pathways and transport
times of other passive water-borne tracers (e.g. radiotracers, CFCs). For example, several studies havemodelled the transfer pathways and transport timesof caesium (134Cs, 137Cs), technetium (99Tc)
and other radionuclides discharged from nuclear
reprocessing sites in the NE Atlantic, with subsequent transport to the Arctic (Karcher et al. 2004).
The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plantin Japan, in 2011, provided another opportunity to
examine transport of surface and mid-waters in the
North Pacific on the basis of measurements of dissolved 134Cs and 137Cs.

76

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.12

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

77

6

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Estimating ocean plastic budgets
Despite the increasing number of sampling expeditions, the total number of observations of floating
macro and micro-plastics is rather small, and large
areas of the ocean have not been sampled at all,particular in the Arctic, South Pacific, Indian Ocean
and the Southern Ocean. It is possible to generatebudgets of ocean plastics on the basis of model simulations, but these need to be validated by observational data. Eriksen et al. (2014) collated data on thenumber and mass of floating plastic particles/items
from 24 expeditions (2007 – 2013, Figures 6.13
and 6.14). These covered the five ocean gyres, theMediterranean, Bay of Bengal and coastal watersof Australia, combining surface net tows (n=680)
and visual surveys of large plastic debris (n=891).
The data were used to calibrate an ocean circulation and particle-tracking model (HYCOM/NCODA,
Cummings 2005) which was then used to estimate
budgets of floating macro and microplastics.

Modelling different types of plastic
Most model simulations of plastic particle transport
have been applicable to floating plastic only. This isappropriate for plastic objects with entrapped air,such as a fishing float, or for particles and fragmentsof some polymers such as PE, PP or EPS. However,many other common polymers are denser than seawater
so will tend to sink (Chapter 4.2). The behaviour ofdifferent types of microplastic particle has been investigated within the European research project MICRO(van der Meulen et al. 2015)37. The Delft 3D model38
was utilised to model the distribution of particles
with densities equivalent to the polymers PE (0.91),
PS (1.05) and PET (1.40). The model was configured to represent the southern North Sea andEnglish Channel (Figure 6.15), with particles being
introduced with major river inputs (Box 6.3). The
particles were assumed to be spherical. There wasa very clear difference between the behaviour ofPE and PET. PE particles were restricted to surface
waters and occurred in greatest concentration in a
broad band extending from coast of France, Belgium,
Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. PET particles
were absent from the surface but prevalent in bottom
waters, with higher concentrations in a restrictedzone close to the coast and in a tongue extending
north east from the coast of East Anglia, in eastern
England. The region has a vigorous tidal- and winddriven circulation and the water depth is quite shallow, so bottom transport of sediment is common. The
PS particles, being closer to the density of seawater,
showed features of both the PE and PET particle distributions.

Using the validated model, it was estimated that the
total number of floating plastic pieces, in the four size
categories, was 5.25 trillion (5.25 x 1012), with amass of 268 940 tonnes.
A recent analysis of the performance of three modelsof floating plastic distribution, which can be considered the state of the art, revealed similar overall
patterns in predicted abundance, but significant differences in many regions of the ocean (van Sebilleet al. 2015). This illustrates the difficulty in providing
accurate predictions of the distribution and quantities of floating plastics. From this study, van Sebilleet al. (2015) estimated the total number of floating
microplastics (i.e. excluding macroplastics) to be 15– 51 trillion (1.5 – 5.1 x 1013) pieces, weighing 93 –236 thousand tonnes.

Future developments
Despite their current shortcomings, models can provide extremely useful insights and help to expose
knowledge gaps and focus future research needs.
They also provide a means of testing scenarios, suchas the likely outcome of implementing litter reduction
measures. But current models cannot supply, on theirown, a realistic estimate of the total current standing
stock of plastic in the ocean, including plastic on theseabed. Allowing for additional sources will be relatively easy to simulate, given sufficient input data, butissues of vertical transport and particle fragmentation
will be much more challenging.

A recent study estimated the total numberof floating macro and microplastic pieces in
the open ocean to be 5.25 trillion, weighing
269 000 tonnes(Eriksen et al. 2014)7837

http://www.ilvo.vlaanderen.be/micro/EN/Home/tabid/6572/Default.
aspx

38

http://oss.deltares.nl/web/delft3d

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.13

Figure 6.13 Model prediction of the distribution by global count(pieces km-2, see colour scale bar) of particles/items for each offour size classes: 0.33 – 1.00 mm, 1.01 – 4.75 mm, 4.75 – 200 mm, and>200 mm (Eriksen et al. 2014)

Figure 6.14

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

79

6

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.15

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

gramme to remove ALDFG in Chapter 11. Samples
from isolated beaches in the outer Hawaiian Islands
contained around 1.2 kg of plastic fragments m-3
sediment (McDermid and McMullen 2004). This issimilar to patterns found on Easter Island, which
adjoins the higher concentrations found in the
sub-tropical gyres in the southern Pacific (HidalgoRuz and Thiel 2013).

SIDS and mid-ocean island hot spots
Mid-ocean islands are generally characterised ashaving low population densities and low levels of
industrial development. This would suggest a low
generation of waste compared with many mainland
centres although, in some cases, tourism does
increase the generation of waste. Unfortunately,
many mid-ocean islands, such as Easter Island andMidway Atoll, receive a disproportionate burden ofplastic marine litter as a result of long distance transport by surface currents. The Hawaiian Islands lie on
the southern edge of the North Pacific sub-tropicalgyre and are particularly susceptible to receiving
floating debris. ALDFG is a particular problem in the
Northwestern Hawaii Islands (PapahƗnaumokuƗkea
Marine National Monument) (Figure 6.16). The
impact of this is described in Chapter 7 and the pro-Some SIDS fall into the category of mid-oceanislands, others occur closer to continental margins
and may be subject to a greater range and quantity of plastics, generated internally, transported fromnearby countries or resulting from maritime activities
such as fisheries or tourism. For example, SIDS in the
Caribbean are dependent on tourism for economic
development but bear a disproportionate burden in
dealing with the waste from the cruise ship sector.

80

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Table 6.3
Countries served by the catchment

River% input

UK

Dee

1.1

Tay

4.2

Earn

0.7

Forth

1.9

Tweed

1.9

Tyne

1.7

Tees

1.2

Humber

8.3

Ouse

2.1

Yare

1.8

Thames

3.1

Stour

0.4

France

Seine

10.4

France, Belgium, Netherlands

Scheldt

3.2

Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Austria, Germany, France, Netherlands

Rhine

33.9

Germany

Weser

9.3

Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Germany

Elbe

14.7

Total

100

Percentage river contributions of particles used in the Delft 3D model simulation in the English Channel and North Sea

81

6

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.16a

Figure 6.16b

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

82

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Waste is an important and growing issue for many
SIDS. This is due to a range of internal and external influences. Most waste collected is disposedof in sanitary landfill rather than being recycled(UNEP 2012). But, in the absence of adequateand disposal facilities, waste is often disposedof casually by burial, burning or discarding into
the surrounding land or sea, Population growth,urbanisation, changing consumption patterns andincreasing numbers of tourists are all contributory
factors (UNEP 2014a). It has been argued thata lack of appreciation of the need for a proper
waste management strategy is damaging theenvironment and compromising the viability ofsome communities, with the situation on some
Pacific islands being described as ‘a waste disaster’ (Veoitayaki 2010).

Water column
Very few measurements have been reported of plastics in the water column beneath the top few metersof the surface ocean. There are two key factors
involved: plastics will tend to float if buoyant andsink if non-buoyant in seawater; capturing sinking
particles in the water column is resource intensiveso the number of observations is limited, and these
are usually made in relation to carbon cycling. The
sinking rate will be determined by the relative densityof the particle and its size and shape. Incorporationof plastic particles into faecal pellets may result in
more rapid sedimentation rates. However, the vertical transport of particles is quite complex and may be
multi-stage, with faecal pellets being re-used as anenergy source by mid-water organisms.

Figure 6.17

Relative proportion of litter in six categories observed on theseabed of the North-east Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea(adapted and re-drawn from Pham et al. 2014).

83

6

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Deposition patterns will depend on many factors
including the size and density of the plastic objects andparticles, the water depth, the strength of surface andbottom currents, wave action, the seabed topography
and the variation in the sources. For example, in theshallow Lagoon of Venice, microplastics were found toaccumulate where the currents were weakest (Vianello
et al. 2013). Higher concentrations of microplastics
have been found in coastal regions and adjacent toharbours (Claessens et al., 2011, Bajt et al., 2015).

SeabedPlastics and microplastics have been reported inmarine sediments worldwide (Claessens et al. 2011;
Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2014 and 2015, Woodall
et al. 2015) but the first report in subtidal sediments
dates back to 2004 (Thompson et al. 2004). Deepsea sediments were demonstrated more recently toalso accumulate microplastics (Van Cauwenberghe etal. 2014 and 2015, Woodall et al. 2015) with composition that appears different from surface waters
as fibres were found at up to four orders of magnitude more abundant in deep-sea sediments from theAtlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean
than in contaminated sea surface waters (Annex
V; Woodall et al. 2015). Sediments are suggested
to be a long-term sink for microplastics (Cozar etal. 2014, Eriksen et al. 2014, Woodall et al. 2015).
Macroplastics have been observed on the seabed atmany locations in the NE Atlantic and Mediterranean
Sea (Pham et al. 2014).

Hot spots related to fisheries and aquaculture
Case study – shellfish aquaculture in southern Korea
EPS buoys are used extensively in southern Korea forthe hanging culture of mussels and oysters. Buoys
are used at a density of 500-1000 Ha-1. It is estimated that approximately 1.8 million are discarded
into the marine environment annually (Lee et al.
2014). Each 62-litre EPS buoy can generate 7.6 million micro-size EPS fragments of < 2.5 mm diameter,or 7.6 x 1021 nano particles of < 250 nm diameter.
Consequently, EPS buoys and fragments were foundto be the most common item, with EPS accounting
for > 10% of marine debris on 94 Korean beaches in2008 (Figure 6.18; Lee et al. 2014). A participatory
process is underway to find solutions to this problem(Chapter 9).

Transport pathways near the deep sea floor will differ
from those at the surface, and generally will be weaker.
Predicting the most likely areas for accumulation will
be more problematic. Submarine topographic features
may also favour sedimentation and increase the retention of macro and microplastics at particular locations
such as canyons and deeps or smaller scale structures (holes, rocks, geological barriers, etc.). For larger
debris, the proximity of human activities is likely to be
more influential. For example, relatively high levels offishing-related debris were found on ocean ridges andseamounts, reflecting more intensive fishing efforts in
those areas (Figure 6.17; Pham et al. 2014).

Large quantities of fishing–related debris occur on
the seabed in the same region of the South Sea of
Korea (mean abundance 1 110 kg km-2), although
the highest quantities of debris are found in harbours(Lee et al. 2006).

Figure 6.18a84

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Figure 6.18b

Figure 6.18c

Figure 6.18d

Large-scale mariculture for oysters in southern Korea,
using ropes hanging from EPS buoys: a) typical configuration of buoys; b) beached EPS buoys following passage
of a typhoon; c) EPS fragments floating in coastal waters;
and d) EPS fragments on shoreline.
(images: Jong Ho, OSEAN)

85

6

6

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE

Case study – demersal fisheries in North Sea

Biota

A significant quantity of marine plastic debris resultsfrom maritime activities such as fisheries. In addition,
many plastics are denser than water so will sink to theseabed once any trapped air is released. Fishing geardebris has been found to be widespread in areas suchas the North-east Atlantic and Mediterranean (Phamet al. 2014). Conducting seabed surveys is much
more resource intensive than sampling shorelines ofthe ocean surface. However, in many regulated demersal (bottom) fisheries there is a requirement to carryout regular trawl surveys to assess the state of the
fish stocks. This provides an opportunity to record
the type and quantity of litter collected incidentallyas part of the survey (Figure 6.19). This practice isbeing encouraged as a cost-effective method for routine seabed monitoring on fishing grounds. Results
to date indicate a relatively high proportion of fisheries-related litter.

Macro and microplastics have been found associated with a wide variety of organism, from small zooplankton to the largest whales, from worms burying
in the seabed to seabirds feeding in the upper ocean(GESAMP 2015, 2016). A comprehensive datasetof laboratory- and field-based observations of mesoand microplastic particles and fragments, in a wide
variety of organisms, has been compiled by GESAMP(GESAMP 2016) is reproduced in Annex VI. The
size of this reservoir of plastic particles is unknown.
In terms of the overall budget of marine plastics thiscompartment is rather small. Of more immediate concern is the potential physical and chemical impact
due to ingestion or entanglement and this is discussed further in Chapter 7.

Figure 6.19

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

86

7

87

Figure 7.1c

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

Figure 7.1b

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

88

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.1aFigure 7.1d

89

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.1

Plasticized animals - Entangled
Number of species with documented records of entanglement in marine debris
Polar
bear

Dugongs
andsea cows Divers
2

1

Marineducks

Penguins
5

Whales

Turtles

Grebes66739Pelicans, gannets
and boobies,
tropicbirds

16

Eared seals

13

20

24

9

Toothed whales

Eared seals

89
Albatros and other
Procellariiformes

92

39

Gulls, skuas,
terns and auks

Fish

Invertebrates

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

Entanglement by species. Taken from Marine Litter Vital
Graphics (in preparation).

Table 7.1
Type of material

Summer

Winter

Total

Packaging band

287

287

442

Synthetic line

149

112

261

Fishing net

128

52

180

Plastic bag/tape

31

32

63

Rubber band

16

5

21

Unknown

46

20

66

Total

657

376

1 033

Type of material entangling seals at Bird
Island, South Georgia 1989 – 201390

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Photo: © CC BY Lucy Lambreix

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

91

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Table 7.2
Item

Rank of expected impact

Mean

Bird

TurtleMammalBuoys/traps/pots

1

1

1

1

Monofilament line

2.3

3

2

2

Fishing nets

2.7

2

3

3

Plastic bags

5.7

4

9

4

Plastic utensils

5.7

7

4

6

Balloons

6.7

8

5

7

Cigarette butts

7.3

5

12

5

Caps

7.7

9

6

8

Food packaging

8.7

10

7

9

Other EPS packaging

9.7

11

8

10

Hard plastic containers

11.3

6

13

15

Plastic food lids

11.3

13

10

11

Straws/stirrers

12.3

14

11

12

‘Takeout’ containers

15.3

15

18

13

Cans

15.7

17

14

16

Beverage bottles

16

12

17

19

Unidentified plastic fragment

16.3

16

19

14

Cups & plates

16.7

18

15

17

Glass bottles

17.7

19

16

18

Paper bags

20

20

20

20

Rankings of marine debris items by expected impact on marine animals, based on most severe expected impact acrossthree impact mechanisms (adapted from Wilcox et al. 2016)92

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTSeastern Atlantic around the Azores (Barreiros andRaykov 2014) and in the SW Indian Ocean around
Reunion Island ( Hoarau et al. 2014). The physiology of some species of turtles and toothed whales
makes it extremely difficult for the animal to eliminate
the material once ingested. Ingestion of debris has
been reported in 46 (56%) of cetacean species with
rates as high as 31% in some species (Baulch &Perry, 2014). The differing feeding habits of closely
related species can influence their susceptibility.
For two species of dolphin off the coast of Brazil, farmore specimens of the bottom-feeding Pontoporia
blainvelli contained plastic than the surface feeding
Sotalia guianensis in the same area (Di Beneditto andRamos 2014).

Ingestion
Examples of ingestion have been widely reported fora variety of marine mammals, reptiles, birds and fish
(Figure 7.3). Evidence of ingestion often comes fromthe dissection of beached carcasses, which represent an unknown proportion of the total number ofindividuals affected. Turtles and toothed whales frequently are found to have large quantities of plastic
sheeting and plastic bags in their gut compartments(e.g. Campani et al. 2013, de Stephanis et al. 2013,
Lazar & Gracan, 2011, CMS 2014a). Plastics havebeen found in the guts of Loggerhead turtles in the
Adriatic Sea (Lazar and Gracan 2011) and western Mediterranean (Camedda et al. 2014), theFigure 7.3

Plasticized animals - Ingestion
Number of species with documented records of marine debris ingestion

Marineducks 1

DiversDugongs
andsea cows

Penguins
True seals
5316

Pelicans, gannets
and boobies,
tropicbirds

40

3

4
Invertebrates
Turtles

Eared seals

16
8

Whales767

Toothed whales

92

84
55

Gulls, skuas,
terns and auks

Albatros and other
Procellariiformes

Fish

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

Ingestion of plastics. Taken from Marine Litter Vital Graphics(in preparation)

93

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.4
Seabirds appear to be particularly susceptible at mistaking plastics for their natural prey (CMS 2014a).
Most dead laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) chicks on Midway Atoll in the Pacific Ocean havebeen found to contain plastics in their guts (Figure7.4), with items such as disposal cigarette lighters,
toys and fishing gear39. The incidence of plastic fragments in the guts of the northern fulmar (Fulmarus
glacialis) is so prevalent that this has been adopted
as a reliable indicator of plastic pollution in the
OSPAR region (Chapter 11.2, van Franeker 2010,
van Franker and Law 2015). Evidence has emerged
recently of the transfer of plastics from prey to predator, specifically from examination of regurgitated foodpellets from a colony of the seabird the great skua
(Stercorarius skua). Pellets containing the remains ofnorthern fulmars had the highest prevalence of plastic(Hammer et al. 2016).

Population level impacts
While the impact of plastic debris on individuals of
many species is beyond doubt, it may be more difficult to assess the impact at a population level. A
review commissioned by the Scientific Technical andAdvisory Panel (STAP) of the GEF, in collaboration
with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD 2012), concluded that 663 species
had been reported as having been entangled in or
ingested plastic debris, an increase of 40% in thenumber of species since the previous global estimate(Laist 1997). Plastic debris was responsible for 88%
of recorded events; 15% of species affected were on
the IUCN Red List. Of particular concern were thecritically endangered Hawaiian monk seal Monachus
schauinslandi, endangered loggerhead turtle Caretta
caretta, vulnerable northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus and vulnerable white chinned petrel Procellaria
aequinoctialis. Two studies have suggested population level effects for the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis (van Franeker et al. 2011) and the commercially
important crustacean Nephrops norwegicus (Murray
and Cowie 2011).

39

Plastic in the gut of a laysan albatros chick,Green Island, Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands. (Photographer Claire Fackler
NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries)

Habitat damage
Coral reefs
Coral reefs are very susceptible to damage fromALDFG. It is most obvious in shallow tropical reefs,
but also occurs in cold water reefs located on many
continental margins (Figure 7.5; Hall-Spencer et al.
2009). The movement of nets and ropes under the
influence of winds or tidal currents can cause extensive damage.
Mangroves
Studies have shown that marine litter will tend tocollect in mangrove forests, and that such habitats
may act as a partial sink for plastics (Ivar do Sul etal. 2014).

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/mediatipsheet/Stories/201012_MarineDebrisThreatGrows.html

94

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.5aFigure 7.5b

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

95

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTSinsufficient data to detect such patterns. There is limited evidence that some organisms may selectively
egest plastic particles (Wright et al 2013) but it is
not possible to quantify the extent of this process.
There is some evidence of trophic transfer in the field;
i.e. a transfer of microplastics from prey to predator(Eriksson and Burton 2003). The potential physicalimpacts of microplastics on marine organisms havebeen subject to recent review (Wright et al. 2013,
GESAMP 2015).

Impacts of ingested microplastics andassociated chemicals
Physical effects
The type of plastic fragments that are ingested bybiota will depend on the characteristics and behaviourof the organism as well as the range of particle types it
is exposed to. Particles in the microplastic size range
are common in the gut contents of dead seabirds,
such as the northern fulmar (F.glacialis, Figure 7.6),
and there is evidence that this can be transferred to
predators, such as the great skuu (Stercorarius skuu)(Hammer et al. 2016). Filter-feeding sessile bivalvesclose to population centres may be expected toingest a higher proportion of synthetic clothing fibres
than those at more remote locations. As yet there is

Ingested nano- and microplastics have been observed tocause inflammatory and other responses in several typesof organism under laboratory conditions (Table 7.3).

Figure 7.6

Example of ingestion of microplastics: stomach contents of an individual northern fulmar(F.glacialis) from Svalbard in the Arctic. Scale bar indicates 10 mm (Trevail et al. 2015)

Table 7.3
Particle type

Size range

Species and transfer route

Evidence of effect

Reference

HDPE>0–80 μm

Incorporation into epithelial cells
lining the gut of M. edulis

Histological changes

Von Moos
et al 2012

PS

2.0, 3.0 & 9.6
μm

Translocation acrossthe gut wall of M. edulis

Transfer of particles
from gut to circulatory
system (haemolymph)

Brown
et al 2008

PS

24-28 nm
particles

Carassius carassius (Cruciancarp), ingestion via zooplankton

Behavioural change,change in lipid metabolism

Cedervall
et al. 2012

Particle uptake and internal transfer in marine organisms underlaboratory conditions.

96

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

The ability of nano-sized material to cross cell membranes is quite well established. But there is a lack of
information about the occurrence of plastic particles
in this size range in the environment.

Rafting
The transport of organisms attached to floating natural materials, such as wood, macro-algae and pumice,is well reported and is commonly referred to as rafting. Floating plastics have provided an additional substrate. However, floating plastics have much greater
longevity than most natural materials and so therange over which rafting now occurs has been greatly
extended. This has the potential to alter the distributions of marine organisms (Goldstein et al. 2012).

Associated chemicals
Plastic debris may contain a combination of additive
chemicals, present since manufacture, and POPsand PBTs absorbed from the surrounding seawater (Rochman et al. 2013). This may raise concerns
about the potential impact of such chemicals whenparticles are ingested, either to individual organisms
or to larger populations. However, it is important tonote that many organisms already contain organics
contaminants as a consequence of the widespread
distribution of POPs in the ocean seawater andsediments, through normal foodchain interactions(Teuten et al. 2009, Rainbow 2007; Vallack et al.
1998). There is convincing evidence that the healthand breeding success of some populations of orcas,
dolphins and porpoises are negatively impacted byloadings of ‘legacy’ pollutants such as PCBs (Jepson
et al. 2016, Murphy et al. 2015). The key questionis whether ingested plastic particles will add significantly to the existing contaminant load.

Macro and microplastic debris hosts a diverse assemblage of species, some distinct from surrounding
seawater (Zettler et al. 2013), through the creationof novel habitat which may drift long distances andpose an ecological impact via transport of non-native
species (Barnes et al. 2005, ref NOAA Japanese tsunami). The availability of microplastics for settlement
has become an important issue, offering opportunities for settlement in areas where natural sources offlotsam are uncommon.
Many species of marine organisms are known toattach to marine plastics (Barnes 2002; Barnes andMilner 2005; Astudillo et al. 2009; Gregory 2009;
Goldstein et al. 2014) and there is some evidence
that microplastics translocate non-indigenous species. Although many of these reports refer to plastic
pieces larger than 5 mm, they include species that
could easily be transported by microplastic.

In general, it is very difficult to ascribe the proportionof a contaminant found in the tissue of an organismwith the route of entry, in most cases. The most convincing field-based evidence that transfer of contaminants from plastic particles to the organism canoccur comes from studies of the distribution of certain PBDE flame retardants, present in relatively highconcentrations in some types of plastic. Evidence forthis transfer mechanism is provided by a study of theshort-tailed shearwater (Puffinus tenuirstris) sampled
in the northern North Pacific (Tanaka et al. 2013) andspecies of lanternfish (myctophids) (Rochman et al.
2014). However, there is no field-based evidence
that the transfer has caused any negative impacts at
an individual level.

In the smaller size range, microplastic in seawater quickly develops a slimy biofilm that includes adiverse community of microbes (Figure 7.7). Thisbiofilm is a miniature ecosystem that includes primary
producers, consumers, predators, and decomposers and has been described as a “complex, highly
differentiated, multicultural community” analogous
to “a city of microbes” (Watnick and Colter 2000).
The microbial biofilm encourages the attachment oflarger organisms that use chemical and/or physicalcharacteristics as a cue to settle (Zardus et al. 2008;
Hadfield et al. 2014).

Laboratory-based studies have indicated that fish fed
a diet that included plastic particles contaminatedwith PAHs, PCBs and PBDEs (following exposure
to ambient concentrations in San Diego Bay, USA)
did suffer liver toxicity and pathology (Rochman et al.
2013). This demonstrates a causal relationship but
it is still not clear whether similar effects occur in anatural setting, where exposure to plastic particles
is likely to be lower. Clearly this is an area requiring
more attention.

Microplastics may also allow the dispersal of pathogens that can pose threats to humans and marine
animals (Snoussi et al. 2008). For example, Zettler etal. (2013) demonstrated that species of the bacteria
Vibrio are commonly attached to microplastics. Vibrio
sp. infections can cause serious gastrointestinal disorders and septicaemia via open wounds in humans(Baker-Austin et al. 2013).

97

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.7

Figure 7.8a

Figure 7.8b

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

Duarte et al. (2012) pointed out that the increase in
human structures in the ocean may be contributing to
the increase in jellyfish blooms. Calder et al. (2014)
identified 14 species of hydroids on debris from the
March 2011 Japanese tsunami that washed ashoreon the west coast of the United States. At least fiveof these had not previously been reported from thatcoast. The proliferation of microplastic particles provides substrate for attachment and development ofjellyfish hydroid life stages. Because pelagic surface
waters are typically substrate limited, microplastic
represents another factor that could be contributing
to jellyfish blooms.

Figure 7.8c

DNA sequences extracted from microplastic in the
Atlantic had hits for a number of jellies that have both
medusa and attached polyp stages (GESAMP 2016).
The proliferation of the giant jellyfish Nemopilema
nomurai in the waters around the Korean peninsula
has been attributed, in part, to the increase in floating plastic debris (Figure 7.8). Experimental datasuggest preferential attachment of planulae to PE
sheets compared with a range of natural substrates(personal communication, Shin-ichi Uye, Univ. of
Hiroshima). The increase in outbursts of this species
has caused considerable social and economic losses
to the fisheries.

Life stages of the giant jellyfish Nemophiliema nomurae,a) planula, b) polyps and c) medusa (images courtesy of
Shin-ichi Uye, Univ. Hiroshima)98

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

7.2

Microplastics in commercial fish

IMPACT ON FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE

Field studies have demonstrated microplastic ingestion by many commercial fish species, both pelagic
and benthic (bottom dwelling); for example, from theEnglish Channel (Lusher et al. 2013), the North Sea(Foekema et al. 2013) the Indian Ocean (Kripa at al.
2014) and the North Eastern Atlantic (Neves et al.
2015). However, the quantities observed in fish guts
are generally very low, in the range < 1- 2 particles
individual-1. A comprehensive compilation of results
for commercial fish and shellfish species is provided
in Annex VI. Information is also available for non-commercial species (e.g. Boerger et al. 2010; Jantz et al.
2013) many of which may constitute as prey for larger
fish. Similar findings from the Mediterranean Sea(Avio et al. 2015), the Arabian Sea (Sulochanan etal. 2014) and the south Atlantic (Dantas et al. 2012)
confirm the perception that fish are globally exposed
to and ingest plastic particles.

Macroplastics
The most important impact of macroplastic debris on
fisheries is from ghost fishing from ALDFG. Ghost
fishing is so called because the abandoned nets andtraps continue to catch fish and shellfish, causing significant levels of mortality to commercial stocks which,in many cases are already under pressure. There havebeen several studies of the impact of ADLFG, mostof which have identified gill nets and trammel nets asmost problematic in terms of quantity lost and ghost
fishing capacity. Trammel nets are made up of two or
three layers of netting with a finer mesh sandwiched
between two wider meshes. They are often fixed withfloats and ground weights, and are very effective attrapping fish, and so tend to be rather non-selectivewith higher levels of bycatch. For these reasons they
are especially damaging as ALDFG. Gill nets andtrammel nets are used worldwide by coastal, artisanaland small-scale fisheries, and account for about afifth of global fish landings. Pots and certain types oflong-line fisheries also pose a threat to marine biodiversity when gear becomes lost or abandoned.

Microplastics have been found in many
commercial fish species but
concentrations are generally very low(<1 – 2 particles per individual)

Some studies have attempted to quantify the loss ofthe target species due to ghost fishing. For example,
it has been estimated that there is an annual loss of
208 tonnes of Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) due to lost longlines (Webber and Parker 2012).
An intense programme to remove derelict crab pots
in Chesapeake Bay on the east coast of the USA,is thought to have increased landings of blue crab
by 27% (13 504 tonne). Applying these results to all
major crustacean fishes it is estimated that removing
9% of derelict pots and traps would increase global
landings by 293 929 tonnes (Scheld et al. 2016),
with a significant increase in revenue (Table.

Although it is clear microplastics are ingested bymany species of commercial fish, we know little
about the impact of their consumption. Microplastics
may be egested along with faecal material, retained
within the digestive tract, or translocate between tissues (this is more likely for nano-sized plastics). The
retention and possible translocation of microplastics
might raise some concern about the possible transfer of chemicals associated with microplastics into
organisms’ tissues, if microplastics were ingested
in sufficient number and retained for long enoughfor transfer across the gut to take place. Currently
there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential
for transfer of these contaminants to the fish flesh,and hence be made available to predators, including
humans. At present we can only extrapolate resultsfrom laboratory feeding studies using non-commercial fish species looking at contaminant transfer andendpoints, such as accumulation in the tissues andaltered predatory behaviour. Generally, there is amismatch between the quantities of microplastics

99

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

specimens are exposed to in laboratory experimentswith the much lower levels encountered in nature.

Van Cauwenberge and Jansen 2014; Rochman et al.,2015; Vandermerrsch et al. 2015) (Annex VI).

Mesopelagic fish are an important component of
the oceanic ecosystem (Gjosaeter and Kawaguchi,1980). They have recently been identified as potential
target species for fishmeal. Their high lipid content
would benefit the growing demand from aquaculture
for fish protein and oil (FAO, 2010). With a global
biomass estimated between 600 to > 1,000 million
tonnes (Gjosaeter and Kawaguchi, 1980; Irigoien etal. 2014), this fisheries resource is still underutilised.
Davison and Asch (2011) estimated that mesopelagic fish in the North Pacific ingest 12 000 – 24000 tonnes-1. Such estimates are of interest but haveto be treated with some caution, given the rather
small sample size involved in the Davison and Aschstudy (141 individual fish representing 27 species).
It is possible that the presence of microplastics inthe mesopelagic fish community (Davison and Asch
2011, Lusher et al, 2015) could have consequences
for the mesopelagic ecosystem, as well as fisheries
and aquaculture. However, there is little evidence
that this is realistic at present. This is another area of
research that warrants further attention, especially as
the numbers of microplastics in the ocean will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

Microplastics identified in shellfish range in size from
5 μm - 5 mm and are composed of fragments, pellets
and fibres. For example, in eight out of nine speciesof shellfish sampled from an Asian fish market, fibres
constituted more than 52% of items per species, withthe exception of A. plicata where pellets were mostabundant, 60% (Li et al., 2015). In a European studyof M. edulis synthetic fibres were also the dominantmicroplastic and range from 200μm up to 1500μm
size (De Witte et al. 2014).

Microplastics in commercial bivalves andmolluscs
Microplastic ingestion
Microplastics have been observed in many commercial species, including mussels, clams, oysters andscallops. Many bivalves and molluscs are filter feeders, typically inhabiting shallow water coastal areas,
and are likely to be exposed to higher concentrationsof microplastics than non-sessile or more mobile
organisms. Research approaches have included
laboratory exposure, ingestion by wild and cultured
organisms, and the presence of microplastics inorganisms sold in retail stores from Europe, North
America and Asia (De Witte et al. 2014; Li et al. 2015;

Microplastics have been found in many
commercial shellfish species, mostly < 1particle but up to 75 particles an individual-1
for some species, depending on location.

Both wild and cultured Mytilus edulis have been foundto ingest microplastics, under natural conditions, at
typical concentrations of 0 - 34 particles g-1 (wetweight) (Li et al. 2015, Vandermeersch et al. 2015,
De Witte et al. 2014, Van Cauwenberghe and Jansen
2014, Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015). In contrast,
average concentration of micro-fibres in farmed
and wild M. edulis from Nova Scotia, Canada weresignificantly higher (average 178 fibres per farmed
mussel compared to 126 microfibres per wild mussel;
Mathalon and Hill 2014). In Belgium microplastics
were observed in mussels collected at department
stores (mussels ready for human consumption) andin open sea and sheltered points along the Belgian
coastline (Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen 2014).
The brown mussel Perna perna is another shellfish
with commercial value susceptible to microplastic
contamination. In one study, 75% of brown mussels
from Santos Estuary, a highly urbanized area on theSoutheast coast of Brazil (São Paulo state), contained microplastics (Santana et al. submitted).
Potential impacts
As with finfish, there is little information regarding
the effects of microplastics on shellfish, but it is likely
to vary as a function of species and particle types
and exposure. For example, the transfer of contaminants in plastic particles has been demonstrated
for the mussel M. galloprovincialis under laboratory
conditions. The mussel can ingest and assimilate polyethylene and polystyrene particles, which when contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons cantransfer this pollutant to mussels after being ingested(Avio et al. 2015). Cellular effects associated withsuch intake included alterations of immunologicalresponses, neurotoxic effects and the onset of genotoxicity.
Ingestion impacts have also been observed for P.
perna. Under laboratory conditions, this species
retained particles of PVC in the gut and within the100

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

haemolymph for 12 days after a single exposure(Santana et al. in prep), and had signs of stress dueto the ingestion of PVC and PE microparticles. Brown
mussels expressed stress proteins, had signs of lipid
peroxidation and DNA damage; and effects on lysosomal integrity (Santana et al. submitted; Ascer et al.
in prep.). In oyster, preliminary work on the exposureof the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) to microplastics
indicated effects on reproduction (Sussarellu et al.
2014).
These reactions to exposure to microplastics havebeen made in experimental set-ups, in which concentrations of microplastics may be much greater thanmight be experienced under more natural conditions.

Microplastics in commercial crustacea and echinoderms
Crustacea
Commercially important crustaceans are also known
to ingest microplastics. Green crabs (Carcinus
maenas) were observed to ingest microplastics undercontrol conditions (Farrell and Nelson, 2013; Watts
et al. 2014). Such intake was observed through contaminated food (mussels artificially contaminated withmicroplastics), thereby suggesting the possibilityof microplastic trophic transfer. Farrell and Nelson(2013) identified the plastics assimilation and persistence within the crabs over 21 days. Microplastics
were also found in the stomach, hepatopancreas,
ovary and gills of the crabs (Farrell and Nelson,2013). Watts et al. (2014) did not record microplastics assimilation but identified the ventilation of gills
as another uptake pathway of microplastics for crabs.
Lobsters (Nephrops norvegicus), sampled from the
Clyde Sea (Scottish coast), also had microplastics
in their stomachs (Murray and Cowie, 2011). About
83% of the individuals examined had ingested plastics that ranged in volume and size, but were mainlycomposed of monofilaments (Murray and Cowie,2011).
Natural populations of brown shrimp (Crangon crangon), sampled across the Channel area and Southernpart of the North Sea (between France, Belgium, theNetherlands and the UK), were also contaminatedwith microplastics (Devriese et al. 2015). The majority of the microplastic was synthetic fibres (96.5%,
ranging from 200μm up to 1000μm size), which
was ingested by 63% of the individuals assessed(Devriese et al. 2015). Shrimp from different locations did not have a significant difference between
the plastic content (Devriese et al. 2015). The sam-pled C. crangon had, on average, 1.03 fibres g-1 w.w.
but the large inter-individual variation of microplastic
contamination among sampling points indicates theneed of larger sampling efforts (Devriese et al. 2015).
The amount of microplastics ingested by C. crangon
varied temporally, possibly due to seasonal fluctuations on the occurrence of plastic (Devriese et al.
2015). The authors also investigated the relationshipbetween the condition of the shrimp and the level ofcontamination of microplastics within an individual.
However, no relationship was found, indicating thatmicroplastic contamination does not affect the nutritional condition of the shrimp C. Crangon (Devriese
et al. 2015).
Echinoderms
Information on this group is only available from laboratory experiments. Sea urchins, Tripneustes gratilla,
exposed under laboratory conditions to microplastics
in various concentrations (1-300 particles per ml, withan exposure duration of 1- 9 days) ingested but also
egested particles (Kaposi et al. 2014). The impact
of ingestion was not investigated. However, earlier
research on sea cucumbers found that Holothuria
sp. selectively ingested particles in preference tofood items (Graham and Thompson 2009). The commercial market targets the body of the organism andremoves their gut. If microplastics are translocatingfrom the gut to the tissue of the organisms there
could be concerns relating to bioaccumulation in thefood chain. However, the data available suggests thatmicroplastics are removed along with faecal material.

7.3
SOCIAL IMPACTS
Human health and food safety
Health impacts associated with poorly regulated
waste management
There are several human health concerns associatedwith poorly managed waste collection and treatment.
Higher levels of plastic-related compounds, including flame retardants, have been observed in people
involved in, or living adjacent to, informal and poorly
managed plastics recycling facilities, especially in
the informal electronic and electrical waste recycling
sector (Lee et al. 2015, Tang et al. 2014, Siniku et al.
2015). Littering can block wastewater drains, leading
to sewage contamination of communities and areasof stagnant water. Plastic debris left lying outside
can prove to be a very effective, if unwelcome, wayof collecting rainwater, thereby becoming a vector for

101

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTSBox 7.1

PLASTIC LITTER AND THE SPREAD OF DISEASE – AEDES AEGYPTI AND
ZIKA VIRUS

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

Microplastics and seafood safety
For the present purposes, ‘seafood’ includes: finfishes, crustaceans, molluscs, amphibians, freshwater turtles and other aquatic animals (such as sea
cucumbers, sea urchins, sea squirts and edible jellyfish) produced for the intended use as food for humanconsumption (FAO 2014). It is evident that humans
are exposed to micro and nano-plastics through theconsumption of marine food stuffs, such as shellfish,
shrimp, small fish species such as sprat and potentially other species such as sea urchins, tunicatesand sea cucumbers, that are consumed as wholeanimal foods including the gastrointestinal tract.
Consumption of filter feeding invertebrates, such asmussels or oysters, appears the most likely route ofhuman exposure to microplastics, but a wide varietyof commercial species appear to be contaminatedwith microplastics. One study has attempted to estimate potential dietary exposure based on observed
microplastic concentrations in seafood and assumed
consumption rates. This study estimated dietary
exposure for high mussel consumers in Belgium torange between about 11 000 (Van Cauwenberghe etal. 2014) and 100 000 MPs a-1 (GESAMP 2015).
Although it is evident that humans are exposed tomicroplastics through their diet (Table 7.4), and thepresence of microplastics in seafood could posea threat to food safety (Van Cauwenberghe andJanssen 2014, Bouwmeester et al. 2015), our understanding of the fate and toxicity of microplastics inhumans constitutes a major knowledge gap.

Chemical exposure and seafood safety
Before considering the potential human healthaspects of chemical contaminants associated withmarine plastic debris, it is important to note that there
are well-recognised links between the concentrationof plastic-related chemicals in humans and exposure
during plastic production, use and disposal. Many of
the additives used in plastics intended for durable
applications in the construction, automotive and electronics sectors have toxic and ecotoxicology effects

102

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Table 7.4
Speciesnumber kg-1
(wet weight)
or l-1 product

ReferenceBlue mussel(North Sea)

260 –13 200

Van Cauwenberghe and Jansen 2014de Witte et al. 2014
Leslie et al. 2013

Brown shrimp (North Sea)

680

De Vries et al. 2015

Honey (various branches)

0.09 –0.29

Lieberzeit and Lieberzeit. 2013

Beer (Germany)

2–79 fibres
12–109 fragments
2–66 granules

Lieberzeit and Lieberzeit. 2014

Table salts (China):
Sea salts
Lake salts
Rock/well salts

Yang et al. 2015
550–681
43–364
7–204

Examples of microplastic concentration in foodstuffs* (taken from GESAMP 2016)*Note different methods have been used in each of these studies which may have affected the detection limits(Hansen et al. 2013). Particular concern is directed
at compounds that can interfere with neurologicaldevelopment and the endocrine system (Table 7.5).
This is quite different for plastics used for food packaging and water supply, where regulatory frameworks
are in place to control exposure to potentially harmful
chemicals.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals are of particular concern for a number of reasons: they can affect theunborn foetus, children at early developmental stages
and adolescents, as well as the general population.
The effects may be of great significance to the individual but may be difficult to detect on the wider
population without extensive epidemiological studies(Weiss 2006, EEA 2013, North and Halden 2014).
Endocrine disruption has been demonstrated forsome of the chemicals most widely used in the plastics industry (e.g. BPA, phthalates, brominated flame
retardants; Talsness et al. 2009) and for many organic
contaminants that are readily absorbed by plastics(e.g. PAHs, PCBs). Clearly this may have implications
for human health if plastics containing these chemicals are introduced into the body, either deliberately
for medical purposes or accidentally as a result ofingestion or inhalation (OECD 2012). Exposure toflame retardants, such as PBDEs, in household dust

correlates with body burdens, especially in children(Wu et al.2007).
Evidence that chemicals associated with plastics may
cause harmful effects in the human population has
been contested (e.g. Weiss 2006) or deemed insufficient to warrant further regulation (Hubinger andHavery 2006). Reported research findings may show
apparent bias, depending on the source of funding forthe study, as has been suggested for industry-funded
research on BPA (EEA 2013). However, it has beenargued that guidelines based on more traditional toxicity testing, using exposure to relatively high contaminant concentrations of a single substance, are
not appropriate to pick up more subtle changes that
can affect a large proportion of the population, with
mixtures of plastic-related compounds (Talsness etal. 2009); this includes the association between thelevels of certain plasticisers and organic chemicals
and the widespread increase in metabolic syndrome(obesity, type-2 diabetes, hypertension; OECD,2012).
Chemicals inherent in microplastics or chemicals
sorbed and transported by microplastics may contributeto human health impacts. The toxicity of some of theircomponents to humans, especially plasticizers and

103

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Table 7.5
water-borne diseases and providing a multitude of
Additive/
Function(Box 7.1).
Potential effectbreedingsites for mosquitoes
Monomer

Evidence from
non-human studies

Evidencefrom humanstudiesMonomerBPA

A monomer used in
the manufacture ofpolycarbonates andepoxy resins

Reproductive anddevelopmental impairment, kidney and liverfunction impairment

Evidence from animalmodels – EFSA 2015

Minimal impact
from foodconsumption– WHO 2009,
FDA 2014,
EFSA 2015
Suggestedeffects – EEA
2013, Northand Halden
2010

phthalates

Improve flexibility anddurability

Impairment of reproductive function

Impairment of reproductive function –animal models - Swan
2008

Testiculardevelopment Sharpe 2011

DBP
dibutyl phthalate

Anti-cracking agent in
nail varnish

See phthalates

DEP
diethyl phthalate

Skin softeners, colourand fragrance fixers incosmetics

See phthalates

Minimal risk
when used infragrances –EU 2007

DEHP
di-(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate

Plasticizer in PVC

Metabolic syndrome
See phthalates

Exposure frommedical uses
and multiple
sources – Northand Halden
2013

nonylphenol

Stabilizer in PP, PS

Endrocrine disruptor

Feminisation of aquaticorganisms – Soares etal. 2008

Endocrine disruption, effects
on metabolism– Sonnensche
in and Soto
1998

PBDEs
Polybrominateddiphenyl ethers(penta, octa &deca forms)

Flame retardantEndrocrine disruptor

Transfer to seabirds –Takada et al 2013
Transfer to fish –Rochman et al 2013

Inhalation ofhouse dust and
air – Wu et al.
2007

Additives

Transfer fromconsumerproducts –Hubinger 2010

Examples of microplastic concentration in foodstuffs* (taken from GESAMP 2016)*Note different methods have been used in each of these studies which may have affected the detection limits

104

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTSadditives (Flint et al. 2012; Oehlmann et al. 2009),
and the possible leaching of toxic chemicals, may beconsidered as a potential human health hazard. But,on the basis of the available evidence, it appears thatabsorbed persistent organic pollutants (POPs) andleachable additives of dietary exposure to microplastics will have a relatively minor impact on contaminant
exposure (Bouwmeester et al. 2015). However, thisconclusion is mostly based on larger-sized microplastics, and there is a large knowledge gap on thepossible effects of nano-sized plastics.

From the limited information available on
the occurrence of microplastics in seafood,the uptake of plastic-associated chemicals
in humans due to inadvertent ingestion of
microplastics in seafood appears likely to be
no more significant than other human exposure pathways of these chemicals. However
significant knowledge gaps and uncertainties
remain, particularly for nano-sized material,
and this may justify a more precautionary
approach.

It is possible that nano-plastics pose a greaterchemical risk than microplastics due to their larger
surface-volume ratio: sorption of polychlorinatedbiphenyl (PCBs) to nano-polystyrene was shown
to be 1–2 orders of magnitude greater than to
micro-polyethylene (Velzeboer et al. 2014). Due tothe absence of knowledge on nano-plastic exposure
to humans, their potential chemical risk, especiallyafter translocation into tissues and cells remains a‘black box’. It is possible that these internalized and/or encapsulated particles would deliver plastic-associated POPs and additive chemicals to different
tissue types and locations than those resulting fromuptake from food and water. This so-called ‘Trojan
horse’ vector effect could pose an as yet unquantified
risk, especially for very small plastic particles that cancross membranes.
Microplastics as a vector for pathogens
As described above, plastic particles may also harbour pathogenic microorganisms (bacteria, viruses),
which could be potentially harmful to fisheries, aquaculture and human health.

Nano-plastics and seafood safety
The commonly used analytical techniques introduce
a bias in the state of our knowledge, since they are
only able to detect plastic particles well above thenano-size range (Bouwmeester et al. 2015;
GESAMP 2016). It is plausible that these smaller
particles pose a greater risk than the larger particles(> 1 micrometer) due to their smaller size, higher
surface to volume ratio and associated increased
chemical reactivity of the nano-sized group. Particles
at the smaller end of the size spectrum (nano scales)
have been shown to cross membranes into cells, incontrolled laboratory experiments. Experimental evidence with rodents shows that microplastics > 1
micrometer may reach the blood circulation via
lymph, but cannot penetrate deeply into organs(Bouwmeester et al. 2015; GESAMP 2016). They
might cause local effects on the gut epithelium, theimmune system, inflammation, encapsulation (fibrosis) and cell damage (Bouwmeester et al. 2015;
GESAMP 2016). Unlike microplastics, nanoplastics
may reach and penetrate all organs, including placenta and brain (Bouwmeester et al. 2015; see also
GESAMP, 2015).

Risk from injury or death
Floating plastic macro-debris represents a navigation hazard. It can lead to injury or death following
loss of power, due to entangled propellers or blockedwater intakes; and, collision with floating or semi-submerged objects, including (plastic) insulated shipping containers (Frey and De Vogelaere 2014). For
example, in 2005, the USA coastguard reported thatcollisions with submerged objects caused 269 boating incidents, resulting in 15 deaths and 116 injuries(USCG 2005). In South Korea, 9% of all Korean shipping accidents involved marine debris from 19961998. In the worse case a ferry capsized after bothpropeller shafts and the starboard propeller became
entangled with derelict fishing rope, resulting in 292
deaths (Cho 2005).
Injury or death to people can occur due to entanglement when swimming and diving. This represents ahigher risk when associated with the rescue of entangled live animals such as whales, seals and turtles,
justifying the need for a specialist and professional
response (Chapter 9).

Loss of income
Loss of income is considered as a social cost, in thisanalysis, as it directly affects individuals and communities. In the fisheries sector the presence of plastic
with the catch may contaminate or damage the fish,105

7

lowering its value, and more time may be required
to clean and repair nets. If consumers perceive that
seafood contains microplastics there is the potentialthat their interpretation of the relative risks involved
may result in behaviour change (i.e. reduction in seafood consumption), whatever ‘experts’ or responsible
authorities may say. There are precedents for this,particularly in the field of radioactive contamination ofseafood from routine discharges and after major accidents. Clearly this would result in a loss of income forthe seafood industry, and a loss of safe nutritious protein for the consumers. This emphasises the need for
improved education and communication in the fieldof risk assessment and risk perception (Chapter 10).
The tourism sector is both significantly affected bymarine litter and a major contributor to the problem.
The presence of marine litter can discourage visitors from going to certain beaches, thus reducing
visitor numbers, which in turn leads to lost revenues
and jobs in the tourism industry (see UNEP 2014a).
These impacts can be quite significant in certain
cases, particularly where local economies are heavily
dependent on tourism. For example, in Geoje Island(South Korea) the presence of marine litter on thebeaches following a period of heavy rainfall is estimated to have led to between USD 27.7 and 35.1
million (KRW 29 217–36 984 million) of lost revenue
in 2011 as a result of over 500 000 fewer visitors.
The presence of beach litter on the Skagerrak coastof Bohuslan (Sweden) has been estimated to leadto an annual loss of approximately USD 22.5 million(GBP 15 million) and 150 person-years of work to
the local community from reduced tourist numbers.

Loss of intrinsic value and the moral dimension
The loss of intrinsic value encompasses our response
to being aware of a degradation of the environment, whether this is litter on a deserted shoreline
or images of injured or dead iconic species, suchas turtles, birds and marine mammals. It is very difficult to quantify the impact reliably, except in thecase where a change in behaviour apparently linked
to the degree of degradation be observed, as in the
tourism examples above. It can be surmised that thecloser the relationship individuals feel to the exampleof litter-induced degradation then the greater will be
the sense of loss. This may undermine some of thebenefits associated with coastal and marine environments (e.g. improved physical health, reduced stressand improved concentration, GESAMP 2016, UNEP
2016c). Attempts have been made to develop methodologies for quantifying non-use values (e.g. UNEP
2011), but such analyses are often hindered by thelack of relevant and reliable data. Different forms ofcontingent valuation may be used (e.g. stated preference, willingness to pay), based on a rather limited
number of studies, which are then applied globally, to dissimilar social and economic settings, nottaking into account local attitudes and values (UNEP
2014b). Therefore, such figures as do exist should betreated with some caution if taken out of context. But
such analyses do serve to illustrate the likely extent of
external costs (Figure 7.9)

Photo: © Sustainable Coastlines

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS106

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Figure 7.9

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

J

. ir.

< >

i

i

< >

i

15
Medical and pharma- 65
ceutical products
Durable household goods 94
214

i

< >

i

Automobiles

14

Restaurants

< >

i

< >

Consumer electronics
44

Furniture

86 Athletic goods
Tobacco
166

Toys
282

Footwear

Clothing and
333 accessories

334
734

Retail902

Personal
products

345
Non-durable
household goods

Food
Soft drinks
and ice

3 135Million dollars

1 370

Source: UNEP, Valuing Plastic, 2014

Estimates economic impact related to plastic pollution in the ocean(taken from Marine Litter Vital Graphics in preparation

107

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTSIt can be argued that there is an important moral dimension to the debate about the presence of litter in theocean and the need to introduce measures to reduce
inputs and mitigate the effects of litter already present. This means society may decide that we should
prevent litter from entering the ocean because it does
not belong there, irrespective of whether there is an
economic argument for doing so or that major impacts
from plastics or microplastics cannot be proven.

There is an important moral dimension to
the debate about whether, and how, society
tackles pollution from marine plastics andmicroplastics.

Under this philosophical outlook an unpolluted ocean
is considered to have a value in and of itself. This canbe expanded to include other forms of non-use values,
which can be defined as: i) altruistic value - knowledge of the use of resources by others; ii) existencevalue - knowledge of the existence of the resource;
and, iii) bequest value – knowledge of passing on the
resource to future generations (UNEP 2014b).

7.4
IMPACTS ON MARITIME ECONOMIC SECTORS
From ecosystem impacts to economic consequences
The degradation of ecosystems due to marine litter
can have both direct and indirect socio-economic
impacts. For example, marine litter can lead to economic costs in the commercial shipping sector due
to damage caused by entanglement or collision withmarine litter in general. Loss of cargo can introduce
plastic debris into the environment and lead to compensation payments. Other economic costs may be
more difficult to quantify, such as the impact litter may
have on changing people’s behaviour. Under the auspices of the G7, Germany has commissioned a reporton an economic cost-benefit analysis of the prevention and removal of marine litter, and the most urgent
fields of action to reduce marine litter. The following
sections provide some examples of economic costs
in a variety of sectors.

Fisheries and aquaculture
Direct impacts
The impact of marine litter on the fishery sector
includes damage to fishing vessels and equipment
and contamination of the catch with plastic debris.
The direct impact is mostly due to floating plastic
debris affecting engine cooling systems and becoming entangled in propellers (McIlgorm et al. 2011,
Takehama 1990, Cho 2005). Information on therelated costs is not systematically collected by marine
authorities, and it can only be estimated. Takehama(1990) estimated the costs of marine litter to fishing vessels based on insurance statistics at US$
40 million (Y4.4 billion) in 1985, i.e. about 0.3% of
total annual fishery revenue in Japan. The total cost ofmarine litter to the EU fishing fleet has been estimatedto be nearly US$ 65.7 million a-1 (€61.7 million a-1),
representing 0.9% of the total revenues (Annex VII;
Mouat et al. 2010, Arcadis 2014).
Indirect impacts
Indirect impacts include loss of target species due toghost fishing from ALDFG, although the total losses
are unknown. Gilardi et al. (2010) investigated theDungeness Crab fishery in Puget Sound and estimated that targeted removal of derelict gill nets
yielded a cost-benefit ration (cost of removal versus
increased landings) of 1:14.5. More recently, Scheld
et al. (2016) estimated that the annual loss due toderelict pots and traps for nine species of crustacea amounted to US$ 2.5 billion (US$ 2.5 x 109)
(Table 7.6), using data from a derelict pot removal
programme in Chesapeake Bay. The authors argued
that targeted removal campaigns, paying operatorsfrom the fishing community, during downtime, canbe a cost-effective measure (Chapter 9). A theoretical cost to the industry would be if the presence of
microplastics in some way reduced the organisms’
fitness or reduced reproductive capacity. However,there is no evidence that this is the case given current measured concentrations in fish and the environment (Chapter 7.1).

Tourism
Costs of inaction
The visible presence of marine litter has an impact
on the aesthetic value and attractiveness of beaches
and shorelines for recreational purposes (Fanshawe
and Everard 2002). For example, damage to marine
ecosystems and the presence of marine litter affects
recreational activities such as diving and snorkelling, fouling propellers and jet intakes of recrea-108

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTS

Table 7.6
Species

Annualgear loss(% deployed)*

Landings(MT)

Revenues
(US$)

Major
producersBlue swimmer crab Portunus pelagicus

70

173 647

199 million§

China,
Philippines.
Indonesia.
Thailand,
VietnamAmerican lobster Homarus americanus

20-25

100 837

948 million

Canada,USA

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus

10-50

98 418152 million

USA

Queen crab/snow crab Chionoecetes opiliona

113 709

401 million

Canada, St
Pierre& Miquelon(France),
USA

Edible crab Cancer pagurusna

45 78349 million∞

UK, Ireland,
Norway,FranceDungeness crab Metacarcinus magister11

35 659169 million

USA,
CanadaSpiny lobster Panulirus argus

10-28

34 868500 million

Bahamas,Brazil,Cuba,
Nicaragua,
Honduras,
USA

King crab Paralithodes camtschaticus

10

10 13799 million

USA

Stone crab Menippe mercenaria√

Na

2 502

24 million

USA

615 560

2.5 billion

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

109

Gear loss and global landings for major crustacean
pot and trap fisheries (from Scheld
et al. 2016)

7

7

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
IMPACTStional boaters and affecting recreational fishers interms of contamination of catch, restricted catchand damaged gear.
Marine litter can thus discourage visitors from going tocertain beaches. Reduced numbers of coastal visitors
leads to lost revenues for the tourism sector, which inturn leads to a loss of revenue and jobs in the local andregional economy. This can have short-term (e.g.
where a specific natural incident such as a flood ortsunami washes up marine litter) and/or long-term
impacts. This may occur where consistent levels ofmarine litter damages the reputation and image of thearea as a tourist destination thus discouraging private
sector investment in new tourist developments(McIIgorm et al. 2011). These impacts can be quite
significant in certain cases, particularly where local
economies are heavily dependent on the tourism
sector. For example, Hawaii and the Maldives arefacing declines in tourist numbers and associated revenues due to marine litter, particularly plastics, thatthreaten to affect the reputation of islands as sought-after tourist destinations (Thevenon et al. 2014). Somestudies provide quantitative estimates of the costs tothe tourism sector of marine litter (Annex VIII).
Costs of action
Clean-up costs can be significant and in some cases
can pose an undue burden on local authorities. For
example, the estimated coastline clean-up cost forBox 7.2

COMPENSATION FOR
CONTAINER LOSS

Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary, USA
The loss of 14 containers from the MV
Med Taipei on 24 February 2004 led tothe shipping company involved paying
US$ 3.25 million in compensation to
the MBNMS. This amount included theestimated environmental damage, asassessed by NOAA, and legal fees.
UNEP 2016cthe Ventanillas municipality in Peru is double theannual budget of the municipality for all public cleaning (Alfaro, 2006 cited in UNEP, 2009). Some examples of clean-up costs from Europe, the USA and the
APEC region are provided in Annex VIII.

Commercial shipping
Collisions with marine litter can cause significant
damage to vessels and even pose a threat to humanhealth. Firstly, lost containers represent a particularhazard to mariners because of their size and ability tofloat for up to several weeks, particularly for refrigerated
containers fitted with foam lining. Smaller items ofwaste at sea can also damage ships, with costs associated with repairing fouled propellers or blocked outages. High levels of traffic in harbours and ports
increase the risk of collision with waste. Consequently,
many port authorities actively remove marine litter inorder to ensure facilities are safe and attractive to users(Mouat et al. 2010). One study of the removal of debris
from harbours reported costs as high as USD 86 695(GBP 57 300) in one year for Esbjerg Harbour in
Denmark (Hall 2000). Costs are also incurred due tothe loss of cargo. The average value per container isestimated to be US$ 20 000 - 24 500 but can be significantly higher if carrying personal electronic goods,
for example (UNEP 2016c). Cargo loss can also result
in compensation and insurance payments (Box 7.2)
The process of generating, and the presence of,marine litter (including both waste originating and not
originating from vessels) bring costs to the commercial shipping sector. The main costs are associatedwith: the accidental loss of cargos; collisions withmarine litter; and indirect costs relating to operationalcosts, disruption of service, and public image. Clean
up costs in harbours may also indirectly fall on the
shipping sector. One estimate placed the total valueof litter damage to shipping at USD 279 million peryear (APEC 2009).
While it is difficult to collate all the economic costs
associated with marine plastic debris and microplastics
it is quite clear, from those studies that have been
carried out, that the economic impact, together withassociated social and ecological dimensions is considerable. The costs could be reduced substantially if
the concept of the circular economy was developed
further and implemented with regards to plastics production and utilisation. The great advantage of pursuing this philosophy is that a precautionary approach
can be adopted without incurring excessive cost. Thisis discussed further in Chapter 9.

110

8TAKINGACTION111

8. CLOSINGTHE LOOP

or recycling) – Remove (single-use plastics whenpractical) – Re-use (alternative uses or for refurbishment) – Recycle (to avoid plastics going to waste)– Recover (re-synthesise fuels, carefully controlled
incineration for energy production).

8.1
TOWARDS A CIRCULAR ECONOMY
In many situations, especially in developing economies, the most urgent short-term solution to minimising marine litter inputs is likely to be improved waste
collection and management (Ocean Conservancy2015). In the longer term a more sustainable solution will be to move towards a more circular ‘plastic economy’, in which waste is minimised by being
designed out of the production cycle (Figure 8.1;
McDonough and Braungart 2013, EMF 2014, WEF/
EMF/MCKINSEY 2016, EC 2014, EC 2015). Thismight be more easily understood by the generalpublic as adopting the six ‘Rs’: Reduce (raw material use) – Redesign (design products for re-use

However, creating a ‘circular economy’ which works
effectively, and is accepted by business and the
public, requires a great many intermediate stages,
including introducing appropriate infrastructure
and investment, and facilitating behavioural change
throughout the supply chain. Without these changes
the concept is likely to remain for many as an aspirational target rather than become an everyday reality.
The goal of a circular economy is to severely restrict
both the use of new raw materials and the production of residual waste. A fundamental requirement isto reduce overall consumption, recognising that thepresent per capita use of energy and other resources
is extremely unequal.
The concept of a circular economy is not new, but
it has received renewed impetus in the past five
years (McDonough and Braungart 2013). One of
the main promoters of the concept has been the
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF 2014, WEF/

Figure 8.1

Conceptual representation of the circular economy (EC 2014)112

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP8

Box 8.1

THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

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

e)

a mandate to develop by 2017 an EU integrated strategy on plastics;
a target on plastic recycling/reuse in the legislation (55% by 2025 recycling/reuse of plastics
from packaging);
inclusion of litter prevention in the waste management plans as well as in the producer res
ponsibility schemes (producers will have to financially contribute to action to prevent littering);
a connection between the fees paid by the producer and the true/full waste management cost
and the recyclability of their products – an economic encouragement to use more easy torecycle materials when possible…; anda confirmation of the necessity to implement an aspirational target of „reducing marine litterby 30% by 2020 for the ten most common types of litter found on beaches, as well as forfishing gear found at sea, with the list adapted to each of the four marine regions in the EU.

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

EMF/MCKINSEY 2016), working with a number ofmajor companies and institutions, such as the World
Economic Forum. Some individual manufacturers,
such as Groupe Renault (motor vehicles), havebegun the transition and reported significant financial benefit40. At a regional level, a circular economy
package was adopted by the European Commissionin early December 2015. It acknowledges that large
quantities of plastics end up in the oceans, and thatthe 2030 Sustainable Development Goals include atarget to prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, including marine litter (Box 8.1).
The EU-funded project CleanSea41 (2013 – 2015)40

https://group.renault.com/en/news/blog-renault/circular-economy-recycle-renault/

41

http://www.cleansea-project.eu/drupal/index.php

produced a series of policy options for encouraging
litter-free seas which revolved around the circular
economy concept (CleanSea 2015).
Plastic production and use has tended to follow a
linear flow, from extraction of raw materials (i.e. oil)to generation of waste, partly because of a failure toappreciate the social, economic and ecological costof waste generation and include this externality ineconomic forecasts. A simple conceptual model of acircular economy for plastic production and use in aclosed loop, illustrating potential intervention points
and the flow of materials and energy, is shown in
Figure 8.2. In this model energy recovery is included
as a way of closing the loop. But, waste generation
should be designed out of the plastic cycle wherever possible. Promoting an economy for after-use
plastics will encourage the development of improved
collection infrastructure. The design of materials andproducts can be improved to increase the end of

113

8

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

life value and hence provide an incentive to prevent
leakage, especially for those working in the informal
waste sector (WEF/EMF/MCKINSEY 2016).
The removal of plastics from the production and use
cycle can be achieved by minimising the availabilityof single-use plastic products, where appropriate
alternatives can be made available. A simple example is the replacement of disposable cutlery, plates
and drink receptacles in sit-down cafes, with metal
and crockery. Another is the provision of drinking
water dispensers so that individuals can re-fill containers rather than rely on single-use plastic bottles
or bags. Re-use and recycling of materials can bemade more straightforward by improved design.
This can be extended to the selection of materials
that are intrinsically less toxic (e.g. thermoplastic
polyurethane (TPU) rather than PVC) or containfewer added toxic compounds (e.g. selection of
non-hazardous dyes in textiles) (McDonough andBraungart 2013). Fewer precautions will be requiredin handling them and there will be less risk of contamination, for example, of food- or child-safe plastics by accidental or deliberate mixing of waste
streams. The re-use or ‘upcycling’ of materials canrange from the creation of inspirational art frommarine debris42; the production of bags and othercraft items and goods from waste items, such as
plastic bags43; taking unwanted or leftover materials
to create fashion or promotional goods44; and,re-using items directly in refurbished goods, suchas in the automotive industry. Recycling rates vary
greatly by region and country, with rates even indeveloped economies varying between <10%(USA) to >90% (Switzerland) (Box 8.2).
Another key consideration for increasing the quantity and value of recycled plastic is by clearly marking the type of plastic, minimising the use of
products composed of more than one polymer,
reducing the use of bright pigments, and discouraging the inclusion of so-called ‘biodegradable’,‘compostable’ or ‘oxo-degradable’ plastics, asthese will reduce the utility of the recyclate if pres-42

http://australianmuseum.net.au/ghost-net-art

43

http://www.trashybags.org/index.htm

44

http://www.globehope.com

Figure 8.1

Conceptual representation of the circular economy (EC 2014)114

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

ent even in only small quantities (> 2%, UNEP
2015a). International standards do exist to define
the conditions under which ‘biodegradable’ and‘compostable’ plastics should degrade underfavourable (i.e. non-marine) conditions (Chapter 4),
but this is not necessarily apparent to those utilisingproducts marked in this way. Some form of improved
labelling would be helpful to minimise mishandling,
and to indicate the conditions under which the plastic
can be expected to degrade.
Treating waste as a resource can be encouraged by
the use of MBIs. Some of these can be very simple,
such as introducing a bottle deposit scheme for PET
bottles and lids. This can be particularly effective incountries with a high dependence on bottled water
for the safe supply of potable water. Unfortunately,leakage of economic value can occur due to a loss ofquality in materials being recycled. Even for relatively
pure waste streams such as PET it has been estimated that only 20-30% of recycled PET can be used
for bottle production and 50% in thermoformed products, which generally are not recycled (EMF 2014).
Increasing the purity of the waste stream, by improved

8

manufacture, collection and recovery processes
could increase the downstream value, according to
EMF, by up to US$ 4.4 billion per annum.
Energy recovery
The use of energy recovery for the majority of plastic
waste should be considered as a temporary measure.
Longer-term use of energy recovery is justified provided the other elements of the Redesign-ReduceRe-use-Recycle cycle have been fully implemented.
Waste-to-energy technologies are quite widely usedin Japan and some European countries, to close partof the plastic loop. They are operated to modern
standards within well-developed regulatory frameworks. However, incinerating plastics can be highly
problematic. Without adequate financial investment,
education and capacity building, there is a risk thatuse of incinerators to generate energy in somecountries will produce serious human health consequences and environmental damage. Concerns
include: excessive cost for a facility that would meetmodern emission standards; a lack of transparency
and oversight to ensure standards are met in somecountries; and, the neglect or diminished support forBox 8.2

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

115

8

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOPBox 8.3

EXTRACT FROM THE 10-YEAR FRAMEWORK OF PROGRAMMES ONSUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION PATTERNS‘(c)

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

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

Rio+20 A/CONF.216/5

alternative strategies to minimise single-use plastics
and promote the philosophy of redesign-reducereuse-recycle45.
Reducing consumption
Waste prevention, and sound resource management,
must involve a reduction in our consumption of materials. A circular economy will not be possible if we
do not cut consumption. This does not necessarilymean that the supply of goods and services need be
restricted, but that there are cleverer ways of delivering them. For example, by moving away from single-use plastics as the default, and substituting othermaterials we can ‘dematerialise’ our way of living(WEF/EMF/MCKINSEY 2016). This need to promote
more sustainable production and consumption patterns is recognized within many UN documents andinternational declarations.

45

http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Technical_critique_Stemming_
the_Tide_report.pdf‘Governments, international organizations,the business sector and other non-state
actors and individuals must contribute tochanging unsustainable consumption andproduction patterns.’
Agenda 2030

At Rio+20, the 10-year Framework of Programmes on
Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns
was adopted, and endorsed by the UNGA on 27 July2012 (Resolution A/RES/RES/66/288, paragraph226). Two of the items mentioned in the common
vision refer to the more efficient use of resources,
including the cradle to cradle and 3R concepts (Box8.3). SDG 12 also reflects the need for sustainableconsumption and production patterns.
In order for these concepts to become a reality, there
is a need for people to make a connection between
their consumption patterns and the consequences interms of environmental degradation, and the potential
loss of ecosystems services. This requires that we116

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

better understand the motivations and assumptions
governing behaviour, both with regard to consumption and waste management/littering (Chapter 9.1).

incineration of waste (Recuerda Girela 2006). TheEC Communication contained guidance on when andhow the Principle should be applied (Box 8.3)

8.2
‘The Precautionary Principle should beconsidered within a structured approach tothe analysis of risk which comprises threeelements: risk assessment, risk management
and risk communication. The Precautionary
Principle is particularly relevant to the management of risk.’

THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
The need for a precautionary approach was discussed
at the United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development in June in 1992 and adopted as
Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environmentand Development46:‘In order to protect the environment, theprecautionary approach shall be widely
applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious
or irreversible damage, lack of full scientificcertainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’

EC 2000

The EC advised that the Precautionary Principle
should be placed with a structured approach to theanalysis of risk (Box 8.4). The use of risk-based management to reduce the impact of marine plastics andmicroplastics is described in Chapter 10.

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration 1992

The Precautionary Principle can be viewed as anextension of the precautionary approach, placing
it as a principle in Law. It is not as widely acceptedby countries, but the EC adopted the Precautionary
Principle into EC law in 2000, and it has informed
a variety of environmental legislation, including the46

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

117

Photo: © Romeo Ranoco / Reuters

There is overwhelming evidence that marine plastics are widespread in the oceans and that they havecaused a range of social, economic and ecologicalimpacts. What is unknown is the overall quantitative
impact, on different social systems, economic sectors or species and habitats. But there is a sufficientbody of knowledge to argue convincingly of the needto invoke the precautionary approach, in reducing the
input of plastics into the ocean and minimising the risk.

88MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOPBox 8.4

GUIDANCE ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN
EUROPEAN LAW‘Where action is deemed necessary, measures based on the precautionary principle
should be, inter alia:
•
•
•
•
•
•

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

EC 2000

Table 8.1

Advantages

Disadvantages

Public face

Evidence-based action(comprehensive understanding of the system)

Precautionary approach(removal of all tangible threats)

Reduces scientific uncertainty

Anticipatory: acknowledges
the scientific uncertainty

Attractive to legislators and industry

Ensures the capacity to adapt
to unforeseen problems

Science and informationbase may be insufficient

A hard sell as costs ofimplementation may be highReactive

Difficult to assess areas
where precaution is warranted

Costs of monitoring are high and require longterm government buy inMakes an assumption that
impacts are inevitable

Science-based indicators often difficult tounderstandPublic may seek alternative products and services
when costs spiralComparison of alternate approaches for achieving Good Environmental
Status, in European Seas (based on Mee et al. 2007)

118

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Pros and cons of the precautionary approach
There are advantages and disadvantages to adopting the precautionary approach, as recognised ina European study comparing alternative visions ofachieving ‘Good Environmental Status’ in European
seas (Table 8.1; Mee et al. 2007). These need to be
anticipated and factored into an overall strategy for
implementing marine plastics reduction measures.
A brief history of unrecognised risk
The societal benefits of the widespread use of plastic
are widely recognised (Andrady and Neal 2009).
However, there is a cost associated with most humandevelopment and the introduction of plastics has
proved to be no exception. There is a long history of
new techniques and materials being introduced andrapidly and widely adopted, because of perceived
societal benefits, in advance of adequate risk assessment, regulatory frameworks or assessment guidelines. Examples include the widespread use ofasbestos, X-ray ‘therapy’, tetraethyl lead in petrol, thalidomide to alleviate morning sickness in pregnant
women, tributyl tin as an anti-foulant on ships’ hulls,
certain plasticizers in medical or domestic items and,most recently, nanomaterials (North and Halden
2014, EEA 2001, 2013). This can lead to social andeconomic uncertainties when attempts are made toproperly assess and mitigate the potential harm
being caused, either to humans directly or to theenvironment.
Adaptive management
Given the present level of uncertainty, actions need
to be proportional and incremental. Regional differences in socio-ecological systems are significant;i.e. a good solution in one area may be inadequate(or make things worse) in another. This indicates theimportance of utilising local knowledge with the introduction of new practices or techniques. Solutions
need to be workable and acceptable, which will
demand good communication and dissemination.
Management strategies will be based on the current level of understanding. But to be effective inthe longer term, it is essential for management tobe adaptive. It should not be restricted by the introduction of well-meaning but counterproductive rules
and regulations that may be difficult to alter. As thestate of knowledge improves so management strategies and reduction measures, within an adaptive
approach, can be adjusted.

8.3
IMPROVED GOVERNANCE
The existing international legal framework of relevanceto regulating the transport and disposal of waste,
including plastics, was summarised in Chapter 2.2.
UNCLOS is a key instrument with regard to marine
littering, because it is the only international convention covering land-based sources. Under the General
Obligation ‘States have the obligation to protect andpreserve the marine environment’, and Article 194
declares ‘… prevent, reduce and control pollution
from any source’. Clearly this has not been sufficient tostop plastic entering the ocean. This is largely for two
reasons: i) the existing framework as currently utilised
does not deal adequately with all the key sources andentry points (e.g. transboundary rivers); and, ii) where
existing legislation is appropriate there is a failure of
implementation and enforcement. This is exacerbatedby a lack of standards, more precise obligations andregulation, lack of enforcement and the vast ‘policy
space’. Regional-scale governance frameworks canprovide the means for transboundary sources andinputs of plastics and microplastics. Examples include
UNEP Regional Seas organisations and river basin
Commissions, such as the International Commission
for the Protection of the Danube (Chapter 2.3).
The whole problem with marine debris in general, andmarine macro and microplastic debris in particular,
could be considered a ‘common concern of humankind’ (Chavarro 2013). This would require increased
international cooperation and common efforts, and isa concept which is increasingly being applied underinternational law.

Marine macro and microplastic debris
could be considered a ‘common concernof humankind’

Regulation can be difficult to enforce in some maritime
sectors. For example, MARPOL Annex V prohibits thedischarge of plastics from ships and other offshore
platforms anywhere in the ocean. This prohibition
has been supported by the need to maintain a garbage record book on the ship and for ports to provide
adequate shore-side waste disposal facilities. But,
it is very difficult to enforce the prohibition on plastic disposal at sea without the willing consent of all

119

8

8

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

seafarers. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence,from surveys of marine plastic adjacent to shipping
routes (Van Franeker et al. 2011, Schulz and Matthies
2014), to conclude that there is widespread floutingof this legislation. As enforcement would be difficult
to achieve by technical or other policing means, solutions need to rely on encouraging behaviour change,
and to educate seafarers to accept the need for andembrace the requirements of MARPOL.
Regulation of other aspects of commercial shipping may be easier to implement. Improved governance arrangements to reduce losses of containers
at sea are being pursued through the leadership of
IMO, in collaboration with the International Labour
Organisation (ILO), the UN Economic Commission
for Europe and the International Organisation forStandardisation (ISO). These cover technical issues

related to the packing and securing of containers.47
Poorly managed landfill sites or illegal waste dumps
can lead to the atmospheric transport of plastic debris, exacerbated by open burning of waste.
There is the potential for longer-range atmospherictransport of microplastics and associated hazardous
chemicals. This is an area of waste management that
may justify additional regulatory scrutiny.
Regulation of marine litter sources can take place
at different scales, from local to global. The transport of marine plastics is commonly a transboundary
phenomenon, and impacts (ecological, social and47

http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/safety/Containers_
Lost_at_Sea_-_2014_Update_Final_for_Dist.pdf

Figure 8.3

Proposed governance framework for connecting local, national, regional andglobal scales of governance, showing links (non-binding or legal) (adapted
and re-drawn from Fanning et al. 2007)

120

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

economic) may be due to plastic originating from outside the jurisdiction where they occur. This limits theextent to which the state experiencing the loss of an
ecosystem service can increase measures to alleviate the situation. This illustrates the need to consider
marine litter on larger regional and global scales, sothat efforts can be coordinated and a ‘level playing
field’ established. Several Regional Seas Conventions
and Action Plans have developed marine litter monitoring and assessment programmes (e.g. OSPAR,NOWPAP, MAP, HELCOM) which have helped toestablish harmonised techniques, indicators andbaselines appropriate to each region. These havebeen used by member states to implement joint litter
reduction actions and measure their effectiveness.
A framework for linking multi-level governance institutions has been proposed at the regional seas scale(Figure 8.3). This was designed for application to
the Greater Caribbean Region, extending from thenortheast coast of Brazil to Cape Hatteras in North
Carolina and including the Gulf of Mexico (Fanning etal. 2007, 2013). However, it has much wider potential for establishing or improving governance frameworks at a regional scale.
The framework is also very relevant to SIDS, at local,
national and regional (i.e. SIDS groupings) scales. The
SAMOA Pathway (SIDS Accelerated Modalities of
Action) has been developed to provide a platform toencourage and sustain partnerships. These are a key
requirement for pursuing the SDGs and ‘to ensureaccountability at all levels’48.
Financing improvements in governanceA key element of meeting the UN SDGs is adequate investment in appropriate tools and actions,
including those aspects relevant to reducing the
input and impact of marine plastic debris. This wasemphasised in the Addis Abada Action Agenda of
the Third International Conference on Financing forDevelopment, meeting in July 201549. The conference
concluded by encouraging the UN Secretary General
to convene an inter-agency task force. This would
include major institutional stakeholders and the UN
system, together with funding and programmes. It issuggested that this may form a suitable framework
for addressing the structural reforms needed in many48

http://www.sids2014.org/

49

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/frameworks/addisababaactionagenda

developing nations in order to tackle waste management in general and marine plastics in particular.
The Blue Ribbon Panel of the Global Partnership for
Oceans (GPO), for which the World Bank acted as
Secretariat from 2012 to January 2015, produced aseries of criteria (GPO 2013) for selecting investment options with respect to five principles:
1. sustainable livelihoods, social equity andfood security;
2. healthy ocean and sustainable use of marine
and coastal resources;
3. effective governance systems;
4. long-term viability; and5. capacity building and innovation.
Although the GPO has been dismantled, it can beargued that the selection criteria for improved governance are still valid and equally applicable in thecurrent circumstances of the SDG ambitions. These
were proposed to measure the degree to which theinvestment:
1. describes a viable approach for sustaining
impact beyond the initial [GPO] investment(through risk analysis and the identification ofactions and tactics to mitigate potential risks);
2. includes an analysis to evaluate the return on
investment, net present value, benefits and costs,
and economic, social, and political risks;
3. addresses major obstacles to sustainableocean economies;
4. has the potential to create assets that can beinvested in or securitized;
5. develops or introduces innovative financial
tools and structures that support investments inmaintaining or improving the health of the ocean,related ocean services, and ocean-based economies;
6. includes dynamic design elements that build
resilience to future conditions such as climatechange, population growth, technology evolution,and geo-political changes;
7. and is replicable or has the potential to be
self-sustaining from demonstration projects sothat other communities or institutions can adopt
it without [GPO] funding.

121

8

8

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOPBox 8.5
8.3
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENTNINE MAJOR STAKEHOLDERGROUPS AS DEFINED AT THE 1992
EARTH SUMMIT AGENDA 21:

The term ‘stakeholder engagement’ has become
popular short-hand for the concept of involving of
all those parties, or representatives of such parties,
who may be in some way able to contribute to, beaffected by or otherwise have an interest in a decisionor process. It is a term familiar to many in business,government and the UN system. However, it is worth
remembering that it may be unfamiliar, and possibly
meaningless, to members of the public being considered as stakeholders. It is also important to recognisethat when stakeholders are invited to contribute toa process there needs to be a perceived benefit tothose who are often giving up their time voluntarily,and sometimes losing income as a result. There is adanger of ‘stakeholder fatigue’ if the same individuals
or organisations are repeatedly asked to contribute(SRAC 2005).
Whatever the terminology used, ‘buy-in’ for all parties who are somehow affected by or responsible forcausing or alleviating a marine litter-related problem
is essential to maximise the likelihood of success.
Stakeholders can contribute by helping to:i) accurately describe the social and economic
context;ii) identify the various elements of the risk assessment adequately;iii) suggest appropriate and relevant measures;iv) achieve acceptance of the measures;v) successfully implement the initiative/instrument(s); andvi) monitor the change in state in response to themeasures being introduced.
At the 1992 Earth Summit Agenda 21 recognised
the need to engage with stakeholders to facilitate
the UN goals relating to sustainable development50, and identified nine ‘major groups’ (Box 8.5).
The importance of these groups was reaffirmed
at Rio+20, in ‘The Future We Want’ report, and isincluded in the Agenda 2030 goals (paragraphs 84
and 89). Paragraph 84 refers to the intention for theHigh Level Political Forum (HLPF) to carry out regu-

50

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/majorgroups

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Women
Children and YouthIndigenous Peoples
Non-Governmental Organizations
Local Authorities
Workers and Trade Unions
Business and Industry
Scientific and Technological Community
Farmers

lar reviews that ‘shall provide a platform for partnerships, including through the participation of majorgroups and other relevant stakeholders’. Paragraph89 states that: ‘the HLPF will support participation infollow-up and review processes by the major groups
and other relevant stakeholders…’. The developmentof stakeholder partnerships is viewed as essential inorder to achieve the SDGs for the community of SIDS
(Chapter 2.1).
Almost all individuals, community groups and organisations utilise or are affected by plastic products tosome degree. However, a number of major categories
of stakeholder can be identified with regards to leakage of plastics to the ocean, using the DPSIR framework described in Chapter 10.3 (Box 8.6).
It is common for individuals or organisations to beengaged as facilitators in stakeholder engagement
events and initiatives. This is because certain skills
are required to gain greatest benefit from the time andeffort invested. To assist in the process, a Stakeholder
Engagement Manual has been published in two volumes, with UNEP support, that lays out some of
the guiding principles (SCRA 2005) and provides
a detailed Practitioner’s Handbook (AccountAbility2005).
Why demography matters
Demography involves the study of populations. Human
populations can be classified in many different ways,

122

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOPBox 8.6
ments and less effective governance structures(UNEP 2016). In addition, there is a legal and illegal
trade in waste from North America and Western
Europe to Asia and West Africa, as it is often cheaper
to transport waste from a high-cost country to a lowercost country, where education levels, governance,
environmental standards and compliance may all belower.

MAJOR CATEGORIES OF STAKEHOLDER GROUPS IN CONNECTION WITH
MARINE LITTER:

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

It is important to include demographics when analysing the generation of marine plastic debris andmicroplastics, the sectors of society which areaffected by potential impacts, and when seeking tochange behaviours and promote effective reduction
measures. This has been recognised by many individuals and groups seeking to raise awareness aboutmarine plastic issues through campaigns and educational initiatives.

Producers of plastic products
Consumers of durable plastic products
Users of plastic packaging
Users of single-use plastic food and drink
packaging
Users and providers of coastal tourism
Shipping industry
Fishing industry
Waste collection and management
organisations
Aquaculture industry

including in terms of ethnicity, religious background,social status/caste, degree of poverty or wealth, levelof education, age structure, birth and death rates, andgender differences. Those factors contributing tohuman well-being may be measured using individual
descriptors or by using a collective indicator such as
the Human Development Index51. Many aspects ofhuman society are linked to where individuals fit into
the demographic structure of their community. For
example, there is a culture of certain groups engaging
in the informal recycling industry in India or West
Africa, which may be defined according to age,gender, income and social status. Such groups may
be most exposed to risk as a result, including significant human health consequences involved in handling plastics associated with electronic goods(UNEP 2016). Countries with a high HDI (e.g. OECD)tend to generate more waste per capita but havemore effective waste management systems (Jambeck
et al. 2015), with less leakage to the environment.
Countries with low HDIs may generate less waste percapita but tend to have poorly developed waste management infrastructure, a lack of funding for improve-51

Gender-based aspects
Gender is one of several key factors to consider
when assessing the societal response to marine
plastics and microplastics. However, its importance
may be hidden if social categories in an environmental assessment are not differentiated sufficiently. The
influence of gender on the frame of reference forenvironmental inquiry can be demonstrated using
a general model of environmental gender analysis(Table 8.1). This approach could be adapted to takeaccount of other societal characteristics.

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

123

Photo: © Carlos Jasso / Reuters

1.
2.
3.
4.

8

8

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Table 8.1
Foundational questions in the UNEP model of integrated environmental assessment

Gender-sensitive version

1 What is happening to the environment and why?

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

2. What are the consequences for the environment andhumanity?

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

3. What is being done and how effective is it?

3. Who are the actors involved in responding (at many levels)and are men and women equally engaged? Equally effectively engaged?
Are there gender differences in weighing what ‘should’ bedone and in weighing the effectiveness of possible actions
and solutions?

4. Where are we heading?

4. Where are we heading and will there be different outcomesfor women and men? Are there gender-differentiated perceptions of where we’re heading?

5. What actions could be taken for a more sustainable future?

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

A general model of environmental gender analysis(from Seager 2014).

The extent to which gender per se is the main factor
in influencing an outcome will depend on other demographic factors, and these are likely to vary widely on
a variety of spatial and temporal scales. For example,
an increase in relative wealth or educational attainment may alter the relative importance of gender forindividuals or communities.
Gender and fisheries
Commercial fisheries and aquaculture are key economic activities in many coastal regions, and artisanal
fishing may be vital for food security. It is a sector thatboth generates and is impacted by marine plastics
and microplastics. Many roles in the sector are differentiated by gender. Women participate throughout
most parts of the fishing cycle; including post-capture
processing, inland-waters and onshore aquaculture,
net-mending, processing, and selling. Women fish in
the coastal zones, inshore reefs, and mangroves, they
glean at low tide, and cultivate fish fry in the shallows(Lambeth, 2014, FAO 2015), but very few participate

in open-sea capture fishing. Open-sea, commercial,and large-boat fishing is generally a male domain.
This may render women’s fishing contributions lessvisible - it is left out of most data collection efforts,
as well as overlooked in conventional government or
aid programs that support fishing and fishers (Siason
2010). If there are to be remediation programmes,
financing to cope or reduce plastics pollution, or education programs about plastics, a concerted effort tomake these gender-inclusive will be essential.

124

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

that drives the demand for bottled water, irrespectiveof other factors. Littering behaviours are demographically variable, although cross-national comparisons
have not been made and it is not clear to what extent
gender is relevant (KAB, 2009, Lyndhurst 2013,
Curnow 2005). Clearly, sustained and comparative
research is needed to understand the demographic
drivers of such behaviours, and thus the possible
levers for change. Further research into the demographics of consumer behaviour specific to marine
plastic pollution, and willingness to change thosebehaviours, is needed.

‘Protecting women’s incomes and preventing
the deterioration of their status and position in a context of changing political, social,[environmental] and economic circumstances
are essential for achieving the objective ofcreating responsible fisheries and aquaculture
systems.’(World Bank 2009).

8.5
Because of possible differences in the role of womenand men in fishing-related activities, there may besignificant gender differences in the experienceof, knowledge of, and impacts of plastics pollution.
Debris buildup in littoral and coastal zones can besevere and is different in character than open-sea
plastics pollution, as analyses discussed elsewherein this report demonstrate. This will have a different
impact on women’s fishing activities in the near-shorezone than on men’s fishing in open oceans. Loss of
economic activity, damage to wellbeing, and mental
health aspects of impacts from degraded environments are, in consequence, all likely to be gender-differentiated, more intense for women in the near-shore
fishery and for men in the offshore fishery. Given theconstraints of gender roles, including family-care
responsibilities, women are typically less able thanmen to be flexible in seeking alternative livelihoods if
their main activity, such as inshore fishing, is damaged.
Demographics and behaviour
Individual consumption of goods and services, personal habits (e.g. use of reusable bags and packaging) and waste practices (such as littering) are key
drivers of marine litter. Consumer behaviour derives
both from individual preferences and tastes, and from
corporate strategies and marketing. Microbeads, forexample, were introduced into consumer goods as a
top-down corporate strategy, not in response to bottom-up consumer demand.
Rather little is known about the demographic factors
influencing perceptions and behaviours of relevanceto marine litter, but it seems to assume there will beeffects in particular circumstances. For example, arecent study in the USA on the purchase of bottled
water indicated that age and income were stronger
predictors of consumption than gender. In somecountries it is the unavailability of safe potable water

IMPROVING CORPORATEAND PARTNERSHIPRESPONSIBILITY

Public private partnerships
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a common
feature of solid waste management in developing
countries. The benefits of using PPPs in this sector,
according to the World Bank52, include:
1. regularising informal waste picking activities;
2. introducing and promoting more output-focussed contracts;
3. involvement of the private sector in treatment
and disposal projects to introduce more technical innovation into sanitary landfill, recycling andwaste to energy projects; and4. involvement of the private sector in financing
capital investment.
However, it is important to consider local factors
which can influence the successful implementation ofa cost-effective and safe partnership. A 2013 review
of a PPP waste management scheme in Nigeria(Haruna and Bashir 2013) made a number of recommendations relating to:
1. creating an enabling environment to allow theparticipation of community-based organisationand the various stakeholder groups;
2. capacity building in both private and public
sectors;
3. awareness campaigns on the potential dangers
to health;

52

125

http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sector/solid-waste

88MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

4. encouraging improved segregation of waste;
5. implementation of strict controls; and6. the need for support from donor agencies.

while protecting the environment. It works on theprinciple that if you cannot measure something you
cannot manage it. The business case for adopting
this approach was published in 2014 (UNEP 2014b).

It would be imprudent to assume that the creation ofa PPP for waste management would automaticallybring about improvements for all the stakeholders
involved.
An example of a successful private participation in
infrastructure (PPI) is the provision of ATM-style cleanwater dispensers in the Mathare slum area of Nairobi
in Kenya53. A smart card is used to buy water fromthe automatic dispenser, and the card can be topped
up using a mobile phone or at a kiosk. This provides
unadulterated water at a lower cost than that provided
by traditional water vendors. The PPI is between the
Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company and a
Dutch water engineering company.

Extended producer responsibility
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a variantof another principle, that of the ‘polluter pays’. The
polluter pays principle may be justified but it can bedifficult to enforce, especially in the case of diffuse
sources and legacy pollutants. The OECD has produced a number of guidance documents on the useof EPR, including the cost-benefits involved in thewaste prevention and recycling sector (OECD 2001,
2005). EPR schemes have been introduced for packaging waste and for e-waste.

The role of Life-Cycle Assessment
Life-cycle assessments (LCA) can provide usefulguidance to increase the sustainability of production,
provided the LCA considers the social and ecologicalconsequences of production and is not limited toeconomic considerations (UNEP 2015). LCA can beused to provide a basis for decisions about optimaluse of resources and the impact of different processes, materials or products on the environment. For
example, LCA could be employed to assess the useof plastic-based or natural fibre-based bags and textiles. In one LCA –based study of consumer shoppingbags, conventional PE (HDPE) shopping carrier bags
were considered to be a good environmental option
compared with bags made from paper, LDPE,
non-woven PP and cotton, but strictly in terms of theircarbon footprints (Thomas et al. 2010). In particular,
this analysis did not take account of the social andecological impact that plastic litter may have, such as
the injury or death of marine turtles that mistake plasticbags for jelly fish (Chapter 7.1).

Life-cycle analysis is useful for promoting
sustainability, but needs to take account of thefull social and ecological consequences of
production, use and disposal

Plastic Disclosure Project
The Plastic Disclosure Project54 is run by the Ocean
Recovery Alliance, an NGO based in California andHong Kong. The objectives are to:
1. reduce plastic waste in the environment;
2. encourage sustainable business practices vis-àvis plastic; and3. inspire improved design and innovative solutions.
The means of achieving these objectives are focussed
on encouraging businesses to measure, manage,
reduce and benefit from plastic waste, thereby
adding benefit to both business and the consumer,53

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33223922

54

http://www.plasticdisclosure.org/

In a second example, an LCA-based analysis of textiles – that included factors for human health, environmental impact and sustainability – placed cotton
as having a much smaller footprint than acrylic fibres(Mutha et al. 2012). However, it is important toexamine what is included under such broad terms
as ‘environmental impact’. In a third study, an LCAbased assessment of textiles concluded that cotton
had a greater impact than fabrics made with PP or
PET, and a much greater impact than man-madecellulose-based fibres (Shen et al. 2010). This wason the basis of ecotoxicity, eutrophication, water use
and land use. Neither textile-based LCAs considered the potential ecological impact due to litteringby the textile products or fibres. Clearly, the scope126

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

of an environmental LCA can determine the outcome. Ecological and social perspectives should be
included in a comprehensive LCA approach, as wellas the time-scales involved. Without such evaluation,
decisions made in good faith may result in ineffective
mitigation measures, unnecessary or disproportionate costs, or unforeseen negative consequences.
As with all such assessment studies, it is very important
to consider the scope, assumptions, limitations, motivations, data quality and uncerta‚inties before drawing conclusions about the study’s validity and wider applicability.
LCA was used in a systems approach to study waste
management options in Sweden (Reich 2005). Thisillustrated that reducing landfilling and replacing with8

increased recycling of materials and energy led tolower environmental impact and lower consumption ofenergy resources. However, there were difficulties inapplying this approach due to uncertainties in applying system boundaries (e.g. timing of effects) andweighting factors. It was pointed out that (improved)municipal waste management may diverge from existing economic systems.
LCA has also been used, by a major international
manufacturer, to guide the introduction of a moresustainable production model. In this case the analysis revealed that the largest source of waste was frompackaging, and this led to changes in product design(Box 8.7, UNEP 2016a).

Box 8.7

PRODUCT DESIGN: UNILEVER

To support its 2020 Sustainable Living Plan, Unilever undertook a Life Cycle Analysis of 1,600 products. Through the analysis, it determined that the largest source of its waste is from packaging, which
prompted the company to develop several targets aimed at reducing packaging waste.
1.
2.
3.

Reduce the weight of packaging by one-third by 2020;
Work with partners to increase recycling and recovery rates
in its top 14 countries up to 5% by 2015, and up to 15% by 2020; andIncrease the recycled material content of its packaging tomaximum possible levels by 2020.

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

127

8

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

8.6
Utilising the GPML and GPWM for disseminationof good practice
Dissemination of good practice and technologicaladvances represent a cost-effective way of encouraging the expansion of litter reduction schemes.
Environmental NGOs have been at the forefront ofraising awareness but several have also been very
influential in developing and disseminating goodpractice.
The GPML and GPWM provide two mechanisms
to encourage collaboration between public and private partners, NGOs, industry sectors and the citizen’s groups. The Global Partnership on Marine Litter(GPML) was launched in June 2012 at Rio+20 inBrazil following the recommendations contained in the
Manila Declaration on Furthering the Implementationof the Global Programme of Action for the Protectionof the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities.
The GPML, besides being supportive of the Global
Partnership on Waste Management (GPWM), seeks
to protect human health and the global environmentby the reduction and management of marine litter as
its main goal, through several specific objectives.
The GPML is a global partnership gathering international agencies, governments, NGOs, academia, private sector, civil society and individuals. Participants
contribute to the development and implementation of
GPML activities. Contributions may be in the form offinancial support, in-kind contributions and/or technical expertise.

5. To increase awareness on sources of marine
litter, their fate and impacts.
6. To assess emerging issues related to the fateand potential influence of marine litter, including(micro) plastics uptake in the food web and associated transfer of pollutants and impacts on theconservation and welfare of marine fauna.
The partnership activities contribute to the GPWM,
which will ensure that marine litter issues, goals, andstrategies are tied to global efforts to reduce andmanage solid waste. The GPML aims to establish
a coordinating forum for international organizations,
governments, the private sector, and other non-governmental entities, to build synergies and thus to
avoid duplication of efforts.
The GPWM is an open-ended partnership for international organizations, governments, businesses, academia, local authorities and NGOs. It was launchedin November 2010 to enhance international cooperation among stakeholders, identify and fill information
gaps, share information and strengthen awareness,
political will, and capacity to promote resource conservation and resource efficiency.
A draft Road Map has been proposed for the implementation of the GPML (Figure 8.4), including thedevelopment of indicators and the implementationand testing of potential measures through pilot projects. The Marine Litter Network provides an on-line
mechanism to share information. As the GPML
continues to develop, the capability of using it todisseminate information and guidance will grow.

Specific Objectives of the GPML:
1. To reduce the impacts of marine litter worldwide
on economies, ecosystem, animal welfare andhuman health.
2. To enhance international cooperation and coordination through the promotion and implementation of the Honolulu Strategy - a global framework
for the prevention and management of marine
debris, as well as the Honolulu Commitment – amulti-stakeholder pledge.
3. To promote knowledge management, information sharing and monitoring of progress on theimplementation of the Honolulu Strategy.
4. To promote resource efficiency and economic
development through waste prevention (e.g. 4Rs(reduce, re-use, recycle and re-design) and byrecovering valuable material and/or energy fromwaste.

128

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
CLOSING THE LOOP

Figure 8.4

Photo: © CC BY Bo Eide

Draft Road Map for the implementation of the GPML

129

8

9

130

9. A SELECTION OF
DIFFERENT TYPESOF MEASURES

2005; Widmer & Reis 2010). In general, microplastics
are not mentioned spontaneously in such surveys.
This could indicate either a lack of perceived importance, or simply a lack of knowledge and recognitionof this particular environmental issue.

9.1
ENCOURAGING CHANGES IN BEHAVIOUR
Attitudes towards marine litter
There is a need for people to make a connection
between their consumption patterns and the consequences in terms of environmental degradation(marine litter), and the potential loss of ecosystems
services, as stated in Chapter 8.1. There is evidence
that at least some sections of the public are awareof our dependency on the marine environment. For
instance, as early as 1999, 75% of people in a US
survey believed that the health of the ocean is important for human survival (Ocean Project 1999). Whenfocusing on environmental matters related to themarine environment specifically, several environmental topics are of particular interest to the public, suchas climate change, chemical pollution and ocean
acidification (e.g. Vignola et al. 2013; Peterlin et al.
2005;). Similarly, marine debris is commonly noted
as one of the most important issues when people
are asked whilst visiting the coast (e.g. Santos et al.

One of the largest scientifically-based assessmentsof public perceptions was conducted in Europe, in asurvey of 10,000 citizens from ten European countries, where respondents were asked to identify thethree most important environment matters regarding
the coastline or sea (Buckley and Pinnegar 2011).
The survey was conducted in the context of assessing perceptions about climate, but allowed the
respondents to express their concerns freely. Whenstating levels of concern for a number of environmental issues, including overfishing, coastal flooding andocean acidification, the term ‘pollution’, particularlywater and oil pollution, was mentioned frequently.
Marine debris-related terms, such as ‘litter’, ‘rubbish’and ‘beach cleanliness’ were also reported, but muchless frequently (Figure 9.1). Such surveys are helpful for catching the public mood, but some caution
is warranted. The survey took place in January 2011,just months after the largest oil spill in history, theDeepwater Horizon, took place in the Gulf of Mexico,
between April and July 2010. It can be speculated
that this may well have influenced the respondents
concerns.
In addition to research examining the level of importance individuals place on the marine environment
and the various perceived threats to it, some studies
have started to explore the public’s current understanding about macro marine debris more specifically.

Figure 9.1

Main responses from a multinational sample from 10 countries (n = 10,106) to a qualitative question that asked individuals to state the three main marine environmental matters.
Frequency of responses is illustrated by the size of the text, with pollution noted most often(reproduced from Buckley and Pinnegar 2011).

131

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

One multinational survey (MARLISCO55) explicitly
examined perceptions in different societal groups
about macro marine debris. A number of sectors werechosen, including: design and manufacturing, maritime industries, policy makers, media organizations,education and environmental organizations. This was
not intended to be representative of society in general, but that portion of society that might be considered as being more connected to the issue of marine
litter and microplastics. With a sample of just under
4,000 respondents from over 16 mostly European
countries, the MARLISCO survey found that the
majority of respondents were concerned aboutmarine litter and perceived the marine environment as
being highly valuable to society. There was a belief
that the situation regarding marine litter was worsening, and that most marine litter was derived from thesea (B. Hartley unpublished data). This survey also
found that all groups significantly underestimated the
proportion of marine litter items composed of plastic
by about 30% (B. Hartley unpublished data). A separate survey on UK commercial fishers found similar
patterns in perception, whereby fishers underestimated the proportion of litter that is plastic, and on
average, were unsure whether marine litter wasincreasing or decreasing (Defra report, forthcoming).
At more local scale, a beach visitor survey in Chile
revealed that most visitors reported that they did notdispose of litter on beaches, despite a large proportion of marine debris being left by visitors in general(Eastman et al. 2013; Santos et al. 2005). Even though
respondents generally claimed not to be individually
responsible, they did identify the overall public to be themain source of debris (Santos et al. 2005, Slavin et al.
2012; Eastman et al. 2013). In terms of the effects andimpacts of marine debris, the main problems that beachusers identified were related to the impact on marine
biota, human health and safety, and attractiveness (B.
Hartley unpublished data; Santos et al. 2005; Wyles etal. 2014; Wyles et al. under review). Thus, these findings suggest that beach-users and commercial fishers
have a basic understanding of marine litter in general.

solution will be much more complex. Very often it will
require changes in public perceptions, attitudes andbehaviour. The introduction of IMO MARPOL Annex V
banned the introduction of plastic waste into any partof the ocean, but it is routinely ignored. Legislation
will have limited effectiveness if there is significant
non-compliance, combined with low rates of detection and enforcement.
Whatever approach is taken it is very likely that somedegree of behaviour change will be required if themeasure is to be implemented successfully. In many
theories of behaviour change, two key factors arenoted as important: i) perceptions of responsibility,
and ii) perceived control or efficacy (e.g. Steg et al.
2013, 2014). Out of two people who have limited
control over an issue, the one who has higher perceptions of control is more likely to act. Consequently,
the marine litter initiatives that provide individuals thefacilities and thus the ability to dispose of marine litter(e.g. floating reception barges), or recycle their fishing lines (e.g. Reel in and Recycle initiative) and makethese visible, will help to strengthen these perceptions of control thus further encourage the positive
behaviour (Steg and Vlek, 2009).
Perceived responsibility is also important in
the context of marine litter. Large-scale surveys within the European MARLISCO project
showed that general public respondents perceived
sectors to vary widely in responsibility. Industry andgovernment / policy makers and commercial usersof the coast were seen as high in responsibility.
However, the respondents also held themselves
responsible. Given the many sectors and actors insociety involved in the issue of marine litter, anotherpromising example is the programme Amigos delMar (Friends of the Sea) in Ecuador, led by the
Comisión Permanente el Pacífico Sur (CPPS),
which targets students, fishermen and tour operators as key influencers. Therefore, it is necessary toengage all sectors, emphasise their responsibility(e.g. by illustrating the cost of action and inaction)
and work cooperatively to help to address the problem of marine litter.

Changing behaviour
If meeting a litter reduction target depends on anything other than a simple technical solution, then the55

www.marlisco.eu

There have been a large number of campaigns
directed towards raising awareness and improving
education about marine litter issues, and some ofthese are described below to illustrate the range ofapproaches that have been used. A collation of marine
debris public awareness campaigns has been prepared in support of the CMS (CMS 2014a), together
with recommendations of Best Practice in the commercial shipping and fisheries sectors (CMS 2014b).

132

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Fishing industry
A number of campaigns have targeted the fishingindustry. CCAMLR has developed several initiatives to educate fishers and fishing vessel operators
including the production of posters in multiple languages to be placed on fishing vessels (required tobe displayed since 1989) to raise awareness andhelp to reduce pollution (Figure 9.2). This has beenbacked up with specific legislation where specificrisks have been identified.

cigarettes are one of the commonest items found on
recreational beaches, especially near popular tourist
destinations (Ocean Conservancy 2014). A numberof NGOs have attempted to change public behaviour(Box 9.1). For example, the NGO Marevivo ran a campaign in Italy in which 100,000 reusable pocket-sizedashtrays were handed out to visitors of Rome’sbeaches56. UK-based Surfers Against Sewage run
the ‘No Butts On The Beach’ campaign, featuring amessage displayed in an eye-catching manner, as
well as a more conventional logo (Figure 9.3).

Coastal tourism
Initiatives to reduce the impact of coastal tourism
in many regions have been initiated by NGOs, local
authorities and the tourism industry itself. Discarded56

http://www.marevivo.it/mare_cicca2011.php

Figure 9.2

Posters issued by CCAMLR for display of all fishing vessels operating
within the CCAMLR region. Reproduced with permission from CCAMLR

133

9

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.3a

Figure 9.3b

Examples of campaign posters: (a) Logo of the ‘No
Butts On The Beach’ campaign,an example of a special interest group, the UK-based
Surfers Against Sewage, to reduce the disposal ofcigarette butts (or stubs) on beaches57; (b) sign on atour boat in the Galapagos Islands.
©Peter Kershaw;

In Puerto Ayora in the Galapagos, a retired fisherman
turned artist has constructed impressive sculpturesfrom cigarette ends (butts/stubs) he picks up fromthe streets. He displays these at the harbour side andexplains to visitors about the damage littering cancause (Figure 9.6).
The release of helium-filled balloons is popular in some
cultures and is common on some cruise lines. Several
NGOs and farming organisations have campaigned
to raise awareness and try to restrict their use. This
includes the ‘Don’t Let Go’ campaign, promoted by the
UK-based Marine Conservation Society (MCS),
to educate the public about the consequences of
releasing helium-filled balloons, and encourage goodpractice.
The tourism industry has also been active in helping tochange attitudes and behaviour, and reducing singleuse plastics, amongst tourists, hotels and tour operators (Figure 9.5). However, engaging the wider foodvalue chains involved in tourism will be essential tobring about a significant reduction in plastic consumption for vulnerable areas such as SIDS.

Education and citizen science
Informing people about marine litter and the impact it
can have is regarded generally as an important stepin changing behaviours and instilling a more responsible attitude towards protecting the environment. Thiscan involve both formal education and more informal
initiatives. All ages can take part although efforts areoften directed towards school-age students in thehope that any changed attitudes will persist and may
influence their peers and elders. This educational philosophy informed the development of the European
MARLISCO project (Marine Litter in European
Seas – Social Awareness and Co-Responsibility).
A number of educational activities were developed,
including educational packs for different year groups
and a video competition for schools. It also includeda ‘serious game’ designed for youngsters, to pro-

57

134

http://www.sas.org.uk/campaigns/marine-litter/

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

9

Figure 9.4

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

Box 9.1

AWARENESS RAISING AND TARGETED EDUCATION CAMPAIGNSGreen Blue initiative (UK), led by the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Federation
to raise awareness among the recreational boating community, providing education, solutions andtoolkits http://thegreenblue.org.uk/About-us
NOWPAP – Guidelines for tourists and tour operators in the NOWPAP region, setting out best practice for activities such as: cruising, fishing, diving, camping and barbequing (NOWPAP 2011)
TreadRight Foundation – encouraging sustainable tourism http://www.treadright.org/
Taken from Gitti et al. 2015

135

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.5

Can you help us use less plastic?
Tourism contributes towards plastic waste, so as part of theMake Holidays Greener campaign we are trying to reduce
how much we use... here’s how you can help us too.
By the pool...
t *UJTJNQPSUBOUUPLFFQIZESBUFE CVUXIZOPUHFUBHMBTTPGXBUFSGSPNUIFCBSJOTUFBEPGCVZJOHBQMBTUJDCPUUMF 0VSTUBGGBSFIBQQZUPQSPWJEFSFmMMTPOSFRVFTUt 5IJOLUXJDFCFGPSFVTJOHQMBTUJDTUSBXTt 3FVTFZPVSQMBTUJDDVQT SBUIFSUIBOUBLJOHOFXPOFT
t 1MFBTFVTFPVSSFDZDMJOHQPJOUTUPEFQPTJUZPVSQMBTUJDXBTUF
In your room...
t *GZPVBSFVTJOHUIFUPJMFUSJFTTVQQMJFECZUIFIPUFMQMFBTF
NBLFTVSFZPVVTFUIFXIPMFDPOUBJOFSCFGPSFEJTQPTJOHPGJUt *GZPVMFBWFZPVSQMBTUJDCPUUMFTCZUIFCJO XFXJMMCFIBQQZUPSFDZDMFUIFNGPSZPVWhen shopping...
t 1MFBTFVTFQMBTUJDCBHTNPSFUIBOPODF PSVTFBSFVTBCMF
POF

If you can see more ways inwhich the hotel could saveplastic, please let the staff on
reception know so they canpass it on to the manager.

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

136

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

vide the opportunity to help one of eight characters,from different sectors, in a fun way to choose themost responsible behaviour in58different situations59.
The game is available in 15 European languages,
so is suitable for use in the Americas and parts ofAfrica. On a larger scale, UNEP launched a MOOC
(Massive Open On-line learning Course) on marine
litter in October 2015, in association with the Open
University of the Netherlands. Approximately 6000
participants enrolled.
Citizen science is a form of ‘learning by doing’. Citizen
science initiatives can be very effective at both raisingawareness and collecting information and monitoringdata about the state of the environment. One of themost impressive examples was an initiative carriedout in Chile called the ‘National sampling of Small
Plastic Debris’. This involved nearly 1000 schoolchildren from 39 schools on mainland Chile and on
Easter Island. The organisers approached schools
and social organisations that were already part of thecitizen science project ‘Scientíficos de la Bastura’(Litter Scientists). The sampling protocol and results
were reported by Higdalgo-Ruz and Thiel (2013).
An important part of the exercise was the publication of a children’s storybook ‘The journey of Jurella
and the microplastics’ (Nuñez and Thiel 2011). This28-page illustrated book, telling the story (in Spanish)of a local Chilean fish confronting the problem withmarine litter, was given to each child participatingin the scheme. The children also learned importantskills in following instructions, carrying out a survey
accurately, handling the samples and interpreting theresults.
The NGO Thames 21 promotes Thames River Watch,in the UK, providing support and training for volunteers
who carry out sampling and analysis throughout the
tidal reaches, including the occurrence of plastic litter.
The results are published on an interactive webpage60. Citizen science has also been used to sample riverine litter in Chile (Rech et al. 2015).
The increased use of mobile phones, and the ability to readily download applications, prompted thedevelopment of an app to report marine debris finds
by people using the shoreline. This was the result of58

http://www.thetravelfoundation.org.uk

59

http://www.marlisco.eu/serious-game.en/articles/serious-game.
html

60

info@thames21.org.uk

a collaboration between the NOAA Marine Debris
Program and the Univ. Georgia in the USA, and theresults can be viewed on-line61.
Informal groups and NGOs have played an important role in both raising awareness and in promoting citizen science programmes. Good
examples include the 5 Gyres organisation62, who have organised a series of sea-based expeditions and land-based initiatives, including in the
Arctic, and the more recent all-female eXXpedition sailing campaign who have been nominated as
Gender Heroes under the Stockholm-RotterdamBasel Convention Synergies platform63.

The role of special interest groups
Recreational fishers
Recreational coastal fishing is a very popular activity
in many countries and regions (e.g. Font and Lloret2014). Unfortunately, it results in the deliberate or
accidental discarding of large quantities of fishing line, hooks and other paraphernalia (Lloret et al.
2014). In the Republic of Korea, recreational fishingis widespread. The impact of fishing gear on birds
is particularly marked, including the internationallyendangered Black-faced spoonbill. A variety of measures has been taken to raise awareness of the effectsof fishing gear on wildlife amongst this special usergroup, with the aim of reducing the impact. These
have included focussed meetings, a website to reportmonitoring results, a well-illustrated booklet (Figure9.6), publications in the scientific literature (Hong etal. 2013) and a Youtube™ video, released to mark the2014 ‘International Day for Biological Diversity64.
Surfers
NGOs with an environmental motivation have beenat the forefront of raising awareness about the extent
and impact of marine litter. However, other groups
with a special interest in the oceans have proved tobe very effective. The Surfrider Foundation is activein Europe and North America and has promoted the61

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

62

http://www.5gyres.org/

63

http://www.brsmeas.org/ManagementReports/Gender/GenderHeroes/GenderHeroesExxpedition/tabid/4802/language/en-US/
Default.aspx

64

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh7ns2TjP6Y

137

9

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.6

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

138

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES‘Rise above plastics’ mission, advocating the reduction in single use plastics and improved recycling65.
Surfers Against Sewage is a UK-based group set up
to campaign for improvements in sewage treatment
prior to discharge into coastal waters, primarily overconcerns about surfers becoming infected by swimming in sewage-polluted water. Their interests have
expanded to include sanitary-related and other typesof litter, by running a series of striking campaigns;
e.g. ‘Think Before You Flush’, ‘Break The Bag Habit’,‘Unidentified Floating Objects’, ‘Mermaids’ Tears’,‘No Butts On The Beach’ and ‘Return To Offender’(SAS 2014; Figure 3.8).

9.2
REDUCTION MEASURES – BATS, BEPS, MBIS
AND LEGISLATION

Technical measures in brief
This section provides examples of technical measures which can be described loosely as:
1. Best Available Techniques, or Best Available
Technologies BATs);
2. Best Practices, or Best Environmental Practices(BEPs);
3. Market-based Instruments (MBIs); and4. Legislation – regulation by governments or
Commissions
The section is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of possible measures, but to provide illustrative examples of measures which have proved
to be effective, and which have the potential to
be more widely applied. In some cases, the measures are enforceable by legislation and in othercases they may be adopted by the public or private
sector, as an appropriate response to improving
waste management and reducing the flow of plastic
to the ocean.
Guidelines for carrying out a risk assessment andselecting appropriate measures are outlined in
Chapter 10.

65

http://www.surfrider.org/programs/plastic-pollution

Utilising BATs to reduce loss of fishing gear
Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishinggear can have a significant impact both on depleting commercial fish and shellfish stocks and causing unnecessary impacts on non-target species andhabitats. The importance of this issue was recognised
formally at the 16th meeting of the FAO Committee
on Fisheries in 1985, and led to publication of a key
report by FAO and UNEP (Macfadyen et al. 2009).
There are several initiatives supported by internationaland national bodies to reduce the amount of derelict
fishing being generated, remove lost and abandoned
gear, and develop good practice for reducing ghost
fishing and the safe recovery of trapped animals (safefor both the entangled animal and the rescuer; FAO
1993, 1995).
Better marking of gear will allow determination ofownership more readily and is one approach to
reducing ALDFG, particularly that element associated with Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU)
fisheries. In addition, technical changes in how gearis constructed and deployed can also reduce gearloss and reduce potential ecological damage (Box9.2; WSPA 2013). FAO is in the process of developing technical guidelines for the application of aninternational system for the marking of fishing gear,and the EC has introduced regulations for marking
passive fishing gear (EC 2005). Such schemes
could be combined with leasing arrangements toencourage the return of unwanted gear rather thandeliberate discarding. The IWC has published guidance on gear marking, and details of national initiatives, as it believes there are significant advantages
from a cetacean entanglement perspective (IWC2014).

Using legislation to reduce the impact of fishingactivities
The EC has introduced regulations regarding themarking of passive fishing gear (EC 2005) and theretrieval of lost fishing gear (EC 2009), which should
act to reduce ALDFG in EU waters. The CCAMLR
introduced a Conservation Measure in 2015, covering general environmental protection during fishing(CCAMLR 2015). The Commission acknowledged
the impact of fishing-related plastic waste, singlingout the significant numbers of fur seals entangled
and killed by plastic packaging bands. These are routinely used to tie together plastic bait boxes, used bylongline fisheries. The measure made several specificrequirements (Box 9.3). This strengthens previous

139

9

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.2

EXAMPLES OF TECHNOLOGICAL MODIFICATIONS OF NETS TO
REDUCE LOSS:

•
•
•
•
•

Mandatory lights on gill nets, with strong solar-powered batteries
Technology that makes the net sink or drift at a depth where its impact on animals is
likely to be low
Biodegradable materials for making nets (need to be strong and cheap)
Use of steel cables for securing buoys
Labelling of nets (chemicals, colour, tags, transmitters)(from: Proceedings of the Untangled symposium, December 2012; WSPA 2013)

legislation which did appear to have reduced theentanglement rate, but a residual level has persisted(Waluda and Staniland 2013).
Utilising BATs to improve solid waste
management
A functioning waste collection system helps protect and improve public health, reducing deaths
and illnesses related to the presence of waste (UNHABITAT 2010). If waste is not collected, it can end
up accumulating in open spaces (informal dumps)
and clog drains or waterways. This can attract disease-carrying insects and animals (e.g. mosquitos
and rats), cause floods, and is a hazard to people(e.g. children may play with it) (UN HABITAT 2010).
Open burning is also very common for uncollected
waste as a means to reduce its volume, which canlead to respiratory health problems (UNEP 2016a,
UNEP 2015).
Following the Jambeck et al. (2015) analysis of solid
waste mismanagement, a study66 was undertaken to66

address five questions (Box 9.3) on the sources ofland-based plastic and potential measures for reducing inputs to the sea (Ocean Conservancy 2015).
The study identified five countries as amongst thelargest potential contributors from inadequately managed solid waste, and examined improvement opportunities, that exist today, for each that would be likely
to yield the greatest benefit. Five technological solutions emerged as being of most relevance, although
there were differences in which were judged mostappropriate for each country (Table 9.1).
These ‘downstream’ measures may have great potential for plugging some of the leaks in plastic management, provided sufficient investment is made, but they
will not encourage the minimisation of waste generation. In the longer term there needs to be a movement towards a more circular plastic economy (WEF/
EMF/MCKINSEY 2016, Chapter 8.1). The study has
attracted some criticism as placing too much emphasis on ‘downstream’ solutions for plastic waste,especially incineration; i.e. for failing to consider
technologies and other measures for significantly‘Stemming the tide: land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean’, astudy led by Ocean Conservancy with McKinsey Consultants as an

140

initiative of the Trash Free Seas Alliance®

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES9

Box 9.3

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE STUDY ‘STEMMING THE TIDE –LAND-BASED STRATEGIES FOR A PLASTIC-FREE OCEAN’:

1.

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

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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

5.

What can be done to trigger the implementation of leakage-reduction measuresin the short, medium and long term?

(OCEAN CONSERVANCY 2015)

Table 9.1
BAT option

China

Indonesia

Collection services

Y

Y

Close leakage points within thecollection system

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Gasification

Incineration

Y

MRF*-based recycling

Y

Y

Philippines

VietnamThailand

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Assessment of potential BATs for five countries identified ashaving inadequate waste management practices (Ocean Conservancy 2015).
* MRF- Material-recovery facility, used for separating different materials from the waste stream

141

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.4

BEST PRACTICE CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTRODUCING RECYCLING BINS
IN PUBLIC PLACES:

1.

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

2.

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

3.

SIGNAGE AND COMMUNICATION
a. Consistent use of colour for materials (e.g. green for organics)
b. Use of imagesc. Bold text (e.g. white on colour)D.

USE OF SLOGANS AND HUMOUR

UNEP 2016areducing the quantities of waste being produced.
This includes solutions currently being developed
and promoted in some of the countries highlighted
as being the largest contributors of mismanaged
waste67. The debate sparked by a single report serves
to emphasise that BATs, or any other measures, haveto be considered as part of an overall waste reduction
strategy, with an emphasis on ‘upstream’ options. This
process needs to be guided by a risk-based analysis
involving all relevant stakeholders, with due consideration given to short-, medium- and longer-term objectives(Chapter 8.4).

Plastics-to-fuel
In some circumstances an alternative form of energy/material recovery may be feasible. This involves thethermal decomposition (pyrolysis) of waste plastic,
breaking down the complex polymer molecules to
produce a vapour. This is condensed to form synthetic crude oil or (uncondensed) synthetic gas. Thiscan be further fractionated in a typical refinery andmay be appropriate for types of plastic that are morechallenging to recycle, such as LDPE, PP, PS andplastic films (ORA 2015).

Provision of bins for recycling and waste collection in public spaces

67

http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Technical_critique_Stemming_
the_Tide_report.pdf

A key component of resource recovery in public
spaces is having the correct waste infrastructure
in place as well as using communication tools andeducation programs to ensure that people participate

142

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.7

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

and use bins correctly. The material streams collected
may also need to vary depending on the location of thebins and the waste generated there. Keeping colour
schemes consistent for different material streams andusing clear, bold images and text helps users to makea quick decision about where to throw their materials(Figure 9.7). Best practice should incorporate consideration of a number of components (Box 9.4).

quantity of materials returned. Furthermore, if therecovery system is managed as a monopoly the costsof the system may rise, reducing its efficiency further(Lavee 2010). However, many European countries
have well-established schemes, including the useof automatic ‘return-deposit’ machines in Germany
and Finland, and returns of up to 90% for PET arecommon.

Deposit-refund schemes - MBI

Payments and subsidies - MBI

Among all the different incentives, one of the mosteffective is the deposit-refund scheme (Box 9.4):
at the purchase the consumers have to pay a small
deposit for the objects bought (usually plastic or
glass bottles). This sum is given back to the personthat returns them (Lavee 2010), and can occur at anational, sub-national or local scale.68 From an economic perspective deposit-refund schemes are considered to be efficient. In addition, this tool has apotentially wide application – it could be used not justfor bottles and plastic bags, but also for food containers, for batteries, electronic equipment, white goods
and automobiles (ten Brink et al. 2009). The costsof implementation of such schemes depends on the

One example of a payment or award for action is that ofpaying fishermen for reporting on and removing of litter.
For example, in South Korea in 2001 the government
established a compensation ‘buy-back’ scheme forfishermen that removed nets and other litter from sea.
In the European Union the Directorate General for
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries made a call in 2014 to
explore the “feasibility and economic viability” of fisherman in the EU fleet to abandon fishing and to reassign
some vessels towards addressing marine litter, whether
through the collection of litter or awareness raising.69
The EU would support fisherman by co-financing the

69
68

http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/ecuador-incremento-la-recoleccion-de-botellas-pet-en-2012/143

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/contracts_and_funding/calls_for_proposals/2014_24/doc/call-for-proposals_
en.pdf9

9MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.5

EXAMPLES OF DEPOSIT SCHEMES AT DIFFERENT SCALES:

National - Ecuador
PET bottles are used extensively in Ecuador for supplying clean drinking water.
A deposit scheme of US$ 0.02 per PET bottle was introduced in 2011. This led to an increase in PET
bottle recycling from 30% in 2011 to 80% in 2012, when 1.13 million of PET bottles were recycled outof 1.40 million produced.
Sub-national – State of California, USA
California has had a bottle deposit since 1987, with a rate of US$ 0.05 for bottles, < 0.71 l and US$
0.10 for bottles > 0.71 l. It is estimated that the scheme has resulted in the recycling of about 300
billion (3 x 1011) aluminium, glass or plastics drinks containers (CalRecycle 2015).
Local - Boronia West Primary School, Victoria South Australia
At the schoolchildren’s suggestion, a deposit scheme was introduced for plastic wrappers on goods
sold in the school refectory. This was motivated after learning about the impact of plastics on wildlife (personal communication Britta Denise Hardesty 2015)
Taken from Gitti et al. 2015

crew and vessel operational costs for the first year ofoperations outside of fishing (MARE/2014/24).
However, the effectiveness of these kinds of schemes
is still not clear, some arguing that they could provide
perverse incentives.
Taxes and fees – creating incentive while raising
revenues – MBI
Taxes have been considered by economists to be
one of the most effective tools as they can offer adisincentive to polluting behaviour and inefficientuse or resources and at the same time ensure a revenue for the state, with generally low implementation costs (Oosterhuis et al 2014). Revenues
coming from environmental taxes, or at least part ofthem, can be reinvested for the environment. For
example, in 1981 the National Assembly of Cuba
approved the Law 81, also known as ‘Environmental
Law’, that allows the use of economic tools such as
taxes for the development of activities that positively impact the environment (Whittle and Rey
Santos 2006).

Taxes can be applied to different stages of the
production process: they can affect the production and consumption phase. They can be
designed for general environmental or revenue
raising issues (e.g. waste charges to help financewaste management collection and infrastructure),
and also motivated specifically by marine litterconsiderations. One of the longest establishedexamples is the Irish plastic bag levy (Box 9.6)70. The EU has adopted a Directive providing definitions and guidance on encouraging the reductionin use of lightweight plastic carrier bags (defined
as having a wall thickness of <50 μm) by Member
States, including the use of MBIs (EC 2015).
However, the revenues raised from environmental
taxes are at risk of decreasing over time. This can

70

144

http://www.marine-litter-conference-berlin.info/userfiles/file/online/
Plastic%20Bag%20Levy_Doyle.pdf

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES9

Box 9.6

THE IRISH PLASTIC BAG LEVY

In 2002 the Irish Government added a fee of 15 cents per plastic bag, increased to 22 cents in2007. After its introduction, sales distribution of bags in retail outlets dropped by 90%. In addition,
the money collected thanks to the levy is reinvested in anti-litter initiatives, used to finance theEnvironmental Protection Agency R&D and the initiatives undertaken by community groups andothers for the protection of the environment (e.g. Coastwatch, An Taisce). The levy was also very
cost-effective, as stores could use the existing Value Added Tax scheme for collecting and reporting
the levy (Convery et al. 2007, Pape et al. 2011)
Taken from Gitti et al. 2015

happen for two main reasons, firstly, if the tax is successful and results in behaviour change, or, if the rate
is nominal and erodes with inflation. Indexing taxes with
inflation or gradually increasing rates can help to maintain revenues and the positive environmental impacts
of a tax (OECD 2011). With all such MBI schemes,
there needs to be an assessment of the consequencesof their introduction, to ensure there are no perverse
incentives or unforeseen negative consequences.

Taxes to meet the needs of SIDS and othersmall ocean islands
In the Caribbean the waste generated by cruise
ships has placed ports of call under stress, and created tension between island authorities and cruiseline operators, and furthermore with neighbouring
islands as they compete for traffic. The Organisationof Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and the
Caribbean Community (CARICOM) tried several
times to face the problem by creating a passenger
head tax to cover the costs of infrastructure, including for managing waste, but have been unsuccessful. All those attempts often faced opposition fromcruise operators (Chin, 2008). For instance, in 1999
Carnival Cruise Lines boycotted Grenada after they
introduced a USD 1.50 per passenger tax to fund a
World Bank constructed sanitary landfill for the island(Klein, 2002). More positively, non-Ecuadoran visitors

to the Galapagos Islands have to pay a fee of US$
100 on arrival to help maintain the unique ecology of
the archipelago (Box 9.7).

Port reception facilities – MBIPayments for using port reception facilities to disposeof waste have to be structured so as to recover thecost of providing the service but to avoid creating
an incentive to dispose of it at sea (Box 9.8). Thisis important, for example, for coastal areas close
to the busy cruise destinations, such as Miami and
Alaska (US), Nassau (Bahamas), Cozumel (Mexico)and several SIDS, that are also likely to experiencehigh concentrations of marine litter associated with
discharges of litter from the cruise sector (Brida &Zapata 2010).
If correctly managed, port reception facilities may
be one of the most important tools for addressing
waste generated at sea from all sectors (Newman etal., 2015). Using port reception facilities to disposeof waste generally includes a fee for the service;
the price is often determined by several variables
such as the size of the ship, the volume of waste,
and the type of waste. This can act as a disincentive(Sherrington et al. 2015). In some cases, reductions may be offered for ships with better-developed waste management strategies (EMSA, 2005).

145

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.7

GALAPAGOS ARCHIPELAGO (ECUADOR)In the Galapagos Islands there is a tourist tax that aims to have an incentive effect (limiting thenumber of tourists and hence pressure on the islands), and raise revenues. The rate of tax depends
on the age and provenience of the tourist. For example, the tax for foreign tourists, non-residents ofEcuador over 12 years is of USD $100, while tourists and foreign nationals residing in Ecuador, over
12 years have to pay USD $6. The total revenues coming from this tax are reinvested among several
entities: 10% goes to INGALA (Galapagos Immigration), 5 % to the Ecuadorian Navy, 10% to theConsejo Provincial de Galapagos, 25% to the Galapagos Municipalities, 5 % to the Galapagos Marine
Reserve, 5 % to Inspection and Quarantine Services and the last 40% to the Galapagos National
Park. (Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador, 2013).
Additional charges are included in fees for boat charters to certain islands, which are under greaterpressure due to the nature of the environment and their popularity, to further control visitor numbers.
Taken from Gitti et al. 2015

In some ports, the costs of waste disposal can act
as a barrier to their use and may incentivise dumping. A possible solution to this problem is the application of a ‘No Special Fee’. Such a fee includes in
the port fee the cost of delivering waste, irrespective of the quantities discharged. The no special fee
system effectively prevents cost from becoming a disincentive for using port reception facilities; similarly,
the simplicity of the system results in a reduction inadministration costs for port authorities.
IWC expert discussions focussed on fee systems
that incentivise and streamline waste delivery at port
reception facilities and also on the Global Integrated
Shipping Information system (GISIS) website71. The
website, provided and managed by IMO, has thepotential to be more up to date in terms of specificidentification of those ports and waste management71

https://gisis.imo.org/Public/Default.aspx

providers that accept and/or recycle end of life fishinggear and could provide additional useful information,such as restrictions on gear and recycling potential.

Imposing fines – part-MBI
Fines are imposed as a penalty for committing an
offence. They are not a pure market based instrument(they don’t directly impact pricing or costs) and constitute a halfway between a command-and-control
and an MBI tool (ten Brink et al, 2009; Ecorys, 2011).
Fines can be determined using different parameters(e.g. costs of damage, on an “affordability basis” or on
legal limits), can address different activities ending up
producing marine litter and may be issued to punish a
specific action or inaction (Box 9.9).
In order for this specific tool to be effective, it has tobe carefully designed and collection and enforcement
must be carefully implemented. For example, in Chile,
littering is forbidden by law and subject to fines but
the absence of enforcement weakens the efficiencyof this measure.

146

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES9

Box 9.8

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

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

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

adapted from Gitti et al. 2015

147

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.9

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

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

9.3
REMOVAL MEASURES – BEPS

Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishingg65ear (ALDFG)
Removal of ALDFG, using environmentally sensitivetechniques, can yield several benefits. It provides
immediate benefits to marine animals, including cetaceans, by removing gear that is a threat to entanglement and ingestion and has saved thousands ofanimals (McElwee and Morishige, 2010). In addition toconservation concerns, there can be clear economic
benefits to reducing ghost fishing, especially for higher
value commercial species such as crustacea, where
the cost-benefit ratio of removal costs versus increased
fishing yields may exceed 1:10 (Gilardi et al. 2010). It
has been argued that paying fishermen to remove derelict gear, in targeted programmes during non-fishing
periods, can be cost-effective, as well as educationaland hence potentially encouraging more responsible
fisheries activity (Scheld et al. 2016). Free-floating
ALDFG may be more difficult to locate, but strategies
have been developed both for the North Pacific(McElwee et al. 2012) and the Gulf of Carpentaria(Wilcox et al. 2014), involving some combination ofocean circulation modelling and observation (e.g. satellite or airborne remote sensing; Mace 2012).

Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI)The GGGI was officially launched in September
2015 with the aim to: ‘improve the health of marine
ecosystems, protect marine animals and safeguard
human health and livelihoods’72. It represents across-sectoral alliance including the fishing industry, private sector, academia, governments, IGOs
and NGOs. It brings together a number of existing
ghost net removal initiatives and is part of the GPML.
The GGGI website provides examples from aroundthe world of initiatives to reduce, remove and re-use
ghost nets (Figure 9.8). These range from purely
altruistic actions to those that create a financial benefit to local communities (Box 9.8).
Established programmes for recovery of fishing gear
There have been established programmes for ALDFG
in many regions for some years (Table 9.2). For example, removal operations have been coordinated by
NOAA targeting fish traps off the NW coast of the
USA and drift nets off the Hawaiian archipelago(Figure 9.9).

72

148

http://www.ghostgear.org/

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

9

Figure 9.8

Screen shot from the GGGI website showing an interactive map ofghost net initiatives, with an example from the Philippines

Box 9.10

NET-WORKS

This is collaboration between local partners, the Zoological Society of London and two private sector
companies (Interface Inc. produces carpet tiles; Aquafil manufactures synthetic fibres). The regionof the Danajon Bank (Philippines) is a biodiversity ‘hot spot’ but has been subject to overfishing andpollution. This initiative has resulted in the removal of 61 tonnes of discarded nets to date with 41
tonnes recycled into carpet tiles.
As a result of the programme there has been a reduction in the deliberate discarding of nets, creating a benefit both to the local community and the natural environment. A new collection hub is being
established in Northern Iloilo in the central Philippines and in the Lake Ossa region in Cameroon
Central Africa.

149

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Figure 9.9

Recovery of fishing net using free divers and air bags,
PapahƗnaumokXƗkea Marine National Monument,
Northwestern Hawaii Islands (image courtesy Kris
McElee and NOAA Marine Debris Program)

Table 9.2
Time frame

Gear Amount Recovered

Project / source

Geographical Area

1996 - 2014

820 metric tons of DFG (andother marine debris)

NOAA‘s Pacific Islands
Fisheries Science Centre

Papahanaumokuakea MNM

2006 - 2012

60+ tons removed

CA lost fishing gear recovery

Coastal California

2004 - 2012

12 000+ nets

GhostNets Australia

Australia

2008 - 2013

161 nets; 28 934 crab pots;
4 202 other pots

CCRM VIMS

Chesapeake Bay, US

2000 - 2006

10 285 tons

Korean coastal cleanup
campaigns (Hwang and Ko,
2007)

Korea

Not specified

20 tons fishing nets

Healthy Seas Initiative

North Sea, Adriatic Sea,
Mediterranean Sea

Not specified

5 600 traps

Geargrab.org

Gulf of Maine

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

150

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

A pilot project in the Baltic in 2011 and 2012, involving fishermen from Poland and Lithuania, investigated the efficacy and safety of a number of gear
retrieval methods, recovering large quantities of
ALDFG (WWF 2013). It is intended to introduce
similar schemes into other regions on the Baltic.
A retrieval programme in the East Sea, off Korea,
removed approximately 460 tonnes of ALDFG fromthe seabed, at an average depth of 1 700 m (Cho2011). Removal operations in such deep waters are
inherently more difficult and potentially carry more risk
than carrying out recovery in shallower waters.
MARLITT Toolkit for derelict litter projects
MARLITT is a pilot project funded by the EC aimed
at developing good practice for the removal of litterand derelict fishing gear from Europe’s four regional
seas73. A Toolkit has been produced which offers
practical guidance on setting up locally-based programmes to remove ALDFG (MARLITT 2015a). A
second Toolkit provides guidance on preventing litter
entering the ocean, with a particular focus on fisheries and ports (MARLITT 2015b).
Nets to energy
The multi-partner marine debris group in Hawaii has
been running a successful programme, since 2002,
to collect ALDFG nets from beaches, coral reefs andcoastal waters. Instead of going to landfill, as happened previously, the nets are chopped into small
pieces and then incinerated to produce steam to drivea turbine generating electricity. So far 800 tonnes ofnets have been processed, producing enough electricity to power 350 homes for a year74.
Reducing the impact of ALDFG
The impact of ALDFG can be reducing by improved
design, so that ghost fishing can be reduced even if
the gear is not retrieved. This is most clearly demonstrated in the design and use of materials in pots andtraps. Components such as panels or hinges thatare fully biodegradable in seawater can significantly
reduce the catching efficiency of the gear (Bilkovic
et al. 2012).

Fishing for litter
The Fishing for Litter initiative was introduced by
KIMO International75, an organisation for local municipalities in NW Europe, to provide a cost-effective
solution for dealing with litter that is inadvertently
collected during commercial fishing operations. The
scheme consists of providing fishing fleets with largebags in which litter can be stored on-board, prior tobeing deposited on the quayside for proper disposal,
at no cost to the fishermen. The scheme runs in four
regions of northern Europe: the Baltic, Netherlands,
Scotland and SW England. It is supported in theBaltic by HELCOM which also applies the no-special
fee system to marine litter caught in fishing nets.

Rescue and recovery of trapped animals – BEP
Several organisations run volunteer or semi-professional programmes to train those who may come into
contact with an entangled animal in rescue techniques(Box 9.9). The overall concern is with the welfare of
the trapped animal while ensuring the safety of thosecarrying out the rescue operation. For some endangered species, such as the North Atlantic right whale,
the loss of an individual may threaten the survival of
the species. There is an inherent danger in a situation
involving an often large and distressed animal, floating ropes and nets and human divers. Unfortunately,
there have been human fatalities. The IWC has beenat the forefront to develop and promote effective andsafe rescue techniques76. There are also many smaller-scale initiatives to rehabilitate animals that havebeen rescued and need attention before release.

Shorelines
Countless shoreline programmes have been conducted
in recent years, by a variety of special interest and citizens’ groups, NGOs and corporations, government
agencies and municipalities. Initiatives may be organised at local, national, regional or global scales. They
have two functions: one is to raise awareness of the
problem of marine littering; the second is to remove
material that would otherwise cause potential harm, and73

http://www.marelitt.eu/

75

http://www.kimointernational.org/Home.aspx

74

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/solutions/hawaii-nets-energy-program76

https://iwc.int/entanglement

151

9

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Box 9.11

INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE THE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE RESCUE OF ENTANGLED ANIMALSInternational Whaling Commission
The IWC has developed comprehensive principles, guidelines and training courses for large whale
entanglement response efforts. The goals are human safety, animal welfare, conservation, datacollection and awareness raising. The programme is informed by the IWC Expert Advisory Panel on
Entanglement Response
International Fund for Animal welfare (IFAW)The IFAW trains volunteers in practical techniques to rescue and release trapped cetaceans andseals, using a variety of equipment such as grappling hooks, floating buoys, long cutting poles andspecial cutting knives and shears (IFAW 2012).
British Divers Marine Life Rescue (BDMLR)
The BDMLR has trained more than 400 British divers in how to use cutting and restraint gear for
entangled animals as part of its rescue and rehabilitation training programme (BDLMR 2012).
Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC)
The WDC uses whale watching initiatives as a means for research and monitoring the health of populations. This provides a means of reporting animals entangled in floating debris to prompt rescue
missions (WDCS 2012).
NOAA
NOAA provides guidance to the public on rescuing trapped or entangled animals (NOAA 2012).

gradually degrade to form microplastics. Some examples of large-scale schemes are given below (EC 2012).
Blue Flag
This began initially in France but has expanded to encompass all of Europe, southern Africa, and the Caribbean. The
originally (1985) French concept of the Blue Flag wasdeveloped on a European level to include also other areasof environmental management, such as waste management and coastal planning and protection.
Clean Up the WorldThis is a community based environmental programmethat invites community groups, schools, businesses, andlocal governments to join as Members and carry out

community-based activities that address local environmental issues. It engages an estimated 35 million volunteers in 130 countries each year. Clean Up the World isheld over the 3rd weekend in September.
International Coastal Cleanup (ICC)
This is a global project co-ordinated by the Ocean
Conservancy, a U.S. non-governmental organization.
The project involves over 70 countries worldwide in littersurveys and beach cleans over the same weekend in
September.
Project AWARE Foundation
International Cleanup Day events involve thousands ofdive volunteers removing trash from more than 900

152

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

global dive locations in 100 countries and territories.
Project AWARE coordinates the underwater portion ofInternational Cleanup Day in cooperation with the
Ocean Conservancy.
World Environment Day
This UN day is celebrated each year on 5 June andis one of the principal vehicles through which UNEP
stimulates worldwide awareness of the environment
and focuses political attention and action.

BATs for litter capture and removal in rivers andharbours
Systems to capture floating plastics near the source
can prove to be a cost-effective way of preventing plastics reaching the ocean. Several innovative
Techniques have been developed and some examples are provided here (Figure 9.10).

Figure 9.10a

Figure 9.10b

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

153

9

9

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

Korea has been at the forefront of developing practical engineering approaches and infrastructure toaddress marine debris in Korean water. This includes
the development of floatation booms and modified
grapple and other devices for removing material fromthe seabed and sea surface, including ALDFG (Junget al. 2010). Other developments include a portable
volume reduction unit for EPS buoys and a full treatment and recycling plant for marine debris (Figure9.14).

Removing plastics from mid-ocean
When the headlines ‘the Great Pacific Garbage
Patch’ first emerged there were some individuals who
misconstrued this to mean there was a floating islandof debris in the middle of the ocean. They thought it
contained so much material that it readily could becollected and converted for some other use, perhaps
fuel to replace the energy utilised in the collection
mission. It took some time to dispel this myth but
others have emerged more recently who appear tobelieve that an ocean ‘clean-up’ is both practical anddesirable. Most prominent of the groups proposing a‘solution’ is the Ocean Cleanup Project, initiated in
the Netherlands. Currently this consists of a 60
km-wide floating net array deployed in the North
Pacific, with plastic collected and stored for ‘recycling’. This high profile campaign has high ambitions

and expectations, and the organisers make the astonishing claim that: ‘A single Ocean Cleanup Array canclean up half the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 10
years’ time77.
The logic for the efficacy of the OCA system isflawed for several reasons, but most importantly
there appears to have been little consideration of
the ecological impact of installing a 60 km barrier tofree floating organisms, even assuming mobile forms
could avoid capture. The overwhelming view of marine
scientists who have discussed this issue in open scientific debate, since the idea was first mooted, isthat ocean clean-ups, of the sort envisaged by OCA,
are at best a distraction from tackling the problem atsource and at worst will cause unnecessary harm78 79.
If such schemes are to be proposed then there must
be an onus on the developers to arrange a fully independent environmental impact assessment and LCA,
before proceeding with full-scale field trials.

77

http://www.theoceancleanup.com/

78

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29631332

79

http://www.5gyres.org/blog/posts/2015/6/17/5-reasons-why-ocean-plastic-recovery-schemes-are-a-terrible-idea

Figure 9.11

Schematic of the treatment process for marine debris developed in Korea (adapted from Jung et al. 2010)

154

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSA SELECTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES

9.4
IMPOSING PRODUCT BANS
Examples of product bans range from grass roots
campaigns to remove goods from a well-definedsource, such as shops on university campuses, tobans imposed by national governments on certain
types of plastic bags.
Several governments in Africa have introduced, orare planning to introduce legislation to ban or restrict
the use of conventional plastic shopping bags, usually below a certain minimum thickness (South Africa,
Tanzania, Kenya, Rwanda, Mauritania and Uganda80).
This has been prompted by the severe problems
discarded bags have caused, for example by blocking drains and open sewers or causing the death of
livestock, in countries where solid waste disposal ispoorly developed and regulated. In other sub-Saharan countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra
Leone, plastic bags are considered essential to provide clean drinking water and they are much more
affordable than plastic bottles. This illustrates why
those promoting litter reduction measures have totake account of the economic and social dimensionsof the local communities.

Alternatives to outright product bans are voluntaryagreements, which may be easier to achieve. The
industry body Cosmetics Europe has issued a recommendation to all its members to phase out the useof microplastics in wash-off cosmetic products by
202082.

82

http://www.5gyres.org/blog/posts/2015/8/12/ucla

Photo: © Erik de Castro / Reuters

Student interventions have been successful in banning the sale of bottled water on several University
and College campuses in the USA, accompanied by
the refurbishment of drinking water fountains. In the
USA a student-led campaign, at the Univ. California
Los Angeles, resulted in the removal of all PCCP
products containing microbeads81. The message ofthis grassroots campaign has been matched by anumber of States in the USA which moved to ban
microbeads from PCCPs. However, these efforts
have been superseded by the ‘Microbead-Free
Waters Act’, passed unanimously by the US Houseand Senate in December 2015, and signed into law
by President Obama on 4 January 2016. The phaseout is due to begin on 1 July 2017.

80

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20891539

81

http://www.5gyres.org/blog/posts/2015/8/12/ucla

155

9

10

156

10. RISKASSESSMENT
AND GUIDELINEFOR SELECTING
MEASURES

ferred by specialists (Box 10.1). It is an approachthat is routinely applied in every aspect of humanactivity, ranging from formal risk assessments, forexample in major construction projects, to informal
decision-making by individuals, for example on whento cross a busy road.

Risk = likelihood/probability x consequence/
hazardIn the context of marine litter, the hazard is the presence and potential impact of plastic items/particles
and the likelihood is the extent or rate of encounter.
The earlier sections of this report describe the sourceand distribution of the potential hazard (macro andmicroplastics), and the potential impact. Estimating
the degree of risk provides a more robust basis for
decisions on whether or how to act to reduce the risk,
if it is considered unacceptable, than simply reacting to popular appeal or an advocacy group, however
well intentioned.

10.1
DEFINING RISKIn simple terms risk is defined as the likelihood (orprobability) that a consequence (or hazard) will occur.
Terms such as likelihood and consequence may be
more familiar to a non-technical audience, whereas
probability and hazard are terms that may be pre-The risk of a significant impact occurring will varydepending on the ecosystem component being
assessed, the nature of the hazard and the likelihoodof the hazard occurring (Table 10.1)

Table 10.1
Risk category

Risk outcomeHigh

The risk is very likely to occur

Moderate

The risk is quite likely to be expressedLow

In most cases the risk will not be expressed

Extremely low

The risk is likely to be expressed only rarely

Negligible

The probability of the risk being expressed is so smallthat it can be ignored in practical terms

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

157

10

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

be adapted
components,• Chemical contamination of commercial species (seafood safety)– shellfish aquaculture (e.g. South Korea)• Injury or death to endangered species– North Atlantic right whale, Hawaiian monk seal
• Injury or death to rare or iconic species– humpback whale, laysan albatross (Pacific),
leatherback turtle, Stellar sea lion
• Injury or death to indicator species– northern fulmar NE Atlantic), loggerhead turtle(Mediterranean)• Damage to sensitive or critical habitat– tropical reef, cold water reef
• Loss of commercial species due to ghost
fishing (food security)– Dungeness crab (NW Pacific)

As an illustration, a risk assessment and risk communication study for coastal aquaculture, in which potential hazards associated with water quality were
described in some detail (GESAMP 2008). Hazards
were ranked from negligible to catastrophic, andaccompanied by a description of the effects (Table
10.2).

The hazard
readilyforfor example:

descriptions canotherecosystem

Similar tables can be developed for a variety of maritime sectors or ecosystem components (i.e. species, habitats, functional groups) and for a wide
range of potential hazards. For example, Lithner et al(2011) developed an environmental and health

Table 10.2
Degree of hazard

Description of hazard

Catastrophic• Irreversible change to ecosystems performancein the faunal-province [regional] level; or• The extinction of a species or rare habitatHigh• High mortality for an affected species or significant changes
in the function of an ecosystem• Effects would be expected to occur at the level of a single coastal or oceanic body
• Effects would be felt for a prolonged period after the culture activities stop (greater thanthe period which the new species
was cultured or three generations of the wild species whicheveris the lesser time period)• Changes would not be amenable to control or mitigation

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

Low• Changes are expected to affect the environment and species
at a local level but would be expected to have a negligible effectat the regional or ecosystem scale• Changes would be amenable to mitigation or control• Effects would be of a temporary nature

Negligible• Changes expected to be localised to the production site
and to be of a transitory nature• Changes are readily amenable to control or mitigation

Description of hazards in relation to aquaculture (GESAMP 2008)

158

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

hazard classification of a large number of polymers
and co-polymers. This was based on the UN Global
Harmonised System (UN 2011).

Risk perception
In many cases, a perception of some degree of risk
is required to engage people with the issue and trigger behaviour change. Interest in marine plastics andmicroplastics in the media has increased in the past
decade, in both traditional print media and on-line(GESAMP 2015). Articles have highlighted both the
problem and potential solutions (GESAMP 2016).
In order to promote behaviour change, this is especially important, as individuals need to perceive therelevance of the issue but also how their actions canhelp (Tanner and Kast 2003). However, empiricalresearch on public risk perception of microplastics
and nano-plastics is still lacking.
Nano-plastics
Nano-plastics are an emerging issue because monitoring methods have not been developed yet and thescale of industrial production is unclear. However,there has been a literature around the perception of“nanotechnologies” in the social sciences since theearly 2000s. As opposed to other contested issues
in new technology development (e.g., GM foods),
public opinion on nanotechnologies appears to belargely positive, with ‘discussion of risk issues […]relatively limited so far’ (Pidgeon & Rogers-Hayden2007). Satterfield et al. (2009) provide a meta-analysis of recent studies into public perceptions of nanotechnology. Their key findings are that three quartersof people surveyed in the US, UK and Canada believe
the benefits outweigh the risks of nanotechnologies,
but more than 40% are unsure. This uncertainty is stillpresent in more recent work and has been linked tohigh fragility and mobility of attitudes (e.g. Satterfield
et al. 2012). This is a societal risk because new
information or a future risk event has the potential
to change public opinion rapidly in the case of such
unstable attitudes.

10.2
IDENTIFYING INTERVENTION POINTS - RISKASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS
Risk assessment frameworks
Risk assessments generally follow a similar set ofsteps, and a variety of conceptual frameworks havebeen proposed to illustrate this process. These tend
to have a number of common features, beginning withproblem identification and formulation followed by acharacterization of exposure and effect (GESAMP
2008). Ideally this should lead to the identificationof potential intervention points and an evaluation of
possible risk management actions, to ‘close the loop’.
Risk Assessment Frameworks provide a means offormalising the process of examining a system in context, describing possible consequences if a failure in
the system occurs and predicting the likelihood of a
failure occurring (Figure 10.1). Evaluating the context is an essential first step (Fletcher 2015). Thisrequires communication and consultation with thoseindividual or organisational stakeholders who may bedirectly or indirectly affected, a process that should
be maintained throughout. The risk assessment consists of three stages: risk identification, risk analysis
and risk evaluation. A decision can then be made on
the best way to treat this risk. The system and risk
assessment process needs to be monitored and kept
under review so that adjustments can be made. Thismodel can be applied to complex construction projects, such as building a nuclear power station, as
well as more straightforward decisions about keeping
a beach free from litter. The risk assessment corresponds to the Impact-Response part of the DPSIR
framework (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response,
Chapter 10.3).
This approach can be applied to a wide range ofpotential marine plastic impacts. Two examples havebeen developed to illustrate the approach (Figures10.2 and 10.3). The first is an actual case involving
the entanglement of marine turtles in ALDFG in the
Gulf of Carpentaria, in northern Australia. Marine
turtles are subject to significant impacts by marine
plastic litter, both due to ingestion (Camedda et al.
2014) and entanglement (Wilcox et al. 2014). This
represents an additional pressure for taxa whose
individuals are routinely caught as by-catch in active
fishing gear and whose nesting sites are subject toloss and disturbance (refs). The Gulf of Carpentaria
is an important breeding area for several species ofturtle (flat- back Natator depressus, green Chelonia
mydas, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricate, loggerhead
Caretta caretta, and olive Ridleys turtles Lepidochelys
olivacea; Wilcox et al. 2014). The region is subject
to an influx of ALDFG from the extensive fisheriesof South-east Asia with a consequent loss of turtles
due to entanglement. The risk from entanglement has
been quantified by mapping the distribution of turtles and predicting the drift trajectories of ghost nets
using an ocean circulation model, to estimate probable encounter rates (Wilcox et al 2015). The illustration of the use of a formal risk assessment framework
in Figure 10.2 is based on information provided by

159

10

10

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Figure 10.1

Risk Assessment Framework (proposed by Fletcher 2015).

Wilcox et al. (2015a). The second example (Figure10.3) is of a hypothetical risk assessment of thepotential impact of microplastics on bivalve aquaculture, specifically contamination by chemicals associated with the microplastics. In this case the risk fromchemicals contamination was evaluated to be within
regulatory limits, but action was deemed necessary
to minimise changes in consumer behaviour due to aperception of unacceptable risk.

Identifying priority areas for intervention
It is important to ensure that efforts to reduce the leakage of macro and microplastic into the ocean, remove
what is already there, or in some other way mitigate
the impact, are both well-directed and cost-effective.
There are multiple potential areas for intervention but
assigning priorities as to which to tackle and how to
select an approach need to be guided by the risks
or not taking action (i.e. what is the hazard) and theconsequences of taking action; i.e. is there a realistic
prospect of an intervention being effective, without
introducing some unwelcome effect.
Setting priorities needs to be done at an appropriate governance scale (local, nation, regional) andtake account of the social, economic and ecological context. In this report, several sectors have beenhighlighted as having the potential to leak substantial
quantities of macro or microplastics in to the ocean(Chapter 5), or create significant impacts (Chapter
7). However, the relative importance of any of thesepotential sources, and the pathways by which material reaches the ocean, will be very regionally dependent. There may be cases of being able to ‘pick the
low-hanging fruit’, i.e. implementing a simple low-cost
solution which brings about an immediate improvement. In other cases, there may be complex social,political and economic hurdles to overcome. In somecases, technological developments and interventions
will be needed.

160

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Figure 10.2

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

Figure 10.3

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

161

10

10

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURESThis report stops short of identifying specific priority
areas. But it is hoped that the information and guidance
it contains will enable practitioners, policy-makers andthe general public to make better-informed choices andchoose the most appropriate response (Chapter 10.3).

10.1
GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING THE APPROACH

Choosing the Response (DPSIR)
The overarching aim of any approach has to be to
reduce the impact of marine plastics, in terms of
ecology, society or economics. The main concern
may be focussed on one or a combination of all
three. The Driver – Pressure – State – Impact –Response (DPSIR) conceptual framework is quite
widely used to place activities and their impacts incontext, and to map potential responses (Niemeijer
and de Groot 2008, Alexander et al. 2015). It is notintended to be a quantitative risk assessment tool,
but it does provide a useful tool for structuring communication between scientists and end-users/decision makers (Maxim et al. 2009). Figure 10.4
illustrates the relationships within the DPSIR framework for marine plastic litter between the major
Drivers (e.g. food security, energy generation), thePressures or stressors that are a consequence (e.g.
fisheries, shipping), the change in the state of theenvironment (e.g. plastic litter in the ocean), and thepotential impact in terms of a loss of ecosystem services (e.g. navigation hazard to shipping, injury oforganism due to ingestion). The impact here isdefined in socio-economic terms as a welfare
impact; i.e. there is an effect on an ecosystem service that society considers undesirable. Note, there
will usually be a cost-benefit trade-off to achieve thedesired reduction in welfare impact without undue
cost to the underlying driver (Mee et al. 2015). The
DPSIR conceptual framework will be further
extended, or complemented, for example looking at
risks to biodiversity by introducing four spheres ofsustainability (environmental, economic, social, andpolitical) (Maxim et al. 2009).

Figure 10.4

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

162

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURESThe selection of appropriate measure must be
guided by several processes:
1. defining the problem – context and objectives;
2. carrying out a risk assessment, to establish thenature of the risk and justify intervention;
3. establishing which element of the DPSIR
framework should be targeted (Driver, Pressure,State or Impact); and4. evaluating the most appropriate response –selection of measures.
At all stages there needs to be a mechanism in place
for consultation and communication, and a process
to review and monitor the risk and consequences of
introducing the measure. The possible measures toreduce the impact of marine plastics can be categorised broadly as follows:

A framework for guiding the selection of appropriate
measures is presented in Figure 10.4
The DPSIR framework can be used also to illustratepotential measures to reduce the loss of ecosystemservices. This is the Response element of DPSIR.
The response can involve the driver, pressure, state
or welfare elements. Figure 10.4 indicates possible
responses to reduce the welfare impact of injury tomarine turtles from marine litter resulting from entanglement in ALDFG and ingestion of plastic bags.
Each driver will require a specific set of responses
and intervention points, some of which may becommon and some of which may relate solely to thatdriver. Both market-based and non-market-basedmarine litter reduction solutions are described in thefollowing sections.

Photo: © Danish Siddiqui / Reuters

1. influencing behaviour change by raisingawareness and education;
2. encouraging best/good practice;
3. introducing Best Available Techniques/Technologies (BATs);

4. utilising market-based instruments;
5. introducing guidelines or voluntary agreements
and codes of practice; and6. introducing legislation.

163

10

10

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Figure 10.5a

A framework for guiding the selection of appropriate Responses to reduce or mitigate against the impact of marine plastic debris (original by P.J. Kershaw).

Figure 10.5b

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

164

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Criteria for evaluating Best Practices

Criteria for selecting Best Available Techniques

Best Practices (or Best Environmental Practices, BEPs)
generally involve lower financial investment than Best
Available Techniques/Technologies (BATs). Some
BEPs are developed by public or private bodies. Others
may be more dependent on volunteering, citizens’
groups, special interest groups and NGOs.
Dissemination and stakeholder involvement is key toestablishing appropriate BEPs and promulgating goodpractice. The use of the term ’best’ can be unhelpful. A
practice may be ‘good enough’ to bring about a worthwhile improvement, even though it may not be the ‘best’possible had sufficient resources or time been available.

A number of criteria have been put forward to evaluate BATs in the waste management sector (Tetra
Tech 2015), which may have wider applicability to
the selection of BATs in other sectors. The aim is toensure that the proposed BAT is appropriate to thesocial and economic setting:

Many factors contribute to what makes a practice‘good’, and one that may be ideal in a certain set ofcircumstances may be inappropriate in an alternative
setting. These factors may include:
1. Effective communication, education and willingness to collaborate on the part of the public,
authorities and user groups
2. The availability of, and willingness to use, local/
specialist knowledge
3. A recognition of the local and regional social,
cultural and economic circumstances
4. The availability of start-up funding
5. A mechanism to ensure longer term viability,
possibly through self-financing
There are many examples of good practice and it canbe difficult to judge their relative success. An evaluation
tool, DeCyDe-4-MARLISCO, has been designed toprovide a means to select optimal solutions for marine
litter reduction based on existing good practices(Loizidou et al. 2014). To be successful, the approachrequires the active participation of a representative
group of stakeholders. Eleven measures were judged
to be the most effective out of 73 that were evaluated(Annex IX).
Four evaluation criteria were applied:

1. What is the scale and affordability of the technology for a local government or business? What
are the financing opportunities?
2. Is the technology a good fit for the types andquantities of waste materials generated in thecommunity?
3. Does the technology process include local
communities in technology innovation, modification and implementation, providing continuing job
opportunities?
4. Is the technology going to result in a processthat continues to employ or increase job opportunities for local workers, or will it displace people
from existing jobs?
5. Is the technology understandable without highlevels of training? Can it be controlled and maintained by local community members without specialized education?
6. Is the technology sustainable, both withrespect to the environment and to technology
repair and replacement when and if skilled professional support is no longer available?
7. Will the technology have an adverse impact
on the environment?
8. Will the technology contribute to community
members working together to improve the qualityof life/standard of living?
9. Is the technology adaptable and flexible? Can
it be adapted to changing circumstances such asincreases or decreases in tonnage or more stringent environmental regulations?

Criteria for selecting Market-based Instruments(MBIs)

1. Impact – a measure of the effectiveness of thechosen practice at bringing about a significant
reduction when applied as intended to a specificregion or case;
2. Applicability or exploitability – a measure of
the degree to which the practice could be applied
more widely;
3. Sustainability – a measure of the longevity of thepractice, taking account of social, environmental
and economic considerations; and4. Data and information availability.

There is a variety of MBIs that can be used to both reduce
the production of waste that could become marine litterand incentivize good behaviour (e.g. avoid littering, illegal
waste disposal). Some are explicitly targeted at marine
litter, others have multiple or broader foci (e.g. waste
reduction in general), and others focus elsewhere but
can help address marine litter (e.g. fees for waste management infrastructure and collection services). MBIs
must comply with existing national and international
agreements and legislation, such as the WTO.

165

10

10

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSRISK ASSESSMENT AND GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING MEASURES

Positive incentives
Economic incentives are implemented to stimulate a
specific behaviour that can help reduce marine litter.
There are a number of incentives which can be used
to address marine litter, involving a number of stakeholders at different levels – including deposit refund
schemes as well as payments, subsidies or awards
for certain actions.
Disincentives
There are also a number of financial disincentives,
these can be applied at several levels. What differentiates the two groups is the fact that disincentives
aim at changing behaviours by discouraging badones, where incentives are based on promotion ofgood behaviours.
Criteria have been put forward for testing the suitability of a MBI (UNEP 2016c):
1. Has it the potential to be a fair instrument (putting burdens in their due place)?
2. Will it avoid unacceptable social impacts?
• Will it avoid any negative effect on the more
vulnerable members of society?
• Is it affordable?
3. Is it consistent with other important economic
objectives? (e.g. budget deficit, competitiveness,
inflation, and balance of payments)
4. Is the instrument likely to be cost-effective?
(i.e., more effective than other instruments suchas regulatory, educational or other economic
instrument; no major additional costs to implement, etc.)
5. Does the instrument lead to efficient pricing?
(i.e., improve pricing such that the market price iscloser to resource / social pricing)
6. Are the instrument and the rationale behind
it understandable and deemed credible by the
stakeholders / public?
7. Is there capacity to design, implement andenforce such an instrument by the authorities?
• Is the available administrative / infrastructural
capacity (skills, staff) sufficient?
• Are there sufficient resources to coveradditional administrative costs?
• Are sufficient data available?

1. Political will, political acceptability and buy in,which often builds on perceptions of probablesuccess.
2. Public acceptability – the public needs tounderstand why there is an instrument (whatproblem does it deal with), that various options
have been explored and that the choice is fair andappropriate.
3. Communication – to ensure public acceptability,
awareness of the benefits of responding, awareness of the ways of responding to the instrument,
and that the authorities are serious about the
instrument.
4. Regulatory and institutional framework inplace - capacity to monitor and enforce current
legislation. This has to be credible to make theinstrument work. Monitoring and enforcement
require financial support.
5. Physical infrastructures in place – e.g., waste
collection, management and recycling infrastructures.
6. National considerations – economic, political,
and institutional – are significant and should not
be minimised or underestimated.
In many cases public acceptability is linked to demonstrating a clear link between the imposition of a fee
and supposed benefit. For example, revenues fromtaxes applied on the tourism sector and other recreational users of coastal areas (e.g. car park charges
near beaches, fees for recreational fishers) can contribute to funding coastal clean-up, waste collection
and treatment, helping to alleviate pressure on local
authority budgets. Tourists’ willingness to pay suchtaxes depends on several factors including the age
and income of tourists, and whether there is a link
between the tax and litter control (Oosterhuis et al.,2014).

Once the best instrument has been chosen, to makeit work effectively, it needs to be well designed andlinked to a number of other supporting instruments. It
needs to be effectively launched, communicated, supported, enforced and monitored. There needs to be:

166

11

167

11. MONITORING
AND ASSESSMENT

techniques are used for monitoring microplastics insediments (reviewed in (Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012,
van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015, Rocha-Santos andDuarte 2015). These methods include density separation, filtration and/or sieving Hidalgo-Ruz et al.
2012, Rocha-Santos & Duarte, 2015). To facilitate
the plastic extraction among organic components
such as organic debris (shell fragments, small organisms, algae or sea grasses, etc.), solutions can beapplied to selectively digest and remove the organic
material (Galgani et al. 2011, Hidalgo-Ruz et al.
2012, Cole et al. 2014) such as for water samples.
These are described in more detail in Annex X.

11.1
SUMMARY OF MONITORING METHODSRiversObtaining representative samples of macro andmicroplastics in rivers can be problematic. For surface sampling of microplastics stationary or towed
nets have been used. Alternatively, an underwater
pump can be used to collect water which is thenpassed through a net (van der Wal et al. 2015). A
floating sampler has been developed in Europe, forlarger items (> 3.2 mm), by the organisation Waste
Free Water. This is in two parts, with a surface net
and a suspension net collecting at a depth of 0.2
to 0.7 m (van der Wal et al. 2015). Measuring thetransport of material along the river bed has been
undertaken using bottom nets designed for fishing(Mirrit et al. 2014). In addition floating booms havebeen deployed in rivers, harbours and other waterways to serve as litter traps. River flows can be very
episodic, and the quantities of material transported
may vary considerably on an hourly, weekly, seasonalor multi-year basis. In addition, flows are not constantacross the cross-section of the river.

Shorelines
Sampling macroplastics
Several national and regional bodies have developed
protocols for conducting beach surveys (Lippiat etal. 2013, OSPAR 2010, NOWPAP 2007, HELCOM,
JRC 2013). These are designed to reduce variability and bias in the observations, by setting down
guidelines for demarcating sampling protocols, suchas the length and position of transects and recording instructions to place found items in a number of
pre-determined categories.
Sampling microplastics
Sampling for microplastics on shorelines usuallyconsists of passing sediment samples through asieve, either in-situ (Figure 11.1) or in a laboratory (dry or wet sieving). A wide range of sampling

Upper ocean
Observations of macroplastics at sea
Visual sightings of macroplastics from ship-based
observers have been reported since the 1970s(Venrick et al. 1973), and have proved to provide
useful information about litter densities and how
these compare between regions and over time. There
has been an effort to standardise the observational
methods used to reduce potential bias in the data.
Factors such as wave and light conditions, and theheight of the observer relative to the sea face can allcontribute to variations in the number of items measured. A simple methodology has been proposed thatshould greatly improve the robustness of observations, allowing a more coherent picture of the distribution of floating plastic objects to be constructed intime and space (Ryan 2013). This takes account of
the minimum size of items counted, the distance of
items from the ship, the height of the observer above
sea level, and the position of the observer relative
to the ship’s bow wave. In extreme cases, aircraft
or satellite observations may provide a role, particularly in the aftermath of natural disasters, such as the2011 Tǀhoku earthquake tsunami in the North Pacific(NOAA 2015).
ALDFG
A number of strategies are being developed for at-sea
detection of floating ALDFG, including using aircraft
and satellite observation (Morishige and McElwee2012), combined with ocean circulation modelling(Wilcox et al. 2013).
Sampling microplastics
Microplastics are usually sampled using towed nets,
originally designed for sampling plankton. Manta
trawls are commonly used for surface sampling andBongo nets for mid-water (Figure 11.2). Mesh sizes
may vary (0.053 – 3 mm) but most surveys use a 330

168

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Figure 11.1

Sampling for microplastics on a sandy beach by dry
sieving, near Busan, South Korea,
July 2014. ©Peter Kershaw

μm mesh. Particles below this size are captured but
are under-represented. Net apertures vary from 0.03
to 2 m2, depending on the type and shape. Smaller
mesh sizes result in increased net resistance andclogging, resulting in under-sampling and potentially ripping. This can be partly lessoned by increasing the surface area of the net. Results are usuallyreported in number of items or mass of items m-2 orm-3. More recently some researchers have started touse on-board filtration of seawater (Desforges et al.
2014). This allows underway sampling while maintaining normal steaming speeds, with filtration tosmaller size ranges being possible.
Long-term data from Continuous Plankton Recorders(CPRs), sampling on regular and fixed routes, havealso been used to determine relative microplastic
abundance, including retrospective evaluation ofarchived samples and is now considered as a routine part of on-going CPR analysis (Cole, 2011). The
CPR samples the water column at about 10m depth,
using 280 μm mesh, so the data are not readily comparable with data from standard towed nets.

Seabed observations
As more studies are completed it has come apparent
that significant quantities of plastic debris are lying on
the seabed in parts of the global ocean. Some studies have been based on direct observation by cameras (Pham et al.), whereas others have been based

169

11

11

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Figure 11.2

Towed Manta trawl for sampling the ocean surface
for floating microplastics – (NOAA News Archive)on recovery in towed bottom trawls, as part of routine
fisheries management surveys. Many larger items will
have been deposited close to the point of release (e.g.
from a ship). Others may have floated and been transported before losing buoyancy and sinking (e.g. fishing gear), or been carried to great depth in canyons
linking the continental shelf to the ocean floor (Galgani
1996, 2000). In shallower waters, side-scan sonarhas been used to locate crab pots in Chesapeake tobetter target removal operations (Havens 2009).

Sampling biota
There are two main approaches used: i) retrieving
and examining dead organisms; and, examining faecal
samples of larger living organisms. A wide variety ofbiota has been examined for the presence of macroand microplastics. However, for monitoring purposes
it is important to identify an appropriate indicator species; i.e. is it characteristic of a region and common
enough to allow repeated sampling. This is expanded
upon below.

greater spatial and temporal coverage. Video-based
systems, with image recognition software, have beentested to monitor beach litter in Japan and the conditions under which litter is deposited or removed fromthe shoreline (Kako et al. 2010). A ship-mounted
video system has been developed for use on ships ofopportunity in the Mediterranean (JRC 2013). These
are still at an early stage of development.
Another approach has been to develop sampling systems for microplastics, to allow water to be pumped
on-board while the ship is underway then passing
through a filtration system. The next step will be toutilise image recognition to describe particle size andshape and introduce some form of rapid analysis to
identify the polymer cost-effectively.

11.2
SETTING BASELINES, INDICATORS ANDTARGETS
Baselines

Automated systems
There are several advantages to developing automated systems to monitor marine plastics, including

In natural sciences a baseline is usually defined as thestate of some element in the environment prior to an
event or some expected change. A baseline survey ofnutrient levels in seawater might be conducted before

170the installation of a wastewater treatment plants, or ofheavy metal concentrations in seabed sediments orbiota prior to the disposal of mine wastes offshore. For
marine plastics we can refer to a baseline state (of zerooccurrence) in the early 1950s, before large-scale
plastics production began. As of 2016 it is reasonable
to assume that there is no longer a ‘pristine’ state, withrespect to marine plastics, anywhere in the ocean.
Instead we have to set a baseline as the state observed
at a particular time or place (e.g. number of plastic
items per unit area/volume/mass in sediment/water/
biota), from which a monitoring programme can establish whether the littering is increasing or decreasing.
This definition differs from a ‘baseline’ as used in economics, which describes the current direction of some
economic measure (i.e. increasing or decreasing).

What makes a good indicator?
In environmental management, indicators are often
used to describe the ‘state’ of the environment; i.e. thedegree to which a selected ‘descriptor’, such as thenumber of large fish, departs from an optimal state. In
most cases this optimal state is not the same as pristine; i.e. before the influence of human activities.
Instead, a ‘target state’ can be selected on the understanding that it will be possible to introduce management measures in order to achieve this (Table 11.1).
A good indicator has the following attributes:

1. Scientifically valid
2. Simple to understand by public and policy
makers
3. Sensitive and responsive to change
4. Cost-effective
5. Policy-relevant
A number of other factors will need to be taken into
account when identifying appropriate indicators andsetting targets:
1. The purpose of the assessment
2. Degree of granularity in the description of thecomponents selected for monitoring83
3. Spatial variations in the property being measured – local, national, regional (<1 m – 100s km)
4. Temporal variations in the component being
measured – daily, weekly, annually, inter-annual,
episodic84
5. The availability of cost-effective sampling and harmonised monitoring techniques and approaches

83

Within the MSFD, 217 separate categories of marine litter have been
identified; JRC/EC, 2013.

84

For example, within the European Union this is referred to as ‘Good
Environmental Status’ under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive http://www.msfd.eu/knowseas/guidelines/3-INDICATORS-Guideline.pdf

Table 11.1
Term

Definition

Examples

Indicator

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

Baseline

A reference State, usually based on data obtainedby monitoring an indicator in the environment

Number of litter items per unit area

Proxy indicator

An indirect measure of a Pressure

Coastal population density, shipping density,
tourist visitor numbers, size and location of fishing fleets, percentage mismanaged solid waste

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

AspirationaltargetA desired state to be achieved in the future, whichcannot be achieved in the short-medium term

Common definitions of environmental indicators

171

11

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Box 11.1

DEFINITION OF CRITERIA USED IN DEVELOPING INDICATORSFOR MARINE LITTER IN EUROPEAN SEAS

Level of maturity: high-used extensively for > 1 decade; medium-used systematically for, 1 decade;low-tool under development, further R&D neededTechnical/equipment – requirements in terms of cost: low - €1K-€10k; medium - €10k-€50k;
high - > €50k
Expertise: low-trained personnel without specific professional qualifications; medium-trained
personnel with specific professional qualifications; high – high skill and expertise required
Cost – total costs incurred: low - €1K-€10k; medium - €10k-€50k; high - > €50k
Level of detail generated: potential of the protocol to generate details and information in terms ofmaterial, nature and purpose of the items sampled, which can be attributed to specific and distinct
sources.
Geographical applicability: potential of the protocol to be applied in any geographic area/region
Limitations: key aspects inherent to the protocol and/or factors that can limit its applicability and/or
generation of reliable and comparable data.
Opportunities to reduce costs: opportunities that can improve cost-effectiveness by making useof other monitoring programmes (e.g. for other MSFD descriptors) and/or maritime operations, inwhich the protocol can be integrated.
(JRC 2013)

Indicators, as defined here, fit within the higher-levelindicators and monitoring framework being developed for the UN SDGs, specifically target 14.1
(Chapter 2)85.
Proposed indicators for marine plastics
A series of indicators for marine plastics has been
proposed in connection with the implementation of
the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML).

85

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2013&menu=35

These include indicators both of environmental Stateand ‘process’ indicators of progress in the implementation of the GPML (Annex XI). These are relatively
high-level indicators that can be adapted to meet theparticular ecological, social and economic circumstances of the nation or region.
Several Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans
have coordinated implementation of Marine Littermonitoring programmes and developed state andimpact indicators related to marine litter with the view
to define good environmental status. For example,
UNEP/MAP has developed an integrated monitoring
and assessment programme based on three regionwide common indicators.

172

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Within the European Union a Framework Directive
has been adopted, providing a Marine Strategy for
European Seas (MSFD; EC 2008). Eleven descriptors have been agreed to describe the State ofEuropean Seas, with targets to define what is Good
Environmental Status (GES) measured by a global
indicator framework and associated SDG indicators.
One of the Descriptors is marine litter. Detailed technical recommendations and guidelines have been
published covering the selection of indicators andappropriate monitoring techniques (JRC 2011, 2013).
A set of criteria has been developed to assist in theselection and implementation of appropriate indicators (Box 11.1). These have been applied to a series
of indicators for macro and microplastics in seawater,
seabed, shoreline and biotas compartments.

Setting realistic targets
Targets are usually set by an administration, so thatthey have a legal basis within which mitigation measures can be developed and implemented. However, it
is only worth setting a target if there is a reasonable
likelihood of achieving it. In the case of marine litter, aconnection has to be made between the presence ofparticular items of litter and a specific source(s) thatcan be controlled. This may be very difficult to establish, as similar items may come from several different
sources (land- and sea-based). A further complication is that items may originate from outside the jurisdiction of the administration. For example, a beachsurvey in the Netherlands indicated that only 42%
of items collected had a local origin (van Franeker2010). This phenomenon is even more marked in thecase of mid-ocean islands and SIDS. If it is unsure
whether a target can be met within the short- to medium-term then an aspirational target may be set. For
example, the EC has adopted an aspirational targetof 30% reduction by 2020 in the top 10 items foundon beaches and fishing gear found at sea (EC 2014).
It may be considered desirable to call for ‘standards’
for the quantities of macro and microplastics in waste
streams or particular environmental compartments. In
some cases, it may be practical to do so. If wastewater is subject to tertiary treatment, then setting astandard of > ‘x’% retention may be achievable. In thecase of PCCPs, it would be possible to require zeroadded microplastic particles. However, in most cases
targets are more likely to be related to achieving proportional reductions, with ‘standards’ set locally totake account of relevant sources, pathways and thesocial, ecological and economic context. Standards
for contaminants in foodstuffs are already availa-

ble through application of the Codex Alimentarius86.
However, there are no standards for the quantities ofnano- or microplastics. In order to develop standards,
it will be necessary to establish the risk relationshipbetween the number of particles and probable harm,
accepting that this will depend on the size, shape,
composition, number and exposure pathway. At present there are no accepted standards for measuring
the concentration of nano- and microplastics in different media. This is an area requiring further investigation, based on pragmatic risk-based assessments,
in order to focus resources on reducing the most significant risks.
Winners and losers
It is also important to consider that there may be ‘winners’ and losers’ from the imposition of management
measures. For example, a ruling could be introduced
requiring that any litter picked up inadvertently during
normal fishing operations be landed in the next portof call. The skipper may then be faced with a bill for
waste treatment that affects profit. This does nothing
to ‘punish’ those who allowed the litter to be introduced to the marine environment, possibly breaking
a law in doing so, but effectively ‘punishes’ someone
else who is following the law. Measures sometimes
have unintended and undesirable consequences.
Substituting glass bottles for plastic bottles in coastal
resorts may bring about a decrease in the number of
discarded plastic bottles. But, if littering continues,
the social consequences may be worse as a result of
injuries from broken glass.

Examples of indicators and trends
Establishing trends in plastic abundance requires a
combination of selecting an appropriate indicator,
developing a robust sampling and analysis strategy,
and maintaining a monitoring programme over a sufficient period to establish a time-series to reveal a trend,
taking account of any inherent variability in the dataset. Globally there are relatively few examples wherethese conditions have been met. However, there havebeen two exceptional studies, both described by van
Franeker and Law (2015): i) surface concentrationsof floating plastics in the North Atlantic gyre (towed
plankton nets); and, ii) the incidence of ingested plastics by the northern fulmar in the greater North Sea.

86

173

http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/standards/en/

11

11

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Biological indicators for plastics have tended to focus
on common species with life traits that favour indiscriminate feeding, or those that might mistake plastic
for food items. Samples are usually taken from animals found beached, to avoid unnecessary culling.
Regional surveys will be species-specific, depending on the characteristic fauna. One of the longest-standing biological indicators was developed in
the Netherlands, based on the quantities of plastic
found in the stomach of the northern fulmar (Fulmarus
glacialis). This approach has now become one of
the ecological quality assessment markers used by
OSPAR to assess both the abundance of plastic
debris at sea and regional differences and trends overtime (van Franeker et al. 2011). Clearly the selectionof a biological indicator will be regionally-dependent.
In the Mediterranean the loggerhead turtle (Caretta
caretta) has been adopted as the most appropriate
indicator species (JRC 2011).

The fulmar indicator clearly shows that the incidenceof plastic has been relatively constant in recent years(Figure 11.3), with higher values occurring close toshipping lanes and areas of industrial development.
One significant trend has been a steady decline in‘industrial’ plastics (i.e. resin pellets). This trend isapparent also in the towed samples from the North
Atlantic gyre. However, the overall incidence of plastics shows a high degree of variability, with no statistically significant trend (Figure 11.4).

Figure 11.4 Incidence of user plastics and industrial
plastics in samples collected from the North Atlantic
gyre, using towed plakton nets (van Franeker and Law
2015)

Figure 11.3

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

174

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Figure 11.4

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

Figure 11.5

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

175

11

11

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Van Franker and Law (2015) compiled a dataset
using published sources for the incidence of plastic
in stomachs of the northern Fulmar from the Pacificand Atlantic. Both datasets showed a latitudinal
dependence, lower incidences at higher latitudes(Figure 10.5).

Developing an indicator framework
The value of the indicator approach is enhanced if ittakes place within a framework, in which issues suchas the monitoring and assessment techniques to be
used and the selection of appropriate indicators canbe agreed and harmonised. Several frameworks havebeen developed under the auspices of regional seas
bodies (NOWPAP, OSPAR, MAP, HELCOM) andwithin the EU (Chapter 2.3).
Meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goals
A framework for monitoring and assessment has been
proposed to help address progress towards meeting

the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals(Figure 11.7; SDSN 2015).
National monitoring is considered the most important level, with national ownership of the process
and monitoring designed to meet national priorities
and needs. National monitoring of the SDGs should“build on existing national and local mechanisms andprocesses, with broad, multi- stakeholder participation.” (SDSN 2015). It is recognized that national
monitoring can be augmented with more informal
programmes, by NGOs and other organisations.
Regional monitoring is seen as building on existing
institutions where appropriate, such as regional seas
bodies. Global SDG indicators are intended to beuniversal. Some are used to track global commons
such as the oceans. Thematic SGD indicators areintended to cover cross-cutting issues such as technology gaps, consumption and production patterns,
and the health sector, at a global scale.

Box 11.2

TEN PRINCIPLES FOR GLOBAL SDG MONITORING INDICES

Limited in number and globally harmonised
Simple, single-variable indicators, with straightforward policy implications
Allow for high frequency monitoring*Consensus-based, in line with international standards and system-based information
Constructed from well-established data sources
Disaggregated
Universal
Mainly outcome-focussed
Science-based and forward-thinking
A proxy for broader issue or conditions(SDSN 2015)(*it may be appropriate to add the caveat ‘monitoring frequency appropriate to meet needs’)176

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Figure 11.6

2,500

2,500

2,000

2,000

1,500

1,500
,500

1,000

1,000

500

500

PUBLICPLASTIC PIECESNON SOURCED
FISHING LITTER
SEWAGE RELATED DEBRISSHIPPING LITTERFLY TIPPED© 2015 Marine Conservation Society.
All Rights Reserved.

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

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

Figure 11.6

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

177

11

11

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

A set of ten Principles has been put forward for setting SDG indicators and an integrated monitoring
framework (Box 11.2). These provide a good set ofoverarching guidelines. But, developing a pragmaticand regionally-relevant set of indicators for marine
litter requires further refinement, as described above.
Several of the SDG goals appear relevant to aspectsof marine litter reduction (Chapter 2). Marine litteris mentioned in SDG Target 14.1 although it is not
mentioned in the description of overarching SDG
indicators. The ten principles are useful but need tobe applied with some consideration for the needs ofparticular circumstances. An alternative to Principle
3 (Box 11.2, ‘allow for high frequency monitoring’)
might be phrased ‘monitoring frequency appropriate
to meet needs’, which may or may not imply high frequency monitoring was required. What is needed ismonitoring optimized to the issue. Factors include thecost of monitoring, management needs and accounting for variability in the system being assessed. Soan annual sample may be adequate given changing amounts of litter in different seasons (storms).
Changes in the incidence of marine debris are likely
to need long-term monitoring in order to observe statistically significant differences.

such as MAP (Mediterranean)87, HELCOM (BalticSea)88 and NOWPAP (NW Pacific)89 have developed
their own region-specific guidelines and recommendations. In addition, MAP, HELCOM and OSPAR are
helping their EU Contracting Parties to implement the
MSFD so they are part of the harmonisation/comparison process.
Further research on methods needs to consider sampling design in terms of: i) the number and the size of
replicates; ii) the spatial extent and the frequency ofsampling; iii) the methods used for sampling (sample
collection, visual observation); and, iv) the methods used for identification of microplastics (RochaSantos and Duate 2015). Although some methods
have been proven useful techniques for monitoring(Galgani et al. 2014, Masura et al. 2015) and identifying the composition of microparticles (Dumichen
et al. 2015), there is still a lack of analytical methods capable of characterizing and quantifying small
sized particles, under 20-30 μm, including nanoparticles from environmental samples and consequently
assessing their concentration. There is also a need toharmonize procedures in order to mitigate airborne
contamination.
Although harmonisation of methods may be a laudable goal, circumstances may dictate that harmonisation is not readily achievable. For example, regional
differences in the nature of marine debris, accumulation zones and technical and infrastructure support
available may require a more tailored approach. Thisshould not prevent comparisons being made, provided comparable approaches have been taken.

11.3
HARMONISATION OF APPROACHES

Monitoring and assessment
A major obstacle in developing more comprehensive
monitoring and assessment programmes has been
the absence of internationally accepted methodologies, for the design and implementation of sampling
and analysis techniques. Without this it is more difficult to combine and compare datasets and detectsignificant changes in the spatial or temporal distributions.
Some progress has been made. UNEP and IOC
together have produced generic guidelines for monitoring marine litter (Cheshire et al. 2009). A major
effort has been underway to harmonise monitoring and assessment techniques with the European
Union, through the introduction of the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive. This lays out a number of objectives and tasks that Member States are required toundertake. ‘Harmonisation is required to allow comparisons between EU countries and ensure a levelplaying field’ (EC 2013). Regional seas organisations

Data sharing
There is a great advantage to be gained in sharing
information about the distribution, fate and impacts ofplastics and microplastics in the ocean. It is becoming
common practise for the results of research-based
field observations of plastics and microplastics to bemade available freely to other researchers, via on-line
databases. Where the data have been publishedin the peer-reviewed literature there is a reasonable expectation that the sampling, analysis, quality87

http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=news&action=detail&id=15888

http://helcom.fi/action-areas/waste-water-litter/marine-litter89

http://www.nowpap.org/ML-RAPMALI.php

178

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

assurance and reporting methods have followed an
accepted protocol, and that details are made available with the results, so that the quality and relevanceof the data can be put into context. The nature of thedata collected will be determined by a wide range offactors, including the primary purpose of the mission,
the research questions being addressed and various
operational constraints. Nevertheless, there is scopefor harmonising some aspects of sample collection
and data recording, and at least making sure that
all relevant information about sampling, analysis andenvironmental context (e.g. geographical position,
sea state, water depth) is recorded and made available. Such metadata are essential to make full use andre-use of the data collected.
Where monitoring is carried out by a regulatory bodythe location and frequency of sampling, together withthe type of analysis carried out, may be determinedby a range of factors, including legal or financial constraints. This may limit the range of information collected. But, the big advantage of a regular monitoring
programme is that trends in environmental state canbe recorded. This is critical for targeting and measuring the success of interventions. Protocols and standards for data collection and sharing form part of the
Action Plans of several Regional Seas Programmes.
These provide an excellent example of how nations
with shared interests in a region can cooperate withgood practice and common approaches, develop
appropriate region-specific measures and monitor
their success. This can be achieved without setting
up complex on-line data repositories, although these
may be helpful in the longer term.

179

11

12
CONCLUSIONSAND
KEY
RESEARCH
NEEDS
180

12. SUMMARY
OF KEYCONCLUSIONS

4
An improved governance framework is needed:• The existing governance landscape provides a basis for an improved governance framework, taking account of the goals and targets of
the Agenda 2030;• Greater effort is needed to make existing governance frameworks more effective,by ensuring full implementation, compliance andoversight.

5
1

Stakeholder engagement is essential:

The moral case:• There is a need to involve all relevant partners
and other stakeholders at every stage of the risk
assessment and exploration of potential measures to reduce the impact of marine plastic litter;• Partnerships are particularly useful for communities or nations that may have common concerns
but be geographically isolated, such as SIDS;• There is a strong moral case that humanity
should not allow the ocean to become morepolluted by plastic debris and microplastics.

2• There is a clear need to move towards a morecircular economic model for the plastic production cycle:• This can be simplified as the 6Rs concept:
Reduce – Redesign – Refuse - Re-use – Recycle– Recover.

3
A Precautionary Approach is justified:• The case for making an intervention should
be justified by making a risk-based assessment,
backed up by adaptive management;

6
Sources of marine plastics are poorly quantified:• ‘Leakage’ of plastics into the environment occurs at all stages of the production-use-waste
management cycle;• The principal land- and sea-based sources
and the main entry points into the ocean havebeen described, but the absolute quantities entering the ocean, and regional differences in therelative importance of different sources, remain
largely unknown.

7• This is to ensure solutions are cost-effective andto minimise unintended negative consequences;• It is likely that large uncertainties in the extent
of ecological, social and economic impacts willremain for some time. These need to be factored into the risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis;• There is a great need to improve techniques
for risk communication between technical specialists, stakeholders and the wider public.

• Impacts of marine plastics have been demonstrated for the social, economic and ecologicaldimensions• Marine macroplastics can lead to injury anddeath, to loss of income and to loss of intrinsic
social values;• Marine macroplastics can cause significant
economic impacts in the fisheries, aquaculture,
shipping and tourism sectors;• Marine macroplastics can cause significant ecological impacts to sensitive habitats, commercially-

181

12

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SUMMARY OF KEY CONCLUSIONS

valuable seafood species, and to the welfare andconservation of vulnerable or endangered species;• Abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear
(ALDFG) causes substantial and wide range of
economic problems and these problems havereceived increasing international attention in thepast decade. Economic costs associated withmarine safety, ghost fishing mortality, compliance,
control, rescue, recovery and research activities
due to ALDFG are complex and have not been
estimated systematically yet;
• Microplastics are widespread in the ocean but
the impact on individuals or populations is not yet
understood;• From the available limited evidence, it is concluded that microplastics in seafood do not currently represent a human health risk, althoughmany uncertainties remain.

8
Social attitudes are important• Social attitudes have a significant effect on littering behaviour and the acceptance of reduction
measures, and need to be taken into accountwhen designing litter reduction strategies.

10
Recovery and restoration may be justified, provided that the measures adopted are environmentally sound• Recovery measures can be justified where
there is clear, unacceptable damage or loss of an
ecosystem service, such as the damage caused
by ALDFG to coral habitats or injury to a rare or
endangered species;• Recovery measures can be justified where
there is a significant loss of commercial species
due to ghost fishing;• Recovery measure can be justified to prevent
harm or injury to maritime users
11• There is a need to strengthen and harmonisemonitoring and assessment effects• To meet global commitments under the UN
SDG targets, and• To target and gauge the effectiveness of marine
litter reduction measures.

9
Reduction measures are essential• Reduction measures should be guided by a riskbased approach to target appropriate intervention
points and design cost-effective measures;• Reduction measures can be based on BATs,
BEPs, education, awareness raising, voluntaryagreements and legislation;• The selection of the most appropriate measures
must take into account the social and economic circumstances of the community or region towhich the measures are being directed;• Inadequate solid waste management in developing countries appear to be a major source of
ocean plastics;• There are many additional benefits from improving waste minimisation and management, including reducing the health impacts from poorly
managed waste treatment processes;• There is a case for extending corporate responsibility and encouraging public-private partnerships.

182

13

183

13. SUMMARY
OF KEYRESEARCH
NEEDS

13.3
SOURCES AND PATHWAYS OF PLASTICS AND
MICROPLASTICS
Sources and pathways of macro-plastics
The quantities and relative importance of different land- and sea-based sources of macro-plastics
and their entry points to the ocean need to investigated in greater detail, in particular taking accountof regional differences. Research is required:

13.1
GOVERNANCE
To improve the coverage and effectiveness of governance mechanisms, research is required to:• Explore potential multi-governance mechanisms;• Examine the legal marge de manoeuvre ofstates with regard to implementing MBIs;• Examine the effectiveness of current governance arrangements and the reasons for any lackof implementation; and• Identify gaps in current governance arrangements.

13.2• To quantify inputs from the fisheries sector, including ALDFG, and the factors contributing tosuch losses;• To quantify inputs from the aquaculture sector
and the factors contributing to such losses;• To quantify inputs from the shipping and offshore sectors and the factors contributing to suchlosses;• To quantify inputs from the tourism sector andthe factors contributing to such losses;• To quantify inputs from the waste management
sector and the factors contributing to such losses, including stormwater run-off and overflows;• To investigate the relative importance of atmospheric transport; and• To quantify inputs due to catastrophic events(e.g. storms, tsunamis, river basin and coastal flooding) and the factors contributing to suchlosses, including the identification of vulnerable
coastlines and communities.

PROPERTIES OF PLASTICS
Sources and pathways of microplastics
An area of particular concern is the release ofchemicals that are added to plastics to achieve arange of desirable properties, such as UV resistance,increased plasticity and flame retardation. Some ofthese chemicals can have profound effects on biological systems, in particular on the endocrine system (e.g. brominated flame retardants). Research is
required:• To minimise the use of additive chemicals
known to have an environmental impact;• To identify additive chemicals that have a lower impact on the environment;• To identify polymer-additive combinations inwhich the additives are less likely to desorb once
ingested; and• To adopt a precautionary approach in the formulation of new plastics with regard to their behavior in the environment.

• The quantities and relative importance ofdifferent sources of primary and secondary microplastics and their entry points to the ocean
need to investigated in greater detail, in particulartaking account of regional differences. Researchshould consider the relative importance of themain sources, and is required to assess:• The relative contribution of synthetic fibers;• The relative contribution of vehicle tire fragments;• The size, shape and composition (polymer andadditives) of microplastics from different sources;• The input of resin pellets from the plastics production and plastic manufacturers sectors, including at transhipment points;• River inputs;• Atmospheric inputs; and• The relative contribution of wastewater as apathway of microplastics.

184

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SUMMARY OF KEY RESEARCH NEEDS

13.4
DISTRIBUTION AND FATE
Factors controlling degradation• Expertise from polymer and materials scienceis essential to gain a better understanding of the
behavior of the main types of plastics in the marine
environment, including conditions controlling therates of weathering, fragmentation and biodegradation. Research is required:• To better understand the extent and rate ofweathering and fragmentation of plastic according to polymer type, size and shape, and environmental setting (shoreline, buried, seabed, floatingon the sea surface);• To examine the role of microbial action in promoting degradation; and• To establish the behavior of ‘biodegradable’
plastics in the ocean according to polymer type,size and shape, and environmental setting (shoreline, buried, seabed, floating on the sea surface).

• Collate existing data on plastic distribution in allenvironmental compartments;• Investigate vertical and horizontal transport
of non-buoyant plastics, taking account of thesubstantial scientific literature on organic and inorganic particle fluxes and sediment transport;• Improve the 3D representation of plastic particle transport;• Improve the representation of particle fragmentation and biodegradation in model simulations, including the rate of formation of microplastics from macro-plastics;• Utilize other modeling applications, such as
fish egg/larvae studies, as appropriate for transforming particle properties;• Include investigations of long-term fate including ‘sinks’, deep ocean basins and canyons; and• Examine the importance of shoreline deposits,
including buried plastics, as a time-dependentsource and sink.

13.5
IMPACTS

Presence, transport and fate of plastics in themarine environment

Quantifying impacts on biota

At present, surface circulation models provide a
reasonable representation of the transport of floating plastics on a global scale, on the basis of observed distributions (Ericksen et al. 2015). However, many plastics are denser than water and will
therefore be expected to sink, either near the source
or whenever buoyancy is removed. Currently there
is a lack of data on both sub-surface distribution ofplastics in the water column and seabed, and on therate and nature of vertical transport processes.
From a management perspective there is a need to
improve the provision of data and improve data
quality to better support reduction measures. Research is needed to:Concerning macro-plastics, research is required to:• Encourage the development and use of harmonised monitoring techniques to facilitate datacollation and comparison;• Coordinate monitoring and assessment on aregional scale, incorporating and extending Regional Seas Action Plans;• Develop cost-effective and, where practical,
automated sampling and analysis techniques, including for fibers;• Develop a method to measure nano-plastics inthe aquatic environment;• Encourage the uptake of citizen science;

Concerning microplastics, research is required to:• Quantify the impacts of entanglement and ingestion in support of management objectives;• Extend the range of taxa investigated, including
invertebrates;• Look for population-level and food chain effects, including for commercial species;• Investigate the importance of plastics for rafting
organisms, including non-indigenous species; and• Further investigate effective prevention, rescue
and recovery techniques to minimize impacts for entangled species or those with ingested plastics.

• Determine if microplastics in fisheries and aquaculture resources present a risk for food security,
including food safety and impacts on human health;• Determine at what concentrations microplastics will have an impact on populations, assemblages and species;• Understand the impacts of nano-sized plastics
on marine organisms;• Understand the extent to which microplastics
are transferred through foodwebs;

185

13

13

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SUMMARY OF KEY RESEARCH NEEDS• Clarify the fate of contaminants to and frommicroplastic debris (both sorbed chemicals andadditive ingredients);• Measure the impact of chemicals associatedwith microplastics under environmentally-relevant
exposure scenarios;• Measure the impact of the mixture of microplastics and chemicals under environmentally-relevant
exposure scenarios;• Better understand the role microbes have infacilitating the fouling of microplastics by organisms, the ingestion of microplastic by organisms,
and potentially the transformation of toxins;• Better understand the relationship between
pathogens and microplastics;• Perform risk assessments that help clarify thevarious ecological impacts that may be a consequence of the widespread contamination of microplastics in the marine environment;• Establish threshold levels for impact in various
habitats and species; and• Identify microplastic ‘hotspots’ for risk, andidentify priority species.

Economic impacts

Social impacts• Assess the quantities of fishing- and aquaculture-related debris released by these sectors;• Assess the influence of the type of practice on
debris generation (gear type, gear design, materials, means of deployment, use of ground lines,
area deployed and fishing practices);• Experiment with gear types and deployment
practices to reduce losses;• Investigate,developand
implement
gear-marking schemes;• Assess the impact of ghost fishing on commercial stocks; and• Employ risk assessment in decision support
for siting or re-siting aquaculture and developments.

There are a number of knowledge gaps that hinder
taking better account of the social dimension of
the discussion about reducing the impact of marine plastic litter. Research is required to:• Measure consumer perception of plastic inseafood, i.e. how they consumers would react
to awareness about plastic levels in their foodand related health risks;• Study the differences between public perception and established science regarding the impacts of marine debris;• Understand why many people do not take responsibility for their waste and what motivates
those that do take responsibility;• Gain a greater understanding of different
stakeholders’ (especially consumers’) perceptions of the issues and risks surrounding microplastics in order to take appropriate action;• Measure the effectiveness of citizen-sciencecampaigns;• Understand what would drive behavior change
away from single-use plastic;• Test the most effective messaging to encourage responsible use; and• Study how media campaigns cover risk andactions on marine debris and how to develop
more effective campaigns.

• To improve the assessment of economic impacts, research is required to:• Improve understanding of the cost of action
and non-action and the benefits of action tohighlight cost-effective solutions; and• Apply this understanding based on sector,
product, type of marine litter and the macro-scale to develop a new evidence base fordifferent decision-making frameworks and governance processes.

13.6
FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE
The research needs concerning the fisheries andaquaculture sectors have been combined, covering
sources, impacts and potential solutions. For macro-plastics, research is required to:

For microplastics, research is required to:• Assess levels of microplastic contamination incommercial species, seafood products (e.g. fishmeal and fish oil) and in fish prey (e.g. zooplankton);• Determine if there is transfer of microplastics
from one trophic level to the next;• Assess chemical contaminant transfer from microplastics to seafood;• Assess microbial pathogen load on microplastics in different areas of the ocean (open ocean,areas impacted by human sewage, aquaculture
and fisheries areas);186

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
SUMMARY OF KEY RESEARCH NEEDS• Determine if seafood microplastic concentration is higher in cultured versus wild-caught organisms;• Determine if microplastic in seafood is a riskfor human health in regards to food security andsafety;• Determine how microplastics affect different life
stages (e.g. if earlier life stages are more sensitive);• Determine if microplastics impact the quality
and palatability of food;• Conduct a risk assessment to assess the hazards of microplastics in fish and shellfish; and• Increase awareness and investigate public perceptions about microplastics in seafood.

• Estimate the likely elasticity of demand forplastic products, i.e. how is demand likely tochange with price (e.g. for plastic bottles, plasticbags); and• Explore the economics of recycling for plastic
waste, i.e. the value of recycling waste before it
becomes marine litter, and the value of different plastic types that have become marine litter,hence incentives for recycling.

13.7
RISK ASSESSMENT
Research is required to:• Develop improved methodologies for measuring the loss of ecosystem services for non-monetized components, recognizing that regional
differences in the social, cultural and economic
context will limit some types of benefit transfer
techniques;• Perform more detailed risk assessments andcost-benefit analyses in the areas of food security,
food safety, biodiversity, social impacts (including
human health), and economic impacts;• Take account of uncertainties of outcome wheninterpreting the results of risk assessments, including the influence of adopting a more precautionary approach; and• Explore methods for more effective risk communication between specialists and non-specialists.

13.8
ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS• To improve the assessment of economic impacts, research is required to:• Improve understanding of the cost of action
and the benefits of action to highlight cost-effective solutions;• Determine the value of plastics (cost and benefit) to help underline the potential benefits of circular economic activities and the economic inefficiencies of letting plastic become waste;• Estimate the economic value of reducing theuse of plastic;

187

13

ANNEXESMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX I.
UNEA RESOLUTION
1/6 MARINE PLASTIC DEBRISAND MICROPLASTICS

The United Nations Environment Assembly,
Recalling the concern reflected in the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development, entitled: “The Future We Want”, that the health of oceans and marine biodiversity are negatively affected by marine pollution, including marine debris, especially plastic, persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals
and nitrogen-based compounds, from numerous marine and land-based sources, and the commitment to takeaction to significantly reduce the incidence and impacts of such pollution on marine ecosystems,
Noting the international action being taken to promote the sound management of chemicals throughout theirlife cycle and waste in ways that lead to the prevention and minimization of significant adverse effects on humanhealth and the environment,
Recalling the Manila Declaration on Furthering the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for theProtection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities adopted by the Third Intergovernmental Review
Meeting on the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities, which highlighted the relevance of the Honolulu Strategy and the Honolulu Commitment and recommended the establishment of a global partnership on marine litter,
Taking note of the decisions adopted by the eleventh Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity on addressing the impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity,
Recalling that the General Assembly declared 2014 the International Year of Small Island Developing States andthat such States have identified waste management among their priorities for action,
Noting with concern the serious impact which marine litter, including plastics stemming from land and seabased sources, can have on the marine environment, marine ecosystem services, marine natural resources, fisheries, tourism and the economy, as well as the potential risks to human health;
1. Stresses the importance of the precautionary approach, according to which lack of full scientific certainty
should not be used for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation, where
there are threats of serious or irreversible damage;
2. Recognizes the significant risks arising from the inadequate management and disposal of plastic and theneed to take action;

189

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

3. Encourages governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, industry andother relevant actors to cooperate with the Global Partnership on Marine Litter in its implementation of the
Honolulu Strategy and to facilitate information exchange through the online marine litter network;
4. Recognizes that plastics, including microplastics, in the marine environment are a rapidly increasing problem due to their large and still increasing use combined with the inadequate management and disposal ofplastic waste, and because plastic debris in the marine environment is steadily fragmenting into secondary
microplastics;
5. Also recognizes the need for more knowledge and research on the source and fate of microplastics and theirimpact on biodiversity, marine ecosystems and human health, noting recent knowledge that such particles canbe ingested by biota and could be transferred to higher levels in the marine food chain, causing adverse effects;
6. Notes that microplastics may also contribute to the transfer in the marine ecosystems of persistent organic
pollutants, other persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances and other contaminants which are in or
adhere to the particles;
7. Recognizes that microplastics in the marine environment originate from a wide range of sources, including
the breakdown of plastic debris in the oceans, industrial emissions and sewage and run-off from the use of
products containing microplastics;
8. Emphasizes that further urgent action is needed to address the challenges posed by marine plastic debris
and microplastics, by addressing such materials at source, by reducing pollution through improved waste
management practices and by cleaning up existing debris and litter;
9. Welcomes the establishment of the Global Partnership on Marine Litter launched in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
in June 2012 and the convening of the first Partnership Forum in 2013;
10. Also welcomes the adoption by the contracting parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention) at its eighteenth ordinary
meeting, held in Istanbul, Turkey, from 3 to 6 December 2013, of the Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter
Management, the world’s first such action plan, and welcomes the draft Action Plan on Marine Litter for
the North-East Atlantic region awaiting adoption by the Commission of the Convention for the Protectionof the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic at its meeting in Cascais, Portugal, and encourages
governments to collaborate through relevant regional seas conventions and river commissions with a view
to adopting such action plans in their regions;
11. Requests the Executive Director to support countries, upon their request, in the development and implementation of national or regional action plans to reduce marine litter;
12. Welcomes the initiative by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection to produce an assessment report on microplastics, which is scheduled to be launched in
November 2014;
13. Also welcomes the work undertaken by the International Whaling Commission on assessing the impactsof marine debris on cetaceans and the endorsement by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals at its tenth meeting of resolution 10.4, addressing
the impacts of marine debris on migratory species;
14. Requests the Executive Director, in consultation with other relevant institutions and stakeholders, to undertake a study on marine plastic debris and marine microplastics, building on existing work and taking into
account the most up-to-date studies and data, focusing on:(a) Identification of the key sources of marine plastic debris and microplastics;(b) Identification of possible measures and best available techniques and environmental;

190

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

practices to prevent the accumulation and minimize the level of microplastics in the marine environment;(c) Recommendations for the most urgent actions;(d) Specification of areas especially in need of more research, including key impacts on the environmentand on human health;(e) Any other relevant priority areas identified in the assessment of the Joint Group of Experts on the
Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection;
15. Invites the secretariats of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and relevant organizations involved in pollution control and chemicals and waste management and the secretariats of theConvention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Migratory Species and the regional seas conventions
and action plans to contribute to the study described in paragraph 14 of the present resolution;
16. Encourages governments and the private sector to promote the more resource-efficient use and soundmanagement of plastics and microplastics;
17. Also encourages governments to take comprehensive action to address the marine plastic debris andmicroplastic issue through, where appropriate, legislation, enforcement of international agreements, provision of adequate reception facilities for ship-generated wastes, improvement of waste management practices
and support for beach clean-up activities, as well as information, education and public awareness programmes;
18. Invites governments, intergovernmental organizations, the scientific community, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and other stakeholders to share relevant information with the Executive Director
pertinent to the study described in paragraph 14;
19. Invites those in a position to do so to provide financial and other support to conduct the study identifiedin paragraph 14;
20. Requests the Executive Director to present the study on microplastics for the consideration of the United
Nations Environment Assembly at its second session.

191

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX II.
A) COMMON CHEMICAL ADDITIVES IN PLASTICS;
B) COMMON ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
ABSORBED BY PLASTICSa) Common chemical additives in plastics
Table II a
Short form

Full nameExamples of function

BPA

Bisphenol A

A monomer used in the manufacture of polycarbonates andepoxy resins

DBP

Dibutyl Phthalate

Anti-cracking agents in nail varnish

DEP

Diethyl Phthalate

Skin softeners, colour and fragrance fixers

DEHP

Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Plasticizer in PVC

HBCD

Hexabromocyclododecane

Flame retardant

PBDEs

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers(penta, octa & deca forms)

Flame retardants

Nonylphenol

Stabilizer in PP, PS

Phthalate esters

Improve flexibility and durability

phthalatesb) Common organic contaminants absorbed by plastics
Table II b
Short form

Full name

OriginDDT

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

Insecticide

PAHs

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Combustion products

PCBs

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Cooling and insulating fluids, e.g. in transformers

192

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX III.
EXAMPLES OF CONCENTRATIONS OF PLASTICS IN RIVERS
FLOWING TO THE OCEAN

Examples of concentrations of plastics in rivers flowing to the ocean (adapted fromGESAMP 2016)
Table III
Location

Compartment

Sampling

Abundance (densities)

References

Danube river, Austria,
EuropeSurface water

Sizes classes:<2mm, 2-20mm
Sampling mesh: 500mm

Max: 141 647.7 items /1000m-3
Mean:
316.8 (±4664.6) items/ 1000 m3
73.9% represent spherules(~3mm)

Lechner 2014

Elbe, Mosel, Neckar
and Rhine rivers,
Germany, Europe

Sediment

Size classes: <5mm

Max: 64 items kg-1 dry weight,
Mean: not indicatedWagner 2014

Po river/Adriatic Sea

Surface water

Neuston net (330μm),
Monthly,

1 (Spring) to 12.2 items m-3(winter)

Vianello 2013

Seine river/ English
Channel

Surface water

A plankton net (80mm mesh),and (ii) a manta trawl (330mm
mesh)(i) Plankton net:
3-108 particles/m3.
(ii) Manta trawl:
0.28–0.47particles m-3

Dris 2015

Rhine, Main Rivers,
Germany

Sediment

63í5000μm
Three size clases: 630í5000,
200í630, and 63í200μm

Range: 228í3763 particles kgí1

Klein 2015

Solent: Hamble,
Itchen and Test as
tributaries toSouthampton Water
in Hampshire, UK

Surface water

1235 (total of 4 samples)
sampled in each estuary.
0.3mm mesh

Itchen 1.55mp m-2
Test 5.86m-2
Hamble 0.4mp m-2

Gallagher 2015

Tamar estuary, UK,
EuropeSurface water

EuropeTotal all estuaries: 3.72m-2(Southampton water 1.29m-2)
Size classes: <1mm, 1e3mm,
3e5mm, >5mm
Sampling mesh: 300mm

193

Max: 204 pieces of suspected
plastic
Mean: 0.028 items m-3
Abundances include all plastic
particles, of which 82% represents size <5mm

Sadri 2014

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Table III
Location

Compartment

Sampling

Abundance (densities)

References

North Shore Channel(Chicago, USA)

Surface water

Two neuston nets (0.92 ×
0.42m and 0.36 × 0.41m) of
333-μm mesh

Upstream waters : 1.94 (0.81)
particles m-3
Downstream waters : 17.93(11.05) particles m-3

McCormick 2014

St. Lawrence River,
Canada/USA,

Sediment

Size classes: not indicated.
Items size range: 0.4-2.16mm

Mean: 13 759 (±13 685) items
m-2 max at 136 926 (±83947)
items m-2

Castañeda 2014

Los Angeles River,
San Gabriel River,
Coyote Creek, USA,
North America

Surface, mid andnear-bottom
water

Size classes: >1.0 and<4.75mm, >4.75mm
Sampling mesh: 333, 500,
and 800μm

Max: 12 932 items m-3
Mean 24-h particle counts on dateof greatest abundance:
Coyote creek: 5000 items m-3
San Gabriel river: 51 603 items m-3
Los Angeles River: 1 146 418
items m-3
Item size class: 1.0-4.75mm

Moore 2011

Surface water

Neuston net with a mesh sizeof 1mm and an opening areaof 27 * 10.5cm2. 6 2 counts
by scientists + 2-6 counts by
students

Elqui Mouth: 0.12875m-3
Maipo: 0.647m-3
Maule: 0.74m-3
BioBio: 0.05m-3

Rech 2015

Nakdong River(187.1 m3/s)/ Jinhae
Bay, southern Korea.

Surface water

Trapping of surface water,
2mm mesh screen, 100 times,
3.14m2 /2.2-2.8l. samples/
station120 particles l-1 (10% paints) ,187±207 particles l-1 after heavy
rainSong 2015

Yangtze Estuary,
China

SurfacePumping/filtration (32-μm
steel sieve)

4137 ± 2462m-3

Zhao 2014

North America

South America
Elqui, Maipo, Mauleand BioBio rivers,
northern-central(29° S) to southern
centralChile (37° S)
Asia

194

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX IV.
ABUNDANCE OF MICROPLASTICS IN SUBTIDALSEDIMENTS WORLDWIDE

Abundance of microplastics in subtidal sediments worldwide. Location and location
specification (Modified from Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2015).
Table IV
Continent

Location

Location Specification

Americas

US

Asia

EuropeParticle Size

MeasuredAbundance

Reference

Maine Subtidal

0.250mm-4mm

105 items/L

Graham &Thompson
2009

US

Florida Subtidal

0.250mm-4mm

116-215 items/L

Graham &Thompson2009

BrazilTidal Plain

1mm-10cm

6.36-15.89 items/m2

Costa et al.
2011

India

Shipbreaking Yard

1.6mm-5mm

81.4mg/kg

Reddy et al.
2006

Singapore

Mangrove

1.6mm-5mm

36.8 items/kg dry

Nor & Obbard
2014

UK

Estuary

2.4-5,6 fibres/50ml

Thompson etal. 2004

SwedenSubtidal

2mm-5mm2-332 items/100ml

Noren 2007

Belgium

Harbour

0.38mm-1mm

166.7 items/kg dry

Claessens
et al. 2011

Continental Shelf
Italy

SubtidalSlovenia

Shelf

Depth

0-200m97.2 items/kg dry
0.7mm-1mm

Infralittoral(<50m)

195672-2175 items/
kg dryVianello et al.
2013

30-800 items/kg dry

Bajt et al.
2015

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXContinent

Location

Location Specification

Depth

Particle Size

MeasuredAbundance

Reference

Oceanic
Sediments

Polar Ocean,
Mediterranean, North
Atlantic, Gulf
of Guinea

Deep Sea

1176-4848

5 mm-1mm

0.5 items/cm2

Van Cauwenberghe et al.
2013

NW Pacific

Deep Sea Trench

48695766

0.300mm-5 mm

60-2020 items/m2

Fisher et al.
2015

Subpolar/
North Atlantic

Deep Sea Mount
Slope

1000-2000

0.032-5mm

10-15 pieces per
50ml

Woodall et al.
2015

North East
Atlantic

Canyons/Slope

1400-2200

0.032-5mm

6-40 pieces per
50ml

Woodall et al.
2015

Mediterranean

Canyons/Slope/Basin

300-3500

0.032-5mm

10-35 pieces per
50ml

Woodall et al.
2015

SW IndianSeamount

500-1000

0.032-5mm

Up to 4 pieces per
50ml

Woodall et al.
2015

196

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX V.
ENTANGLEMENT OF CETACEANS AND PINNIPEDS

Overview of literature containing data on entanglement of cetaceans (fromButterworth et al. 2012)
Table V.1
Species /Subspecies

Region (FAO
statistical areas[FAO 2012])

Entanglement
rate (% entangled eachyear)

Entanglement rate(by animalor by % of
population
with scars)

Fishingpot
gear
debris(%)

Net(derelict)debris(%)

Mortality
estimate(%)*

SourceHumpback whale

Western Central
Atlantic

41

50

10

Johnson etal. 2005

Humpback whale

North West
Atlantic

2.4

17 whales
become entangled each year

26

Cole et al.
2006

Humpback whale

North West
Atlantic

8-10.448-57

Robbins& Mattila
2004

Humpback whale

North East Pacific

8

52-78

Neilson etal. 2007

Western grey
whaleNorth West
Pacific

18.7

Bradford
et al. 2009

Minke whale

North East Atlantic

5-22

Northridge
et al. 2010

Minke whale

North West
Pacific

Minke whale

North West
Atlantic

North Atlantic
right whale

North West
Atlantic

North Atlantic
right whale

North & Central
West Atlantic

1.6

North Atlantic
right whale

North & Central
West Atlantic

1.15

Fin whale

North East Atlantic

31

2.6

69

7 whales per
year
57

25

67

6 whales per
year
71

5

197

14

0.9

Song et al.
2010

37

Cole et al.
2006

12

Kraus
1990

27

Cole et al.
2006

29

Johnson etal. 2005
Sadove &Morreale1990

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpecies /Subspecies

Region (FAO
statistical areas[FAO 2012])

Entanglement
rate (% entangled eachyear)

Entanglement rate(by animalor by % of
population
with scars)

Fin whale

North West
Atlantic

0.8

2 whales peryear

Blue whale

North West
Atlantic

Bryde’s whale

North West
Atlantic

0.2

Fishingpot
gear
debris(%)

Net(derelict)debris(%)

Mortality
estimate(%)*

Source44

Cole et al.
2006<1 whale per
year

Cole et al.
2006<1 whale per
year

Cole et al.
2006

Overview of literature containing data on the entanglement of pinnipeds(from Butterworth et al. 2012).
Table V.2
Species /Subspecies

Region (FAO
statistical areas[FAO 2012])

Entanglement
rate(% incidence inpopulation)

Plastic
debris(%)

Netdebris(%)

Kalikoura fur
sealSouth West
Pacific0.6-2.83142Australian fur
seal

Eastern Indian Ocean

1.9

30

40

New Zealand
fur seal

Eastern Indian Ocean

0.9

30

29

Australian sea
lion

Eastern Indian Ocean

1.3

11

Antarctic & Sub– Antarctic furseal

Western Indian
Ocean

0.24

Antarctic fur seal

South East Atlantic

Antarctic fur seal

FishingLinedebris(%)

Mortality
estimate(%)*

SourceBoren et al.
2006
73

Pemberton et al.
1992

3

57

Page et al. 2004

66

6

44

Page et al. 2004

41

17

c. 10

0.024-0.059

18

48

South West Atlantic

0.4

46-52

Cape fur seal

South East Atlantic

0.1-0.6

50

Californian sea
lion

Eastern Central
Pacific

3.9-7.9

Hawaiian monk
seal

Eastern Central
Pacific

0.7

Stellar sea lion

North East Pacific

Californian sea
lion

Hofmeyr et al.
2002

50

Hofmeyr et al.
2006

80

Arnould andCroxhall 1995
Shaughnessy
1980

50

33

8

32

28

0.26

54

7

2

Raum-Sayuran etal. 2009

Eastern Central
Pacific

0.08-0.22

25

19

14

Stewart &Yochem 1987

Northern elephant seal

Eastern Central
Pacific

0.15

36

19

33

Stewart &Yochem 1987

Harbour seal

Eastern Central
Pacific

0.09

33

Northern fur seal

North East Pacific

0.24

16

Henderson 2001

Stewart &Yochem 1987
50

198

Harcourt et al.
1994

Stewart &Yochem 1987

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX VI.
INGESTION OF MICROPLASTICS BY MARINEORAGANISMS

Laboratory studies exposing organisms to microplastics.
Organisms which have a commercial interest have a * after the species
name. Table includes all published studies until 11th November 2015.
(Rochman et al highlighted as it is a freshwater study)
Table VI.1
SpeciesCommonName

Size of
Ingested
Material

Polymer

Exposure
Concentration

Lengthof exposure

Particle
endpoint

EffectSource7.3μm

PS3000 perml

1 hr

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Tetraselmis Chuii

1 – 5μm

PE0.000046- 0.0015
per ml96 hrsCellularNo significant
effect on
growth, did
not interact
with toxicity ofcopperDavarpanah&
Guilhermino
2015

Scenedesmus Spp.

20nm

PS

1.6-40mg
per ml2 hrs

Cellular

Absorption,
ROS
increased,photosynthesis affected

Bhattacharya et al.
2010

2μm

PS

9 x 104
per ml6 hrs

External

Microspheres
attached toalgae, nonegative effectobserved

Long et al.
2014

2μm

PS

9 x 104
per ml6 hrs

External

Microspheres
attached toalgae, nonegative effectobserved

Long et al.
2014

Phylum Dinoflagellata
Oxyrrhis Marina

Phylum Chlorophyta

Phylum Haptophyta
Isochrysis Galbana

Phylum Dinophyta
Heterocapsa
Triquetra

199

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonName

Size of
Ingested
Material

Polymer

Exposure
Concentration

Lengthof exposure

Particle
endpoint

EffectSource2μm

PS

9 x 104
per ml6 hrs

External

Microspheres
attached toalgae, nonegative effectobserved

Long et al.
2014

2μm

PS

9 x 104
per ml6 hrs

External

Microspheres
attached toalgae, nonegative effectobserved

Long et al.
2014

Strombidium
Sulcatum0.41 -10μm

-

5-10%
ambient
bacteria
concentration

1 hr

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Christaki etal. 1998

Tintinnopsis
Lobiancoi

10μm

PS

1000,
2000,
10000
per ml3 hrs

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Setälä etal. 2014

20.6

PS2240 perml

1 hr

Digestive
tract

Partial ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

10μm-2mm

PP0.395mg
per ml48 hrsMouth
andmesenteries ofpolypsIngestion

Hall et al.
2015

10μm

PS

2000 perml

3 hrs

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Setälä etal. 2014

Phylum Cryptophyta
Rhodomonas
SalinaPhylum Ochrophyta
Chaetoceros
Neogracilis

Phylum Ciliophora

Phylum Cnideria
Obelia Sp.

Dipsastrea Pallida

Coral

Phylum Rotifera
Synchaeta Spp.

Phylum Annelida
Arenicola Marina

Lugworm

20-2000μm-

1.5mg perml

Severaldays

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Thompsonet al. 2004

Arenicola Marina

Lugworm

130μm

U-PVC

0-5% byweight48 hour,
4 weeks

Digestive
tract

Ingestion,
reducedfeeding,
increasedphagocytic
activity,
reducedavailableenergyreserves,
lower lipid
reserves

Wright etal. 2013

Arenicola Marina

Lugworm

230μm

PVC

1500g ofsediment

10 days

Digestive
tract

Ingestion,oxidative
stressBrowne etal. 2013

200

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonName

Size of
Ingested
Material

Polymer

Exposure
Concentration

Lengthof exposure

Particle
endpoint

EffectSourceArenicola Marina

Lugworm

< 5mm

HDPE,
PVA,
PA

0.02, 0.2
2% ofsediment

31 days

Digestive
tract

Concentrationin sediment
had significant
effects on themetabolic rateof lugworms(increase mp= increase
metabolic rate)

Green etal. 2015

Arenicola Marina

Lugworm

4001300μm

PS0, 1, 10,100 mgper ml28 days

FaecesIngestion,
reduced feeding, weightloss

Besseling
et al. 2013

Galeolaria
CaespitosaFan worm

3 – 10μm-

5000 perml

20 mins

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Bolton &Havenhand
1998

10μm

PS

2000 perml

3 hrs

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Setälä etal. 2014

7.3μm

PS

3000 perml

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Phylum Annelida

Marenzelleria Spp.

Phylum Mollusca
Bivalvia (larvae)

Mytilus Edulis*Bluemussel30nm

PS0, 0.1, 0.2,
0.3 mgper ml8 hrs

Digestive
tract

Ingestion,
pseudofaeces, reduced
filtering

Wegner etal. 2012.

Mytilus Edulis*Bluemussel

0 – 80μm

HDPE

2.5mg perml

< 96 hrs

Digestive
tract,
LymphsystemIngestion,
retention indigestive tract,transfer tolymph system,
immuneresponse

Von Moos
et al. 2012
& Köhler
2010

Mytilus Edulis*Bluemussel

0.5μm

PS50μL per
400 mlseawater

1 hr

Digestive
tract

Ingestion,
trophic transfer to Carcinus
maenasFarrell &Nelson2013

Mytilus Edulis*Bluemussel3, 9.6μm

PS0.51mgper ml12 hrsDigestive
tract,
LymphsystemIngestion,
retention indigestive tract,transferred tolymph system

Browne etal. 2008

Mytilus Edulis*Bluemussel10μm

PS

2 x 10 4
per ml45 mins

FaecesIngestion,
egestion

Ward &Tagart1989

Mytilus Edulis*Bluemussel10μm

PS1000 perml

45 mins

FaecesIngestion,
egestion

Ward &Kach 2009

Mytilus
Galloprovincialis*

Mediterraneanmussel< 100μm

PS, PE

1.5mg perml

7 days

Gills,
digestive
tract andlymph
systempresence inhaemolymph,
gills anddigestive
gland

Avio et al.
2015

Mytilus
Galloprovincialis*

Mediterraneanmussel50nm

PS

1, 5, 50μg per ml-

Haemocytes

Only thehaemocytes
were exposed,
signs of cytotoxicity

Canesi etal. 2015

201

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonName

Size of
Ingested
Material

Polymer

Exposure
Concentration

Lengthof exposure

Particle
endpoint

EffectSourceMytilus Trossulus*Baymussel

10μm

PS

/

0.5 - 1.5
hr

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Ward et al.
2003

Placopecten
Magellanicus*

Atlantic
Sea
scallop15, 10, 16,
18, 20μm

PS1.05 perml

1 hr

FaecesIngestion,
retention,
egestion

Brilliant &MacDonald
2000

Placopecten
Magellanicus*

Atlantic
Sea
scallop15, 10, 16,
18, 20μm

PS1.05 perml

1 hr

FaecesIngestion,
retention,
egestion

Brilliant &MacDonald
2002

Crassostrea
Virginica*

Easternoyster10μm

PS1000 perml

45 mins

FaecesIngestion,
egestion

Ward &Kach 2009

Crassostrea Gigas*

Pacific
oyster2, 6μmPS

1800 perml for the
2μm size;
200 per
ml for the
6μm size

2monthsDigestive
tract

Increased
filtration andassimilation,
reducedgamete quality,
slower larvalrearing forlarvae from
MP exposedparents

Sussarellu
et al. 2014

Phylum Mollusca

Phylum Echinodermata
Apostichopus
Californicus

Giant
Californiansea
cucumber

10, 20μm

PS

2.4 per μL-

Digestive
tract

Ingestion,
retention

Hart 1991

ThyonellaGemmateStripedsea
cucumber

0.25-15mm

PVC,
PA

11g PVC
shavings,
60g resinpellets, 2gnylon line,
to 600mlof silica
sand

20-25
hrs

Digestive
tract

Selective
ingestion

Graham &Thompson
2009

Holothuria(Halodeima) Grisea

Grey sea
cucumber

0.25-15mm

PVC,
PA

As above

20-25
hrs

Digestive
tract

Selective
ingestion

Graham &Thompson
2009

Holothuria
Foridana

Florida sea
cucumber

0.25-15mm

PVC,
PA

As above

20-25
hrs

Digestive
tract

Selective
ingestion

Graham &Thompson
2009

Cucumaria
Frondosa *Orangefooted sea
cucumber

0.25-15mm

PVC,
PA

As above

20-25
hrs

Digestive
tract

Selective
ingestion

Graham &Thompson2009

Paracentrotus
Lividus*Sea urchin

40nm

PS

<25μg
per ml48 hr

Digestivetract

Accumulationand embryo
toxicity

Della Torre
et al. 2014

Lytechinus
Variegatus

Green seaurchin3-5mm

PE

2ml per
8ml

24 hr

External

Toxic effects,inc. anomalous
embryonic
development

Nombre etal. 2015

Tripneustes
Gratilla*Collector
urchin32-35μm

PE

1, 10,
100, 300
per ml

1-6hrs,9 daysFaecesIngestion,
egestion

Kaposi etal. 2014

Dendraster
Excentricus

Eccentric
sand dollar

10, 20 μm

PS

2.4 per μL-

Digestive
tract

Ingestion,
retention

Hart 1991

202

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonName

Size of
Ingested
Material

Polymer

Exposure
Concentration

Lengthof exposure

Particle
endpoint

EffectSourcePhylum Echinodermata
Ophiopholis
Aculeate

Crevicebrittle star10, 20 μm

PS

2.4 per μL-

Digestive
tract

Ingestion,
retention

Hart 1991

Dermasterias
Imbricate

Leatherstar

10, 20 μm

PS

2.4 per μL-

Digestive
tract

Ingestion,
retention

Hart 1991

Semibalanus
Balanoides

Barnacle

20-2000 μm-

1mg perml

Severaldays

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Thompsonet al. 2004

Tigriopus
Japonicas

Copepod

0.05μmPS

9.1 × 1011
per ml24 hrsFaecesIngestion,
egestion,mortality,
decreased
fecundity

Lee et al.
2013

Tigriopus
Japonicas

Copepod

0.5μm

PS

9.1 × 108per ml24 hrsFaecesIngestion,
egestion,mortality,
decreased
fecundity

Lee et al.
2013

Tigriopus
Japonicas

Copepod

6μm

PS5.25 ×105 per ml

24 hrsFaecesIngestion,
egestion,mortality,
decreased
fecundity

Lee et al.
2013

Acartia(Acanthacartia)
Tonsa

Copepod

7-70 μm-

30004000
beads perml

15 mins

Digestive
tract

Ingestion, size
selection

Wilson1973

Acartia Spp.

Copepod

10μm

PS2000 perml

3 hrs

FaecesIngestion

Setälä etal. 2014

Acartia Clausi

Copepod

7.3, 20.6,
30.6 μm

PS

635,
2240,
3000
beads perml

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Size based
selection:
Ingestion at
7.3 μm , noingestion at
20.6 μm, partial ingestion
at 30.6 μm

Cole et al.
2013

Eurytemora Affinis

Copepod

10μm

PS

1000,
2000,
10,000per ml3 hrs

FaecesIngestion,
egestion

Setälä etal. 2014

Limnocalanus
Macrurus

Copepod

10μm

PS

1000,
2000, 10,000 perml

3 hrs

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Setälä etal. 2014

Temora Longicornis

Copepod

1.7, 3.8, 7.3,
20.6, 30.6
μm

PS

635,
2240,
3000
beads perml

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Temora Longicornis

Copepod

20μm

PS

100 permlovernight

Digestive
tract

Ingestion 10.7
± 2.5 beads
per individual

Cole et al.
2014

CalanusHelgolandicus

Copepod

20μm

PS

75 per ml

23 hrsFaecesEgestion,ingestion

Cole et al.
2015

Phylum Arthropoda

203

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonName

Size of
Ingested
Material

Polymer

Exposure
Concentration

Lengthof exposure

Particle
endpoint

EffectSourceCalanusHelgolandicus

Copepod

7.3, 20.6,
30.6 μm

PS

635,
2240,
3000
beads perml

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Centropages
Typicus

Copepod

7.3, 20.6,
30.6 μm

PS

635,
2240,
3000
beads perml

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Idotea Emarginata

Isopod10μm

PS0.3-120mg/g

3 daysFaecesIngestion,
presence
in stomach,
faeces, noevidence ofassimilation,
no absorbance, noadverse effecton life history

Hamer etal. 2014

Orchestia
Gammarellus

Amphipod

20 –2000μm-1g perindividual(n = 150)

severaldays

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Thompsonet al. 2004

Talitrus Saltator

Amphipod

10 – 45μm

PE10%weight(0.06-0.09
p/g dryfood

24 hrsFaecesIngestion,
egestion after
2 hours

Ugolini etal. 2013

Allorchestes
Compressa

Amphipod

11 - 700μm

PE

0.1 per g

72 hrsFaecesIngestion,
egestion
within 36
hours

Chua et al.
2014

Neomysis Integer

Shrimp

10μm

PS

2000
spheres
per ml3 hrs

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Setälä etal. 2014

10μm

PS

2000
spheres
per ml3 hrs

FaecesIngestion,
egestion

Setälä etal. 2014

Phylum Arthropoda

Mysis Relicta

Carcinus
Maenas*Shore crab

8 - 10μm

PS

4.0 x
104 per lventilation
1.0 x 106per g

16 hrs,
24 hrs,21 days

FaecesIngestion
through gills
and gut,
retention andexcretion,
no biologicaleffects measured

Watts et al.
2014

Carcinus
Maenas*Shore crab

250-500μm

-

180mg
per 9
cubes offeed

3 weeks

Digestive
tract

Ingestion, MP
presence did
not affect PAH
uptakeMsc thesis:
ZoeterVanpoucke
Mechtild204

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonName

Size of
Ingested
Material

Polymer

Exposure
Concentration

Lengthof exposure

Particle
endpoint

EffectSourceUca Repax

Fiddlercrab

180-250μm

PS1081000mg/kg

2months

Gills,
Digestive
tract,
Lymphsystem2 monthexposure,
100% with
MP found ingills, stomach,hepatopancreus. More
MP exposure,
more MP in
crab. Not sureof effect

Brennecke
et al. 2015

Nephrops
Norvegicus*

Norwaylobster

5mm

PP

10 fibres
per cm3fish

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Ingestion

Murrayand Cowie
2011

Porcellanidae(zoea)

Decopoda

30.6μmPS

635 beads
p/ml

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Partial Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Paguridae (zoea)

Decopoda

20.6μm

PS

2240
beads
p/ml

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Partial Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Caridea (larvae)

Decopoda

20.6μmPS

2240
beads p/ml

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Barchyura(megalopa)

Decopoda

20.6μmPS

2240
beads p/ml

24 hrsDigestive
tract

Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Artemia
Franciscana

Brineshrimp40 & 50 nm

PS5-100 μgp/ml

48 hrsDigestive
tract

Ingestion, no
mortality, possible effect on
motility, someexcretion

Bergami etal. 2015

Nephrops
Norvegicus*

Norwaylobster

500 - 600 μm
loaded with
10 μg of
PCBs

PE

150mg
microplastics ingelatinefood

3 weeks

FaecesIngestion,
100% egestion. Increaseof PCB levelin the tissues.
Same increasefor positive
control. No
direct effect of
microplastics.

Devriese etal. in prep

Doliolidae

Tunicata

7.3μm

PS

3000
beads ml

1 hr

Digestive
tract

Ingestion

Cole et al.
2013

Pomatoschistus
MicropsCommongoby

1 - 5 μm

PE18.4 &
184 μg p/l

96 hrsExternal

Abnormalswimming
behaviourand lethargy,
ACHe activity
affected

Oliveria etal. 2013

Pomatoschistus
MicropsCommongoby

420 - 500μm

PE

< 30 perfish

3 minsDigestive
tractsIngestion,
significant
decrease in
predatory
performance

De Sa et al.
2015

Phylum Arthropoda

Phylum Chordata205

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Phylum Chordata
SpeciesCommonName

Size of
Ingested
Material

Polymer

Exposure
Concentration

Lengthof exposure

Particle
endpoint

EffectSourcePomatoschistus
MicropsCommongoby

1 - 5 μmPE0.216 mgp/l/

Digestive
tracts

The toxicological interaction
between MP
and Cr(VI)at conc>3.9 mg/l
decreased
predatory
performance(67%) and
causedsignificant
inhibition of
ACHe activity(<31%)

Luis et al.
2015

Gadus Morhua*

Atlantic
cod2, 5 mmPE//

FaecesIngestion,
egestion,
5mm held for
prolonged
periods, emptying of plastics improvedby foodconsumption
additional
meals.

Dos Santos& Jobling
1991

Oryzias Latipes*

Japanesemedaka<0.5mmLDPE

Ground up
as 10% ofdiet

1-2
monthsDigestive
tractsLiver toxicity,pathology,
hepatic stressRochmanet al. 2013

Oryzias Latipes*

Japanesemedaka<0.5mmLDPE

Ground up
as 10% ofdiet

1-2
monthsDigestive
tractsAltered gene
expression,
decreasedchoriogenin
regulation inmales anddecreasedvitellogenin
andchoriogenin
in females

Rochmanet al. 2014

Dicentrarchus
Labrax*Seabass(larvae)10 - 45 μm

PE0-105 perg incorporated withfood

8dph 26dph

Digestive
tract

Ingestion, no
significant
increase in
growth, effecton survival oflarvae.
Possible
gastric
obstruction.

Mazurais etal. 2014

Halichoerus
GrypusGrey seal

3mm

PE

2818
beads
(99%
recovery)

96
hours

FaecesUsed as a
tracer for dietstudyGrellier andHammond2006

Calonectris
leucomelas

Streaked
shearwater

3-5 mm

PE

1g of
beads
exposedto PCBs~ 97ngper g

1st day
exposed,studiedfor 42days

Chemicals in
preen oilIngestion,
chemicaltransfer

Teuten etal. 2009

206

Humboldt squid

MediterraneanmusselMediterraneanmusselMediterraneanmusselMediterraneanmusselMediterraneanmusselMediterraneanmusselBlue mussel

Blue mussel

Blue mussel

Mytilusgalloprovincialis*

Mytilusgalloprovincialis*

Mytilusgalloprovincialis*

Mytilusgalloprovincialis*

Mytilusgalloprovincialis*

Mytilusgalloprovincialis*

Mytilus edulis*

Mytilus edulis*

Mytilus edulis*

Commonname

Dosidicus gigas

Phylum Mollusca

Scientific name

207

45

5

5

17

18

5

5

17

17

30

Number ofindividuals

/

/

/

/

100

/

/

/

/

26.7

% withmicroplastic

3.5 per 10g

Mean 0.32(±0.22) p/g

Mean 0.06(±0.13)
particles p/g

Mean 0.05(0.11)-0.16(0.11 sd) p/g

4.33 (2.62)

Mean: 0.04
(0.09sd) p/g

Mean: 0.25
(0.26sd) p/g

Mean: 0.11
(0.12)-0.15(sd0.33) p/g

Total: 0.08
(0.09)-0.34(0.22sd) p/g/

Mean particles per individual (SD)Evidence of microplastic ingestion by field studies organisms. If mean
not available, range is reported. Standard deviation is reported where
possible.* represents percentage ingestion by total number of individuals,
not separated by species. * species which are commercially important

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

0-11

Range

/

/

/

/

PET, PA,
PE

/

/

/

/

/

PolymerFibresFibres, particles

FibresFibres, particles

Fibres, fragments, pellets

Fibres, particles

Fibres, particles

Fibres, particles

Fibres, particles

Nurdles

Type ofmicroplastic

3001000 μm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

3-5mm

Size
ingested(mm)

Belgium,
The Netherlands

Inschot,
The Netherlands

Baie de Saint Brieux,
FrancePo estuary,
Italy

Fish market,
China

Amposta, Ebro Delta,
Spain

Goro,
Italy

Ebro Delta Coastal
Embayment,
Spain

Tagus Estuary,
Portugal

British Columbia,
CanadaStudy location

De Witte
et al. 2014

Vandermeersch
et al. 2015

Vandermeersch
et al. 2015

Vandermeersch
et al. 2015

Li et al. 2015

Vandermeersch
et al. 2015

Vandermeersch
et al. 2015

Vandermeersch
et al. 2015

Vandermeersch
et al. 2015

Braid et al. 2012

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Table VI.2

208

Pacific oyster

Crassostrea
gigas*

11

12

Pacific oyster

Crassostrea
gigas*

18

30

Orient clam

Meretrix
lusoria*

24

6

18

6

18

6

20

36

Number ofindividuals

Cyclinasinensis*

Carpet shell

Ruditapes
philippinarum*

Yesso Scallop

Patinopecten
yessoensis*

Chinese razor clam

Blood cockle

Tegillarca
granosa*Sinonovacula
constricta*

Ark shell

Scapharca
subcrenata*

Fingerprint oyster

Blue mussel

Mytilus edulis*

Alectryonella
plicatula*Blue mussel

Commonname

Mytilus edulis*

Phylum Mollusca

Scientific name

/

30

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

/

/

% withmicroplastic

0.47(± 0.16)
per g

0.6±0.9

4.82 (± 2.17)

9.22(± 0.46)

5.72 (± 2.86)

14.33 (± 5.35)

10.78 (± 4.07)

57.17 (±
17.34)

5.33 (± 2.21)

45 (± 14.98)

170-375
particles per 5
mussels

0.36 (±0 .07)
p/g

Mean particles per individual (SD)

0-2

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

Range

/

/

PET, PA,PE

PET, PA,PE

PET, PA,PE

PET, PA,PE

PET, PA,PE

PET, PA,PE

PET, PA,PE

PET, PA,PE//

Polymer/FibresFibres, fragments, pellets

Fibres, fragments, pellets

Fibres, fragments, pellets

Fibres, fragments, pellets

Fibres, fragments, pellets

Fibres, fragments, pellets

Fibres, fragments, pellets

Fibres, fragments, pellets

Fibres/Type ofmicroplastic

5-25 μm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

/

5-25
μm

Size
ingested(mm)

Atlantic Ocean

USA

Fish market, China

Fish market, China

Fish market, China

Fish market, China

Fish market, China

Fish market, China

Fish market, China

Fish market, China

Nova Scotia, Canada

North Sea, Germany

Study location

Van Cauwenberghe & Janssen
2014

Rochman et al.
2015

Li et al. 2015

Li et al. 2015

Li et al. 2015

Li et al. 2015

Li et al. 2015

Li et al. 2015

Li et al. 2015

Li et al. 2015

Mathlon & Hill
2014

Van Cauwenberghe & Janssen
2014

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXCommonname

Euphausid

Norway lobster

Brown shrimp

Euphausia
pacifica

Nephrops
norvegicus*

Crangoncrangon*

209

Harbour seal

True’s beaked whale

Humpback whale

Fur seal

Mesoplodon
mirus

Megapteranovaeangliae

Arctocephalus
spp.

Arrow worm

Phoca vitulina

Phylum Chordata

Parasagitta
elegansPhylum Chaetognatha

Arenicola marina

Lugworm

Calanoid copepod

Neocalanus
cristatus

Phylum Annelida

Gooseneck barnacle

Lepas spp. *Phylum Arthrapoda

Scientific name

145

1

1

100 stomachs
107 intestines

1

110

120

413

960

385

Number ofindividuals

100

100

100

S:11.2 , I:1

100

/

83

/

/

33.5

% withmicroplastic

1-4 per scat

45 items

88

Max: 8 items(s), 7 items (i)/1.2 +- 2.8 g/
w.w

11.5 fibres per
10 g/

1 particle per 7
euph

1 particle per
34 zoop/

Mean particles per individual (SD)

01/
30/
16

Range

PS

Polymer

Fragments,
beads

Fragments

Fibres, fragment

Fragments

Spheres

95% fibres, 5%
films

/

Fibre, fragment

Fibre, fragment/

Type ofmicroplastic

4.1mm

1-17
cm

mean
2.16
mm

>0.1

0.1-3mm>5μm

300-1000μm

816 (108)μm

556 (149)
μm

<5mm

Size
ingested(mm)

Macquarie Island,
Australia

The Netherlands

Connemara, Ireland

The Netherlands

New England, USA

Belgium, NL, France

Belgium

Clyde, UK

North PacificNorth PacificNorth PacificStudy location

Eriksson & Burton
2003

Besseling et al.
2015

Lusher et al.
2015

Bravo Rebolledo
et al. 2013

Carpenter et al.
1972

Van Cauwenberge
et al. in Devriese
et al. 2015

Devriese et al.
2015

Murray and
Cowie 2011

Desforges et al.
2015

Desforges et al.
2015

Goldstein &Goodwin 2013

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXEuropean sprat

Silverstripe round
herring

Twait shad

European pilchard

European pilchard

Oil sardine

Spratelloides
gracilis*

Alosa fallax *Sardinapilchardus*

Sardinapilchardus*

Sadinellalongicxeps*

Atlantic herring

Clupeaharengus*

Sprattus
sprattus *Pacific saury

Cololabis saira

Atlantic herring

Longnosed lancetfish

Alepisaurus ferox

Clupeaharengus*

Jacksmelt

Atherinopsis
californiensis*

Atlantic herring

Atlantic silversides

Menidia menidia

Clupeaharengus*

Green turtle

Common
name

Chelonia mydas*

Phylum Chordata

Scientific name

210

10

99

3

1

4

111

3

566

2

52

144

7

9

24

Number ofindividuals

60%

19%

100%

100

40

38.74%

100

2

100

*35

24

28.57142857

33/% withmicroplastic/

1.78 ± 0.7/

11.1 +-1.7

0.88 (0.88)/

1

3.2 (± 3.05)

2.7 (± 2.0)

1.6+-3.7/

Total: 11 pellets

Mean particles per individual (SD)0-5

1 to 4Range

PS

PolymerFibres/Fragment

0-5 fragments

Fibres, granual,
film/

Fragments

PS

Fragments

Fragments

Fibres,fragments

PS

Pellets

Type ofmicroplastic

0.5-3mm

<1mm

/

<5mm

0.1-4.9mm

/

0.5-3

0.1 -3mm

0--2

68.3
(±91.1)0-10

0.1-3mm<5mm

Size
ingested(mm)

Mangalore

Adriatic sea

North Sea

North Eastern Atlantic

Indonesia

Belgium, North Sea

North Sea

North Sea

New England, USA

North PacificNorth PacificUSA

New England, USA

Rio Grande do Sul,
BrazilStudy location

Sulochanan et al.
2014

Avio et al. 2015

Collard et al.
2015

Neves et al.,2015

Rochman et al.
2015

Msc thesis:
Zoeter Vanpoucke
Mechtild

Collard et al.
2015

Foekema et al.
2013

Carpenter et al
1972

Boerger et al.
2010

Choy and Drazen
2013

Rochman et al.
2015

Carpenter et al
1972

Tourinho et al.
2010

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

211

Blue whiting

Poor cod

Hake

Hake

Micromesistius
poutassou*

Trisopterus
minutus*

Merlucius
merlucius*

Merlucius
merlucius*

Lampris sp.
(big eye)

Cod

Whiting

Merlangius merlangus*

Gadus morhua*

Five-bearded
rocklings

Ciliata mustela

Haddock

SaithePollachius virens*

Melanogrammus
aeglefinus*

Pacific anchovy

Engraulis mordax*

Whiting

Anchovy

Engraulis
encrasiscolus*

Merlangius merlangus*

Anchovy

Commonname

Stolephorus
commersonnii*

Phylum Chordata

Scientific name

115

12

3

50

27

80

97

50

105

113

1

10

3

16

Number ofindividuals

29

25%

100%

40

51.9

13

6

32

6

0-10

100

30

100%

37.5

% withmicroplastic

2.3(± 1.6)

0.33
±0.65

1.33
± 0.57

1.95(± 1.2)2.07(± 0.9)01/02/16

11.75 (± 1.4)

01/03/16/

1

0.3 +- 0.5//

Mean particles per individual (SD)

0-1

Range

PS

PS

Polymer

Fragments

4 fibres

Fragment, fibres,
beads

Fragment, fibres,
beads

Fragments

Fragments

Fragment, fibres,
beads

PS

PS

Fibres and film/

Fragments

Type ofmicroplastic

49.1(±71.1)

<5mm

<1mm

2.2 (±2.2)

2.0 (±2.4)

1.2 (±1.2)0.7 (±0.3)

2.2 (±2.3)

1.7 (±1.5)2mm

0.1-3mm
PS/

1.14-2.5

Size
ingested(mm)

North PacificNorth Eastern Atlantic

Adriatic sea

English Channel

English Channel

North Sea

North Sea

English Channel

North Sea

Severn Estuary, UK

New England, USA

USA

North Sea

Alappuzha, India

Study location

Choy & Drazen
2013

Neves et al. 2015

Avio et al. 2015

Lusher et al.
2013

Lusher et al.
2013

Foekema et al.
2013

Foekema et al.
2013

Lusher et al.
2013

Foekema et al.
2013

Kartar 1976

Carpenter et al
1972

Rochman et al.
2015

Collard et al.
2015

Kripa et al. 2014

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

78

Symbolophorus
californiensis

212

1

Boluin’s lanternfish

Coco’s lanternfish

Pearly lanternfish

White perch

Bergall

Diaphus phillipsi

Lobianchia
gemellarii

Myctophum
nitidulum

MoroneamericanaTautogolabrus
adspersus

6

12

25

3

7

Diaphus fulgens

13

460

Myctophum
aurolaternatum

Anderson’s lanternfish

28

Loweinainterrupta

Diaphusanderseni

45

Hygophumreinhardtii

2

Lophiuspiscatorius*

Number ofindividuals

24

MonkfishCommonname

Lampris sp. (smalleye)Phylum Chordata

Scientific name

< 83

33

16

33.3

100

28.6

15.4

*35

*35

*35

*35

50

5

% withmicroplastic

/

/

1.5

1

1

1

1

7.2
(± 8.39)

6.0(± 8.99)1

1.3 (± 0.71)

0.5

5.8(± 3.9)Mean particles per individual (SD)
Range

PS

PS

Polymer

PS

PS

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

1 fibreFragments

Type ofmicroplastic

0.1-3mm

0.1-3mm

5.46

0.5

1 – 2.79

1 – 2.79

1 – 2.79

1 – 2.79

<5mm

48.8
(±34.5)Sizeingested(mm)

New England, USA

New England, USA

North PacificNorth PacificNorth PacificNorth PacificNorth PacificNorth PacificNorth PacificNorth PacificNorth PacificNorth Eastern Atlantic

North PacificStudy location

Carpenter et al.
1972

Carpenter et al.
1972

Davison & Asch
2011

Davison & Asch
2011

Davison & Asch
2011

Davison & Asch
2011

Davison & Asch
2011

Boerger et al.
2010

Boerger et al.
2010

Boerger et al.
2010

Boerger et al.
2010

Neves et al. 2015

Choy & Drazen
2013

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

213

Horse mackerel

Horse mackerel

Blue jack mackerel

Yellowtail amberjack

Trachurus trachurus*

Trachurus
trachurus*

Trachurus
picturatus*

Seriola lalandi*

7

19

29

56

44

100

45

Diapterus
rhombeus

Horse mackerel

71

141

Eucinostomus
melanopterus

Trachurus
trachurus*

11.1

240

Eugerresbrasilianus

10.5

3.00%

28.6

7

1

9.2

16.3

6.9

239

9.2

60

Stellifer stellifer

5

0 – 25% withmicroplastic

330

MeagreArgyrosomus
regius*200

Number ofindividuals

Stelliferbrasiliensis

Goby

CommonnamePomatoschistus
minutus (AsGobius minutus)

Phylum Chordata

Scientific name

1

0.03
±0.18

1.5 (± 0.7)

0.07
±0.25

1

5.+-5.2

1–5

1–5

1–5

0.33 – 0.83

0.33 – 0.83

0.80 (±0.8)/

Mean particles per individual (SD)

0-24

Range

PS

Polymer

Fragments

1 fibreFragment, fibres,beads

2 fragments;
1 fibreFragments

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

2 fragments,
2 fibres

PS

Type ofmicroplastic

0.5 – 11<5mm

2.2 (±2.2)

<5mm

2.52

1–5

1–5

1–5

<1

<1

<5mm

2mm

Size
ingested(mm)

North PacificNorth Eastern Atlantic

English Channel

North Eastern Atlantic

North Sea

Indonesia

Goiana Estuary, Brazil

Goiana Estuary, Brazil

Goiana Estuary, Brazil

Goiana Estuary, Brazil

Goiana Estuary, Brazil

North Eastern Atlantic

Severn Estuary, UK

Study location

Gassel et al.
2013

Neves et al. 2015

Lusher et al.
2013

Neves et al. 2015

Foekema et al.
2013

Rochman et al.
2015

Ramos et al.
2012

Ramos et al.
2012

Ramos et al.
2012

Dantas et al.
2012

Dantas et al.
2012

Neves et al. 2015

Kartar 1976

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Atlantic pomfret

Bluefin tuna

Albacore tuna

Albacore tuna

Indian Mackerel

Thunnus thynnus*

Thunnusalalunga*

Thunnusalalunga*

Rastrelliger
kanagurta*

Striped red mullet

Mullussurmulletus*

Brama brama*

Red mullets

Mullusbarbatus*

Large-eye dentex

Striped bass

Morone saxatilis

Dentexmacrophthalmus*

Red band fish

Cepolamacrophthalma

Bogue

Dragonette

Callionymus lyra

Boops boops*

Shortfin scad

Commonname

Decapyerus
macrosoma

Phylum Chordata

Scientific name

214

10

131

2

34

3

1

32

4

11

7

62

50

17

Number ofindividuals

50.00%

12.90%

50.00%

32.40%

33

100

9

100%

64%

28.57142857

32.3

38

29

% withmicroplastic

/

/

/

0.67±1.2

10.09 (±0.3)

1.75±0.5

1.57 ±
0.78

0.9+- 1.2

2.15 (± 2.0)

1.79 (± 0.9)

2.5 +- 6.3

Mean particles per individual (SD)

0-3

0-21

Range

PE

PolymerFibres2 fibres

1 fibre1 fragment,
2 fibres

7 fiberesBibre, film, foam

Fragment, fibres,
beads

Fragment, fibres,
beads

Fragments andPS

Type ofmicroplastic

0.5 -3mm

>
3.60
mm

<3cm

>
0.63
mm

<
5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

<1mm

2.0 (±1.9)2.2 (±2.2)

Sizeingested(mm)

Mangalore

Mediterranean

Arabian Sea

Mediterranean

North Eastern Atlantic

North Eastern Atlantic

North Eastern Atlantic

North Eastern Atlantic

Adriatic sea

USA

English Channel

English Channel

Indonesia

Study location

Sulochanan et al.
2014

Romeo et al.2015

Sajikumar et al.
2013

Romeo et al.2015

Neves et al. 2015

Neves et al. 2015

Neves et al. 2015

Neves et al. 2015

Avio et al. 2015

Rochman et al.
2015

Lusher et al.
2013

Lusher et al.
2013

Rochman et al.
2015

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Indian Mackerel

Chub mackerel

Atlantic mackerel

Streamlined spinefootRabbitfish

Swordfish

Axillary seabream

Pacific sandab

Winter FlounderFlounderFlounderSolenette

Thickback sole

Scomberjaponicas*

Scomberscombrus*

siganusargenteus

Siganuscanaliculatus

Xiphias gladius*

Pagellus acarne*

Citharichthys
sordidus*Pseudopleuronectes
americanus*

Platichthys flesus*

Platichthys flesus*

Buglossidium
luteumMicrochirus
variegatus

Commonname

Rastrelliger kanagurta*

Phylum Chordata

Scientific name

215

51

50

1090

/

95

5

1

56

3

2

13

35

9

Number ofindividuals

23.5

26

0 – 20.7

/

2.1

60

100

12.50%

29

50

31

31

56

% withmicroplastic

1.58 (± 0.8)

1.23 (± 0.4)

/

/

/

1+-1.2

1/

0.3-0.6

0.5+-0.7

0.46
±0.78

0.57
±1.04

1 (+- 1.1)

Mean particles per individual (SD)

0-3

0-3

Range

PS

PS

PS

Polymer

Fragment, fibres,
beads

Fragment, fibres,
beads

PS

PS

PS

Fibre and dilm

1 fiber

0-1 fragments

0-1 fragments

3 fragments; 3fibres

14 fragments; 6fibresFragments,
pellets

Type ofmicroplastic

2.2 (±2.2)

1.9 (±1.8)

1mm

1mm

0.1-3mm

<5mm

>
3.69
mm

<5mm

<
9.42
mm

Size
ingested(mm)

English Channel

English Channel

Severn Estuary, UK

Severn Estuary, UK

New England, USA

USA

North Eastern Atlantic

Mediterranean

Indonesia

Indonesia

North Eastern Atlantic

North Eastern Atlantic

Indonesia

Study location

Lusher et al.
2013

Lusher et al.
2013

Kartar 1976

Kartar 1973

Carpenter et al
1972

Rochman et al.
2015

Neves et al.,2015

Romeo et al.2015

Rochman et al.
2015

Rochman et al.
2015

Neves et al. 2015

Neves et al. 2015

Rochman et al.
2015

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

216

Astronesthes
indopacificus

762

Pemecoe catfish

60

Sciades herzbergii

Madamago sea
catfishCathorops spixii

160

Striped searobin

Prionotus evolans

31

3

66

10

1

220

11

47

4

Number ofindividuals

Cathorops spp

Piper gurnard

Blue rockfish

Sebastes
mystinus*

Trigla lyra*

Yellowtail rockfish

sebastes flavidus*

Tub gurnard

Sea snails

Liparis liparis
liparisChelidonichthys
lucernus*

Ling cod

Ophiodonelongates*

Red gurnard

GrubbyMyoxocephalus
aenaeus

Chelidonichthys
cuculus*

Chinook salmon

CommonnameOncorhynchus
tshawytscha*Phylum Chordata

Scientific name

*35

17.7

33.3

18.3

100

19

0.67

51.5

20

33

0 – 259.090909091

4.2

25

% withmicroplastic

1

0.25

0.55

0.47

1

0.26
±0.57

1±0

1.94 (± 1.3)

0.2+-0.4

0.3+-0.6/

0.1+- 0.3/

0.25+-0.5

Mean particles per individual (SD)

1–4

1–4

1–4

0-1

0-1

0-1

0-1

Range

PS

PS

PS

Polymer

Fragments

PS

1 fragment;
7 fibers

Fragments

FibresFibresPS

0-1 film

PS

Fibre

Type ofmicroplastic

1 – 2.79

0.1-3mm

<5mm

<1mm

2.1 (±2.1)1mm

0.1-3mmSizeingested(mm)

North Pacific

Goiana Estuary, Brazil

Goiana Estuary, Brazil

Goiana Estuary, Brazil

New England, USA

North Eastern Atlantic

Adriatic Sea

English Channel

USA

USA

Severn Estuary, UK

USA

New England, USA

USA

Study location

Boerger et al.
2010

Possatto et al.
2011

Possatto et al.
2011

Possatto et al.
2011

Carpenter et al
1972

Neves et al.,2015

Avio et al. 2015

Lusher et al.
2013

Rochman et al.
2015

Rochman et al.
2015

Kartar 1976

Rochman et al.
2015

Carpenter et al
1972

Rochman et al.
2015

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXJohn DoryLesserspotted catshark

Zeus faber*

Scyliorhinus
canicula*

Spiny dogfish

John Dory

Zeus faber*

Squalusacanthias*

Pacific black dragon

Idiacanthus
antrostomus

Starry ray

Highlight hatchetfish

Sternoptyx
pseudobscura

Raja asterias*

Hatchetfish

Commonname

Sternoptyx
diaphana

Phylum Chordata

Scientific name

217

9

7

20

1

46

4

6

4

Number ofindividuals

44

43

20

100

47.6

25

16.7

25

% withmicroplastic

1.25 ( ± 0.5)

0.57 (±0.79)

0.27 (±0.55)

12.65 (± 2.5)

1

1

1

Mean particles per individual (SD)Range

Polymer

4 fibres

1 fragment; 5fibres

Fibre

Fragment, fibres,
beads

Fragments

Fragments

Fragments

Type ofmicroplastic

<1mm

<5mm

<5mm

<5mm

2.2 (±2.2)
mm

0.5
mm

4.75
mm

1.58
mm

Size
ingested(mm)

Adriatic sea

North Eastern Atlantic

North Eastern Atlantic

North Eastern Atlantic

English Channel

North PacificNorth PacificNorth PacificStudy location

Avio et al. 2015

Neves et al. 2015

Neves et al. 2015

Neves et al. 2015

Lusher et al.
2013

Davison & Asch
2011

Davison & Asch
2011

Davison & Asch
2011

SourceMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXMARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Evidence of microplastic ingestion by seabirds mean (±SD unless * = SE).
Table VI.3
SpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual(Aphrodroma
brevirostris)(as Pterodroma
brevirostris)

Kerguelenpetrel26

3.8

1(Aphrodroma
brevirostris)(as Pterodroma
brevirostris)

Kerguelenpetrel1380.2

Aphrodroma brevirostris (as Pterodroma brevirostris)

Kerguelenpetrel63

22.2

Aphrodroma
brevirostris

Kerguelenpetrel28

Calonectris
diomedea

Cory’sshearwater

Calonectris
diomedea

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)Type ofplastic

Location

SourcePellets

North
Island,New
Zealand

Reed 1981

Mass<0.0083g

Pellets

Gough
Island,South
Atlantic

Furness
1985a

/

-

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

7

/

3-6mm

Fragments,
pellets

Antarctica

Ainley et al.
1990

7

42.8

/

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Cory’sshearwater

147

24.5

Stomach= 2
Gizzard= 3.1

Beads

North
Carolina,
USA

Moser &
Lee 1992

Calonectris
diomedea

Cory’sshearwater

5

100

/

<10

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al 2009

Calonectris
diomedea

Cory’sshearwater

85

83

8 (± 7.9)

3.9 ± 3.5

CanaryIslands,
Spain

Rodríguez
et al. 2012

Calonectris
diomedea

Cory’sshearwater49

96

14.6 (± 24.0)

2.5 ± 6.0 A

Catalancoast,
Mediterranean

Codina-García
et al. 2013

Daption capenseCapepetrel

18

83.3

/

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Daption capenseCapepetrel

30

33

1

5

ArderyIsland,Antarctica

Van
Franeker &Bell 1988

Daption capenseCapepetrel

105

14

/

3-6mm

Fragments,
pellets

Antarctica

Ainley et al.
1990

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar

3

100

7.6

1-4mm

Pellets

California,
USA

Baltz &
Morejohn
1976

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar

79

92

11.9

Pellets

Netherland andArcticcolonies

Van
Franeker
1985

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar850

3.9Pellets

St. Kilda,
UK

Furness
1985

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar

13

92.3

10.6

Pellets

Foula, UK

Furness
1985b

Family Procellariidae

Pellets218

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)Type ofplastic

Location

SourceFulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar

1

100

1

4mm

Pellets

Oregon,USA

Bayer &
Olson
1988

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar

44

86.4

Stomach = 3
Gizzard = 14

-

Beads

North
Carolina,
USA

Moser &
Lee 1992

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar19

84.2

Max: 26-

Pellets

Alaska,USA

Robards etal. 1995

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar

3

100

7.7

-

Pellets

Eastern
North
Pacific

Blight &Burger1997

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar15

36

3.6 (± 2.7)7 (± 4.0)

Davis
Strait,Canadian
ArcticMallory et
al. 2006

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar1295

95

14.6 (± 2.0*)–33.2(± 3.3*)>1.0

North Sea

Van
Franeker et
al. 2011

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar67

92.5

36.8 (± 9.8*)>0.5

Eastern
North
Pacific

AveryGomm etal. 2012

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar58

79

6.0 (± 0.9*)>1.0

Westfjords,
IcelandKühn & vanFraneker
2012

Fulmarus glacialis

Northern
fulmar176

93

26.6 (± 37.5)

Fragments,
pellets

Nova
Scotia,CanadaBond et al.
2014

Fulmarus
glacialoides

Antarctic
fulmar

84

2

/

2-6mm

Fragments,
pellets

Antarctica

Ainley et al.
1990

Fulmarus
glacialoides

Antarctic
fulmar

9

79

/

<10

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al 2009

Halobaena caerulea

Blue petrel

27

100

/

PelletsNew
Zealand

Reed 1981

Halobaena caerulea

Blue petrel

74

85.1

/

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Halobaena caerulea

Blue petrel

62

56

/

Fragments,
pellets

Antarctica

Ainley et al.
1990

Pellets

Gough
Island,South
Atlantic

Bourne& Imber1982

Pellets

Wellington, New
Zealand

Harper& Fowler
1987

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Family Procellariidae

3-6mm

Pachyptila spp.

Prions///(Pachyptila salvini)

Salvin’s
prion

663

20

/

31

51.6

/

Pachyptila salvini

2.5-3.5mm

219

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)Type ofplastic

Location

SourcePachyptila belcheri)Thin-billed
prion

152

6.6

/

2.5-3.5mm

Pellets

Wellington, New
Zealand

Harper& Fowler
1987

Pachyptila belcheri

Thin-billed
prion

32

68.7

/

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Pachyptila vittata

Broadbilled prion

31

39

0.6

Max mass:
0.066gPellets

Gough
Island,South
Atlantic

Furness
1985a

Pachyptila vittata

Broadbilled prion

310

16.5

/

2.5-3.5mm

Pellets

Wellington, New
Zealand

Harperand Fowler
1987

Pachyptila vittata

Broadbilled prion

137

20.4

/

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Pachyptila vittata

Broadbilled prion

69

10

/

Fragments,
pellets

Antarctica

Ainley et al.
1990

Pachyptila vittata

Broadbilled prion

149/

1987-89
B1.73 ± 3.58

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

Pachyptila vittata

Broadbilled prion

86

/

1999
B2.93 ± 3.80

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

Pachyptila vittata

Broadbilled prion

95

/

2004
B2.66 ± 5.34

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

Pachyptila desolata

Antarctic
prion

35

14.3

/

Pellets

Wellington, New
Zealand

Harperand Fowler
1987

Pachyptila desolata

Antarctic
prion

88

47.7

/

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Pachyptila desolata

Antarctic
prion

2

100

1

6-8.1mmHeard
Island,Australia

Auman etal. 2004

Pachyptila turtur

Fairy prion

105

96.2

/

2.5-3.5mm

Pellets

Wellington, New
Zealand

Harperand Fowler
1987

Pagodroma nivea

Snowpetrel

363

1

/

3-6mm

Fragments,
pellets

Antarctica

Ainley et al.
1990

Procellaria
aequinoctialis

Whitechinned
petrel193/

1983-1985
B1.66 (±
3.04)

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987,
2008

Procellaria
aequinoctialis

Whitechinned
petrel526/

2005-2006
B1.39 (±
3.25)

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

Procellaria aequinoctialis

Whitechinned
petrel

41

/

/

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al. 2009

Family Procellariidae

3-6mm

2.5-3.5mm

<10

220

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)Procellaria
aequinoctialis

Whitechinned
petrel34

44/

Procellaria
conspicillata

Spectacledpetrel3

33

Procellaria
conspicillata

Spectacledpetrel9

Pseudobulweria
rostrata

Tahiti petrel

Pterodroma incerta

Type ofplastic

Location

Source<10

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al. 2010

/

<10

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al. 2010

/

/

<10

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al. 2009

121

<1

1

Fragments

Tropical,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Atlantic
petrel1380.1

Pellets

Gough
Island,South
Atlantic

Furness
1985a

Pterodroma incerta

Atlantic
petrel20

5/Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Pterodroma macroptera

Greatwinged
petrel13

7.6/

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Pterodroma mollis

Soft-plumaged petrel

29

20.6

/

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Pterodroma mollis

Soft-plumaged petrel

18

6

0.1

0.014gPellets

Gough
Island,South
Atlantic

Furness
1985a

Pterodroma externa

Juan
Fernández
petrel

183

<1

1

3-5mm

Pellets

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Pterodroma
cervicalis

Whitenecked
petrel

12

8.3

5

3-4mm

Fragments

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Pterodroma pycrofti

Pycroft’s
petrel540

2.5 (± 0.7)

3-5mm

Fragments
andpellets

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Pterodroma leucoptera

Whitewinged
petrel110

11.8

2.2 (± 3.0)

2-5mm

Fragments

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Pterodroma brevipes

Collared
petrel

3

66.7

1

2-5mm

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Pterodroma
nigripenni

Blackwinged
petrel66

4.5

3.0 (± 3.5)

3-5mmOffshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Family Procellariidae

221

Max mass:
0.0053g

Fragments

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)Type ofplastic

Location

SourcePterodroma
longirostris

Stejneger’s
petrel46

73.9

6.8 (± 8.6)

2-5mm

Fragments
andpellets

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Puffinus Ilherminieri

Audubon’s
shearwater

119

5

Stomach = 1
Gizzard = 4.4

Beads

North
Carolina,
USA

Moser &
Lee 1992

Puffinus assimilis

Littleshearwater

13

8

0.8

Max mass:
0.12g

Pellets

Gough
Island,South
Atlantic

Furness
1985a

Puffinus bulleri

Buller’s
shearwater

3100

8.5 (± 8.6)

2-8mm

Fragments
andpellets

Tropical,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Puffinus creatopus

Pink-footed
shearwater

5

20

2.2

1-4mm

Pellets

California,
USA

Baltz andMorejohn
1976

Puffinus gravis

Greatshearwater

24

100

/

Beads

Briar
Island,Nova
ScotiaBrown etal. 1981

Puffinus gravis

Greatshearwater

13

85

12.2

Pellets

Gough
Island,South
Atlantic

Furness
1985a

Puffinus gravis

Greatshearwater

55

63.6

Stomach = 1
Gizzard = 13

Beads

North
Carolina,
USA

Moser andLee 1992

Puffinus gravis

Greatshearwater

50

66

1983-1985
B
16.5(± 19.0)

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987,
2008

Puffinus gravis

Greatshearwater53/

2005-2006
B
11.8 (±
18.9)

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

Puffinus gravis

Greatshearwater

19

89

/

<10 mmRioGrandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al. 2009

Puffinus gravis

Greatshearwater

6

100

/

<3.2-5.3mm

Pellets

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al. 2010

Puffinus gravis

Greatshearwater

84

88

11.8 (± 16.9)

Fragments
andpellets

Nova
Scotia,CanadaBond et al.
2014

Puffinus griseus

Sooty
shearwater

21

43

5.05

Pellets

California,
USA

Baltz andMorejohn
1976

Family Procellariidae

222

Max mass:
1.13g

1-4mm

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)Type ofplastic

Location

SourcePuffinus griseus

Sooty
shearwater

5

100

/

Beads

Beads

Briar
Island,Nova
Scotia,CanadaBrown etal. 1981

Puffinus griseus

Sooty
shearwater

36

58.3

11.4 (± 12.2)

3-20mmFragments
andpellets

Tropical,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Puffinus griseus

Sooty
shearwater

218

88.5

/

Pellets

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Ogi et al.
1990

Puffinus griseus

Sooty
shearwater

20

75

3.4

Pellets

Offshoreeastern
North
Pacific

Blight andBurger
1997

Puffinus griseus

Sooty
shearwater50

72

2.48 (± 2.7)

Fragments
andpellets

Nova
Scotia,CanadaBond et al.
2014

Puffinusmauretanicus

balaric
shearwater?

46

70

2.5 (± 2.9)

3.5 (±
10.5A)

Catalancoast,
Mediterranean

Codina-García
et al. 2013

Puffinus nativitatis

Christmas
shearwater

5

40

1

3-5mm

Fragments
andpellets

Tropical,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Puffinus pacificus

Wedgetailed
shearwater

23

4

2.5 (± 2.1)

Fragments
andpellets

Tropical,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Puffinus pacificus
dark phase

Wedgetailed
shearwater

62

24.2

3.5 (± 2.7)

Fragments
andpellets

Tropical,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Puffinus pacificus

Wedgetailed
shearwater

20

60

max: 11

Pellets

HawaiiFry et al.
1987

Puffinus puffinus

Manx
shearwater

10

30

0.4

Pellets

Rhum, UK

Furness
1985b

Puffinus puffinus

Manx
shearwater

25

60

/

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al. 2009

Puffinus puffinus

Manx
shearwater

6

17

/

Fragments

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilColabuno
et al. 2010

Puffinus tenuirostris

Shorttailed
shearwater

6

100

19.8

Pellets

California,
USA

Baltz andMorejohn
1976

Family Procellariidae

Pellets
2-4mm<10 mm223

1-4mm

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXType ofplastic

Location

SourcePellets

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Ogi et al.
1990

Pellets

BeringSea,
North
Pacific

Vlietstraand Parga
2002

Fragments
andpellets

Alaska,USA

Robards etal. 1995

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Yamashita
et al. 2011

North
Stradbroke
Island,Australia

Acampora
et al. 2013

>2mm

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Tanaka etal. 2013

4.9 (± 7.3)

4.0 (± 13.0
A)

Catalancoast,
Mediterranean

Codina-García
et al. 2013

<1/

Fragments,
pellets
3-6mm

Antarctica

Ainley et al.
1990

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)CommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Puffinus tenuirostris

Shorttailed
shearwater

324

81.8

/

Puffinus tenuirostris

Shorttailed
shearwater

330

83.9

5.8 (± 0.4*)

Puffinus tenuirostris

Shorttailed
shearwater

5

80

/

Puffinus tenuirostris

Shorttailed
shearwater

99

100

15.1 (± 13.2)>2mm

Puffinus tenuirostris

Shorttailed
shearwater

129

67

Adults: 4.5
Juvenile: 7.1

0.9780.8mm

Puffinus tenuirostris

Shorttailed
shearwater

12

100

27

Puffinus yelkouan

Yelkouanshearwater

31

71

184

Species

Family Procellariidae

Antarctic petrel(Thalassoica
antarctica)

2-5mm

Fragments

Family Hydrobatidae
Fregetta grallaria

White-bellied storm
petrel

13

38

1.2

Pellets
Max mass:
0.042gGoughIsland,UK
South
Atlantic

Furness
1985aFregetta grallaria

White-bellied storm
petrel296<1

1

Fragment

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Fregetta grallaria

White-bellied storm
petrel318/

1987-89
0.63 ± 1.13

Pellets
33.3%

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

White-bellied storm
petrel137

1999
0.63 ± 1.37

Pellets
20.9%

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

White-bellied storm
petrel95

2004
0.72 ± 1.87

Pellets
16.2%

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

Fregetta grallaria

Fregetta grallaria

B

/

B

/

B

224

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)Garrodia nereis

Greybackedstormpetrel

11

27

0.3

Garrodia nereis

Greybackedstormpetrel12

8.3

Oceanodroma
furcataFork-tailed
storm
petrel/Oceanodroma
furcataFork-tailed
storm
petrelOceanodroma
furcata

Type ofplastic

Location

SourcePellets:
Max mass:
0.010gGoughIsland,UK
South
Atlantic

Furness
1985a/Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

/

/

<5mm

Aleutian
Islands,
USA

Ohlendorf
et al. 1978

21

85.7

Max: 12Pellets 22%

Alaska,USA

Robards etal. 1995

Fork-tailed
storm
petrel

7

100

20.1

Pellets 16%

Eastern
North
Pacific

Blight andBurger1997

Oceanodroma
leucorhoa

Leach’sstorm
petrel1540

1.66 (± 1.2)

2-5mm

Newfoundland,
CanadaRothstein
1973

Oceanodroma
leucorhoa

Leach’sstorm
petrel

17

58.8

2.9

Pellets

St. Kilda,
Scotland,
UK

Furness
1985b

Oceanodroma
leucorhoa

Leach’sstorm
petrel354

19.8

3.5 (± 2.6)

Fragments,
pellets
2-5mm

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Oceanodroma
leucorhoa

Leach’sstorm
petrel64

48.4

Max: 13

Monofilament line,
fragments,
pellets

Alaska,USA

Robards etal. 1995

Oceanites oceanicus

Wilson’sstorm
petrel

20

75

4.4

2.9mm

ArderyIsland,Antarctica

vanFranekerand Bell
1988

Oceanites oceanicus

Wilson’sstorm
petrel91

19/

Fragments,
pellets
3-6mm

Antarctica

Ainley et al.
1990

Oceanites oceanicus

Wilson’sstorm
petrel

133

38.3

Stomach =1.4
Gizzard = 5.4

26% beads

North
Carolina,
USA

Moser andLee 1992

Pelagodroma marina

Whitefacedstormpetrel

19

84

11.7

Pellets
Max mass:
0.34g

Gough
Island,UK
South
Atlantic

Furness
1985a

Pelagodroma marina

Whitefacedstormpetrel15

73.3

13.2 ± 9.5

Pellets
2-5mm

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1985

Family Hydrobatidae

225

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)Pelagodroma marina

Whitefacedstormpetrel

24

20.8

/

Pelagodroma marina

Whitefacedstormpetrel253

Whitefacedstormpetrel86

Whitefacedstormpetrel5

Phoebetria fusca

Sooty
albatross73

Phoebastria
immutabilis

LaysanalbatrossPhoebastria nigripes

Type ofplastic

Location

SourcePellets 41%

Southern
Hemisphere

Ryan 1987

1987-89
3.98 ± 5.45

Pellets
69.6%

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

1999
4.06 ± 5.93

Pellets
37.5%

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 20082004
2.52 ± 4.43

Pellets
13.5%

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 2008

42.7/

Pellets 34%

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

/

52

/

Pellets
2-5mm

Hawaiian
Islands,
USA

Sileo et al.
1990

Blackfooted
albatross

/

12

/

Pellets
2-5mm

Hawaiian
Islands,
USA

Sileo et al.
1990

Phoebastria nigripes(As Diomedea
nigripes)

Blackfooted
albatross

3

100

5.3

Pellets 50%

Offshore,eastern
North
Pacific

Blight andBurger1997

Thalassarchemelanophri

Blackbrowed
albatross

2

100

3

Pellets 50%

Rio
Grandedo Sul,BrazilTourinho etal. 2010

Family Hydrobatidae

Pelagodroma marina

Pelagodroma marina

B

/

B

/

B

Family Diomedeidae

Order Charadriiformes
Family Laridae
Larus audouinii

Audouin’s
gull

15

13

49.3 (± 77.7)

2.5 (± 5.0*)

Catalancoast,
Mediterranean

CodinaGarcía etal. 2013

Larus glaucescens

Glaucouswinged gull589
boluses

12.2

/

<10mm

Protection
Island,USA

Lindborg etal. 2012

Larus heermanni

Heermann’s
Gull

15

7

1

Pellets
1-4mm

California,
USA

Baltz andMorejohn
1976

Larus
melanocephalus

Mediterranean gull

425

3.7 (± 7.5)

3.0 (± 5.0*)

Catalancoast,
Mediterranean

CodinaGarcía etal. 2013

226

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)

Larus michahellis

Yellowlegged gull

1233

0.9 (± 1.5)

Rissa brevirostris

Redlegged
kittiwake

15

26.7

Rissa tridactyla

Blacklegged
kittiwake8

Rissa tridactyla

Blacklegged
kittiwake

Rissa tridactyla

Type ofplastic

Location

Source2.0 (± 8.0*)

Catalancoast,
Mediterranean

Codina-García
et al. 2013/

Pellets:
Mean
5.87mmAlaska,USA

Robards etal. 1995

84Pellets
1-4mm

California,
USA

Baltz andMorejohn
1976

256

7.8

Max: 15

Pellets

Alaska,USA

Robards etal. 1995

Blacklegged
kittiwake

450

1.2 (± 1.9)

3.0 (± 5.0*)

Catalancoast,
Mediterranean

Codina-García
et al. 2013

Aethia psittacula

Parakeetauklet

/

/

/

<5mm

Aleutians
Islands,
USA

Ohlendorf
et al. 1978

Aethia psittacula

Parakeetauklet

208

93.8

17.1

Pellets
4.08mmAlaska,USA

Robards etal. 1995

Fratercula cirrhata

Tuftedpuffin489

24.5

Max: 51

Pellets
4.10mmAlaska,USA

Robards etal. 1995

Fratercula cirrhata

Tuftedpuffin989

3.3

Pellets

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Blight &Burger1997

Fratercula
corniculata

Hornedpuffin

/

/

/

<5mm

Aleutian
Islands,
USA

Ohlendorf
et al. 1978

Fratercula
corniculata

Hornedpuffin120

36.7

Max: 14Pellets
5.03mmAlaska,USA

Robards etal. 1995

Fratercula
corniculata

Hornedpuffin250

1.5Pellets

Offshore,
North
Pacific

Blight andBurger
1997

Uria aalge

Common
murre

1

100

2011 – 20121

6.6 (± 2.2)

Newfoundland,
CanadaBond et al.
2013

Uria lomvia

Thick-billed
murre

186

11

0.2 (± 0.8)

4.5 (± 3.8)

Canadian
ArcticProvencher
et al. 2010

Uria lomvia

Thick-billed
murre

3

100

2011 – 20121

6.6 (± 2.2)

Newfoundland,
CanadaBond et al.
2013

Uria lomvia

Thick-billed
murre

1249

7.7

1985 – 1986
0.14 (± 0.7*)

10.1 (± 7.4)

Newfoundland,
CanadaBond et al.
2013

Family Laridae

Family Alcidae

227

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpeciesCommonnamenPercentage withplastic(%)

Meannumber ofparticles p/
individual

Mean size
ingested ±SD (minmax) (mm)Stercorarius
antarcticus)(as Catharacta
antarcticu)

Brown
skua

494

22.7

/

Stercorarius hamiltoni(as Catharacta
hamiltoni)

Tristan
skua

11

9

Stercorarius longicaudus

Long-tailedskua

2

Stercorarius
parasiticu)

Arctic skua

Phalaropus fulicarius

Type ofplastic

Location

SourcePellets 67%

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

0.3
Max: 3Pellets
Max mass:
0.064gGoughIsland,UK
South
Atlantic

Furness
1985a

50

5

Fragments,
pellets

Eastern
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

2

50

/

Pellets 50%

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Grey phalarope

20

100

Max: 36

Beads 1.74.4mm

California,
USA

Bond 1971

Phalaropus fulicarius

Grey phalarope

7

85.7

5.7

Pellets

California,
USA

Connors
and Smith1982

Phalaropus fulicarius

Grey phalarope

2

50

/

Pellets

Southern
Ocean

Ryan 1987

Phalaropus fulicarius

Greyphalarope

55

69.1

Stomach = 1
Gizzard = 6.7

Beads
16.7%

North
Carolina,
USA

Moser andLee 1992

Phalaropus lobatus)

Rednecked
phalarope

36

19.4

Stomach = 0
Gizzard = 3.7

Beads
16.7%

North
Carolina,
USA

Moser andLee 1992

Onychoprion
fuscatus

Sooty tern

64

1.6

2

Pellets 4mm

Offshore,eastern
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

Gygis alba

White tern

8

12.5

5

Fragments
3-4mm

Offshore,eastern
North
Pacific

Spear et al.
1995

C64

7.8

1 per bolus

Polystyrene
spheres

MacquarieIsland,Australia

Slip et al.
1990

Family Stercorariidae

Family Scolopacidae

Family Sternidae

Order Suliformes
Family Phalacrocoracidae
Phalacrocorax atriceps purpurascens

Macquarie
shag

228

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX VII.
ESTIMATED COST OF MARINE LITTER FOR THE EU FISHERY SECTOR

Estimated cost of marine litter for the EU fishery sector(based on Mouat et al. 2010 in Arcadis 2014)
Table VII
Type of cost

Cost pervessel (€)

Estimated costfor the EU(M€)

Calculation method

Reduced catch revenues (contamination forces fishermen to use more time
for the selection of their catches and to
discard part of them)

2,340

28.64

The cost estimated by Mouat et al. (2010) for Scottish
vessels (€2,200 per vessel per year), actualised in2013 prices, was multiplied by the number of EU
trawlers (EU vessels that use seafloor fishing gear), i.e.
12,238.

Removing litter from fishing gear

959

11.74

The time needed to remove litter from fishing gear, as
estimated by Mouat et al (2010) for Scottish vessels(41 hours per vessel per year), was multiplied by theaverage EU27 labour cost (€23.4 per hour) and then by
the number of EU trawlers (EU vessels that use seafloor
fishing gear), i.e. 12,238.

Broken gear, fouled propellers

191

16.79

The cost related to broken fear and fouled propellers,
as estimated by Mouat et al. (2010) for Scottish vessels(€180 per vessel per year), actualised in 2013 prices
was multiplied by the total number of fishing vessels in
the EU (87,667 according to Eurostat).

Cost of rescue services

52

4.54

The average cost of incidents around the British Isles
attended by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution(RNLI) in 1998 (£4,000 per vessel) was multipliedby the number of incidents (200), and divided by the
number of UK fishing boats (7,800), as indicated by
Fanshawe (2002). The estimated yearly cost per boat
resulting by this calculation was then multiplied by
31.1%, i.e. the share of rescue operation dedicated tofishing vessels, as indicated for the UK by Mouat et al(2010) (year 2008). The result (£32 per vessel) was
then actualised in 2013 prices and converted to € andmultiplied by the total number of fishing vessels in the
EU (87,667 according to Eurostat).

Total

61.71

229

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX VIII.
ESTIMATED CLEAN-UP AND MANAGEMENT COSTS OF MARINE LITTER

Estimated clean-up and management costs of marine litter –some examples
Table VIIICountry / Region

Estimated cost at national and municipality level

SourceBelgium and The
Netherlands

USD 13.8 million (EUR 10.4 million) for all municipalities in Belgium and
The Netherlands (ave. USD 264 885/municipality/year (EUR 200 000/
municipality/ year; EUR 629 – 97 346 per km))
Costs are higher for areas with high visitor numbers; for example theDen Haag Municipality spends USD 1.43 million/year (EUR 1.27 million/year) with costs for processing litter (including transport) about USD
229/tonne (EUR 165/tonne).

Mouat et al, 2010
OSPAR 2009Peru

USD 2.5 million in labour costs (ave. USD 400 000/year in municipalityof Ventanillas)

Alfaro, 2006 cited in UNEP, 2009UK

USD 24 million (EUR 18 million) (ave. USD 193 365/municipality/year(EUR 146,000/municipality/ year) (per km cleaning costs range from
USD 226-108 600/km/year (EUR 171-82 000/km/year)).
Specific municipality costs:

Mouat et al, 2010
Fanshawe and Everard, 2002
OSPAR 2009

•Suffolk: approx. USD 93 500/year (GBP 60 000/year) on 40km ofbeaches•Carrick District Council (Devon): approx. USD 56 000/year(GBP 32 000/year) on 5km of beaches.
•Studland (Dorset): USD 54 000/year (GBP 36,000/year) to collect12-13 tonnes of litter each week in the summer along 6km ofbeaches.
•Kent coastline: direct and indirect cost of litter estimated at over USD
17 million/year (GBP 11 million/year).
•Annual expenditure on beach cleaning in 56 local authorities ranged
from USD 23/km (GBP 15/km) in West Dunbartonshire to USD
78,000/km (GBP 50 000/km) in Wyre.

Bay of Biscay and
Iberian coast

A Spanish council with 30 beaches (5 Blue Flags) spends around USD
111 000/year (EUR 80 000/year) on beach cleaning
A French council with 30 beaches (5 Blue Flags) spends around USD
556 000/year (EUR 400 000/year) on ‘beach caring’ (including beachclearing, monitoring of buoys, coastguards etc.), of which around 20%(USD 111 000 (EUR 80 000)) relates to beach clearing.
In Landes, the cost of cleaning up 108km of sandy beaches was USD
11 million (EUR 8 million) between 1998 and 2005
Cost of beach cleaning between USD 6 250-69 460/year/council(EUR 4 500-50 000/year/council) corresponding to average cost of
USD 9 000/km (EUR 6 500/km) of cleaned beach/year.

230

OSPAR, 2009MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSANNEXCountry / Region

Estimated cost at national and municipality level

SourcePolandBeach cleaning and removing litter from harbour waters cost USD 792
000 (EUR 570 000) in 2006 (same amount also spent in five communes and two ports)(UNEP, 2009)

Oregon, California,
Washington (USA)Annual combined expenditure of USD 520 million (USD 13/resident/year) to combat litter and curtail potential marine litter

Stickel et al., 2012

APEC region

USD 1 500/tonne of marine litter in 2007 terms(McIlgorm, 2009)231

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX IX.
COMPILATION OF ELEVEN BEST PRACTICES IN EUROPEAN SEAS
(EVALUATED USING THE DECYDE-4-MARLISCO TOOL)

Table XI
Title

Implementation area

Implementation
scale

Duration(y)

Theme(s)Type of initiative1

1

Operation clean
coasts ‘Calanques
Propres’FranceSub-national>5

Mitigation
Awareness

Campaign P-A-A

2

Responsible snack bar
project

Spain

National

0-1

Prevention

Econ./Market instrument

3

Sea surface marine
litter cleaning operation

TurkeySub-national>5

Mitigation

P-A-A

4

Integrated action planfor the cleaning of the
Channel coastFranceSub-national>5

Prevention
Mitigation
Awareness

P-A-A campaign

5

The plastic bag levy

IrelandNational>5

Prevention

Policy/Reg. Impl. Econ./Market instrument

6

Coastwatch Portugal
campaign

Portugal

National>5

Mitigation
Awareness

Campaign

7

Fishing for litter

Netherlands

Sub-national

2-5

Mitigation
Awareness

P-A-A

8

Blue lid campaign

TurkeyNational

1-2

Awareness

P-A-A campaign

9Separation andrecycling of materials
from fishing nets andtrawlsDenmark

National>5

Prevention
Mitigation

P-A-A other10

BREF – best available
techniques reference
document – incommon wastewater and waste gas
treatment/management systems in thechemical sector

EuropeEuropean>5

Prevention

Policy/Reg. Impl.

11

Dive against debris,project AWARE

GlobalGlobal>5

Mitigation

P-A-A campaign

232

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX X.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR MICROPLASTICS
Microplastics in Sediments
A wide range of sampling techniques are used for monitoring microplastics in sediments reviewed in HidalgoRuz et al. (2012), van Cauwenberghe et al. (2013) and Rocha-Santos and Duarte (2015). These methods
include density separation, filtration and/or sieving (Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012, Rocha-Santos and Duarte 2015).
Also, to facilitate the plastic extraction among organics components such as organic debris (shell fragments,
small organisms, algae or sea grasses, etc.) and other items such as pieces of tar, other methods can beapplied, such as enzymatic, CCL4 or H2O2 digestion of organic materials have been proposed (Galgani et al.
2011, Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012, Cole et al. 2014) such as for water samples.
The most common approach is to extract plastic particles from the sediment using a density separation basedon the differences in density between plastic and sediment particles. Typically, this is achieved by agitating thesediment sample in concentrated sodium chloride (NaCl) solution. However, as the density of the NaCl solution is only 1.2 g cm3, only low density plastics will float to the surface and can hence be extracted. Different
authors have addressed this issue by using different salt solutions to obtain higher densities. Corcoran et al.
(2009)) used a 1.4 g cm-3 polytungstate solution, Imhof et al. (2013) extracted microplastics from sediments
using zinc chloride (ZnCl2, 1.5-1.7 g cm3), while others (Dekiff et al. 2014, Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2013a, Van
Cauwenberghe et al. 2013b) used a sodium iodide (NaI, 1.6 -1.8 g cm3) solution. These modifications result in
an increased extraction efficiency for high density microplastics such as polyvinylchloride (PVC, density 1.14 1.56 g cm3) or polyethylene terephthalate (PET, density 1.32-1.41 g cm3). As these high-density plastics makeup over 17% of the global plastic demand (PlasticsEurope 2013), not including these types of microplastics
can result in a considerable underestimation of microplastic abundances in sediments. Especially as thesehigh-density plastics are the first to settle and incorporate into marine sediments.
Sieves used in separation of particles usually have mesh sizes ranging from 38μm to 5 mm and often include
330μm, 1mm and 2mm. To avoid degradation, plastics separated from the sample have been dried and kept in
the dark, however this step is probably unnecessary if samples are examined within a few months of collection.
Visual examination is the most common method to assess size and quantities of microplastics. Various imaging
approaches, such as zooscan™ (Gilfillan 2009) or semi-automated methods (flow/cytometer, cell sorter, coultercounters) may be practical for the visualization or counting of microplastic particles, with the potential to enablea large number of samples to be analysed. For a better identification of plastics, specific criteria can be applied,such as the presence of cellular or organic structures, the constant thickness of fragments or fibres, homogeneous colours and plastic brightness. However, the reliability of such approaches has not been evaluated. Other
analyses based on visual examination with light, polarised or not, or electron microscopy, may provide higher
resolution but cannot be used to determine polymer type.
The choice of sampling strategy and sampling approach (reviewed by (Hidalgo-Ruz et al. 2012) will eventually
determine the unit in which observed abundances will be reported. While a simple conversion can sometimes
be made to compare among studies (Lusher et al. 2015), comparison is often impossible or requires assumptions that lead to biased results. Studies sampling an area (using quadrants) will often report abundances perunit of surface (m-2); e.g. (Martins and Sobral 2011). If real bulk samples up to a specific depth are taken thereporting unit is m3 (e.g. (Turra,et al. 2014)). Conversion between these types of abundances is possible, if
sufficient information is available on sampling depth. Yet, for 20% of the studies this is not the case as reported

233

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

sampling depths can range from 0 to 50 cm. Other widely used reporting units are volume (mL to L; e.g. Noren2007) or weight (g to kg; e.g. Claessens et al., 2011, Ng and Obbard 2006). Conversion between these two
types of units is not straight forward. Detailed information on the density of the sediment is required. As this isnever (as far as we could establish) reported in microplastic studies, assumptions have to be made. For example, the conversion of microplastic abundances in sediment (Claessens et al. 2011). Additionally, within studies
reporting weight, a distinction can be made among those reporting wet (sediment) weight and those reporting
dry weight. This adds to the constraints of converting from weight to volume units, or vice versa. Sediment
samples from different locations or even different zones on one beach have different water content. Therefore, a(limited) number of authors choose to express microplastic abundance per sediment as dry weight to eliminate
this variable (Claessens et al. 2013, Dekiff et al. 2014, Ng and Obbard 2006, Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2013);(Vianello et al. 2013).

Microplastics in Biota
In terms of monitoring and with regards to “in situ” experiments, one of the most important aspects is the choiceof target species. It is important to consider (i) the exposure to plastics, especially for the species that are living
at the surface or in the sediments, (ii) the ingestion rate, especially for filter feeders such as bivalves, (iii) the significance of results which vary depending on whether environmental impact or human health is considered, (iv)the biological sensitivity of certain species, such as the high retention rate in birds of the procellariform family,and (v) a large distribution and easy sampling of the target species.
Biological sampling that involves the examination and characterisation of plastic fragments consumed by marineorganisms has been used for fishes (Lusher et al. 2013, Choy and Drazen 2013, Avio, Gorbi et al. 2015), invertebrates (Browne et al. 2008, Murray and Cowie 2011, Desforges et al. 2015, Van Cauwenberghe et al.,2015)
and birds ((van Franeker et al. 2011). In general, the research question addressed will greatly influence whichsampling and extraction technique to use. For example, size range of microplastics can be related to the microand macro-plankton highlighting the potential for microplastic ingestion by a wide variety of organisms (HidalgoRuz et al. 2012). Thus, the sampling scale and methodology will depend on the size of the particle or the sizegroup of the studied organisms. However, harmonisation of sampling and extraction techniques should be
adopted for monitoring purposes.
The methodological difficulties in isolation protocols partly explain why only a few studies specifically addressed
the occurrence of microplastics in marine organisms. Even though suitable methods have been identified for
sediment and water samples, the extraction and quantification of microplastics from organisms may be masked
within biological material and tissues. Protocols on the extraction of microplastics from marine invertebrates
after a pre-digestion of organic matter have been proposed (Claessens, Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2013),
indicating the importance of solvent properties and pH for sample treatment, affecting both the estimation andthe characterization of the polymers by FT-IR. The enzymatic digestion of organic matter with proteinase k is areliable method to extract microplastics from planktons samples (Cole et al. 2014), but at higher costs when
considering large scale field sampling and monitoring.

234

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

ANNEX XI.
REVISED GPML INDICATORS AND TARGETS
INDICATORS AND TARGETS - GPML IMPLEMENTATION & RELATEDPROCESSES

Generic Indicators – Goals A, B and C
Table 1
2

Intended Outcome

Indicator of GPML Implementation

Target (by December2016)

Operational partnershipwith a wide range ofpartners facilitated throughan online forum promoting
the Honolulu Commitment
and Strategy

Number of Governments,organisations, agencies andinstitutions joining the GPML.

>100

Number of submitted forms tojoin the GPML

An effective and functional international steering committee (SC)SC established according to Termsof Reference and meeting at least
once per year

SC meeting report, containing clear guidance to develop
the GPML

An effective and functional set of
Regional Nodes

Four Regional Nodes establishedaccording to Terms of Referencewith developed networks operational

Regional Nodes report to
GPML Secretariat and Focal
Areas A, B and C

Meeting of the global partnershipto review implementation of the
Honolulu Strategy

Partnership meeting

Meeting report with recommendations for improving
implementation of the GPML
and associated management
measures

Number of regional3 and national
policy instruments aligned with
the Honolulu Strategy discussions for decision-making at
respective levels.

5 regional policy instruments
10 national policy instruments

Policy instruments

Development of regionaland national policy instruments aligned with the‘Honolulu Strategy’

235

Monitoring/Verification

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Indicators and Targets - GPML Outputs
Table 2
Intended outcome

Indicator of GPML outputs

Target (by December
2016)

Monitoring/verification

Operational partnership promoting
the GPML Honolulu Strategy by the
production of reports, articles, videos,training materials and related products
and activities

Number of activities

1 per Region

Report uploaded to MLN

Production of Steering Committee reports

1 per year from each

Reports approved by GPML
Secretariat

Production of GPML Newsletter/webinar

At least annual

Newsletter produced by
GPML Secretariat

Demonstration Project progress
reports

1 annual progress
report per project

Reports approved by GPML
Secretariat

Indicators and Targets - Demonstration Projects
Specific Land-Based Indicators based on Demonstration Projects – Goals A and C
Table 3
4

Intended outcome

Indicator description

Target (by 2020)

Reduction of influx of solid
waste to the marine environment
through the demonstration ofgood policy and on-the- groundpractices and technologies,
including the introduction of new
instruments and market-based
policies

Reduction in the direct entryof plastic to the marine environment by improved waste
management

20% reduction in marine input
in 5 demonstration projects5

Self-reporting & project reports
Independent assessment ofdegree of reduction of inputs
and cost-benefit analysis.

Increase in recycling rates of
specified wastes

50% increase in recycling
rates in 5 demonstration
projects

Self-reporting & project reports
Independent assessment ofdegree of increase of recycling

Reduction in demand for‘single-use’ plastic shopping
bags6

25% reduction in demand in 5
countries

National reporting

Agreement to adopt new
good practises resulting fromdemonstration projects

10 Governments or private
sector organisations agree tomake use of good practises7

Self-reporting of proposed
actions

Number of illegal waste
dumps on coast

Significant reduction8

National reporting

236

Monitoring/verification

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpecific Sea-based Indicators based on Demonstration Projects – Goals B and C
Table 4
9

Intended Outcome

Indicator Description

Target (2020)

Monitoring/Verification

Reduction of influx of solid
waste to the marine environment
through the demonstration ofgood policy and on-the- groundpractices and technologies,
including the introduction of new
instruments and market-based
policies

Reduction in the direct entry of plastic
to the marine environment by improved
waste management

20% reduction
in marine input in5 demonstration
projects10

Self-reporting & project reports
Independent assessment ofdegree of reduction of inputs
and cost-benefit analysis.

Increase in recycling rates of specified
wastes

50% increase inrecycling rates in
5 demonstration
projects

Self-reporting & project reports
Independent assessment ofdegree of increase of recycling

Agreement to adopt new good practices
resulting from demonstration projects

10 Governments
or private sector
organisations
agree to make useof good practices11

Self-reporting of proposed
actions

Indicators and Potential Targets - Environmental State12 - Goals A, B and C
Generic Indicators – Goal C
Table 5Intended outcome

Indicator description

Target(2020-25)

Monitoring/verification

Reduce the quantities and impact on the environment of marine litter entering from all sources

Number of cetaceans injured or
killedSignificant
reduction13

IWC, Regional Seas
Bodies, national government, municipalities andNGO reporting

Number of turtles killed by entanglement

Significant
reduction

Regional Seas Bodies,
national government,
municipalities and NGO
reporting

Quantity of plastic (number andmass of items) in guts of indicatorspecies from necropsies (e.g. fish,
birds, reptiles, cetaceans)

Significant
reduction

Regional Seas Bodies,
national government,
municipalities and NGO
reportingNumber and mass of items of floating macro-litter (items km-2)

Significant
reduction

Regional Seas Bodies,
national government andNGO reporting

Number of items of floating
micro-litter, especially microplastics (items km-2)

Significant
reduction

Regional Seas Bodies,
national government andNGO reporting

Number and mass of items of litteron shorelines - km-1 shoreline

237

Regional Seas Bodies,
national government andNGO reporting

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEXSpecific Land-based Indicators – Goals A and C
Table 6
Intended Outcome

Indicator description

Target (2020-25)

Monitoring/verification

Reduce the quantities andimpact on the environment ofmarine litter introduced on landand entering the sea

Quantity of litter on tourist
beaches - km-1 shoreline

Significant reduction14

Regional Seas Bodies, national
government, municipalities andNGO reporting– Goals B and C
Table 7
Intended Outcome
Reduce the quantities andimpact on the environmentof marine litter introduced
directly at sea

Indicator Description

Target (2020-25)

Monitoring/Verification

3

Quantity (volume m and length km) of
capture fisheries gear abandoned, lostor otherwise discarded (ALDFG) (e.g.
nets, lines, pots, FADs)

Significant reduction

Quantity of other capture fisheries-related items in the environment – items
km-2 sea surface, km-2 water column,
km-2 seabed, km-1 shoreline (e.g.
strapping bands, boxes, rope)

Significant reduction

Reporting by NGOs, Regional Seas
Bodies, national governments,
municipalities, fisheries industry

Quantity (volume m3 and length km) of
aquaculture gear abandoned, lost orotherwise discarded (ALDFG) - items
km-2 sea surface, km-2 water column,
km-2 seabed, km-1 shoreline (e.g.
floats, rope, nets, cages, poles)

Significant reduction

FAO reporting; regional reporting
e.g. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA), NGOs,
Regional Seas Bodies, national
governments, municipalities

Quantity of litter derived from commercial shipping

Significant reduction

National governments, NGOs,
Regional Seas Bodies & municipalities reporting

Quantity of litter derived from cruiseindustry

Significant reduction

National reporting

Number of turtles killed by ALDFG

Significant reduction

CBD, Regional Seas Bodies,
national and NGO reporting

Number of cetaceans injured by
ALDFG

Significant reduction

FAO, IWC, CBD, Regional
Seas Bodies, national and NGO
reportingNumber of fish killed by ALDFG

Significant reduction

FAO, CBD, Regional Seas Bodies,
national and NGO reporting

Number of birds killed by ALDFG

Significant reduction

CBD, Regional Seas Bodies,
national and NGO reporting

Number of containers and other cargolost by commercial shipping

Significant reduction

National and shipping industry
reporting238

15

FAO reporting (LC/LP), Regional
Seas Bodies, national governments,
municipalities, fisheries industry

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Indicators of Social and Economic Impacts – Goal C
Table 8Intended Outcome

Indicator Description

Target(2020-25)

Monitoring/Verification

Reduce the social andeconomic impact on theenvironment of marine litter
entering from all sources

Number of vessels damaged or lost
due to collisions or entanglement(e.g. fouled propellers or blocked
cooling water intake)

Significant
reduction16

Operators, national governments

Loss of energy generation capacity(and income) and risk of accidental
damage due to blocked coolingwater intakes in coastal power
stations, including nuclear power
stations; loss of functioning ofdesalination plants.

Significant
reduction

Operators, national governments

Cost of beach cleaning

Significant
reduction

Municipalities

Number of injuries to public caused
by marine litter

Significant
reduction

National governments, municipalities, healthauthorities

Number of call-outs of emergency
services by stricken vessels

Significant
reduction

National governments, emergency services,municipalities

239

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSANNEXENDNOTES

1

Key to type of initiative: P-A-A – Practice/Activity/Action; Policy/Reg. Impl. – policy/regulation implementation; Econ./Market Instrument – economic
and market-based instruments.

2

December 2016 is initial target date. Further targets to be agreed as the GPML develops.

3

Regional in this context refers to multi-national bodies, agreements and other arrangements, such as Regional Seas Organisations. In some countries,
regional is used to indicate sub-national levels of governance or organisation.

4

Dependent on: i) the timescale for introduction of demonstration projects and other measures; ii) the scale and complexity of the socio-ecologicalsystem; iii) the willingness of all relevant stakeholders to play an active role; iv) the availability of technical know-how and funding as required; and, v)
any in-built hysteresis in the social, economic, physical or ecological elements of the system (Oosterhuis et al. 2014).

5

To include representative sectors, for example: illegal waste dumps, coastal tourism, waste management in urban areas, retail sector and Small Island
Developing States (SIDS).

6

For example, by introducing a charge per bag and encouraging more durable multiple-use replacements

7

To include representative sectors, for example: illegal waste dumps, coastal tourism, waste management in urban areas, retail sector and SIDS.

8

Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

9

Dependent on: i) the timescale for introduction of demonstration projects and other measures; ii) the scale and complexity of the socio-ecologicalsystem; iii) the willingness of all relevant stakeholders to play an active role; iv) the availability of technical know-how and funding as required; and v)
any in-built hysteresis in the social, economic, physical or ecological elements of the system.

10

To include representative sectors, for example: aquaculture, fisheries, shipping, cruise industry and recreational boating.

11

To include representative sectors, for example: aquaculture, fisheries, shipping, cruise industry and recreational boating

12‘Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

13‘Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

14

Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

15‘Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures16‘Significant reduction’ – this will be dependent on a number of factors including the chain of responsibility, context, identifying manageable sources
and the cost-benefit of introducing reduction measures

240

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSANNEXREFERENCES
Alexander, K. A., P. Kershaw, P. Cooper, A. J. Gilbert, J. M. Hall-Spencer, J. J. Heymans, A. Kannen, H. J. Los, T. O’Higgins, C. O’Mahony, P. Tett, T. A. Troostand J. van Beusekom (2015). “Challenges of achieving Good Environmental Status in the Northeast Atlantic.” Ecology and Society 20(1)Allen, R., D. Jarvis, S. Sayer and C. Mills (2012). “Entanglement of grey seals Halichoerus grypus at a haul out site in Cornwall, UK.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 64(12): 2815-2819
Andrady, A. L. and M. A. Neal (2009). “Applications and societal benefits of plastics.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 364(1526): 1977-1984
Arcadis (2014). Marine Litter study to support the establishment of an initial quantitative headline reduction target - SFRA0025. European Commission
DG Environment Project number BE0113.000668, URL: URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/pdf/
final_report.pdf
Astudillo, J. C., M. Bravo, C. P. Dumont and M. Thiel (2009). “Detached aquaculture buoys in the SE Pacific: Potential dispersal vehicles for associatedorganisms.” Aquatic Biology 5(3): 219-231
Avery-Gomm, S., P. D. O’Hara, L. Kleine, V. Bowes, L. K. Wilson and K. L. Barry (2012). “Northern fulmars as biological monitors of trends of plastic
pollution in the eastern North Pacific.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 64(9): 1776-1781
Avio, C. G., S. Gorbi, M. Milan, M. Benedetti, D. Fattorini, G. d’Errico, M. Pauletto, L. Bargelloni and F. Regoli (2015). “Pollutants bioavailability and toxicological risk from microplastics to marine mussels.” Environmental Pollution 198(0): 211-222
Baker-Austin, C., J. A. Trinanes, N. G. H. Taylor, R. Hartnell, A. Siitonen and J. Martinez-Urtaza (2013). “Emerging Vibrio risk at high latitudes in responseto ocean warming.” Nature Climate Change 3(1): 73-77
Barnes, D. K. A. (2002). “Biodiversity: Invasions by marine life on plastic debris.” Nature 416(6883): 808-809
Barnes, D. K. A. and P. Milner (2005). “Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean.” Marine Biology 146(4):815-825
Barnes, D. K. A., A. Walters and L. GonÃ§alves (2010). “Macroplastics at sea around Antarctica.” Marine environmental research 70(2): 250-252
Barreiros, J. P. and V. S. Raykov (2014). “Lethal lesions and amputation caused by plastic debris and fishing gear on the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta(Linnaeus, 1758). Three case reports from Terceira Island, Azores (NE Atlantic).” Marine pollution bulletin 86(1): 518-522
Baulch, S. and C. Perry (2014). “Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans.” Marine pollution bulletin 80(1): 210-221
BiPRO (2013). Study of the largest loopholes within the flow of packaging material. Report prepared for DG Environment, European Commission,
ENV.D.2/ETU/2011/0043, 97pp
Boerger, C. M., G. L. Lattin, S. L. Moore and C. J. Moore (2010). “Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 60(12): 2275-2278
Bond, A. L., J. F. Provencher, P.-Y. Daoust and Z. N. Lucas (2014). “Plastic ingestion by fulmars and shearwaters at Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada.”
Marine Pollution Bulletin 87(1-2): 68-75
Bond, A. L., J. F. Provencher, R. D. Elliot, P. C. Ryan, S. Rowe, I. L. Jones, G. J. Robertson and S. I. Wilhelm (2013). “Ingestion of plastic marine debris by
Common and Thick-billed Murres in the northwestern Atlantic from 1985 to 2012.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 77(1-2): 192-195
Bouwmeester, H., P. C. H. Hollman and R. J. B. Peters (2015). “Potential Health Impact of Environmentally Released Micro- and Nanoplastics in the Human
Food Production Chain: Experiences from Nanotoxicology.” Environmental Science & Technology 49(15): 8932-8947
Box, G.E.P. (1976). Science and statistics. J Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(356) pp. 791-799
Brida, J. G. and S. Zapata (2010). “Economic impacts of cruise tourism: the case of Costa Rica.” Anatolia 21(2): 322-338
Brown, S. B., B. A. Adams, D. G. Cyr and J. G. Eales (2004). “Contaminant effects on the teleost fish thyroid.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry23(7): 1680-1701
Browne, M. (2015). Sources and Pathways of Microplastics to Habitats. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. M. Bergmann, L. Gutow and M. Klages, Springer
International Publishing: 229-244
Browne, M. A., P. Crump, S. J. Niven, E. Teuten, A. Tonkin, T. Galloway and R. Thompson (2011). “Accumulation of Microplastic on Shorelines Woldwide:
Sources and Sinks.” Environmental Science & Technology 45(21): 9175-9179
Browne, M. A., A. Dissanayake, T. S. Galloway, D. M. Lowe and R. C. Thompson (2008). “Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory
system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.).” Environmental Science & Technology 42(13): 5026-5031
Browne, M. A., T. Galloway and R. Thompson (2007). “Microplastic--an emerging contaminant of potential concern?” Integrated environmental assessment and management 3(4): 559-561

241

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Browne, M. A., T. S. Galloway and R. C. Thompson (2010). “Spatial Patterns of Plastic Debris along Estuarine Shorelines.” Environmental Science &Technology 44(9): 3404-3409
Browne, M. A., S. J. Niven, T. S. Galloway, S. J. Rowland and R. C. Thompson (2013). “Microplastic Moves Pollutants and Additives to Worms, Reducing
Functions Linked to Health and Biodiversity.” Current Biology 23(23): 2388-2392
Buckley, P., J. Pinnegar, A. Dudek and A. Arquati (2011). “Report on European public awareness and perception of marine climate change risks andimpacts.” CLAMER: Climate Change and European Marine Ecosystem Research. Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas),
Lowestoft, Suffolk.
Bürgi, E. (2015). Sustainable Development in International Law Making and Trade: International Food Governance and Trade in Agriculture, Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Butt, N., Johnson, D., Pike, K., Pryce-Roberts, N. and Vigar, N. (2011). 15 years of shipping accidents; a review for WWF. Southampton Solent University,
56pp
Butterworth, A., Clegg, I., & Bass, C. (2012). Untangled – Marine debris: a global picture of the impact on animal welfare and of animal-focused solutions.
London: World Society for the Protection of Animals, 78pp
Cadbury, D. (2003). Seven Wonders of the Industrial World. London and New York: Fourth Estate. pp. 165–6, 189–192
Calder, D. R., H. H. Choong, J. T. Carlton, J. W. Chapman, J. A. Miller and J. Geller (2014). “Hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from Japanese tsunami marine
debris washing ashore in the northwestern United States.” Aquatic Invasions 9(4): 425-440
CalRecycle (2015) Beverage Container Recycling. Retrieved November 19, 2015 from http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/bevcontainer/
Camedda, A., S. Marra, M. Matiddi, G. Massaro, S. Coppa, A. Perilli, A. Ruiu, P. Briguglio and G. A. de Lucia (2014). “Interaction between loggerhead sea
turtles (Caretta caretta) and marine litter in Sardinia (Western Mediterranean Sea).” Marine Environmental Research 100: 25-32
Campani, T., M. Baini, M. Giannetti, F. Cancelli, C. Mancusi, F. Serena, L. Marsili, S. Casini and M. C. Fossi (2013). “Presence of plastic debris in loggerhead turtle stranded along the Tuscany coasts of the Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals (Italy).” Marine Pollution Bulletin 74(1):225-230
Campbell, B. and D. Pauly (2013). “Mariculture: A global analysis of production trends since 1950.” Marine Policy 39: 94-100
Carpenter, E. J. and K. L. Smith Jr (1972). “Plastics on the Sargasso sea surface.” Science 175(4027): 1240-1241
Cartwright, S. R., R. A. Coleman and M. A. Browne (2006). “Ecologically relevant effects of pulse application of copper on the limpet Patella vulgata.”
Marine Ecology Progress Series 326: 187-194
CCAMLR (2015) Report on the CCAMLR Marine Debris monitoring program (WG-FSA-15/15). CCAMLR Secretariat, Hobart.
Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., Jeftic, L., Jung, R.T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E.T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan,
L., Pereira, M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B., Westphalen, G. (2009). UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine
Litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical Series No. 83: xii + 120 pp
Chavarro, J.M. (2013). Common concern of humankind and its implications in international environmental law. In (K de Feyter ed.) Globalisation and common responsibilities of states, Ashgate, pp. 337 – 351
Chin, C. B. (2008). Cruising in the Global Economy: Profits, Pleasure and work at Sea. Surrey, UK: Ashgate
Claessens, M., S. De Meester, L. Van Landuyt, K. De Clerck and C. R. Janssen (2011). “Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments
along the Belgian coast.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(10): 2199-2204
CleanSea (2015). Policy options for litter-free seas. An output of the project Towards a Clean Litter-free European Environment through Scientific Evidence, Innovative Tools and Good Governance, 2013-2015
CMS (2014) Management of marine debris. UNEP/CMS/Resolution 11.30. Convention on Migratory Species, 4pp
Cole, M., P. Lindeque, E. Fileman, C. Halsband and T. S. Galloway (2015). “The Impact of Polystyrene Microplastics on Feeding, Function and Fecundity
in the Marine Copepod Calanus helgolandicus.” Environmental Science & Technology 49(2): 1130-1137
Cole, M., P. Lindeque, C. Halsband and T. S. Galloway (2011). “Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 62(12): 2588-2597
Convery, F., S. McDonnell and S. Ferreira (2007). “The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy.” Environmental & Resource
Economics 38(1): 1-11
Convey, P., D. K. A. Barnes and A. Morton (2002). “Debris accumulation on oceanic island shores of the Scotia Arc, Antarctica.” Polar Biology 25(8):612-617
Corcoran, E., C. Nellemann, E. Baker, R. Bos, D. Osborn, H. Savelli (eds). 2010. Sick Water? The central role of waste- water management in sustainable
development. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, UN-HABITAT, GRID-Arendal. www.grida.no 88pp
Covello, V.T. and M.W. Merkhofer, M. W. (1993) Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risks, Plenum Press, New York, USA
Cummings J (2005) Operational multivariate ocean data assimilation. Quart J Roy Meteor Soc Part C 131: 3583–3604
Dantas, D. V., M. Barletta and M. F. Da Costa (2012). “The seasonal and spatial patterns of ingestion of polyfilament nylon fragments by estuarine drums(Sciaenidae).” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 19(2): 600-606
Davison, P. and R. G. Asch (2011). “Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre.” Marine Ecology Progress Series
432: 173-180

242

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Defra (2015). Review of standards for biodegradable plastic carrier bags. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, UK, 38pp
DEPA (2015). Microplastics – occurrences, effects and sources of releases to the environment in Denmark. Danish Environmental Protection Agency,
205pp
Desforges, J.-P. W., M. Galbraith, N. Dangerfield and P. S. Ross (2014). “Widespread distribution of microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific
Ocean” Marine Pollution Bulletin 79(1–2): 94-99
de Stephanis, R., J. Gimenez, E. Carpinelli, C. Gutierrez-Exposito and A. Canadas (2013). “As main meal for sperm whales: Plastics debris.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 69(1-2): 206-214
De Witte, B., L. Devriese, K. Bekaert, S. Hoffman, G. Vandermeersch, K. Cooreman and J. Robbens (2014). “Quality assessment of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis): Comparison between commercial and wild types.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 85(1): 146-155
Deudero, S. and C. Alomar (2015). “Mediterranean marine biodiversity under threat: Reviewing influence of marine litter on species.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 98(1-2): 58-68
Devriese, L. I., M. D. van der Meulen, T. Maes, K. Bekaert, I. Paul-Pont, L. Frère, J. Robbens and A. D. Vethaak (2015). “Microplastic contamination in brown
shrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the Southern North Sea and Channel area.” Marine pollution bulletin 98(1): 179-187
Di Beneditto, A. P. M. and R. M. A. Ramos (2014). “Marine debris ingestion by coastal dolphins: What drives differences between sympatric species?”
Marine pollution bulletin 83(1): 298-301
Dris, R., H. Imhof, W. Sanchez, J. Gasperi, F. Galgani, B. Tassin and C. Laforsch (2015). “Beyond the ocean: contamination of freshwater ecosystems with(micro-)plastic particles.” Environmental Chemistry 12(5): 539-550
Duarte, C. M., K. A. Pitt, C. H. Lucas, J. E. Purcell, S.-i. Uye, K. Robinson, L. Brotz, M. B. Decker, K. R. Sutherland and A. Malej (2012). “Is global ocean
sprawl a cause of jellyfish blooms?” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(2): 91-97
Dumichen, E., A. K. Barthel, U. Braun, C. G. Bannick, K. Brand, M. Jekel and R. Senz (2015). “Analysis of polyethylene microplastics in environmental
samples, using a thermal decomposition method.” Water Res 85: 451-457
Eastman, L., V. Hidalgo-Ruz, V. Macaya, P. Nuñez and M. Thiel (2014). “The potential for young citizen scientist projects: a case study of Chilean
schoolchildren collecting data on marine litter.” Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 14(4): 569-579
Eastman, L. B., P. Nunez, B. Crettier and M. Thiel (2013). “Identification of self-reported user behavior, education level, and preferences to reduce littering
on beaches - A survey from the SE Pacific.” Ocean & Coastal Management 78: 18-24
Ebbesmeyer, C. C., W. J. Ingraham, J. A. Jones and M. J. Donohue (2012). “Marine debris from the Oregon Dungeness crab fishery recovered in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: Identification and oceanic drift paths.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3): 69-75
EC (2014) Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, theCouncil, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2014) 398 final, 14pp
EC (2015). Closing the loop – an EU action plan for the circular economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2015) 614/2, 21pp
EC (2015). Ex-Post evaluation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. Brussels: European
Commission.
Ecorys (2011) The role of market-based instruments in achieving a resource efficient economy. Retrieved November 18, 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/role_marketbased.pdf
Ebbesmeyer and Sciano (2009). Flotsametrics and the Floating World: How One Man’s Obsession with Runaway Sneakers and Rubber Ducks Revolutionized Ocean Science Smithsonian Books.
EEA (2001). “Late lessons from early warnings.” EEA Report
EEA (2013). “Late lessons from early warnings.” EEA Report 1/2013, 48pp
EMF (2014). Towards the circular economy. Volume 3: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains. Ellen McArthur Foundation, 80pp
EMSA. (2005). A Study on the Availability and Use of Port Reception Facilities for Ship-Generated Waste. Lisbon: European Maritime Safety Agency
Eriksen, M., A. Cummins, N. Maximenko, M. Thiel, G. Lattin, S. Wilson, J. Hafner, A. Zellers & S. Rifman (2013). “Plastic Pollution in the South Pacific
Subtropical Gyre.” Plastics Engineering 69(5): 38+
Eriksen, M., L. C. M. Lebreton, H. S. Carson, M. Thiel, C. J. Moore, J. C. Borerro, F. Galgani, P. G. Ryan and J. Reisser (2014). “Plastic Pollution in theWorld’s Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea.” Plos One 9(12)Eriksen, M., N. Maximenko, M. Thiel, A. Cummins, G. Lattin, S. Wilson, J. Hafner, A. Zellers and S. Rifman (2013). “Plastic pollution in the South Pacificsubtropical gyre.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 68(1-2): 71-76
Eriksson, C. and H. Burton (2003). “Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals from Macquarie Island.” Ambio 32(6): 380384
Essel, R., Engel, L. Carus, M. and Ahrens, R.H. (2015). Sources of microplastics relevant to marine protection in Germany. Umwelt Bundesamt, 64/2015,
Report No. (UFA-FB) 002147/E, 46pp
Fanning, L., R. Mahon, P. McConney, J. Angulo, F. Burrows, B. Chakalall, D. Gil, M. Haughton, S. Heileman, S. Martinez, L. o. Ostine, A. Oviedo, S. Parsons,T. Phillips, C. S. Arroya, B. Simmons and C. Toro (2007). “A large marine ecosystem governance framework.” Marine Policy 31(4): 434-443
Fanshawe, T. and M. Everard (2002). “The impacts of marine litter.” Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group, Report of the Marine Litter Task
Team (MaLiTT) May.

243

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICSANNEX

FAO (1993). Recommendations for the marking of fishing gear supplement to the Expert Consultation on the Marking of Fishing Gear. Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada, 14–19 July 1991 (FAO). Fisheries Reports R485Suppl. Rome. 48 pp. ISBN 92-5-103330-7
FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome. 41 pp. ISBN 92-5-103834-1
FAO (2011). Global food losses and foodwaste – extent, causes and prevention. FAO, Rome.
FAO (2015) Global Aquaculture production statistics database updated to 2013; summary information, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO.
FAO (2014). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2014. Rome: 223pp
Farrell, P. and K. Nelson (2013). “Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.).” Environmental Pollution 177: 1-3
Feistel, R., S. Weinreben, H. Wolf, S. Seitz, P. Spitzer, B. Adel, G. Nausch, B. Schneider and D. G. Wright (2010). “Density and Absolute Salinity of theBaltic Sea 2006-2009.” Ocean Science 6(1): 3-24
Flint, S., T. Markle, S. Thompson and E. Wallace (2012). “Bisphenol A exposure, effects, and policy: A wildlife perspective.” Journal of Environmental
Management 104: 19-34
Foekema, E. M., C. De Gruijter, M. T. Mergia, J. A. van Franeker, A. J. Murk and A. A. Koelmans (2013). “Plastic in North Sea Fish.” Environmental Science& Technology 47(15): 8818-8824
Fok, L. and P. K. Cheung (2015). “Hong Kong at the Pearl River Estuary: A hotspot of microplastic pollution.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 99(1-2): 112-118
Font, T. and J. Lloret (2014). “Biological and Ecological Impacts Derived from Recreational Fishing in Mediterranean Coastal Areas.” Reviews in Fisheries
Science & Aquaculture 22(1): 73-85
Frey, O. and A. DeVogelaere (2014). “A Review of Resource Management Strategies for Protection of Seamounts.” Silver Spring, MD:(1.8. Department ofCommerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 2014) 52
Frost, A. and M. Cullen (1997). “Marine debris on northern New South Wales beaches (Australia): Sources and the role of beach usage.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 34(5): 348-352
Gabrielsen, K. M., G. D. Villanger, E. Lie, M. Karimi, C. Lydersen, K. M. Kovacs and B. M. Jenssen (2011). “Levels and patterns of hydroxylated polychlorinated biphenyls (OH-PCBs) and their associations with thyroid hormones in hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) mother-pup pairs.” Aquatic Toxicology
105(3-4): 482-491
Galgani, F., K. Ellerbrake, E. Fries and C. Goreux (2011). “Marine pollution: Let us not forget beach sand.” Environmental Sciences Europe 23(1): 40
Galgani, F., S. Jaunet, A. Campillo, X. Guenegen and E. His (1995). “DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF DEBRIS ON THE CONTINENTAL-SHELF
OF THE NORTH-WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN-SEA.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 30(11): 713-717
Galgani, F., J. P. Leaute, P. Moguedet, A. Souplet, Y. Verin, A. Carpentier, H. Goraguer, D. Latrouite, B. Andral, Y. Cadiou, J. C. Mahe, J. C. Poulard and P.
Nerisson (2000). “Litter on the sea floor along European coasts.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(6): 516-527
Galgani, F., A. Souplet and Y. Cadiou (1996). “Accumulation of debris on the deep sea floor off the FrenchMediterranean coast.” Marine Ecology Progress
Series 142(1-3): 225-234
Galgani F., H. G., Werner S. and GES TG marine Litter, Ed. (2014). Guidance for monitoring marine litter in European seas.
Gambash, S., M. Kochba and Y. Avnimelech (1990). “STUDIES ON SLOW-RELEASE FERTILIZERS .2. A METHOD FOR EVALUATION OF NUTRIENTRELEASE RATE FROM SLOW-RELEASING FERTILIZERS.” Soil Science 150(1): 446-450
GESAMP (2008). Assessment and communication of environmental risks in coastal aquaculture (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/
UNEP Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) Rome, FAO GESAMP Reports and Studies no. 76: 198pp
GESAMP (2015). Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment.” (Kershaw P.J ed.) (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). Rep.Stud. GESAMP No.90, 96p
GESAMP (2016). Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: second phase assessment part one” (Kershaw P.J. and Rochman,
C. eds.) (IMO/FAO/UNESCO IOC/UNIDO/WMO/ IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection). Rep.Stud. GESAMP
Gilardi, K. V. K., D. Carlson-Bremer, J. A. June, K. Antonelis, G. Broadhurst and T. Cowan (2010). “Marine species mortality in derelict fishing nets in Puget
Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of derelict net removal.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(3): 376-382
Gilman, E. (2015). “Status of international monitoring and management of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear and ghost fishing.” Marine Policy
60: 225-239
Gilman, E., Chopin, F., Suuronen, P. & Kuemlangan, B. (in press). Abandoned, lost and discarded gill nets and trammel nets - Methods to estimate ghost
fishing mortality, and status of regional monitoring and management. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper Nr 600.
Gitti, G., Schweitzer, J-P., Watkins, W., Russi, D., Konar Mutafoglu, K. and ten Brink, P. (2015). Marine litter: Market Based Instruments to face the market
failure. Institute of European Environmental Policy, Brussels.
Gjøsaeter, J. and K. Kawaguchi (1980). A review of the world resources of mesopelagic fish, Food & Agriculture Org.
Goldstein, M. C., H. S. Carson and M. Eriksen (2014). “Relationship of diversity and habitat area in North Pacific plastic-associated rafting communities.”
Marine Biology 161(6): 1441-1453
Goldstein, M. C., M. Rosenberg and L. Cheng (2012). “Increased oceanic microplastic debris enhances oviposition in an endemic pelagic insect.” Biology
Letters 8(5): 817-820

244

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Graham, E. R. and J. T. Thompson (2009). “Deposit- and suspension-feeding sea cucumbers (Echinodermata) ingest plastic fragments.” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 368(1): 22-29
Gregory, M. R. (2009). “Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings- entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking andalien invasions.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364(1526): 2013-2025
Hall-Spencer, J. M., M. Tasker, M. Soffker, S. Christiansen, S. Rogers, M. Campbell and K. Hoydal (2009). “Design of Marine Protected Areas on high seas
and territorial waters of Rockall Bank.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 305-308
Hammer, S., R. G. Nager, P. C. D. Johnson, R. W. Furness and J. F. Provencher (2016). “Plastic debris in great skua (Stercorarius skua) pellets corresponds to seabird prey species.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 103(1–2): 206-210
Hardesty, B. D., D. Holdsworth, A. T. Revill and C. Wilcox (2015). “A biochemical approach for identifying plastics exposure in live wildlife.” Methods in
Ecology and Evolution 6(1): 92-98
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., L. Gutow, R. C. Thompson and M. Thiel (2012). “Microplastics in the marine environment: a review of the methods used for identificationand quantification.” Environ Sci Technol 46(6): 3060-3075
Hidalgo-Ruz, V. and M. Thiel (2013). “Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): A study supported by acitizen science project.” Marine Environmental Research 87-88: 12-18
Hinojosa, I. A. and M. Thiel (2009). “Floating marine debris in fjords, gulfs and channels of southern Chile.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 58(3): 341-350
Hoarau, L., L. Ainley, C. Jean and S. Ciccione (2014). “Ingestion and defecation of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from bycatches in the South-West Indian Ocean.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 84(1-2): 90-96
Hohn, J (2011). “Moby Duck: The True Story of 28,800 Bath Toys Lost at Sea and of the Beachcombers, Oceanographers, Environmentalists, and Fools,
Including the Author, Who Went in Search of Them.” Penguin.
Hong, S., J. Lee, Y. C. Jang, Y. J. Kim, H. J. Kim, D. Han, S. H. Hong, D. Kang and W. J. Shim (2013). “Impacts of marine debris on wild animals in the coastal
area of Korea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 66(1-2): 117-124
Hong, S., J. Lee, D. Kang, H.-W. Choi and S.-H. Ko (2014). “Quantities, composition, and sources of beach debris in Korea from the results of nationwide
monitoring.” Marine pollution bulletin 84(1-2): 27-34
Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Urban Development Series No. 15, World Bank,
Washington, USA, 116pp
IOC-UNESCO and UNEP (2016). Large Marine Ecosystems: Status and Trends. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.
Hubinger, J. C. and D. C. Havery (2006). “Analysis of consumer cosmetic products for phthalate esters.” J Cosmet Sci 57(2): 127-137
Irigoien, X., T. A. Klevjer, A. Røstad, U. Martinez, G. Boyra, J. Acuña, A. Bode, F. Echevarria, J. Gonzalez-Gordillo and S. Hernandez-Leon (2014). “Large
mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean.” Nature communications 5.
Ivar do Sul, J. A. and M. F. Costa (2014). “The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine environment.” Environmental Pollution 185(0):352-364
Ivar do Sul, J. A., M. F. Costa, J. S. Silva-Cavalcanti and M. C. B. Araújo (2014). “Plastic debris retention and exportation by a mangrove forest patch.”
Marine Pollution Bulletin 78(1–2): 252-257
IWC (2014). Report on the IWC workshop on mitigation and management of the threats posed by marine debris for cetaceans. Conservation Committee,
International Whaling Commission, IWC/65/CCRep04 (CC Agenda Item 9), 40pp
Jambeck, J. R., R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T. R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. Andrady, R. Narayan and K. L. Law (2015). “Plastic waste inputs from land into theocean.” Science 347(6223): 768-771
Jantz, L. A., C. L. Morishige, G. L. Bruland and C. A. Lepczyk (2013). “Ingestion of plastic marine debris by longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) in the
North Pacific Ocean.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 69(1-2): 97-104
Jepson et al. 2016, PCB pollution continues to impact populations of orcas and other dolphins in European waters. Sci. Rep.6, 18573
Johnston, E. L. and D. A. Roberts (2009). “Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: A review and meta-analysis.” Environmental Pollution 157(6): 1745-1752
JRC (2011). Marine litter: technical recommendations for the implementation of MSFD requirements. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission,
Ispra. EUR 25009 EN-2011, 93pp
JRC (2013). Guidance on monitoring of marine litter in European Seas. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, EUR 26113 EN, 128pp
Kaluza, P., A. Kölzsch, M. T. Gastner and B. Blasius (2010). “The complex network of global cargo ship movements.” Journal of The Royal Society Interface.
Kaposi, K. L., B. Mos, B. P. Kelaher and S. A. Dworjanyn (2014). “Ingestion of Microplastic Has Limited Impact on a Marine Larva.” Environmental Science& Technology 48(3): 1638-1645
Karcher, M. J., S. Gerland, I. H. Harms, M. Iosjpe, H. E. Heldal, P. J. Kershaw and M. Sickel (2004). “The dispersion of Tc-99 in the Nordic Seas and theArctic Ocean: a comparison of model results observations.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 74(1-3): 185-198
Karlsson, T. (2015). Can microliter in sediment and biota be quantified? Method development and analysis of microliter in field collected biota and sediment. Master thesis, University of Gothenburg and VU University of Amsterdam-IVM.
Klein, R. A. (2002). Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Industry. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society.
Kohler, M., J. Tremp, M. Zennegg, C. Seiler, S. Minder-Kohler, M. Beck, P. Lienemann, L. Wegmann and P. Schmidt (2005). “Joint sealants: An overlooked
diffuse source of polychlorinated biphenyls in buildings.” Environmental Science & Technology 39(7): 1967-1973

245

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Kripa, V., K. Mohamed, D. Prema, A. Mohan and K. Abhilash (2014). “Persistent occurrence of potential fishing zones in the southeastern Arabian Sea.”
Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 43(5): 737-745
Kuhn, S. and J. A. van Franeker (2012). “Plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) in Iceland.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 64(6): 12521254
Kühn, S. and J. A. van Franeker (2012). “Plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) in Iceland.” Marine pollution bulletin 64(6): 12521254
Kukulka, T., G. Proskurowski, S. Moret-Ferguson, D. W. Meyer and K. L. Law (2012). “The effect of wind mixing on the vertical distribution of buoyant plastic
debris.” Geophysical Research Letters 39.
Laist, D. W. (1997). Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement
and ingestion records. Marine Debris, Springer: 99-139
Lattin, G. L., C. J. Moore, A. F. Zellers, S. L. Moore and S. B. Weisberg (2004). “A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths
near the southern California shore.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 49(4): 291-294
Lavee, D. (2010). “A cost-benefit analysis of a deposit-refund program for beverage containers in Israel.” Waste Management 30(2): 338-345
Law, K. L., S. Moret-Ferguson, N. A. Maximenko, G. Proskurowski, E. E. Peacock, J. Hafner and C. M. Reddy (2010). “Plastic Accumulation in the North
Atlantic Subtropical Gyre.” Science 329(5996): 1185-1188
Law, K. L., S. E. Morét-Ferguson, D. S. Goodwin, E. R. Zettler, E. DeForce, T. Kukulka and G. Proskurowski (2014). “Distribution of Surface Plastic Debris
in the Eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11-Year Data Set.” Environmental Science & Technology 48(9): 4732-4738
Law, R. J., J. Barry, J. L. Barber, P. Bersuder, R. Deaville, R. J. Reid, A. Brownlow, R. Penrose, J. Barnett, J. Loveridge, B. Smith and P. D. Jepson (2012).
“Contaminants in cetaceans from UK waters: Status as assessed within the Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme from 1990 to 2008.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 64(7): 1485-1494
Lazar, B. and R. Gracan (2011). “Ingestion of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in the Adriatic Sea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin62(1): 43-47
Lebreton, L. C., S. D. Greer and J. C. Borrero (2012). “Numerical modelling of floating debris in the world’s oceans.” Mar Pollut Bull 64(3): 653-661
Lechner, A., H. Keckeis, F. Lumesberger-Loisl, B. Zens, R. Krusch, M. Tritthart, M. Glas and E. Schludermann (2014). “The Danube so colourful: A potpourriof plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river.” Environmental Pollution 188: 177-181
Lee, J., S. Hong, Y. C. Jang, M. J. Lee, D. Kang and W. J. Shim (2015). “Finding solutions for the styrofoam buoy debris problem through participatory
workshops.” Marine Policy 51: 182-189
Lee, J., S. Hong, Y. K. Song, S. H. Hong, Y. C. Jang, M. Jang, N. W. Heo, G. M. Han, M. J. Lee, D. Kang and W. J. Shim (2013). “Relationships among theabundances of plastic debris in different size classes on beaches in South Korea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 77(1-2): 349-354
Lee, S., Y.-C. Jang, J.-G. Kim, J.-E. Park, Y.-Y. Kang, W.-I. Kim and S.-K. Shin (2015). “Static and dynamic flow analysis of PSDEs in plastics from usedarid end-of-life TVs and computer monitors by life cycle in Korea.” Science of the Total Environment 506: 76-85
Leslie, H.A., van Velzen, M.J.M. and Vethaak, A.D. (2013). Microplastic survey of the Dutch environment: novel data set of microplastics in North Sea
sediments, treated wastewater effluents and marine biota. IVM, Vrei Universtat, Amsterdam.
Letessier, T. B., P. J. Bouchet, J. Reisser and J. J. Meeuwig (2015). “Baited videography reveals remote foraging and migration behaviour of sea turtles.”Marine Biodiversity 45(4): 609-610
Li, J., D. Yang, L. Li, K. Jabeen and H. Shi (2015). “Microplastics in commercial bivalves from China.” Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987) 207:
190-195
Liebezeit, G. and E. Liebezeit (2013). “Non-pollen particulates in honey and sugar.” Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A 30(12): 2136-2140
Liebezeit, G. and E. Liebezeit (2014). “Synthetic particles as contaminants in German beers.” Food Additives and Contaminants Part a-Chemistry
Analysis Control Exposure & Risk Assessment 31(9): 1574-1578
Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., and Arthur, C. 2013. Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-46
Lithner, D., A. Larsson and G. Dave (2011). “Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical composition.” Science of the Total Environment 409(18): 3309-3324
Lloret, J., A. Garrote, N. Balasch and T. Font (2014). “Estimating recreational fishing tackle loss in Mediterranean coastal areas: Potential impacts on
wildlife.” Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 17(2): 179-185
Loizidou, X. I., M. I. Loizides and D. L. Orthodoxou (2014). “A novel best practices approach: The MARLISCO case.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 88(1-2):
118-128
Lozier, M. S. (2015). “Overturning Assumptions: Past, present, and future concerns about the ocean’s circulation.” Oceanography 28(2): 240-251
Lusher, A. L., M. McHugh and R. C. Thompson (2013). “Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from theEnglish Channel.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 67(1-2): 94-99
Lusher, A. L., V. Tirelli, I. O’Connor and R. Officer (2015). “Microplastics in Arctic polar waters: the first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples.” Scientific Reports 5: 14947
Mace, T. H. (2012). “At-sea detection of marine debris: Overview of technologies, processes, issues, and options.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3):
23-27
Macfadyen, G., T. Huntington and R. Cappell (2009). Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear, Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO).

246

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Mallory, M. L. (2008). “Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars from the Canadian high Arctic.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(8): 1501-1504
Mallory, M. L., G. J. Roberston and A. Moenting (2006). “Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars from Davis Strait, Nunavut, Canada.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 52(7): 813-815
Masó, M., E. Garcés, F. Pagès and J. Camp (2003). “Drifting plastic debris as a potential vector for dispersing Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) species.”
Scientia Marina 67(1): 107-111
Masura, J., J. Baker1, G. Foster,C. Arthur, C. Herring (2015). Laboratory methods for the analysis of microplastics in the marine environment: recommendations for quantifying synthetic particles in waters and sediments. . NOAA Technical Memorandum 20.
Mathalon, A. and P. Hill (2014). “Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbor, Nova Scotia.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 81(1):69-79
Maxim, L.; J. H. Spangenberg; M. O’Connor (2009) An analysis of risk for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework. Ecological Economics, 69.12-23.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.03.017
Maximenko, A., E. Olevsky and M. Shtern (2008). “Plastic behavior of agglomerated powder.” Computational Materials Science 43(4): 704-709
Maximenko, N., J. Hafner and P. Niiler (2012). “Pathways of marine debris derived from trajectories of Lagrangian drifters.” Marine Pollution Bulletin65(1): 51-62.
McDermid, K. J. and T. L. McMullen (2004). “Quantitative analysis of small-plastic debris on beaches in the Hawaiian archipelago.” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 48(7-8): 790-794.
McDonough, W., M. Braungart and B. Clinton (2013). The upcycle: Beyond sustainability--designing for abundance, Macmillan.
McElwee, K., M. J. Donohue, C. A. Courtney, C. Morishige and A. Rivera-Vicente (2012). “A strategy for detecting derelict fishing gear at sea.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3): 7-15
McElwee, K., Morishige, C. (Eds.) (2010). In: Proceedings of the Workshop on At-sea Detection and Removal of Derelict Fishing Gear. December 9–10,
2008. US Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS- OR&R-34
McIlgorm, A., Campbell H. F. and Rule M. J. (2011), ‘The economic cost and control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region’, Ocean & Coastal
Management 54 (2011) 643-651
Mee, L. (2006). “Reviving dead zones.” Scientific American 295(5): 78-85
MCS (2014). Great British bean-clean, 2014 report. Marine Conservation Society, 8pp
Mee, L., P. Cooper, A. Kannen, A. J. Gilbert and T. O’Higgins (2015). “Sustaining Europe’s seas as coupled social-ecological systems.” Ecology andSociety 20(1)Mee, L. D., R. L. Jefferson, D. d. A. Laffoley and M. Elliott (2008). “How good is good? Human values and Europe’s proposed Marine Strategy Directive.”
Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(2): 187-204
Mercer, I. (2007). MSC Napoli; the aftermath of the beaching off Branscombe, East Deven, 20 January 2007. Report of an Inquiry. Devon County Council,
44pp
Mintenig, S., Int-Ven, I., Löder, M and Gerdts, G. (2014). Mikropalstik un ausgewählten Kläranlagen des Oldenburgisch- Ostfriesischen Wasservrbandes(OOWV) in Niederasachsen. Alfred Wegener Institute, Helgoland, 50 pp. Moore, M., Bogomolni, A., Bowman, R., Hamilton, P., Harry, C., Knowlton, A.,
Landry, S., Rotstein, D.S. and Touhey, K. (2006). Fatally entangled right whales can die extremely slowly. Oceans 06, MTS-IEEE-Boston, Massachusetts,
September 18-21, 2006. p3.
Morishige, C. and K. McElwee (2012). “At-sea detection of derelict fishing gear in the North Pacific: An overview.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1-3): 1-6
Morritt, D., P. V. Stefanoudis, D. Pearce, O. A. Crimmen and P. F. Clark (2014). “Plastic in the Thames: A river runs through it.” Marine Pollution Bulletin78(1–2): 196-200
Mouat, J. and R. L. Lozano “Of Marine Litter.”
Murphy S, Barber JL, Learmonth JA, Read FL, Deaville R, Perkins MW, et al. (2015) Reproductive Failure in UK Harbour Porpoises Phocoena phocoena:
Legacy of Pollutant Exposure? PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131085. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0131085
Murray, F. and P. R. Cowie (2011). “Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758).” Marine Pollution Bulletin62(6): 1207-1217
Muthu, S. S., Y. Li, J.-Y. Hu and P.-Y. Mok (2012). “Recyclability Potential Index (RPI): The concept and quantification of RPI for textile fibres.” Ecological
Indicators 18(0): 58-62
Muthu, S. S., Y. Li, J. Y. Hu and P. Y. Mok (2012). “A hot-button societal issue: Biodegradation studies (soil burial test) of grocery shopping bags.” Energy
Education Science and Technology Part a-Energy Science and Research 29(1): 31-40
Muthu, S. S., Y. Li, J. Y. Hu and P. Y. Mok (2012). “Quantification of environmental impact and ecological sustainability for textile fibres.” Ecological Indicators 13(1): 66-74
Napper, I. E., A. Bakir, S. J. Rowland and R. C. Thompson (2015). “Characterisation, quantity and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted fromcosmetics.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 99(1-2): 178-185
NEA (2014). Sources of microplastics to the marine environment, Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet).
Neves, A. A. S., N. Pinardi, F. Martins, J. Janeiro, A. Samaras, G. Zodiatis and M. De Dominicis (2015). “Towards a common oil spill risk assessment framework - Adapting ISO 31000 and addressing uncertainties.” Journal of Environmental Management 159: 158-168

247

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Nevins, H., Donnelly, E., Hester, M., Hyrenbach, D., 2011. Evidence for increasing plastic ingestion in northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis rodgersii) in
the Pacific. In: Fifth International Marine Debris Conference, Honolulu Hawaii 20e25 Mar 2011. Oral Presentation Extended Abstracts 4.b.3, pp 140-144
Newman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., ten Brink, P., & Schweitzer, J.-P. (2015). The Economics of Marine Litter. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, & M. Klages,
Marine Anthropogenic Litter (pp. 367-394). London: Springer Open.
Niemeijer, D. and R. S. de Groot (2008). “A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets.” Ecological Indicators 8(1): 14-25
NOAA (2014). Report on the Entanglement of Marine Species in Marine Debris with an Emphasis on Species in the United States. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program Silver Spring, MD. 28pp
NOAA (2015). Report on the impacts of “ghost fishing” via derelict fishing gear. NOAA Marine Debris Program Silver Spring, MD. 25pp
NOWPAP (2007). Guidelines for monitoring litter on the beaches and shorelines of the Northwest Pacific Region. NOWPAP CEARAC, 12pp
NOWPAP (2011). Marine Litter Guidelines for Tourists and Tour Operators in Marine and Coastal Areas, NOWPAP CEARAC, 11pp
North, E. J. and R. U. Halden (2013). “Plastics and Environmental Health: The Road Ahead.” Reviews on environmental health 28(1): 1-8
Nuñez, P., Thiel, M. (2011). El Viaje de Jurella y los Microplásticos. Científicos de la Basura, Coquimbo. http://www.cientificosdelabasura.cl/docs/jurella.
pdf
NPA (2015). Harbour Dues and Environmental Protection Levy. Retrieved September 10, 2015, from Nigerian Port Authority: http://www.nigerianports.
org/dynamicdata/uploads/Tariffs/TARIFFShipApr15.pdf?id=96
Obi, I. (2009). African Circle invests $43m to reduce ship pollution in Lagos. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from Vanguard: http://www.vanguardngr.
com/2009/08/african-circle-invests-43m-to-reduce-ship-pollution-in-lagos/
Ocean Conservancy (2014). Report of the International Coastal Clean-up 2013.
Ocean Conservancy 2015). Stemming the tide: land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean. Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Businessand Environment, 48pp
OECD (2001). Extended producer responsibility – a guidance manual for governments. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris,
164 pp
OECD (2005). Analytical Framework for Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Extended Producer Responsibility Programmes. Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Paris.
OECD (2011) Environmental Taxation – A guide for policy makers. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, Retrieved November
20, 2015 from http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/48164926.pdf
OECD (2012). “Detailed review paper on the state of the science on novel in vitro and in vivo screening and testing methods and endpoints for evaluating
endocrine disruptors.” OECD Series on Testing and Assessment no. 178, 213pp
OECD and Japanese Ministry of the Environment (2014) Issues Paper: The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Opportunities andChallenges: http://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/Global%20Forum%20Tokyo%20Issues%20Paper%2030-5-2014.pdf
Oehlmann, J., U. Schulte-Oehlmann, W. Kloas, O. Jagnytsch, I. Lutz, K. O. Kusk, L. Wollenberger, E. M. Santos, G. C. Paull, K. J. W. Van Look and C. R.
Tyler (2009). “A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences364(1526): 2047-2062
Oehlmann, J., U. Schulte-Oehlmann, W. Kloas, O. Jagnytsch, I. Lutz, K. O. Kusk, L. Wollenberger, E. M. Santos, G. C. Paull, K. J. W. VanLook and C. R.
Tyler (2009). “A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 364(1526): 2047-2062
Oosterhuis, F., E. Papyrakis and B. Boteler (2014). “Economic instruments and marine litter control.” Ocean & Coastal Management 102: 47-54
ORA 2015. 2015 plastics-to-fuel project developer’s guide. Prepared by the Ocean Recovery Alliance for the American Chemistry Council, 74pp
OSPAR (2007). Monitoring of marine litter in the OSAPR region. OSPAR Pilot Project on monitoring marine beach litter. OSPAR, London, 75pp
Pape, J., Rau, H., Fahy, F. and Davies, A. (2011) Developing Policies and Instruments for Sustainable Household Consumption: Irish Experiences andFutures. J Consum Policy, Vol: 34, pp. 25–42 DOI 10.1007/s10603-010-9151-4
Pease, C. J., E. L. Johnston and A. G. B. Poore (2010). “Genetic variability in tolerance to copper contamination in a herbivorous marine invertebrate.”
Aquatic Toxicology 99(1): 10-16
Pemba, A. G., M. Rostagno, T. A. Lee and S. A. Miller (2014). “Cyclic and spirocyclic polyacetal ethers from lignin-based aromatics.” Polymer Chemistry5(9): 3214-3221
Peterlin, M., B. Kontic and B. C. Kross (2005). “Public perception of environmental pressures within the Slovene coastal zone.” Ocean & Coastal Management 48(2): 189-204
Pham, C. K., E. Ramirez-Llodra, C. H. S. Alt, T. Amaro, M. Bergmann, M. Canals, J. B. Company, J. Davies, G. Duineveld, F. Galgani, K. L. Howell, V. A. I.
Huvenne, E. Isidro, D. O. B. Jones, G. Lastras, T. Morato, J. N. Gomes-Pereira, A. Purser, H. Stewart, I. Tojeira, X. Tubau, D. Van Rooij and P. A. Tyler (2014).
“Marine Litter Distribution and Density in European Seas, from the Shelves to Deep Basins.” PLoS ONE 9(4): e95839
Pidgeon, N. and T. Rogers-Hayden (2007). “Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’?”
Health, Risk & Society 9(2): 191-210
PlasticsEurope (2013). Plastics - the Facts 2013. An analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data. Brussels, Plastics Europe:
Association of Plastic Manufacturers: 40

248

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Plastics Europe (2014) Plastics the facts 2013
Plastics Europe (2015) Plastics the facts 2014
Port of Gdansk Authority SA. (2012). Fee tariff for services of Port of Gdansk Authority SA. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from http://www.portgdansk.
pl/events/780/pga-sa-tariff-2012.pdf
Potemra, J. T. (2012). “Numerical modeling with application to tracking marine debris.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3): 42-50
Provencher, J. F., A. J. Gaston, M. L. Mallory, D. O’Hara P and H. G. Gilchrist (2010). “Ingested plastic in a diving seabird, the thick-billed murre (Urialomvia), in the eastern Canadian Arctic.” Mar Pollut Bull 60(9): 1406-1411
Rainbow, P. S. (2007). “Trace metal bioaccumulation: models, metabolic availability and toxicity.” Environment international 33(4): 576-582
Rech, S. &V. Macaya-Caquilpán & J. F. Pantoja & M. M. Rivadeneira & C. Kroeger Campodónico & M. Thiel. Sampling of riverine litter with citizen scientists—findings and recommendations. Environ Monit Assess (2015) 187:335 DOI 10.1007/s10661-015-4473-y
Recuerda Girela, M. A. (2006) Risk and reason in the European Union Law. European Food and Feed Law Review, 270
Reddy, M. S., B. Shaik, S. Adimurthy and G. Ramachandraiah (2006). “Description of the small plastics fragments in marine sediments along the Alang-Sosiya ship-breaking yard, India.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68(3-4): 656-660
Reich, M. C. (2005). “Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems - case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA)
and life cycle costing (LCC).” Journal of Cleaner Production 13(3): 253-263
Reisser, J., J. Shaw, G. Hallegraeff, M. Proietti, D. K. A. Barnes, M. Thums, C. Wilcox, B. D. Hardesty and C. Pattiaratchi (2014). “Millimeter-Sized Marine
Plastics: A New Pelagic Habitat for Microorganisms and Invertebrates.” Plos One 9(6)Reisser, J., J. Shaw, C. Wilcox, B. D. Hardesty, M. Proietti, M. Thums and C. Pattiaratchi (2013). “Marine Plastic Pollution in Waters around Australia:
Characteristics, Concentrations, and Pathways.” Plos One 8(11)Reisser, J., B. Slat, K. Noble, K. du Plessis, M. Epp, M. Proietti, J. de Sonneville, T. Becker and C. Pattiaratchi (2015). “The vertical distribution of buoyant
plastics at sea: an observational study in the North Atlantic Gyre.” Biogeosciences 12(4): 1249-1256
Robbins, J., Barlow, J., Burdin, A.M., Calambokidis, J., Gabriele, C., Clapham, P., Ford, J., LeDuc, R., Mattila, D.K., Quinn, T., Rojas-Bracho, L., Straley, J.,
Urban, J., Wade, P., Weller, D., Witteveen, B.H., Wynne, K. and Yamaguchi, M. 2007. Comparison of humpback whale entanglement across the North
Pacific Ocean based on scar evidence. Unpublished report to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission. Report number SC/59/
BCRoberts, D. A., E. L. Johnston and A. G. B. Poore (2008). “Contamination of marine biogenic habitats and effects upon associated epifauna.” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 56(6): 1057-1065
Rocha-Santos, T. and A. C. Duarte (2015). “A critical overview of the analytical approaches to the occurrence, the fate and the behavior of microplastics
in the environment.” TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 65: 47-53
Rochman, C. M. (2013). “Long-Term Field Measurement of Sorption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plastic Pellets: Implications for Plastic
Marine Debris.” ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE &amp; TECHNOLOGY 47(3): 1646-1654
Rochman, C. M. (2013). “Plastics and Priority Pollutants: A Multiple Stressor in Aquatic Habitats.” Environmental Science & Technology 47(6): 2439-2440
Rochman, C. M., M. A. Browne, B. S. Halpern, B. T. Hentschel, E. Hoh, H. K. Karapanagioti, L. M. Rios-Mendoza, H. Takada, S. Teh and R. C. Thompson(2013). “Classify plastic waste as hazardous.” Nature 494(7436): 169-171
Rochman, C. M., B. T. Hentschel and S. J. Teh (2014). “Long-Term Sorption of Metals Is Similar among Plastic Types: Implications for Plastic Debris in
Aquatic Environments.” Plos One 9(1)Rochman, C. M., E. Hoh, B. T. Hentschel and S. Kaye (2013). “Long-Term Field Measurement of Sorption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plastic
Pellets: Implications for Plastic Marine Debris.” Environmental Science & Technology 47(3): 1646-1654
Rochman, C. M., E. Hoh, T. Kurobe and S. J. Teh (2013). “Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress.” Scientific
Reports 3.
Rochman, C. M., C. Manzano, B. T. Hentschel, S. L. M. Simonich and E. Hoh (2013). “Polystyrene Plastic: A Source and Sink for Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in the Marine Environment.” Environmental Science & Technology 47(24): 13976-13984
Rochman, C. M., A. Tahir, S. L. Williams, D. V. Baxa, R. Lam, J. T. Miller, F. C. Teh, S. Werorilangi and S. J. Teh (2015). “Anthropogenic debris in seafood:
Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption.” Scientific Reports 5: 10.
Romeo, T., B. Pietro, C. Pedà, P. Consoli, F. Andaloro and M. C. Fossi (2015). “First evidence of presence of plastic debris in stomach of large pelagic fishin the Mediterranean Sea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin(0).
Ross, P., R. DeSwart, R. Addison, H. VanLoveren, J. Vos and A. Osterhaus (1996). “Contaminant-induced immunotoxicity in harbour seals: Wildlife atrisk?” Toxicology 112(2): 157-169
Ryan, P. G. (2013). “A simple technique for counting marine debris at sea reveals steep litter gradients between the Straits of Malacca and the Bay of
Bengal.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 69(1-2): 128-136
Ryan, P. G. (2014). “Litter survey detects the South Atlantic ‘garbage patch’.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 79(1-2): 220-224
Ryan, P. G., H. Bouwman, C. L. Moloney, M. Yuyama and H. Takada (2012). “Long-term decreases in persistent organic pollutants in South African coastal
waters detected from beached polyethylene pellets.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 64(12): 2756-2760
Ryan, P. G., A. D. Connell and B. D. Gardner (1988). “Plastic ingestion and PCBs in seabirds: Is there a relationship?” Marine Pollution Bulletin 19(4):174-176
Ryan, P. G., A. Lamprecht, D. Swanepoel and C. L. Moloney (2014). “The effect of fine-scale sampling frequency on estimates of beach litter accumulation.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 88(1-2): 249-254

249

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Ryan, P. G. and C. L. Moloney (1990). “PLASTIC AND OTHER ARTIFACTS ON SOUTH-AFRICAN BEACHES - TEMPORAL TRENDS IN ABUNDANCEAND COMPOSITION.” South African Journal of Science 86(7-10): 450-452
Ryan, P. G., C. J. Moore, J. A. Van Franeker and C. L. Moloney (2009). “Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364(1526): 1999-2012
Santos, I. R., A. C. Friedrich and F. P. Barretto (2005). “Overseas garbage pollution on beaches of northeast Brazil.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 50(7):783-786
Satterfield, T., J. Conti, B. H. Harthorn, N. Pidgeon and A. Pitts (2013). “Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications forpolicy dialogues about emerging technologies.” Science and Public Policy 40(2): 247-260
Satterfield, T., M. Kandlikar, C. E. Beaudrie, J. Conti and B. H. Harthorn (2009). “Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.” Nature nanotechnology 4(11): 752-758
SCBD (2012) Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel—GEF (2012). Impacts of Marine
Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status and Potential Solutions, Montreal, Technical Series No. 67, 61 pages.
SDSN (2015) Indicators and a monitoring framework for the sustainable development goals, A report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by
the Leadership Council of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 233pp
Sekiguchi, T., A. Saika, K. Nomura, T. Watanabe, T. Watanabe, Y. Fujimoto, M. Enoki, T. Sato, C. Kato and H. Kanehiro (2011). “Biodegradation of aliphatic
polyesters soaked in deep seawaters and isolation of poly( -caprolactone)-degrading bacteria.” Polymer Degradation and Stability 96(7): 1397-1403
Scheld, A. M., D. M. Bilkovic and K. J. Havens (2016). “The Dilemma of Derelict Gear.” Scientific Reports 6.
Shen, L., E. Worrell and M. K. Patel (2010). “Environmental impact assessment of man-made cellulose fibres.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling
55(2): 260-274
Sherrington, C., Darrah, C., Hann, S., Cole, G. and Corbin, M. (2016). Study to support the development of measures to combat a range of marine littersources. Report for European Commission DG Environment, 432pp
Sindiku, O., J. Babayemi, O. Osibanjo, M. Schlummer, M. Schluep, A. Watson and R. Weber (2015). “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers listed as Stockholm
Convention POPs, other brominated flame retardants and heavy metals in e-waste polymers in Nigeria.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research22(19): 14489-14501
Slavin, C., A. Grage and M. L. Campbell (2012). “Linking social drivers of marine debris with actual marine debris on beaches.” Marine Pollution Bulletin
64(8): 1580-1588
Snoussi, M., E. Noumi, D. Usai, L. A. Sechi, S. Zanetti and A. Bakhrouf (2008). “Distribution of some virulence related-properties of Vibrio alginolyticus
strains isolated from Mediterranean seawater (Bay of Khenis, Tunisia): investigation of eight Vibrio cholerae virulence genes.” World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 24(10): 2133-2141
Steg, L., J. W. Bolderdijk, K. Keizer and G. Perlaviciute (2014). “An Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-environmental Behaviour: The role of values,
situational factors and goals.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 38: 104-115
Steg, L. and C. Vlek (2009). “Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 29(3): 309-317
Sulochanan, B., A. Dineshbabu, R. Saravanan, G. S. Bhat and S. Lavanya (2014). “Occurrence of Noctiluca scintillans bloom off Mangalore in the ArabianSea.” Indian Journal of Fisheries 61(1): 42-48
Sundt, P., Schulze, P-E. and Syversen, F. (2014). Sources of microplastic pollution to the environment. Norwegian Environment Agency, 108pp
Sussarellu, R., A. Huvet, S. Lapègue, V. Quillen, C. Lelong, F. Cornette, L. F. Jensen, N. Bierne and P. Boudry (2015). “Additive transcriptomic variation
associated with reproductive traits suggest local adaptation in a recently settled population of the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas.” BMC Genomics
16(1): 1-12
Szulc, > (2013). Collecting ghost nets in the Baltic Sea. Final report on the activities conducted in 2012. WWF Poland, 39pp
Takehama S. (1990) Estimation of damage to fishing vessels cause by marine debris, based on insurance statistics. In: Shomura R.S., Godfrey M.L.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2-7 April 1989. US Department of Commerce, 792-809(NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC—154)
Talsness, C. E., A. J. M. Andrade, S. N. Kuriyama, J. A. Taylor and F. S. vom Saal (2009). “Components of plastic: experimental studies in animals andrelevance for human health.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 364(1526): 2079-2096
Tang, Z., Q. Huang, J. Cheng, Y. Yang, J. Yang, W. Guo, Z. Nie, N. Zeng and L. Jin (2014). “Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Soils, Sediments, and Human
Hair in a Plastic Waste Recycling Area: A Neglected Heavily Polluted Area.” Environmental Science & Technology 48(3): 1508-1516
Tanner, C. and S. W. Kast (2003). “Promotine sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers.” Psychology & Marketing 20(10): 883-902
Taylor, R. (1996). “Forms of capital and intrinsic values.” Chemosphere 33(9): 1801-1811
Ten Brink, P., I. Lutchman, S. Bassi, S. Speck, S. Sheavly, K. M. Register and C. Woolaway (2009). Guidelines on the use of market-based instruments toaddress the problem of marine litter.
Teuten, E. L., J. M. Saquing, D. R. U. Knappe, M. A. Barlaz, S. Jonsson, A. Bjorn, S. J. Rowland, R. C. Thompson, T. S. Galloway, R. Yamashita, D. Ochi, Y.
Watanuki, C. Moore, H. V. Pham, T. S. Tana, M. Prudente, R. Boonyatumanond, M. P. Zakaria, K. Akkhavong, Y. Ogata, H. Hirai, S. Iwasa, K. Mizukawa, Y.
Hagino, A. Imamura, M. Saha and H. Takada (2009). “Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife.” PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 364(1526): 2027-2045
Thomas, P. and M. S. Rahman (2010). “Region-wide impairment of Atlantic croaker testicular development and sperm production in the northern Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic dead zone.” Marine Environmental Research 69: S59-S62

250

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

Thompson, R. C., Y. Olson, R. P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S. J. Rowland, A. W. G. John, D. McGonigle and A. E. Russell (2004). “Lost at Sea: Where Is All the
Plastic?” Science 304(5672): 838
Tran, N. K. and H.-D. Haasis (2015). “An empirical study of fleet expansion and growth of ship size in container liner shipping.” International Journal of
Production Economics 159: 241-253
Trevail, A. M., G. W. Gabrielsen, S. Kuhn and J. A. Van Franeker (2015). “Elevated levels of ingested plastic in a high Arctic seabird, the northern fulmar(Fulmarus glacialis).” Polar Biology 38(7): 975-981
Turner, R. K. and B. Fisher (2008). “Environmental economics - To the rich man the spoils.” Nature 451(7182): 1067-1068
UN (2011). The globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). 4th Edition, United Nations, New YorkUNEP (2014a). Emerging issues for Small Island Developing States. Results of the UNEP Foresight Process. United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), Nairobi, 68pp
UNEP (2014b). Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry.
UNEP (2015a) Biodegradable Plastics and Marine Litter. Misconceptions, concerns and impacts on marine environments. United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.
UNEP (2015b) Global waste management outlook. UNEP & ISWA, 346pp
UNEP (2016a in press) Marine litter prevention and waste management guidance manual: Best Available Techniques. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, 62pp
UNEP (2016b in press) Marine litter – a modelling study. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.
UNEP (2016c in press). Marine litter: socio-economic study. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.
UN HABITAT (2010) Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities. Earthscan.
Vallack, H. W., D. J. Bakker, I. Brandt, E. Broström-Lundén, A. Brouwer, K. R. Bull, C. Gough, R. Guardans, I. Holoubek and B. Jansson (1998). “Controlling
persistent organic pollutants–what next?” Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 6(3): 143-175
Van Cauwenberghe, L., M. Claessens, M. B. Vandegehuchte and C. R. Janssen (2015). “Microplastics are taken up by mussels (Mytilus edulis) and lugworms (Arenicola marina) living in natural habitats.” Environmental Pollution 199: 10-17
Van Cauwenberghe, L., L. Devriese, F. Galgani, J. Robbens and C. R. Janssen (2015). “Microplastics in sediments: A review of techniques, occurrence
and effects” Marine Environmental Research 111: 5-17
Van Cauwenberghe, L. and C. R. Janssen (2014). “Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption.” Environmental Pollution 193: 65-70
Van Cauwenberghe, L., A. Vanreusel, J. Mees and C. R. Janssen (2013). “Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediments.” Environ Pollut 182: 495-499
Van Franeker, J.A. (2010) Fulmar Litter EcoQO Monitoring in the Netherlands 1979-2008 in relation to EU Directive 2000/59/EC on Port Reception
Facilities. IMARES Report Nr C027/10. IMARES Wageningen UR.
van Franeker, J. A., C. Blaize, J. Danielsen, K. Fairclough, J. Gollan, N. Guse, P.-L. Hansen, M. Heubeck, J.-K. Jensen, G. Le Guillou, B. Olsen, K.-O. Olsen,
J. Pedersen, E. W. M. Stienen and D. M. Turner (2011). “Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea.” Environmental Pollution 159(10): 2609-2615
van Franeker, J. A., C. Blaize, J. Danielsen, K. Fairclough, J. Gollan, N. Guse, P. L. Hansen, M. Heubeck, J. K. Jensen, G. Le Guillou, B. Olsen, K. O. Olsen,
J. Pedersen, E. W. Stienen and D. M. Turner (2011). “Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea.” Environ
Pollut 159(10): 2609-2615
van Franeker, J. A. and K. L. Law (2015). “Seabirds, gyres and global trends in plastic pollution.” Environmental Pollution 203: 89-96
van Sebille, E., C. Wilcox, L. Lebreton, N. Maximenko, B. D. Hardesty, J. A. van Franeker, M. Eriksen, D. Siegel, F. Galgani and K. L. Law (2015). “A global
inventory of small floating plastic debris.” Environmental Research Letters 10(12): 124006
Vandermeersch, G., H. M. Lourenço, D. Alvarez-Muñoz, S. Cunha, J. Diogène, G. Cano-Sancho, J. J. Sloth, C. Kwadijk, D. Barcelo and W. Allegaert (2015).
“Environmental contaminants of emerging concern in seafood–European database on contaminant levels.” Environmental Research 143: 29-45
Vandermeersch, G., L. Van Cauwenberghe, C. R. Janssen, A. Marques, K. Granby, G. Fait, M. J. Kotterman, J. Diogène, K. Bekaert and J. Robbens (2015).
“A critical view on microplastic quantification in aquatic organisms.” Environmental Research 143: 46-55
Vasseur, P. and C. Cossu-Leguille (2006). “Linking molecular interactions to consequent effects of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) upon populations.” Chemosphere 62(7): 1033-1042
Veenstra, T. S. and J. H. Churnside (2012). “Airborne sensors for detecting large marine debris at sea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(1–3): 63-68
Veitayaki, J. (2010). Pacific Islands Drowning in their Waste: waste management issues that threaten sustainability. In: proceedings of International Seminaron Islands and Oceans. Ocean Policy Research Foundation, Nippon Foundation, pp. 19-33
Velzeboer, I., C. J. A. F. Kwadijk and A. A. Koelmans (2014). “Strong Sorption of PCBs to Nanoplastics, Microplastics, Carbon Nanotubes, and Fullerenes.”
Environmental Science & Technology 48(9): 4869-4876
Venrick, E. L., T. W. Backman, W. C. Bartram, C. J. Platt, Thornhil.Ms and R. E. Yates (1973). “Man-made Objects on Surface of Central North-Pacific
Ocean.” Nature 241(5387): 271-271
Verschoor, A. (2014). “Quick scan and Prioritization of Microplastic Sources and Emissions.” RIVM Letter report 2014-0156
Vianello, A., A. Boldrin, P. Guerriero, V. Moschino, R. Rella, A. Sturaro and L. Da Ros (2013). “Microplastic particles in sediments of Lagoon of Venice, Italy:First observations on occurrence, spatial patterns and identification.” Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 130: 54-61
Vignola, R., S. Klinsky, J. Tam and T. McDaniels (2013). “Public perception, knowledge and policy support for mitigation and adaption to Climate Change
in Costa Rica: Comparisons with North American and European studies.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18(3): 303-323
Vignola, R., T. L. McDaniels and R. W. Scholz (2013). “Governance structures for ecosystem-based adaptation: Using policy-network analysis to identify

251

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS AND MICROPLASTICS
ANNEX

key organizations for bridging information across scales and policy areas.” Environmental Science & Policy 31: 71-84
Walker, T. R., K. Reid, J. P. Y. Arnould and J. P. Croxall (1997). “Marine debris surveys at Bird Island, South Georgia 1990-1995.” Marine Pollution Bulletin34(1): 61-65
Waluda, C. M. and I. J. Staniland (2013). “Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 74(1): 244-252
Watnick, P. and R. Kolter (2000). “Biofilm, city of microbes.” J Bacteriol 182(10): 2675-2679
Watts, A. J. R., C. Lewis, R. M. Goodhead, S. J. Beckett, J. Moger, C. R. Tyler and T. S. Galloway (2014). “Uptake and Retention of Microplastics by the
Shore Crab Carcinus maenas.” Environmental Science & Technology.
Webber, D. N.; Parker, S. J. (2012) Estimating Unaccounted Fishing Mortality In The Ross Sea Region And Amundsen Sea (CCAMLR Subareas 88.1 And
88.2) Bottom Longline Fisheries Targeting Antarctic Toothfish, CCAMLR SCIENCE 19: 17-30
Weiss, B. (2006). “Anogenital Distance: Defining ‘Normal’”. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(7): A399-A399
Whittle, D. and O. R. Santos (2006). “Protecting Cuba’s Environment: Efforts to Design and Implement Effective Environmental Laws and Policies in
Cuba.” Cuban studies 37(1): 73-103
Widmer, W. M. and R. A. Reis (2010). “An Experimental Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Beach Ashtrays in Preventing Marine Contamination.” Brazilian
Archives of Biology and Technology 53(5): 1205-1216
Wilcox, C., G. Heathcote, J. Goldberg, R. Gunn, D. Peel and B. D. Hardesty (2015). “Understanding the sources and effects of abandoned, lost, anddiscarded fishing gear on marine turtles in northern Australia.” Conservation Biology 29(1): 198-206
Wilcox, C., E. Van Sebille and B. D. Hardesty (2015). “Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing.” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 112(38): 11899-11904
Woodall, L. C., C. Gwinnett, M. Packer, R. C. Thompson, L. F. Robinson and G. L. Paterson (2015). “Using a forensic science approach to minimize
environmental contamination and to identify microfibres in marine sediments.” Marine pollution bulletin.
Woodall, L. C., L. F. Robinson, A. D. Rogers, B. E. Narayanaswamy and G. L. Paterson (2015). “Deep-sea litter: a comparison of seamounts, banks and aridge in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans reveals both environmental and anthropogenic factors impact accumulation and composition.” Frontiers in Marine
Science 2: 3
Woodall, L. C., A. Sanchez-Vidal, M. Canals, G. L. J. Paterson, R. Coppock, V. Sleight, A. Calafat, A. D. Rogers, B. E. Narayanaswamy and R. C. Thompson(2014). The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris.
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company (2016). “The New Plastics Economy — Rethinking the future of plastics”.
WSC (2014). Survey results for containers lost at sea – 2014 update. World Shipping Council, 3pp
Wu, N., T. Herrmann, O. Paepke, J. Tickner, R. Hale, E. Harvey, M. La Guardia, M. D. McClean and T. F. Webster (2007). “Human exposure to PBDEs:
Associations of PBDE body burdens with food consumption and house dust concentrations.” Environmental Science & Technology 41(5): 1584-1589
Wyles, K. J., S. Pahl and R. C. Thompson (2014). “Perceived risks and benefits of recreational visits to the marine environment: Integrating impacts on theenvironment and impacts on the visitor.” Ocean & Coastal Management 88: 53-63
Yang, D., H. Shi, L. Li, J. Li, K. Jabeen and P. Kolandhasamy (2015). “Microplastic Pollution in Table Salts from China.” Environmental Science & Technology 49(22): 13622-13627
Zardus, J. (2008). “The silent deep: the discovery, ecology and conservation of the deep sea, by Tony Koslow.” Marine Biology Research 4(3)Zardus, J. D., B. T. Nedved, Y. Huang, C. Tran and M. G. Hadfield (2008). “Microbial biofilms facilitate adhesion in biofouling invertebrates.” The Biological
Bulletin 214(1): 91-98
Zettler, E. R., T. J. Mincer and L. A. Amaral-Zettler (2013). “Life in the “Plastisphere”: Microbial Communities on Plastic Marine Debris.” Environmental
Science & Technology 47(13): 7137-7146

252