Chapter 25. Marine Debris
Contributors: Juying Wang (Lead member), Kim Kiho, Douglas Ofiara, Yuhui Zhao Arsonina Bera, Rainer Lohmann, Maria Clare Baker
1. Overview
1.1. Definition of marine debris
Litter disposal and accumulation in the marine environment is one of th fastest-growing threats to the health of the world's oceans (Pham et al., 2014) Marine debris, also known as marine litter, has been defined by UNEP (2009) as “an persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed of o abandoned in the marine and coastal environment”. Marine debris consists of item that have been made or used by people and deliberately discarded into the sea o rivers or on beaches; brought indirectly to the sea with rivers, sewage, storm wate or winds; accidentally lost, including material lost at sea in bad weather (fishing gear cargo); or deliberately left by people on beaches and shores (UNEP, 2005). In 1997 the United States of America Academy of Sciences estimated the total input o marine litter into the oceans, worldwide, at approximately 6.4 million tons per yea (UNEP, 2005). Jambeck et al (2015) recently calculated that 275 million metric ton (MT) of plastic waste was generated in 192 coastal countries in 2010, with 4.8 t 12.7 million MT entering the ocean.
Marine debris is present in all marine habitats, from densely populated regions t remote points far from human activities (UNEP, 2009) from beaches and shallo waters to the deep-ocean trenches (Miyake et al. 2011). The density of marin debris varies greatly among locations, influenced by anthropogenic activities hydrological and meteorological conditions, geomorphology, entry point, and th physical characteristics of debris items. However, a recent study presented data o detectable floating plastic accumulation with visual observation in the North Atlanti and Caribbean from 1986 to 2008, the highest concentrations (> 200,000 pieces pe square kilometre) occurred in the convergence zones (Law et al., 2010). Compute model simulations, based on data from about 12,000 satellite-tracked float deployed since the early 1990s as part of the Global Ocean Drifter Program (GODP 2011), confirm that debris will be subject to transport by ocean currents and wil tend to accumulate in a limited number of sub-tropical convergence zones or gyre (IPRC, 2008; UNEP and NOAA, (2011)) (Figure 1).
© 2016 United Nations  

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
Figure 1. A model simulation of the distribution of marine litter in the ocean after ten years show plastic converging in the five gyres: the Indian Ocean gyre, the North and South Pacific gyres, and th North and South Atlantic gyres. The simulation, derived from a uniform initial distribution and based
on real drifter movements, shows the influence of the five main gyres over time. Source: IPRC, 2008.
1.2 Types of marine debris
Marine debris comprises of various material types, and can be classified into severa distinct categories (ANZECC, 1996; Edyvane et al., 2004; Ribic et al., 1992; Galgani e al., 2010):
(a) Plastics, covering a wide range of synthetic polymeric materials, includin fishing nets, ropes, buoys and other fisheries-related equipment; consumer goods such as plastic bags, plastic packaging, plastic toys; tampon applicators; nappies smoking-related items, such as cigarette butts, lighters and cigar tips; plastic resi pellets; microplastic particles;
(b) Metal, including drink cans, aerosol cans, foil wrappers and disposabl barbeques;
(c) Glass, including bottles, bulbs;
(d) Processed timber, including pallets, crates and particle boards (e) Paper and cardboard, including cartons, cups and bags;
(f) Rubber, including tyres, balloons and gloves;
(g) Clothing and textiles, including shoes, furnishings and towels.
© 2016 United Nations  

1.3 Sources of marine debris
Marine debris originates from a wide and diverse range of sources. The majority o marine debris (approximately 80 per cent) entering the seas and oceans i considered to originate from land-based sources (Allsopp, et al., 2006), includin sewage treatment, combined sewer overflows, people using the coast for recreatio or shore fishing, shore-based solid waste disposal, inappropriate or illegal dumpin of domestic and industrial rubbish, poorly managed waste dumps, street litter whic is washed, blown or discharged into nearby waterways by rain, snowmelt, and wind etc. The remaining can be attributed to maritime transport, industrial exploratio and offshore oil platforms, fishing and aquaculture (UNEP, 2009) and loss an purposeful disposal (e.g. ballast weights made of steel, lead or cement) of scientifi equipment.
2. Environmental Impacts
The incidence of debris in the marine environment is a cause for concern. It is know to be harmful to biota, it presents a hazard to shipping (propeller fouling), it i aesthetically detrimental, and it may also have the potential to transpor contaminants over long distances (STAP, 2011). Marine debris, and in particular th accumulation of plastic debris, has been identified as a global problem alongsid other contemporary key issues, such as climate change, ocean acidification and los of biodiversity (CBD and STAP-GEF, 2012).
2.1. Entanglement and Ingestion
Marine debris results in entanglement of and ingestion by organisms, and poses  direct threat to marine biota. Adverse effects of marine debris have been reporte for 663 species by reviewing available publications (CBD and STAP-GEF, 2012). Ove half of these reports documented entanglement in, and ingestion of, marine debris representing almost a 40 per cent increase since a review in 1997, which reporte 247 species (Laist, 1997). Reports revealed that all known species of sea turtles about half of all species of marine mammals, and one-fifth of all species of sea bird were affected by entanglement in, or ingestion of, marine debris. Species with th greatest number of individuals affected by entanglement or ingestion were th Northern fur seal, Ca/lorhinus ursinus, the California sea lion, Zalophus californianus and the seabird Fulmarus glacialis; the most frequently reported species are al either birds or marine mammals. About 15 per cent of the species affected throug entanglement and ingestion are on the IUCN Red List (CBD and STAP-GEF, 2012).
Abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear (including monofilament line, nets an ropes), as well as ropes, netting and plastic packaging, can be a cause of
© 2016 United Nations  

entanglement for pinnipeds (seals and related genera), cetaceans, turtles, sharks sirenia (dugongs and related genera) and birds (WSPA, 2012). The effects range fro immediate mortality through drowning to progressive debilitation over a period o months or years (Laist, 1997). Pinniped entanglement usually involves plasti collar-like debris which is often referred to as “neck collars”, where the plastic form a collar around the neck. The animal cannot remove it and it hampers norma feeding or breathing (Allen et al., 2012; Waluda and Staniland, 2013). As the anima grows, the collar effectively tightens and cuts into tissues becoming firml embedded in skin, muscle and fat (WSPA, 2012) and may cause death. “Ghos fishing” as it is known, can affect many species of fish and invertebrates such a crabs, corals and sponges. For example, several dead and moribund Geryon crab were found associated with discarded nets in the deep Mediterranea (Ramirez-Llodra et al., 2013). In addition, lost and abandoned traps and th associated by-catch are a global issue with annual trap loss rates approaching 90 pe cent in some fisheries (Al-Masroori et al. 2009; Bilkovic et al. 2012).
Marine debris can be mistaken for food items and be ingested by a wide variety o marine biota (Pham et al., 2014). Many species of seabirds, marine mammals an sea turtles have been reported to eat marine debris. Ingestion of sharp debris ma damage their guts and result in infection, pain or death. Plastic polymer mass ma irritate the stomach tissue, cause abdominal discomfort, and stimulate the animal t feel full and cease eating (Derraik, 2002; Galgani et al., 2010). Two sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) were found off the coast of northern California in 200 with a large amount of fishing gear in their gastrointestinal tracts (Jacobsen et al. 2010). A total of 141 mesopelagic fishes from 27 species in the North Pacifi Subtropical Gyre, were dissected to examine whether their stomach content contained plastic particles. The incidence of plastic in fish stomachs was 9.2 per cen (Davison and Ash, 2011). The study of planktivorous fish from the North Pacific gyr found an average of 2.1 plastic items per fish (Boerger et al., 2010). However, th consequences of ingestion are not fully understood, because effects associated wit ingestion can mostly be determined by necropsy (CBD and STAP-GEF, 2012; Hong e al., 2013).
2.2 Transport of chemicals
Plastics have a wide variety of chemicals, including those from manufacturing an those that accumulate from the marine environment (i.e. ambient seawater).
Plastics contain a wide variety of potentially toxic chemicals incorporated durin manufacture which could be released into the environment (Lithner et al, 2011) Research has established that chemicals used in some plastics, such as phthalate and flame retardants, can have toxicological effects on fish, mammals and mollusc (STAP, 2011). Experimental studies show that phthalates and bisphenol-A (BPA affect reproduction in all the species studied, impairing development in crustacean and amphibians, and generally inducing genetic aberrations (Teuten et al., 2009).
© 2016 United Nations  

There is recent evidence that large concentrations of microplastic and additives ca harm ecophysiological functions performed by organisms (Browne et al., 2013 Wright et al., 2013).
Because of their small size, microplastics (<1 mm) have a large ratio of surface are to volume that promotes adsorption of chemical contaminants to their surface, an therefore have a high capacity to facilitate the transport of contaminants. A estimated amount of about 35,000 tons, of microplastics are floating in the world’ oceans (Cozar et al. 2014; Eriksen et al. 2014). Boerger et al. (2010) found that 35 pe cent of the fish sampled in the North Pacific central gyre revealed microplastics i the gut. A range of marine biota are reported to have ingested microplastics including zooplankton (Cole et al., 2013), amphipods, lugworms and barnacle (Thompson et al., 2004), mussels (Browne et al., 2008), decapod crustacean (Murray and Cowie, 2011), fish (Boerger et al., 2010; Rochman et al., 2013) an seabirds (Tanaka et al., 2013; van Franeker, 2011). Ingestion of microplastics ha caused more and more concern in recent years, as it can provide a pathway fo long-distant transport and bioaccumulation of contaminants, and may b compounded by plastic microbead additives in many personal care products (Fendal and Sewell 2009, Kershaw and Leslie 2012).
Plastic debris can accumulate persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic substance (PBTs) that are present in the oceans from other sources, such as PCBs, PAHs, DDT and HCHs (Mato et al., 2001; Ogata et al., 2009). Within a few weeks thes substances can become concentrated on the surface of or in plastic debris by order of magnitude more than in the surrounding water column (Mato et al., 2001; Teute et al., 2009; Hirai et al., 2011; Rios et al., 2010). Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes exposed to a mixture of polyethylene with chemical pollutants absorbed from th marine environment, bioaccumulate these chemical pollutants and suffer live toxicity and pathology (Rochman et al., 2013). Plastics may provide a mechanism t facilitate the transport of chemicals to remote, pristine locations where they ar ingested by biota (Teuten et al., 2007; Hirai et al.,2011). However, it is not yet clea whether chemicals accumulated on plastic debris are effectively transferred t marine biota (Gouin et al., 2011; Koelmans et al., 2013a and b).
2.3. Habitat Destruction
Marine debris can cause destruction of habitats in a number of ways, includin smothering, entanglement, and abrasion. The extent of the impact depends on th nature of the debris (i.e., size, quantity, composition, persistence) and th susceptibility of the affected environment (i.e., habitat vulnerability and resilience).
In spite of the growing number of studies documenting the distribution an abundance of marine debris, the ecological impacts, including effects on habitats are not well documented (NRC, 2009). The few studies that do exist looked at th impacts of derelict fishing gear (that is, gear that has been abandoned, lost o discarded) on coral reefs and other structurally complex benthic communities (Bauer
© 2016 United Nations  

et al., 2008). For example, in the Florida Keys, USA, Chiappone et al. (2005) foun that 87 per cent of all debris was recreational hook-and-line fishing gear, bu because of low debris density, less than 0.2 per cent of the sessile species wer affected. However, Lewis et al. (2009) noted that lost lobster traps, upwards o 100,000 of which are lost each year, represent a significant threat to seagrass bed and coral reefs in the Florida Keys, especially during storms. Also, when gear an other marine debris wash up on shore, especially during storms, they can caus shoreline destruction and smother the underlying substrate where the debris come to rest.
Although studies of the effects of marine debris on habitat have focused mainly o benthic environments, the presence of floating debris can similarly undermine th quality of pelagic habitats by: (i) affecting the mobility of species, either throug entanglement or ghost fishing (that is, entangling fish in lost, abandoned o discarded fishing nets, traps or pots); (ii) reducing the quality of food available in th environment through accidental ingestion of the debris, which may hav accumulated toxins on its surface and interfere with digestion and excretion; and (iii altering the behaviour and fitness of species, as in the case of debris acting as  fish-aggregating device (Hallier and Gaertner, 2008; Hammer et al., 2012; NRC 2009).
Abandoned and derelict vessels are a widespread problem for the marin environment. Besides the fact that sunken, stranded, and decrepit vessels can be a eyesore and become hazards to navigation, these vessels can pose significant threat to natural resources. They can physically destroy sensitive marine and coasta habitats, sink or move during coastal storms, disperse oil and toxic chemicals still o board, become a source of marine debris, and spread derelict nets and fishing gea that entangle and endanger marine life.*
2.4 Introduction and Spread of Alien Species
Marine debris can serve as a vector for numerous species. Hence, floating debris ca potentially transport and introduce species to new environments (Barnes, 2002 Winston et al., 1997). Donohue et al. (2001) recorded 13 invertebrate and 1 vertebrate species living on or within a tangle of debris comprising mostly derelic fishing gear in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Similarly, Barnes and Fraser (2003 documented 10 species from 5 different phyla on a single plastic packing ban floating in the Southern Ocean. Although none of the species documented in thes studies were non-native, the results nonetheless point to the potential for marin debris to serve as vectors for alien species.
To date, the establishment of an alien species via marine debris has yet to b documented (Lewis et al., 2005; Barnes, 2002; Barnes and Milner, 2005; Maso et al.,
* (http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oil-spills/abandoned-and-derelict-ves els.html).
© 2016 United Nations  

2003). The absence of such evidence probably reflects the paucity of research rathe than the unlikelihood of such events. However, examples of non-native specie arriving in new habitat have been well documented. For example, a 180-to concrete dock cast adrift from Misawa, Japan, by the March 2011 tsunami wa carried across the Pacific where it washed ashore in Oregon in the United States i June 2012 carrying at least 90 Japanese species including 6 species of non-nativ algae, crustaceans, and molluscs known to be invasive species in other parts of th world (Lam et al., 2013; Portland State University 2012). Removal of the dock and it burden of non-native species cost 85,000 United States dollars (Barnea et al., 2014).
A recent study by Goldstein et al. (2013) hints at the possibility of marine debri contributing to habitat expansion for the sea skater Halobates sericeus (of th Hemiptera order). They showed that abundance of H. sericeus was related to th availability of floating marine debris, and that such debris was used by the sea skate to attach its egg masses. This suggests that, in principle, H. sericeus and simila species could spread across ocean basins with the aid of marine debris.
Because marine debris is subject to surface and deep-water currents, the geographi spread of alien species by such debris is not expected to be random. For instance the North Pacific convergence zone, which tends to concentrate marine debris regularly occurs around the north-western Hawaiian Islands. Thus, the islands ar subject to unusually high loads of marine debris, and perhaps associated invasiv species.
Marine debris can also support the growth and transport of microbes (e.g. cyanobacteria, fungi, algae) to new habitats (Maso et al., 2003; Thiel and Gutow 2005a and b; Zettler et al., 2013). Maso et al. (2003) found dinoflagellates, includin those responsible for harmful algal blooms, growing on plastic debris, and raised th possibility that the increase in harmful algal blooms may be facilitated by th increasing abundance of marine debris.
2.5 Socioeconomics Impacts
The socioeconomic impacts of marine debris are a difficult problem to quantify because many pollution problems and biological and environmental effects hav taken a long time to identify and quantify, partly because of the diverse sources (lac of awareness, inadequate waste management, etc.), and because data o volume/mass, occurrence and distribution are seldom recorded. Furthermore, th literature is sparse for economic analyses addressing elements of potential effects The Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljgorganisasjon (KIMO) studies (Hall, 2000 Mouat et al., 2010) are the most thorough, but inconsistencies, missing data, an absence of detail have been noted. In such cases, verifiable data were used for poin estimates using a Benefits Transfer Approach (Ofiara and Brown, 1999; Unswort and Petersen, 1995).
© 2016 United Nations  

2.6 Impacts on Beach Communities, Beach Use, Coastal Touris 2.6.1 Beach cleaning
Several references in the literature cite anecdotal information related to costs o beach cleaning. NRC (1995) reports the 1993 cost of beach cleaning at Virginia Beach VA, United States of America, was 43,646 euros per km/yr (60,724 United State dollars per km/yr) and for Atlantic City, NJ, United States, was 215,225 euros pe km/yr (299,439 US dollars per km/yr) (2011 Euro values given in parentheses; for al the conversions see Appendix). OSPAR Commission (2009) reports this cost for 200 for the coast of the United Kingdom at 14 million British pounds per year (19. million euros per yr), for the Skagerrak coast, Sweden at 5.1 million euros per yea (1.87 million euros per yr) for 2006, and Naturvardsverket (2009) reports the cost o cleaning marine debris on five beaches and in two ports in Poland for 2009 a 570,000 euros per year (632,120 euros per yr). Lane et al., 2007, estimated it woul cost 286 million dollars per year to remove debris from the wastewater stream i South Africa (311 million dollars per year, 224 million euros per year -2011 values).  recent study by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports beac cleaning costs and waterway debris removal for 43 communities from South Sa Francisco to San Diego, California, as 10,993,010 dollars spent (Stickel et al., 2013).
2.6.2 Damage to beach use
Studies in the United States examined damage to beach use from marine debris an medical waste (see Appendix). A major wash-up of marine debris on the shore i 1976 closed New York beaches and caused 15-25 million dollars in lost revenue (43-71 million euros, 59-99 million dollars, in 2011 values; Swanson et al., 1978). ER (1979) found that clean beaches in an adjacent state suffered piggyback effects fro the 1976 event; the public avoided going to an “open-clean” beach in an adjacen state (Seaside Heights, New Jersey, United States) as if it too had marine debris an was closed, an example of avoidance behaviour resulting in lost revenues (943,63 euros per year, 2011 values). Extensive pollution and medical waste wash-up occurred in 1987-1988 on New Jersey and New York beaches, with losses estimate at of 201-749 million euros at 2011 values for marine debris and medical waste; a average of 475 million euros (Ofiara and Brown, 1989 and 1999; Kahn et al., 1989 Swanson et. al., 1991) in 2011 values.
2.6.3 Losses to tourism
Ofiara and Brown (1989, 1999) found that marine debris wash-ups in New Jersey United States, decreased beach attendance by 8.9 per cent -18.7 per cent in 198 and by 7.9 to 32.9 per cent in 1988 (Appendix). A study in South Africa found that  decrease in beach cleanliness could decrease tourism spending by up to 52 per cen (Balance et al., 2000). In Sweden, research found that marine debris on beache reduced tourism by between one and five per cent (OSPAR, 2009). Hence, even  limited presence of marine debris can decrease coastal tourism by between one t five per cent, and severe events can decrease beach visits by 8.4 per cent to 25.8 pe cent (averaged limits).
© 2016 United Nations  

2.7 Impacts on Commercial Fishing
The Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group (MPMMG, 2002) reported th cost of marine debris removal in the United Kingdom fisheries at 33 million euros and Watson and Bryson (Macfayden, 2009) reported a cost for one trap fisherman i the Scottish Clyde fishery of 21,000 dollars in lost gear and 38,000 dollars in lost time Without more information, it is hard to give these estimates their proper context Studies for the Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljgorganisasjon (KIMO) hav estimated average losses per vessel from marine debris as follows: cleaning marin debris from nets GBP 4,065 or Euro 12,007; contaminated catch GBP 1,686 or Eur 2,183, snagged nets GBP 3,392 or Euro 3,820; fouled propellers Euro 182 euros (Hall 2000; Mouat et al., 2010 - Appendix; GBP at 1998 values, Euro at 2008 values).
A recent study that examined blue crab ghost fishing from lost/abandone traps/pots found an average mortality rate of 18 crabs/trap/year were harvested i Virginia-Chesapeake Bay, United States waters (sampled in the winter) (Bilkovic et al 2014), compared to earlier mortality rate estimates of 20 crabs/trap/year i Maryland-Chesapeake Bay waters (Giordano et al. 2011), and 26 crabs/trap/year i Gulf of Mexico waters (Guillory, 1993). An earlier study examined ghost fishing catc rates during the crabbing season of 50 crabs/trap/year (live catch rate-capture rate in Virginia-Chesapeake Bay waters (Havens et al. 2006). Bilkovic et al. (2014) furthe estimated an overall loss of 900,000 crabs or 300,000 United States dollars fo Virginia-Chesapeake Bay, United States waters.
Impacts of lesser magnitude are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of impacts of lesser magnitude, point estimates
Ghost Fishing:
Brown et al. (2005 NRC (2008)
Allsopp et al. (2006 Macfayden et al. (2009 Hall (2000)
Mouat et al. (2010)
Hall (2000)
Mouat et al. (2010)
Hall (2000)
Cantabrian Sea, Spai Not Available
United State Louisiana, United State United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Shetland Is. Livestock
crofts, United Kingdom
Shetland Is. Livestock
crofts, United Kingdom
United Kingdom
1.46% loss-landings
up to 5% EU landing $250mill/yr loss-landing 4-10mill. Crabs/yr lost
Avg. Cost cleanup = £L2355/hbr.
Avg. Cost cleanup = €8034/hbr-harbours €9492/hbr-marinas; €8253.hbr-composite
96% reported marine debris caught in fences 36% reported animals entangled, 20% reported
animals ill
71% reported marine debris caught in fences,
42% reported animals entangled or ill
11% reported cleanup costs of €20,199/yr, res €0
Monkfishery
Lobster fishery
Blue Crab fishery
© 2016 United Nation 

Table 2. Summary - Projections (2011 values)
Beach Cleaning Costs (KIMO, United €14.301mill/yr - €14.487mill/yr (avg. €14.394mill/yr 2000,2009) Kingdo Damage to Beach Use (S-O), New York, New __ All causes: €1,403mill - €5,236mill (avg. €3,319mill)
J Unite ersey, Linited MD, Medical Waste: €201mill - €749mill(avg. €475mill)
State Commercial Fishing (KIMO, United €8.308mill/yr - €8.935mill/yr (avg. €8.6215mill/yr 2000,2009), Kingdo Aquaculture (KIMO, 2000,2009), United €94,338/yr
Kingdo Harbors, Marinas (KIMO, United €491,641 - €944,510/yr (avg. €718,076/yr 2000,2009), Kingdo Damages to Vessels (S-O), New York €749mill
Harbour,
United States
Coastal Agriculture (KIMO, United €486,270 - €614,461/yr (avg. €550,366/yr 2000,2009), Kingdom
Note: KIMO (2000, 2009) = Hall (2000), Mouat et al. (2010), S-O = Swanson et al., 1991, Ofiara an Brown, 1999, NA: not available.
2.8 Impacts from Invasive Species
The literature pertaining to economic impacts of invasive species is silent regardin marine debris, but it does contain some evidence about the dimensions of th impacts from invasive species. The Swedish Naturvardsverket (2009) cites th collapse of the anchovy fishery in the Black Sea due to the introduction of th American comb jellyfish at an estimated 240 million euros per year. Holt (2009 examined control and eradication costs associated with the Carpet sea squirt i Holyhead Harbour, Wales, and estimated those costs at 525,000 pounds over a 10-y period (2009-2019); the costs of inaction were estimated at 6.87 million pounds fo the same 10-yr period.
3. Assessment of the status of marine litter
3.1 Floating Marine Debris
Floating marine debris in the water column has been documented in the open ocea and in coastal waters. Results for densities of floating marine debris in differen regions of the world’s oceans are shown in Table 3. However, comparisons between
© 2016 United Nations 1 

studies or even systematic status and trend analyses are challenging because o differences in the collection and measurement methodology used.
Table 3 Densities of floating marine debris in different regions
Location
Method
Density
Reference
Coastal North Atlantic Ocean
North Atlantic Ocean Caribbea Northwest Pacific
North Pacific central gyre
Southern California’s coastal water California Current
North Pacific Ocean, Kuroshio Curren California Current
Caribbean Sea
Gulf of Maine
North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre (near 30°N).
Cape Cod, Massachusetts, United States to
Caribbean Se North Atlantic Ocea Southeast Bering Sea and United States west
coast
Northeast Pacific Ocean
South Pacific subtropical gyr Australi Bay of Calvi (Mediterranean-Corsica)
South-East Pacific (Chile)
Ligurian Sea, north-western Mediterranean
Floating marine debris in fjords, gulfs and
channels of southern Chile
North East Pacific Ocean
0.333mm mesh net
0.947mm mesh net
0.50mm mesh net
0.333mm mesh net
0.333mm mesh net
0.333mm mesh net
0.333mm mesh net
0.505mm mesh net
0.335mm mesh net
0.335mm mesh net
0.335mm mesh net
0.335mm mesh net
0.335mm mesh net
0.505mm mesh net
0.333mm mesh net
0.202mm mesh net
0.333mm mesh net
0.333mm mesh net
0.2 mm mesh net
visual observations
visual observations
visual observations
visual observations
3537 items/km’, 286.8 kg/km 1.023 g/cm*
up to 37.6 items/km?
334,271 items/km’, 5,114 g/km 7.25 items/m’, 0.02g/m*
3.29 items/m’, 0.003g/m 174,000 items/km”, 3600 g/km 0.011-0.033 items/m* (Median 1414 + 112 items/km*
1534 + 200 items/km 20,32842324 items/km*
0.80~1.24 g/ ml, 0.97~1.04 g/ml
0.808-1.24 g/ml
0.004-0.19 items/m?,
0.014-0.209 mg/m?
Summer 2009: 0.448 items/m? (Median Fall 2010: 0.021 items/m? (Median Mean: 26,898 items/km’, 70.96 g/km 4256.4-8966.3 items/km*
6.2 particles/100 m?
40°S and 50°S : <1 items/km? nearshore waters: >20 items/km 1997:15-25 items/km*
2000: 3-1.5 items/km?
1- 250 items/km?
0-15,222 items/km*
Carpenter and Smith, 197 Colton et al., 1974
Day et al., 1990
Moore et al., 2001
Moore et al., 2002
Lattin et al., 200 Yamashita and Tanimura, 200 Gilfillan et al., 2009
Law et al., 2010
Law et al., 2010
Law et al., 2010
Moret-Ferguson et al., 2010
Moret-Ferguson et al., 2010
Doyle et al., 2011
Goldstein et al., 2013
Eriksen et al., 2013
Reisser et al., 2013
Collignon et al., 2014
Thiel et al., 2003
Aliani et al., 2003
Hinojosa and Thiel, 2009
Titmus and Hyrenbach et al.,
© 2016 United Nations
1 

201 Northeast Pacific Ocean visual observations —_ 0.0014-0.0032 items/m? Goldstein et al., 201 Straits of Malacca visual observations 578 + 219 items/m? Ryan, 2013
Bay of Bengal visual observations 8.8 + 1.4 items/m* Ryan, 2013
Note: Ship-based trawling surveys and visual observations are used for small and large debris, respectively.
In coastal waters, the type, composition and density of floating debris vary greatl among locations. The spatial distribution is influenced by anthropogenic activities hydrographic and geomorphological factors, prevailing winds, and entry poin (Barnes et al., 2009; Derraik, 2002). Generally, the distribution and composition o marine debris floating at sea depends largely on near-shore circulation pattern (Aliani et al., 2003; Lattin et al., 2004; Ribic et al., 2010; Thiel et al., 2003). Prevailin winds also affect the pattern of debris abundance. Greater quantities of plastic were observed at downwind sites (Browne et al., 2010; Collignon et al., 2012) Collignon et al. (2014) observed that the density of floating debris was five time higher before a strong wind event than afterwards. This was explained by the win stress increasing the mixing and vertical redistribution of the plastic particles in th upper layers of the water column. However, most land-based litter is carried b water currents through rivers and storm-water (Ryan et al., 2009). The density of th debris in the southern California, United States coast water, after the storm wa seven times higher than prior to the storm (Moore et al., 2002). The weight of plasti increased by more than 200 times after a storm in Santa Monica Bay, California United States (Lattin et al., 2004). Higher densities of debris in coastal waters ar also associated with human population density (Lebreton et al., 2012; Thiel et al. 2003).
In the open ocean, spatial patterns of debris are influenced by the interaction o large-scale atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns, leading to particularly hig accumulations of floating debris in the subtropical gyres (Howell et al., 2012 Goldstein et al., 2013; Martinez et al., 2009). A high profile publication in the Scienc journal presented over 20 years of data clearly demonstrating that some of the mos substantial accumulations of debris are now in oceanic gyres far from land (Law et al. 2010). The models developed by Martinez et al. (2009) suggest that marine debri deposited in coastal zones tends to accumulate in the central oceanic gyres withi two years after deposition. The persistent floating debris will accumulate i mid-ocean sub-tropical gyres, forming so-called garbage patches (Kaiser, 2010 Lebreton et al., 2012) (See Figure 1).
Although the type of litter found in the world's oceans is highly diverse, plastics ar by far the most abundant material recorded. Plastic debris was first reported in th oceans in the early 1970s (Carpenter and Smith, 1972; Colton et al., 1974). Plastic are estimated to represent between 60 per cent and 80 per cent of the total marin debris (Derraik, 2002; Gregory and Ryan, 1997). Almost all aspects of daily life
© 2016 United Nations 1 

involve plastics, and consequently the production of plastics has increase substantially in the last 60 years and this trend continues. The fragmentation o plastics generates microplastics. For example, in sampling the South Pacifi subtropical gyre, 1.0mm - 4.7mm particles accounted for 55 per cent of the tota count and 72 per cent of the total weight (Eriksen et al., 2013). Research on th amount, distribution, composition and potential impact of microparticles ha received increasing attention.
Plastic debris continues to accumulate in the marine environment. Goldstein et al (2013) show that the density of microplastics within the North Pacific Central Gyr has increased by two orders of magnitude in the past four decades. In contrast there is no significant trend in the density of surface water plastics in the Nort Atlantic from 1986 to 2008, despite increases in plastic production during this tim (Law et al., 2010). Some form of loss must be taking place to offset the presume increase in input of plastics to the ocean. Possible sinks for floating plastic debri include fragmentation, sedimentation, shore deposition, and ingestion by marin organisms (Law et al., 2011).
3.2. Beach debris
Millions of volunteers in more than 150 countries are involved in beach-cleanu activities on International Coastal Cleanup Day every year (Ocean Conservancy 2011). The volunteers’ participation contributes to extensive sampling and helps t obtain more information from a wider range of sites (Rees and Pond, 1995). Th density of debris reported from the beaches in different regions of the world is liste in Table 4. For most of the beaches, the major debris is plastic. The spatia distribution of plastic debris is affected by multiple factors, including land uses human population, fishing activity, and oceanic current systems (Ribic et al., 2010).
Table 4. Density of beach debris in different beaches
Location
Density
Reference
Dominica
St. Lucia
Panama
Persian Gulf, United Arab Emirates
Tasmania, Australia
Marmion Marine Park, Australia
‘West Australia, Marmion Marine Park,
Australia
Northern New South Wales, Australia
© 2016 United Nations
1.9-6.2 items/m, 51.5-153.7 g/ 4.5-11.2 items/m, 8.2-109.2 g/ 3.6 items/m? (180/50 m?)
0.84 items/ m*
300 items/km, 0.09-0.35 items/ 2.74 items/m, 0.54 g/m
3.66 items/m, 0.12 g/m
10.9 items/km*
Corbin and Singh, 199 Corbin and Singh, 1993
Garrity and Levings, 1993
Khordagui and Abu-Hilal, 1994
Jones, 1995
Jones, 1995
Jones, 1995
Frost and Cullen, 1997
1 

Transkei Coast, South Afric Bird Island, South Georgi New Jersey, United States
Cliffwood Beach,New Jersey, United
State Caribbean Sea: Curacao
Orange County, California, United State Ensenada, Baja California, Mexic Japanese beaches
Russian beaches
Volunteer Beach,
Playa Voluntario,
Falkland Islands (Malvinas Gulf of Aqaba, Red Se Gulf of Oman, Oma Anxious Bay, Australia
Point Pleasant Park, Halifax Harbour,
Canada
Rio de Janeiro, Brazi NOWPAP region
Gulf of Aqaba, Red Se Chile
OSPAR regio Belgium
Caribbean Sea, Bonair Chile
Mumbai, India
Nakdong River Estuary, Republic of
Korea
Monterey Bay, CA, United States
Turkish Western Black Sea coast
19.6-72.5 items/m, 42.8-164.1 g/ 0.014-0.21 items/ 0.36-6.4 items/m
2.7-3.7 items/m*
60 items/m, 4.5 kg/m
1709 items/m
1.525 items/m? (including natural litter 2144 g/100 m’, 341 items/100 m?
1344 g/100 m’, 20.7 items/100 m*
accumulation rate:77+25 items/km/month
1.64-7.38 items/ 1.79 items/m; 27.02g/ 1.9-15.0 kg/km
accumulation rate: 355+68 items/month
13.76 items /100 m*
570 items/100 m?, 3864 g/100 m*
2.8 items/m’, 0.31 kg/m?
1.8 items/m?
712 items/100m
6429 + 6767 items/100m
115 + 58 items/m, 3408 + 1704 g/m (GM 27 items/m? (small plastic)
68.83 items/m?, 7.49 g/m? (Plastic debris large plastics: 8205(M), 27,606 items/m?(S)  mesoplastics:238 (M), 237 particles/m?(S macroplastics : 0.97(M), 1.03 particles/m*(S 0.03-17.1 items/m? 142.1 items/m?
0.085-5.058 items/m?
Madzena and Lasiak, 199 Walker et al., 199 Ribic, 1998
Thornton and Jackson, 1998
Debrot et al., 1999
Moore et al., 200 Silva-Ifiguez and Fischer, 200 Kusui and Noda, 2003
Kusui and Noda, 2003
Otley and Ingham, 2003
Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar, 200 Claerboudt , 200 Edyvane et al. 2004
Walker et al., 2006
Oigman-Pszczol and Creed, 200 UNEP/NOWPAP, 2008
Abu-Hilal and Al-Najjar, 200 Bravo et al., 2009
OSPAR Commission, 200 Van Cauwenberghe et al., 201 Debrot, et al., 201 Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel, 201 Jayasiri et al., 2013
Lee et al., 2013
Rosevelt et al., 2013
Topcu et al., 2013
© 2016 United Nations
1 

20 beaches, Republic of Korea 480.9 (+267.7) count - 100 m'! for number, Hong et al., 201 86.5 (+78.6) kg - 100 m’ for weight,
0.48 (+£0.38) m* - 100 m for volume
GM: geometric mean; M: surveying results in May; S: surveying results in September.
Beach debris density may be linked to the number of tourists and the cleanin frequency (Bravo et al., 2009; Kuo and Huang, 2014). For example, beach debri densities in central Chile were lower than in northern and southern Chile, whic could be due to different attitudes of beach users or intensive beach cleaning i central regions (Bravo et al., 2009). Rodriguez-Santos et al. (2005) found that th quantity of litter depends on beach visitor density. Ocean current patterns, san types, wave action, and wind exposure have further effects on litter abundance. Fo example, in Monterey Bay, California, United States, the seasonal variability in debri abundance may be a function of oceanic winds, as well as the possibility tha seasonal current patterns may drive debris deposition (Rosevelt et al., 2013).
Although marine debris density is usually associated with population density, a fe studies contradict this. Ribic et al. (2010) show no trends over several decades i beach-debris densities along the Eastern Atlantic seaboard of the United States although large percentage increases in coastal population occurred in the south-eas Atlantic region and a smaller percentage increase in coastal population occurred i the north-east region.
3.3. Benthic marine debris
The occurrence of litter on the seafloor has been far less investigated than in surfac waters or on beaches, principally because of the high cost and the technica difficulties involved in sampling the seafloor. Nevertheless, a few investigations o benthic debris have been recorded, including on the continental shelves, on raise seabed features, such as seamounts, ridges and banks, in canyons and in pola regions. The surveying methods for the density and composition of benthic marin debris include bottom trawling, coring, scuba diving, the use of submersibles snorkelling, manta tows and sonar (Spengler and Costa, 2008) and more recently towed camera systems and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs).
Abundances of benthic debris range from dozens to more than hundreds o thousands items per square kilometre. As more areas of Europe's seafloor are bein explored, benthic litter is progressively being revealed to be more widespread tha previously assumed. Pham et al. (2014) reported data on litter distribution an density collected during 588 video and trawl surveys across 32 sites in Europea waters (35-4500 m depth). Debris was found to be present in the deepest areas an at locations as remote from land as the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone across th Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The highest litter density occurred in submarine canyons,
© 2016 United Nations 1 

reaching an average (+ SE) of 9.32.9 items ha. The lowest density was found o continental shelves and on ocean ridges; mean (+ SE) litter density of 2.2+0.8 an 3.941.3 items ha™’, respectively. As for most other marine environments studied plastic was the most prevalent litter item found on the seafloor. Woodall et al (2015 showed the litter was ubiquitous on deep-sea raised benthic features, such a seamounts, banks and ridges, A total of 56 items was found in the Atlantic Ocea over a survey area of 11.6 ha, and 31 items in the Indian Ocean over 5.6 ha, with  significant difference in the type of litter between areas sampled in the Indian Ocea (where the dominant litter type was fishing gear) and sites in the Atlantic Ocea (which had mixed refuse).
Litter from fishing activities (derelict fishing lines and nets) was particularly commo on seamounts, banks, mounds and ocean ridges. A significant source of benthi debris is lost and discarded fishing gear, which is of particular concern due to ghos fishing effects that can kill both commercial and non-commercial species. Laist (1996 reports annual gear loss rates of about one percent for gillnet fisheries and betwee 5 - 30 percent for trap fisheries in United States fisheries. Whereas trap loss rates i the American lobster fishery are relatively low (5-10 percent), because the fisher involves more than 3 million deployed traps, the lobster fishery alone may accoun for the loss of more than 150,000 traps per year.
Hydrography, geomorphology, and anthropogenic activities all affect the abundance type, and location of debris reaching the seafloor (Barnes et al., 2009; Galgani et al. 2000; Schlining et al., 2013). Because they facilitate the transport and deposition o debris, submarine canyons act as conduits for debris, transporting it from the coas to the deep sea (Ramirez-Llodra et al., 2013; Schlining et al., 2013). Ramirez-Llodra e al. (2013) suggest that debris in a canyon mainly originates from coastal areas, tha plastic debris can be transported easily by canyon-enhanced currents, wherea heavy debris is usually discarded from ships. Wei et al. (2012) indicate that th debris density was higher in the eastern than that in the western Gulf of Mexico primarily because of shipping lanes, offshore oil- and gas-installation platforms, a well as fishing activities. The litter density and diversity were independent of dept of water and of distance from land. Galgani et al. (2000) report that only smal amounts of debris were collected on the continental shelf, mostly in canyon descending from the continental slope. Ramirez-Llodra et al. (2013) repor accumulation of litter with increasing depth, but the mean weight at different depths or between the open slope and canyons, showed no significant variation. Schlining e al. (2013) found debris clustered just below the edge of canyon walls or on th outside of canyon meanders. Wei et al. (2012) indicated that the total density o anthropogenic waste was significantly different between parallel depth transects Woodall et al (2015) concluded that the pattern of accumulation and composition o the litter was determined by a complex range of factors both environmental an anthropogenic.
© 2016 United Nations 1 

Table 5. Density of benthic debris in different regions
Location Method Density Depth range Referenc Bay of Biscay, France trawl 0.263-4.94 items/ha 0-100m Galgani et al., 1995 Northwestern Mediterranean trawl 19.35 items/ha 750m Galgani et al., 1995 French Mediterranean coast trawl 0-78 items/ha 100-1600m Galgani et al., 199 European coast trawl 0-1010 items /ha <2200m Galgani et al., 200 Eastern China Sea and the south — trawl 30.6-109.8 kg/km? _ Lee et al., 200 coast of the Republic of Kore Greek Gulfs trawl 72-437 items/km’, _ Koutsodendris et al., 200 7-47.4 kg/km Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea SCUBA 2.8 items/m*; 0.31 kg/m? — Abu-Hilal et al., 200 submarine canyons and the submersible 1.7 items/100m 20-365 m Watters et al., 201 continental shelf off California United State ‘West coast of the United States trawl 67.1 items/km? 55-1280m Keller et al., 201 West coast of Portugal ROV 1100 items/km? 850-7400 m Mordecai et al., 201 Eastern Fram Strait west of Image 3635-7710 items/km* 2500m Bergmann et al., 201 Svalbard observatio Gulf of Mexico trawl <28.4 items/ha 359-3724m Wei et al., 201 Antalya Bay, Eastern trawl 18.5-2,186 kg/km’, 200-800m Giiven et al., 201 Mediterranean .  115-2,762 items/km Belgium trawl 3125 + 2830 items/km? — Van Cauwenberghe et al. 201 Mediterranean Sea trawl 0.02-3264.6 kg/km? 900-2700m Ramirez-Llodra et al., 201 Monterey Bay, California, ROV — 25-3971m Schlining et al., 201 United State Atlantic Ocean, Core 1.4-40  pieces/SOml sediment = 1000-3500m Woodall et al,. 201 . . | . 13.4+3.5 pieces/50ml sediment Mediterranean Sea and Indian (microplastic Ocea Atlantic Ocean ROV 12.23-0.59 items/ha 200-2800m Woodall et al,. 201 Indian Ocean ROV 17.39-0.75 items/ha 1320-1610m Woodall et al,. 2015
ROV: Remotely Operated Vehicle; SCUBA: Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus
Debris continuously accumulates on the deep seabed; some research shows  significant increasing trend. Watters et al. (2010) reported a significant increase in
© 2016 United Nations
1 

the amount of litter at some of shelf locations off California, United States, betwee 1993 and 2007. The debris density has continued increasing, and has doubled durin the last decade in the Arctic deep sea (Bergmann and Klages, 2012). The density o microplastics in sediments has been increasing along the Belgian coast (Claessens e al., 2011). However, some studies did not observe significant temporal increases, fo example, in litter abundance between 1989 and 2010 in Monterey Canyon, centra California, United States (Schlining et al., 2013).
4. Prevention and Clean-up of Marine Debris
Numerous policies, global, international, national and local, address various aspect of marine debris. Some countries have banned outright the use of certain plasti derivative products.
5. Gaps, Needs, Priorities
Marine debris is a complex cultural and multi-sectoral problem that impose tremendous ecological, economic, and social costs around the world. One of th substantial barriers to addressing marine debris is the absence of adequate scientifi research, assessment, and monitoring. There is a gap in scientific research to bette understand the sources, fates, and impacts of marine debris (NOAA and EPA, 2011 NRC, 2008). Scalable, statistically rigorous and, where possible, standardize monitoring protocols are needed to monitor changes in conditions as a result o efforts to prevent and reduce the impacts of marine debris. Although monitoring o marine debris is currently carried out within several countries around the worl (often on the basis of voluntary efforts by non-governmental organizations), th protocols used tend to be very different, preventing comparisons and harmonizatio of data across regions or timescales (NOAA and EPA, 2011; Cheshire et al., 2009).
There is a gap in information needed to evaluate impacts of marine debris on coasta and marine species, habitats, economic health, human health and safety, and socia values. More information is also needed to understand the status and trends i amounts, distribution and types of marine debris. There is also a gap in capacity i the form of new technologies and methods to detect and remove accumulations o marine debris (NOAA and EPA, 2011), as well as in means of bringing home to th public in all countries the significance of marine debris and the important part tha the public can play in combating it.
Besides, the ways in which waste management is conducted are often a barrier. Thi is a global problem, but waste is managed on a very local level. Truly biodegradable naturally occurring, biopolymers are becoming more wide spread and commercially
© 2016 United Nations 1 

available. There is a need to pursue truly biodegradable biopolymer alternatives t plastic (Chanprateep, 2010).
References
Abu-Hilal, A.H., Al-Najjar, T. (2004). Litter pollution on the Jordanian shores of th Gulf of Aqaba (Red Sea). Marine Environmental Research 58, 39-63.
Abu-Hilal, A.H., Al-Najjar, T. (2009). Marine litter in coral reef areas along the Jorda Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 1043-1049.
Aliani, S., Griffa, A., Molcard, A. (2003). Floating debris in the Ligurian Sea north-western Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, 1142-1149.
Al-Masroori, H., Al-oufi, H., McShane, P. (2009). Causes and mitigations on trap ghos fishing in Oman: Scientific approach to local fisher’ perception. Journal o Fisheries and Aquatic Science 4: 129-135.
Allen, R., Jarvis, D., Sayer, S., Mills, C. (2012). Entanglement of grey seals Halichoeru grypus at a haul out site in Cornwall, UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64 2815-2819.
Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santillo, D. and Johnston, P. (2006). Plastic Debris in th World's Oceans. Greenpeace. Netherlands.
ANZECC (1996). ANZECC Strategy to Protect the Marine Environment. Workin together to reduce impacts from shipping operations: The Australian Marin Debris Status Review. Australian and New Zealand Environment an Conservation Council.
Balance, A., Ryan, P.G. and Turpie, J.K. (2000). How Much is a Clean Beach Worth The Impact of Litter on Beach Users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. Sout African Journal of Science. 96 (5): 210-213.
Barnes, D.K.A. (2002). Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 416 808-809.
Barnes, D.K.A. (2005). Remote Islands reveal rapid rise of Southern Hemisphere se debris. The Scientific World Journal 5, 915-921.
Barnes, D.K.A., Milner, P. (2005). Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessil organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology 146, 815-82 (doi:10.1007/s00227-004-1474-8).
Barnes, D.K.A., Fraser, K.P.P. (2003). Rafting by five phyla on man-made flotsam i the Southern Ocean. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 262, 289-291.
© 2016 United Nations 1 

Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation an fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophica Transactions of the Royal Society, B 364, 1985-1998.
Barnea, N., Albins, K., Cialino, K., Koyanagi, K., Lippiatt, S., Murphy, P., Parker, D (2014). Proceedings of the Japan Tsunami Marine Debris Summary Meeting NOAA Marine Debris Program. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technica Memorandum NOS OR&R 50. Silver Spring, MD. 53 pp http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Proceedings%200f%20the%2 JTMD%20Summary%20Meeting.pdf.
Bauer, L., Kendall, M., Jeffery, C. (2008). Incidence of marine debris and it relationships with benthic features in Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary Southeast USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56, 402-413.
Bergmann, M., Klages, M. (2012). Increase of litter at the Arctic deep-se observatory HAUSGARTEN. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64 (12), 2734-2741.
Bilkovic, D.M., Havens, K.J., Stanhope, D.M., Angstadt, K.T. (2012). The use of full biodegradable panels to reduce derelict pot threats to marine fauna Conservation Biology 26(6): 957-966.
Bilkovic, D.M., Havens, K.J., Stanhope, D., Angstadt, K. (2014). Derelict fishing gear i Chesapeake Bay, Virginia: Spatial patterns and implications for marine fauna Marine Pollution Bulletin 80: 114-123.
Boerger, C.M., Lattin, G.L., Moore, S.L., Moore, C.J. (2010). Plastic ingestion b planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollutant Bulleti 60 (12), 2275-2278.
Bravo, M., de los Angeles Gallardo, M., Luna-Jorquera, G., Nufiez, P., Vasquez, N. Thiel, M. (2009). Anthropogenic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile) Results from a national survey supported by volunteers. Marine Pollutio Bulletin 58, 1718-1726.
Brown, J., Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Magnus, J. and Tumilty, J. (2005). Ghos fishing by Lost Fishing Gear. Final Report to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs o the European Commission. Institute for European Environmenta Policy/Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd.
Browne, M.A., Dissanayake, A., Galloway, T.S., Lowe, D.M., Thompson, R.C. (2008) Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel Mytilus edulis (L.). Environmental Science & Technology 42, 5026-5031.
Browne, M.A., Galloway, T.S., Thompson, R.C. (2010). Spatial Patterns of Plasti Debris along Estuarine Shorelines. Environmental Science & Technology 44 3404-409.
Browne, M.A., Niven, S.J., Galloway, T.S., Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C. (2013) Microplastic Moves Pollutants and Additives to Worms, Reducing Functions
© 2016 United Nations 2 

Linked to Health and Biodiversity. Current Biology, 23, (23), 2388 — 2392.
Carpenter, E.J., Smith, K.LJ. (1972). Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface. Science 175 1240-1241.
CBD, STAP-GEF (2012). Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status an Potential Solutions. Technical Series No. 67. Secretariat of the Convention o Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP — GEF.
Chanprateep, S. (2010). Current trends in biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoate Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 110(6): 621-632.
Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbiére, 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. UNE Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; [OC Technical Series No. 83.
Chiappone, M., White, A., Swanson, D. and Miller, S. (2005). Occurrence an biological impacts of fishing gear and other marine debris in the Florida Keys Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44, 597-604.
Claerboudt, R.C. (2004). Shore litter along sandy beaches of the Gulf of Oman Marine Pollution Bulletin 49, 770-777.
Claessens, M., De Meester, S., Van Landuyt, L., De Clerc, K., Janssen, C.K. (2011) Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along th Belgian coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 2199-2204.
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Fileman, E., Halsband, C., Goodhead, R., Moger, J., Galloway T.S. (2013). Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environmental Science  Technology 47, 6646-6655.
Collignon, A., Hecq, J., Galgani, F., Collard, F., Goffart, A. (2014). Annual variation i neustonic micro- and meso-plastic particles and zooplankton in the Bay of Calv (Mediterranean-Corsica). Marine Pollution Bulletin 79, 293-298.
Collignon, A., Hecq, J.H., Galgani, F., Voisin, P., Collard, F., Goffart, A. (2012) Neustonic microplastic and zooplankton in the North Western Mediterranea Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64, 861-864.
Colton, J.B., Knapp, F.D., Burns, B.R. (1974). Plastic particles in surface waters of th Northwestern Atlantic. Science 185, 491-497.
Corbin, C.J., Singh, J.G. (1993). Marine debris contamination of beaches in St. Luci and Dominica. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, 325-328.
Cozar, A., Echevarria, F., Gonzalez-Gordillo, J.1., Irigoien, X., Ubeda, B. Hernandez-Leon, S., et al. (2014). Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 10239-10244. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314705111.
© 2016 United Nations 2 

Day, R.H., Shaw, D.G., Ignell, S.E. (1990). The quantitative distribution an characteristics of neuston plastic in the North Pacific Ocean, 1984-1988 Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154. 182-211.
Davison, P., Asch, R. (2011). Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the Nort Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Marine Ecology Progress Series; 432:173-180.
Debrot, A.O., Van Rijn, J., Bron, P.S. and de Leon, R. (2013). A baseline assessment o beach debris and tar contamination in Bonaire, Southeastern Caribbean. Marin Pollution Bulletin 71(1-2), 325-329.
Debrot, A.O., Tiel, A.B., Bradshaw, J.E. (1999). Beach Debris in Curacao. Marin Pollution Bulletin 38(9), 795-801.
Derraik, J.G.B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris:  review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 842-852.
Donohue, M.J., Boland, R.C., Sramek, C.M., Antonelis, G.A. (2001). Derelict fishin gear in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: diving surveys and debris removal i 1999 confirm threat to coral reef ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42 1301-1312.
Doyle, M.J., Watson, W., Bowlin, N.M., Sheavly, S.B. (2011). Plastic particles i coastal pelagic ecosystems of the Northeast Pacific ocean. Marin Environmental Research 71, 41-52.
Edyvane, K.S., Dalgetty, A., Hone, P.W., Higham, J.S., Wace, N.M. (2004). Long-ter Marine Litter Monitoring in the Remote Great Australian Bight, South Australia Marine Pollution Bulletin 48, 1060-1075.
ERA (Economic Research Associates) (1979). Cost Impact of Marine Pollution o Recreational Travel Patterns. PB—290655. National Technical Informatio Service: Springfield, VA.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L.C.M., Carson, H.S., et al. Plastic Pollution in the World’ Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat
at Sea. Dam HG, ed. PLoS ONE. (2014); 9(12): 111913 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111913.
Eriksen, M., Maximenko, N., Thiel, M., Cummins, A., Lattin, G., Wilson, S., Hafner J., Zellers, A., Rifman, S. (2013). Plastic pollution in the South Pacific subtropica gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 68(1-2), 71-76.
Fendall, L.S., Sewell, M.A. (2009). Contributing to marine pollution by washing you face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 1225-1228.
Frost, A., Cullen, M. (1997). Marine debris on Northern New South Wales beache (Australia): sources and the role of beach usage. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34 348-352.
© 2016 United Nations 2 

Galgani, F., Burgeot, T., Bocquéné, G., Vincent, F., Leauté, J.P., Labastie, J., Forest, A. Guichet, R. (1995a). Distribution and abundance of debris on the continenta shelf of the Bay of Biscay and in Seine Bay. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30, 58-62.
Galgani, F., Jaunet, S., Campillot, A., Guenegen, X., His, E. (1995b). Distribution an abundance of Debris on the continental shelf of the North-Wester Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 31, 713-717.
Galgani, F., Fleet, D., Van Franeker, J., Katsavenakis, S., Maes, T., Mouat, J. Oosterbaan, L., Poitou, |., Hanke, G., Thompson, R., Amato, E., Birkun, A.  Janssen, C. (2010). Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 10 Repor Marine litter, JRC Scientific and technical report, \CES/JRC/IFREMER Joint Repor (no 31210 — 2009/2010), Editor: Zampoukas, N., pp. 57.
Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., Goraguer H., Latrouite, D., Andral, B., Cadiou, Y., Mahe, J.C., Poulard, J.C., Nerisson, P (2000). Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulleti 40, 516-527.
Galgani, F., Souplet, A., Cadiou, Y. (1996). Accumulation of debris on the deep se floor off the French Mediterranean coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series 142 225-234.
Garrity, S.D., Levings, S.C. (1993). Marine debris along the Caribbean coast o Panama. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, 317-324.
Gilfillan, L.R., Ohman, M.D., Doyle, M.J., Watson, W. (2009). Occurrence of Plasti Micro-debris in the Southern California Current System. California Cooperativ Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 50,123-133.
Giordano, S., Lazar, J., Bruce, D., Little, C., Levin, D., Slacum Jr., H.W., Dew-Baxter, J. Methratta, L., Wong, D. and Corbin, R. (2011). Quantifying the impacts o derelict blue crab traps in Chesapeake Bay. In: Carswell, B., McElwee, K. an Morison, S., eds. Proceedings of the Fifth International Marine Debri Conference. Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R-38. NOAA: Silver Spring, MD.
GODP (Global Ocean Drifter Program) (2011). The Global Ocean Drifter Program Satellite-tracked surface drifting buoys http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dac/gdp.
Goldstein, M.C., Titmus, A.J., Ford, M. (2013). Scales of spatial heterogeneity o plastic marine debris in the northeast Pacific Ocean. PloS ONE, 8(11): e80020 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080020.
Gouin, T., Roche, N., Lohmann, R., Hodges, G.A. (2011). Thermodynamic approac for assessing the environmental exposure of chemicals absorbed to microplastic Environmental Science & Technology. 45, 1466-1472.
Gregory, M.R., Ryan, P.G. (1997). Pelagic plastic and other seaborne persisten synthetic debris: A review of Southern Hemisphere perspectives, in: Coe, J.M. Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine debris: Sources, impacts, and solution, New York,
© 2016 United Nations 2 

Springer, pp. 49-66.
Guillory, V. (1993). Ghost fishing in blue crab traps. North American Journal o Fisheries Management 13(3): 459-466.
Glven, O., Gilyavuz, H., Deva, M.C. (2013). Benthic Debris Accumulation in Bathya Grounds in the Antalya Bay.Eastern Mediterranean. Turkish Journal of Fisherie and Aquatic Sciences 13, 43-49.
Hall, K. (2000). Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil. Kommunenes Internasjonal Miljoorganisasjon (KIMO) (Local Authorities International Organisation Shetland.
Hallier, J.P., Gaertner, D. (2008). Drifting fish aggregation devices could act as a ecological trap for tropical tuna species. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 353 255-264.
Hammer, J., Kraak, M.S., Parsons, J. (2012). Plastics in the Marine Environment: Th Dark Side of a Modern Gift, in: Whitacre, D.M. (Ed.), Reviews of Environmenta Contamination and Toxicology. Springer New York, pp. 1-44.
Havens, K. J., Bilkovic, D.M., Stanhope, D., Angstadt, K. and Hershner, C. (2006) Derelict Blue Crab Trap impacts on marine fisheries in the lower York River Virginia. Marine Debris Survey in Virginia. Final Report to NOAA Chesapeake Ba Program Office. Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute o Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA. 12 pp.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V., Thiel, M. (2013). Distribution and abundance of small plastic debri on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): A study supported by a citizen scienc project. Marine Environmental Research 87-88, 12-18.
Hinojosa, |.A., Thiel, M. (2009). Floating marine debris in fjords, gulfs and channels o southern Chile. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, 341-350.
Hirai, H., Takada, H., Ogata, Y., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K., Saha, M., Kwan, C. Moore, C., Gray, H., Laursen, D., Zettler, E., Farrington, J., Reddy, C., Peacock, E & Ward, M. (2011). Organic micropollutants in marine plastics debris from th open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62 1683-1692.
Holt, R. (2009). The Carpet Sea Squirt Didemnum vexillum: Eradication fro Holyhead Marina. Presentation to the Scottish Natural Heritage Conferenc "Marine Non-invasive Species: Responding to the Threat. 27 October, 2009 Battleby, Scotland.
Hong, S., Lee, J., Jang,Y.C., Kim, Y.J., Kim, H.J., Han, D., Hong, S.H., Kang, D., Shim, W.J (2013). Impacts of marine debris on wild animals in the coastal area of Korea Marine Pollution Bulletin. 66: 117-124.
Howell, E.A., Bograd, S.J., Morishige, C., Seki, M.P., Polovina, J.J. (2012). On Nort Pacific circulation and associated marine debris concentration. Marine Pollutio Bulletin 65, 16-22.
© 2016 United Nations 2 

IPRC (International Pacific Research Center) (2008). Tracking Ocean Debris. [PR Climate, 8, 2.
Jacobsen, J.K., Massey, L. & Gulland, F. (2010). Fatal ingestion of floating net debri by two sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(5) 765-767.
Jayasiri, H.B., Purushothaman, C.S., Vennila, A. (2013). Quantitative analysis of plasti debris on recreational beaches in Mumbai, India. Marine Pollution Bulleti 77(1-2), 107-112.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan R., Law, K.L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, vol 347(6223):768-771, DOI: 10.1126/science.1260352.
Jones, M.M. (1995). Fishing debris in the Australian marine environment. Marin Pollution Bulletin 30, 25-33.
Kaiser, J. (2010). The dirt on ocean garbage patches. Science 328, 1506.
Kahn, J., Ofiara, D. and McCay, B. (1989). "Economic Measures of Beach Closures, "Economic Measures of Toxic Seafoods," "Economic Measures of Pathogens i Shellfish," "Economic Measures of Commercial Navigation and Recreationa Boating-Floatable Hazards." In WMI, SUNY. Use Impairments and Ecosyste impacts of the New York Bight. SUNY: Stony Brook, NY.
Keller, A.A., Fruh, E.L., Johnson, M.M., Simon, V., McGourty, C. (2010). Distributio and abundance of anthropogenic marine debris along the shelf and slope of th US West Coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(5), 692-700.
Kershaw, P.J., Leslie, H. (2012). Sources, fate, & effects of micro-plastics in th marine environment - a global assessment. Report of the Inception Meeting 13-15th March 2012. UNESCO-IOC, Paris, 45pp.
Khordagui, H.K., Abu-Hilal, A.H. (1994). Man-made litter on the shores of the Unite Arab Emirates on the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Water, Air, and Soi Pollution 76, 343-352.
Koelmans, A.A., Besseling, E., Wegner, A., Foekema, E.M. (2013a). Plastic as a carrie of POPs to aquatic organisms. A model analysis. Environmental Science an Technology 47, 7812e7820.
Koelmans, A.A., Besseling, E., Wegner, A., Foekema, E.M. (2013b). Correction t plastic as a carrier of POPs to aquatic organisms. A model analysis Environmental Science and Technology 47, 8992e8993.
Koutsodendris, A., Papatheodorou, G., Kougiourouki, O., Georgiadis, M. (2008) Benthic marine litter in four Gulfs in Greece, Eastern Mediterranean abundance, composition and source identification Estuarine, Coastal and Shel Science 77 (3), 501-512.
Kuo, F.J., Huang, H.W. (2014). Strategy for mitigation of marine debris: Analysis of
© 2016 United Nations 2 

sources and composition of marine debris in northern Taiwan. Marine Pollutio Bulletin, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.04.019.
Kusui, T., Noda, M. (2003). International survey on the distribution of stranded an buried litter on beaches along the Sea of Japan. Marine Pollution Bulletin 47 175-179.
Laist, D.W. (1996). Marine debris entanglement and ghost fishing: A cryptic an significant type of bycatch in anonymous. Proceedings of the solving bycatc workshop. September 25-27 1995. Seattle, Washington. University of Alask Sea Grant College program. Fairbanks, Alaska. USA. pp 33-39.
Laist, D.W. (1997). Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marin debris, including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement, in: Coe J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), Marine Debris — Sources, Impacts and Solutions Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 99-139. Lattin, G.L., Moore, C.J., Zellers, A.F. Moore, S.L., Weisberg, S.B. (2004). A comparison of neustonic plastic an zooplankton at different depths near the southern California shore. Marin Pollution Bulletin 49(4), 291-294.
Lam, J., Chan, S., Hansen, G., Chapman, J., Miller, J., Carlton, J., Boatner, R., Cooper, R and Kight, P. (2013). Japanese tsunami marine debris: Key aquatic invasiv species watch. ORESU-G-13. Oregon State University Sea Grant Program (Oregon Sea Grant). 8 p http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/species/nonnative/invasive/pdfs/tsunami_ ebris_species_watch_osu.pdf.
Lane, S.B., Gonzalves, C., Lukambusi, L., Ochiewo, J., Pereira, M., Rasolofojaona, H. Ryan, P. (2007). Regional Overview and Assessment of Marine Litter Relate Activities in the WIO Region. Nairobi Convention and GEF WIO-LaB Projec Countries. Prepared on behalf of UNEP (GPA and Regional Seas Programme).
Lattin, G.L., Moore, C.J., Zellers, A.F., Moore, S.L., Weisberg, S.B. (2004).  comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths near th southern Californian shore. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49, 291-29 (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.01.020) [PubMed].
Law, K.L., Morét-Ferguson, S., Maximenko, N.A., Proskurowski, G., Peacock, E.E. Hafner, J., Reddy, C.M. (2010). Plastic Accumulation in the North Atlanti Subtropical Gyre. Science 329(5996), 1185-1188.
Law, K.L., Morét-Ferguson, S., Proskurowski, G., Maximenko, N.A., Reddy, C.M. Peacock, E., Hafner, J. (2011). Plastic Accumulation in the North Atlanti Subtropical Gyre. Science 329, 1185-1188.
Lebreton, L.C. M., Greer, S.D., Borrero, J.C. (2012). Numerical modelling o floating debris in the world’s oceans Original Research Article. Marine Pollutio Bulletin 64(3), 653-661.
Lee, D., Cho, H., Jeong, S. (2006). Distribution characteristics of marine litter on the
© 2016 United Nations 2 

sea bed of the East China Sea and the South Sea of Korea. Estuarine, Coasta and Shelf Science 70, 187-194.
Lee, J., Hong, S., Song, Y., Hong, S., Jang, Y., Jang, M., Heo, N., Han, G., Lee, M., Kang D., Shim, W. (2013). Relationships among the abundances of plastic debris i different size classes on beaches in South Korea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 77 349-354.
Lewis, C.F., Slade, S.L., Maxwell, K.E., Matthews, T.R. (2009). Lobster trap impact o coral reefs: effects of wind-driven trap movement. New Zealand Journal o Marine and Freshwater Research 43, 271-282.
Lewis, P.N., Riddle, M.J., Smith, S.D.A. (2005). Assisted passage or passive drift:  comparison of alternative transport mechanisms for non-indigenous coasta species into the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science 17, 183-191.
Lithner, D., Larsson, A. & Dave, G. (2011). Environmental and health hazard rankin and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical composition. Science o the Total Environment. 409: 3309-3324.
Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T. and Cappell, R. (2009). Abandoned, Lost or Otherwis discarded Fishing Gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 185. FA Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 523. Rome: UNEP/FAO.
Madzena, A., Lasiak, T. (1997). Spatial and temporal variations in beach litter on th Transkei coast of South Africa. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34 (11), 900-907.
Martinez, E., Maamaatuaiahutapu, K., Taillandier, V. (2009). Floating marine debri surface drift: Convergence and accumulation toward the South Pacifi subtropical gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58 ,1347-1355.
Maso, M., Garcés, E., Pagés, F., Camp, J. (2003). Drifting plastic debris as a potentia vector for dispersing Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) species. Scientia Marina 67 107-111.
Mato, Y., Isobe, T., Takada, H., Kanehiro, H., Ohtake, C., Kaminuma, T. (2001). Plasti resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marin environment. Environmental Science & Technology 35, 318-324.
Miyake, H., Shibata, H., Furushima, Y. (2011). Deep-sea litter study using deep-se observation tools. In: Omori K., Guo X., Yoshie N., Fujii N., Handoh I.C., Isobe A. Tanabe S. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies on Environmental Chemistry—Marin Environmental Modeling and Analysis. Terrapub, pp.261—-269.
Moore, C.J., Moore, S.L., Leecaster, M.K., Weisberg, S.B. (2001). A Comparison o Plastic and Plankton in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulleti 42(12), 1297-1300.
Moore, C.J., Moore, S.L., Weisberg, S.B., Lattin, G.L., Zellers, A.F. (2002).  comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in souther California's coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(10), 1035-1038.
© 2016 United Nations 2 

Moore, E., Lyday, S., Roletto, J., Litle, K., Parrish, J.K., Nevins, H., Harvey, J. Mortenson, J., Greig, D., Piazza, M., Hermance, A., Lee, D., Adams, D., Allen, S. Kell, S. (2009). Entanglements of marine mammals and seabirds 2001-2005 Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, 1045-1051.
Moore, S.L., Gregorio, D., Carreon, M., Weisberg, S.B., Leecaster, M.K. (2001) Composition and distribution of beach debris in Orange County, California Marine Pollution Bulletin 42, 241-245.
Mordecai, G., Tyler, P., Masson, D.G., Huvenne, V.A.I. (2011). Litter insubmarin canyons off the west coast of Portugal Gideon Mordecai. Deep-Sea Research I 58, 2489-2496.
Morét-Ferguson, S., Law, K.L., Proskurowski, G., Murphy, E.K., Peacock, E.E., Reddy C.M. (2010). The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the wester North Atlantic Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(10), 1873-1878.
Mouat, J., Lozano, R.L. and Bateson, H. (2010). Economic Impacts of Marine Litter Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljoorganisasjon (KIMO), Shetland.
MPMMG (Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group) (2002). The Impacts o Marine Litter, Report of the Marine Litter Task Team (MaLiTT).
Murray, F., Cowie, P.R. (2011). Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacea Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Marine Pollution Bulletin. 6 (6):1207-1217.
Naturvardsverket (2009). What's in the Sea for Me? Ecosystem Services Provided b the Baltic Sea and Skaggerak. Report 5872. Swedish Department o Environmental Protection, Stockholm, Sweden. Available from http://www. naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-5872-2 pdf.
(NOAA). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheri Administration. Abandoned and Derelict Vessels http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/oil-spills/abando ed-and-derelict-vessels.html.
NRC (National Research Council) (1995). Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NRC (National Research Council) (2008). Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century Committee of the Effectiveness of International and National Measures t Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and its Impacts. National Academy Press Washington, DC.
NRC (National Research Council) (2009). Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century National Academy Press, Washington DC, p. 206.
Ocean Conservancy (2011). Tracking Trash: 25 Years of Action for the Ocean (/C report). Available from http://act.oceanconservancy.org/pdf/Marine_Debris_2011_Report_OC.pdf.
© 2016 United Nations 2 

Ofiara, D.D. and Brown, B. (1989). "Marine Pollution Events of 1988 and Their Effec on Travel, Tourism and Recreational Activities in New Jersey." In Proceedings o the Conference on Floatable Waste in the Ocean: Social, Economic, and Publi Health Implications. SUNY University Press: Stony Brook, NY.
Ofiara, D.D. and Brown, B. (1999). “Assessment of Economic Losses to Recreationa Activities from 1988 Marine Pollution Events and Assessment of Economi Losses from Long-term Contamination of Fish Within the New York Bight t New Jersey.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 38(11): 990-1004.
Ogata, Y., Takada, H., Mizukawa, K., Hiraia, H., lwasaa, S., Endo, S., Mato, Y., Saha, M. Okuda, K., Nakashima, A., Murakami, M., Zurcher, N., Booyatumanondo, R. Zakaria, M.P., Dung, L.Q., Gordon, M., Miguez, C., Suzuki, S., Moore, C. Karapanagiotik, H.K., Weerts, S., McClurg, T., Burres, E., Smith, W., Va Velkenburg, M., Lang, J.S., Lang, R.C., Laursen, D., Danner, B., Stewardson, N. Thompson, R.C. (2009). International Pellet Watch: global monitoring o persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in coastal waters. 1. Initial phase data o PCBs, DDTs, and HCHs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, 1437-1446.
Oigman-Pszczol, S.S., Creed, J.C., (2007). Quantification and Classification of Marin Litter on Beaches along Armacado dos Buzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Coasta Education and Research Foundation 23, 421-428.
OSPAR Commission. (2009). "Marine Litter in the North-East Atlantic region Assessment and Priorities for Response." London, UK.
Otley, H., Ingham, R., (2003). Marine debris surveys at Volunteer Beach, Falklan Islands, during the summer of 2001/02. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46 1534-1539.
Pham, C.K., Ramirez-Llodra, E., Alt, C.H.S., Amaro, T., Bergmann, M., et al., (2014) Marine Litter Distribution and Density in European Seas, from the Shelves t Deep Basins. PLoS ONE 9(4): e95839. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095839
Portland State University. (2012). Response protocols for biofouled debris an invasive species generated by the 2011 Japan tsunami. July 31-August 1 201 Final Workshop report. Portland, Oregon, USA. 60p http://www.anstaskforce.gov/Tsunami/FINAL%20JTMD%20Biofouling%20Res onse%20Protocol_19%200ct%202012.pdf
Ramirez-Llodra, E., Mol, B.D., Company, J.B. (2013). Effects of natural an anthropogenic processes in the distribution of marine litter in the dee Mediterranean Sea. Progress in Oceanography 118, 273-287.
Rees, G., Pond, K. (1995). Marine litter monitoring programmes — a review o methods with special reference to national surveys. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30 103-108.
Reisser, J., Shaw, J., Wilcox, C., Hardesty, B.D., Proietti, M., Thums, M., Pattiaratchi C., (2013). Marine Plastic Pollution in Waters around Australia: Characteristics,
© 2016 United Nations 2 

Concentrations, and Pathways. PLoS ONE 8(11), e80466 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080466.
Ribic, C.A., Sheavly, S.B., Rugg, D.J., Erdmann, E.S., (2010). Trends and drivers o marine debris on the Atlantic coast of the United States 1997-2007. Marin Pollution Bulletin 60, 1231-1242.
Ribic, C.A., Sheavly, S.B., Rugg, D.J., Erdmann, E.S., (2012). Trends in marine debri along the U.S. Pacific Coast and Hawaii 1998-2007. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64 994-1004.
Ribic, C.A., (1998). Use of indicator items to monitor marine debris on a New Jerse beach from 1991-1996. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36, 887-891.
Ribic, C.A., Dixon, T.R., Vining, |., (1992). Marine Debris Survey Manual . NOA Technical Report NMFS 108 Rios, L., Jones, P., Moore, C. & Narayan, U., (2010). Quantitation of persistent organic
pollutants adsorbed on plastic debris from the Northern Pacific Gyre’s “easter garbage patch”. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 12, 2226-2236.
Rochman, C.M., Hoh, E., Hentschel, B.T., Kaye, S., (2013). Long-Term Fiel Measurement of Sorption of Organic Contaminants to Five Types of Plasti Pellets: Implications for Plastic Marine Debris. Environmental Science  Technology 47, 1646-1654.
Rochman, C.M., Hoh, E., Kurobe, T., Teh, S.J., (2013). Ingested plastic transfer hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Nature/ Scientifi Reports 3, 3263.
Rodriguez-Santos, I., Friedrich, A.C., Wallner-Kersanach, M., Fillmann, G., (2005) Influence of socio-economic characteristics of beach users on litter generation Ocean Coast. Manage. 48, 742-752.
Rosevelt, C., Los Huertos, M., Garza, C., Nevins, H.M., (2013). Marine debris i central California: Quantifying type and abundance of beach litter in Montere Bay, CA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 71, 299-306.
Ryan, P.G., (2013). A simple technique for counting marine debris at sea reveal steep litter gradients between the Straits of Malacca and the Bay of Bengal Marine Pollution Bulletin 69, 128-136.
Ryan, P.G., Moore, C.J., van Franeker, J.A., Moloney, C.L., (2009). Monitoring th abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philosophica Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 364 1999-2012.
Schlining, K., von Thun, S., Kuhnz, L., Schlining, B., Lundsten, L., Stout, N.J., Chaney, L. Connor, J., (2013). "Debris in the deep: Using a 22-year video annotatio database to survey marine litter in Monterey Canyon, central California, USA."
© 2016 United Nations 3 

Deep Sea Research Part |. Oceanographic Research Papers 79, 96-105.
Silva-lfiiguez, L., Fischer, D.W., (2003). Quantification and classification of marin litter on the municipal beach of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Marin Pollution Bulletin 46, 132-138.
Spengler, A., Costa, M.F., (2008). Methods applied in studies of benthic marin debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56, 226-230.
STAP (2011). Marine Debris as a Global Environmental Problem: Introducing  solutions based framework focused on plastic. A STAP Information Document Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC.
Stickel, B.H., Jahn, A. and Kier, B. (2013). Waste in our water: The Annual Cost t California Communities of Reducing Litter That Pollutes our waterways. Kie Associates: San Rafael, CA.
Swanson, R.L., Stanford, H.M. and O'Connor, J.S. (1978). "June 1976 Pollution of Lon Island Ocean Beaches." Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE 104(EE6): 1067-1085.
Swanson, R.L., Bell, T.M., Kahn, J. and Olga, J. (1991). “Use Impairments an Ecosystem Impacts of the New York Bight.” Chemistry and Ecology 5: 99-127.
Tanaka, K., Takada, H., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K., Fukuwaka, M., Watanuki, Y. (2013). Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabird ingesting marine plastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin 69, 219-222.
Teuten, E.L., Rowland, S.J., Galloway, T.S., Thompson, R.C., (2007). Potential fo plastics to transport hydrophobic contaminants. Environmental Science  Technology 41, 7759-7764.
Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U., Barlaz, M.A., Jonsson, S., Bjorn, A. Rowland, S.J., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., Yamashita, R., Ochi, D. Watanuki, Y., Moore, C., Viet, P.H., Tana, T.S., Prudente, M., Boonyatumanond R., Zakaria, M.P., Akkhavong, K., Ogata, Y., Hirai, H., lwasa, S., Mizukawa, K. Hagino, Y., Imamura, A., Saha, M., Takada, H. (2009). Transport and release o chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophica Transactions of the Royal Society of London Biology. 364, 2027-2045.
Ten Brink, P., Lutchman, I., Bassi, S., Speck, S., Sheavly, S., Register, K. and Woolaway C. (2009). Guidelines on the Use of Market-based Instruments to Address th Problem of Marine Litter. Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels Belgium and Sheavly Consultants, VA Beach, VA, USA.
Thiel, M., Bravo, M., Hinojosa, I.A., Luna, G., Miranda, L., Nunez, P., Pacheco, A.S. Vasquez, N. (2011). Anthropogenic litter in the SE Pacific: an overview of th problem and possible solutions. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Manage 11 115-134.
Thiel, M., Gutow, L. (2005a) The ecology of rafting in the marine environment |: th floating substrata. Oceanogr Mar Biol 42:181-263.
© 2016 United Nations 3 

Thiel M, Gutow L (2005b) The ecology of rafting in the marine environment II: th rafting organisms and community. Oceanography and Marine Biolog 43:279-418.
Thiel, M., Hinojosa, |., Vasquez, N., Macaya, E. (2003). Floating marine debris i coastal waters of the SE-Pacific (Chile). Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, (2) 224-231.
Thompson, R.C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R.P., Davis, A., Rowland, S.J., John, A.W.G. McGonigle, D., Russell, A. E. (2004). Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Scienc 304 (5672), 838.
Thornton, L., Jackson, N.L., (1998). Spatial and temporal variations in debri accumulation and composition on an estuarine shoreline, Cliffwood beach, Ne Jersey, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36, 705-711.
Titmus, A.J., Hyrenbach, K.D., (2011). Habitat associations of floating debris an marine birds in the North East Pacific Ocean at coarse and meso spatial scales Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, (11), 2496-2506.
Topcu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Oztiirk, A.A., Oztiirk, B., (2013). Origin an abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Blac Sea Coast. Marine Environmental Research 85, 21-28.
UNEP (2005). Marine Litter. An analytical overview. Available from http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/anl_oview. df
UNEP (2006). Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High Seas. UNE Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 178. UNEP/ IUCN, Switzerland 2006. ISBN 92-807-2734-6.
UNEP (2009). Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. United Nations Environmen Programme, Nairobi.
UNEP and NOAA (2011). The Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for Preventio and Management of Marine Debris.
UNEP-MAP-WHO-MEDPOL (2011). Assessment of the status of marine litter in th Mediterranean. UNEP-MAP, p. 89.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), NOWPAP (Northwest Pacific Actio Plan) , (2008). Marine Litter in the Northwest Pacific Region, A report by th Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP), United Nations Environmen Programme.
Unsworth, R.E. and Petersen, T.B. (1995). A Manual for Conducting Natural Resourc Damage Assessments: The Role of Economics. Division of Economics, Fish an Wildlife Service. US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Claessens, M., Vandegehuchtea, M.B., Mees, J., Janssen, C.R (2013). Assessment of marine debris on the Belgian Continental Shelf. Marine
© 2016 United Nations 3 

Pollution Bulletin 73, 161-69.
van Franeker, J.A., Blaize, C., Danielsen, J., Fairclough, K., Gollan, J., Guse, N., Hansen P.L., Heubeck, M., Jensen, J.K., Le Guillou, G., Olsen, B., Olsen, K.O., Pedersen, J. Stienen, E.W.M., Turner, D.M. (2011). Monitoring plastic ingestion by th northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environmental Pollutio 159 (10), 2609-2615.
Walker, T.R., Grant, J., Archambault, M., (2006). Accumulation of Marine Debris o an Intertidal Beach in an Urban Park (Halifax Harbour, Nova Scotia). Wate Quality Research Journal of Canada 41, 256-262.
Walker, T.R., Reid, K., Arnould, J.P.Y., Croxall, J.P., (1997). Marine debris surveys a Bird Island, South Georgia 1990-1995. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34, 61-65.
Waluda, C.M., Staniland, I.J., (2013). Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals at Bir Island, South Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 74, 244-252.
Watters, D.L., Yoklavich, M.M., Love, M.S., Schroeder, D.M., (2010). Assessing marin debris in deep seafloor habitats off California. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60(1) 131-138.
Wei, C.L., Rowe, G.T., Nunnally, C., Wicksten, M.K., (2012). Anthropogenic "litter and macrophyte detritus in the deep northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Pollutio Bulletin 64, 966-973.
Winston, J.E., Gregory, M.R., Stevens, L.M., (1997). Encrusters, epibionts, and othe biota associated with pelgaic plastics: a review of biogeographical environmental, and conservation issues, In: Coe, J.M., Rogers, D.B. (Eds.) Marine Debris: sources impact, and solutions, New York, Springer-Verlag, pp 81-97.
WMI. (1989). Use Impairments and Ecosystem Impacts of the New York Bight: SUNY Stony Brook, NY.
Woodall L. C., Sanchez-Vidal, A., Canals, M., Paterson, G.L.J., Coppock, R., Sleight, V. Calafat, A., Rogers, A. D., Narayanaswamy, B. E., Thompson, R. C., (2014). Th deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. Royal Society Open Science.1 140317. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.140317.
Woodall, L.C., Robinson, L.F., Rogers, A.D., Narayanaswamy, B.E. and Paterson, G.L.J. (2015). Deep-sea litter: a comparison of seamounts, banks and a ridge in th Atlantic and Indian Oceans reveals both environmental and anthropogeni factors impact accumulation and composition. Frontiers in Marine Science., 0 February 2015. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00003.
World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), (2012). Untangled-Marin debris: a global picture of the impact on animal welfare and of animal-focuse solutions. London: World Society for the Protection of Animals.
Wright, S. Thompson, R.C., & Galloway, T.S. (2013). The physical impacts o microplastics in marine organisms: a review. Environmental Pollution 178,
© 2016 United Nations 3 

483-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol. 2013. 02.031.
Yamashita, R., Tanimura, A., (2007). Floating plastic in the Kuroshio Current area western North Pacific Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54(4), 485-488.
Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., Amaral-Zettler, L.A., (2013). Life in the "Plastisphere" Microbial Communities on Plastic Marine Debris. Environmental Science  Technology 47, 7137-7146.
© 2016 United Nations
3