Marine Litter Vital Graphics
Marine Litter Vital Graphics brought to you by UNEP and GRID-Arendal
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
. .... . . .
j
i
j
J
i
i
i ii JJJ
J
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
J .. ... . ......... . . . i r .. ..
.. ....
i i .
i
i
i >
Í
i ><
#
Y
Y
i J
. . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. .
.
. . . . . . . .
.
.
.
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
1
2
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
5 Foreword 6 What is marine litter and why it is of concern 10 Modern times, marine litter 14 Ecological impacts of marine plastic debris and microplastics 18 Economic and social costs of marine plastic pollution 20 Plastic in the food chain – a threat to human health? 22 We all contribute to this problem. Yes, all 34 Final destination: The Ocean… 37 My litter your problem, your litter my problem 40 Out of sight, out of mind? 42 What are the policy responses to the problem? 46 Better (and cheaper) to be tidy than to have to tidy up 50 Big questions that remain unanswered 52 Conclusions 54 References Contents
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
3
Editors Joan Fabres – GRID-Arendal Heidi Savelli – UNEP GPA / Global Partnership on Marine Litter Tina Schoolmeester – GRID-Arendal Ieva Rucevska – GRID-Arendal Elaine Baker – GRID-Arendal at the University of Sydney Contributors (in alphabetical order) Elaine Baker, GRID-Arendal at the University of Sydney Miquel Canals, Universitat de Barcelona Andres Cózar, Universidad de Cádiz Joan Fabres, GRID-Arendal Chelsea Rochman, University of California, Davis Anna Sanchez-Vidal, Universitat de Barcelona Tina Schoolmeester, GRID-Arendal Joni Seager, Bentley University, Waltham Patrick ten Brink, Institute for European Environmental Policy Erik van Sebille, Imperial College London EmmaWatkins, Institute for European Environmental Policy KayleighWyles, Plymouth University Reviewers Sarah Da Silva, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canada Jesús Gago, Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Spain Sarah Dudas, Vancouver Island University Jenna Jambeck, University of Georgia Peter Kershaw, Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Protection Laurent Lebreton, The Modelling House Limited, Wellington, New Zealand Semia Gharbi, Association of Environmental Education for Future Generations, Tunisia Denise Hardesty, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Nawarat Krairapanond, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Thailand Martin Thiel, Universidad Católica del Norte Richard Thompson, Plymouth University Sabine Pahl, Plymouth University Maps and graphics Riccardo Pravettoni, Geo-graphics Layout GRID-Arendal Acknowledgements GRID-Arendal: Robert Barnes, John Crump, Iris de Jesus, Marie Halvorsen, Peter Harris, Rannveig Nilsen, Janet F. Skaalvik, Patricia Villarubia The Government of Norway is gratefully acknowledged for providing the necessary funding that made the production of this publication "Marine Litter Vital Graphics" possible.
ISBN: 978-82-7701-153-0 Recommended Citation:
UNEP and GRID-Arendal, 2016. Marine Litter Vital Graphics. United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal. Nairobi and Arendal. www.unep.org, www.grida.no Disclaimer: The opinions, figures and estimates set forth in this publication are not the responsibility of the author and should not necessarily be considered as reflecting the views or carrying the endorsement of the United Nations Environment Programme. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
4
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
Every year, the sum of humanity’s knowledge increases exponentially. And as we learn more, we also learn there is much we still don’t know. Plastic litter in our oceans is one area where we need to learn more, and we need to learn it quickly. That’s one of the main messages in Marine Litter Vital Graphics . Another important message is that we already know enough to take action. Foreword
It sounds like a contradiction, but it’s not. As this report explains, we need to act now if we want to avoid living in a sea of plastic by mid-century – even if we don’t know everything about what it’s doing to the health of people or of the environment. Produced by UNEP and GRID-Arendal, this report shows that we have to take a hard look at how we produce and use plastics. The first plastics hit the market around 1950. At that time there were 2.5 billion people on Earth and the global production of plastic was 1.5 million tonnes. Today there are more than 7 billion people and plastic production exceeds 300 million tonnes annually. If the trend continues, another 33 billion tonnes of plastic will have accumulated around the planet by 2050. It’s all about consumption. As the global standard of living has grown, the amount of plastic produced, used and simply thrown away has skyrocketed – and a vast quantity makes its way to the ocean. The presence of marine litter in birds, turtles andmammals is well documented. A recent comprehensive review revealed marine litter in 100% of marine turtles, 59% of whales, 36% of seals and 40% of seabirds. But large marine creatures swallowing or getting caught in rubbish are only part of the problem. Organisms at every level, living on the seabed and in the water column, can be affected. Apart from the physical risk from plastic there is also concern they are threatened by the ingestion of hazardous chemicals in the plastic or absorbed on its surface. The ability of plastic particles in the ocean to
attract organic chemicals that don’t dissolve, including many toxic substances, has led to a growing number of studies looking at plastics as a source of toxic chemicals in marine organisms. What happens to the health of people who eat food from the sea is another important question. In fact, the report points to the need for more research in every area. It states that our knowledge about what happens to plastics in the marine environment should be seen as only the tip of the iceberg. Much more is unknown than known. The good news is that while a lot of research needs to be done there is a lot we can do to change our consumption and production patterns to prevent increasing amounts of plastic waste from getting into the marine environment. “Upstream” governance actions can help reduce the amount of plastic. Recycling is one example, but that capturesonlya small portionofwasteplastic.Other actions include prohibitions and creating financial disincentives to the manufacture and use of plastic materials. Besides improved governance at all levels, long-term solutions should focus onbehavioural and systemchanges such as encouraging more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Upstream prevention is preferable to downstream removal. Or as one of the report chapters says, it’s better (and cheaper) to be tidy than to have to tidy up. Knowledge about the effects of plastic in the marine environment is growing rapidly. We hope that this report will provide much needed impetus to action.
Peter Harris Managing Director, GRID-Arendal
MetteWilkie Director, Division of Environmental Policy Implementation, UNEP
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
5
DEFINITIONS
Marine litter (or debris)* is waste created by humans that has been discharged into the coastal or marine environment. It is defined as“any anthropogenic, manufactured, or processed solid material (regardless of size) discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in the environment, including all materials discarded into the sea, on the shore, or brought indirectly to the sea by rivers, sewage, storm water, waves, or winds” (UNEP and NOAA, 2012). What is marine litter and why it is of concern
Any human-made object that does not naturally degrade within days or months can potentially become marine litter if it is not properly managed. Common litter items are made of paper, wood, textiles, metal, glass, ceramics, rubber and plastic discarded by humans (UNEP, 2005).
Just as human activities are varied and widespread, so are the sources of litter. The sources may be located directly at sea, on the coast or further inland. Litter can be transported over long distances and into all marine habitats – from the surf zone all the way to remote mid-oceanic gyres and the deep sea floor. Like other pollutants, marine litter affects habitats, ecological function and the health of organisms of the ecosystems where it accumulates.
*The terms litter and debris are considered to have the same meaning in this report and are used interchangeably throughout.
Are most of the plastics produced still around?
ca 70 years
Average human life expectancy
2 nd generation
3 rd generation
4 th generation
few minutes to few days
Use lifespan of single use plastic products
few weeks to few years
Use lifespan of short-lived plastic products
ca 30 years
Use lifespan of long-lived plastic products
Estimated time range for plastic degradation in the marine environment
Hundreds to thousands of years
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Source: Barnes, D. K., et al., Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments, Biological Sciences
6
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
DEFINITIONS
Mostly plastic
Composition of items collected
Other Plastic, higher estimate Plastic, lower estimate
Percentage
100
90
80
70
Average
60
Between 60 and 90 per cent – sometimes as much as 100 per cent – of the litter that accumulates on shorelines, the sea surface and the sea floor ismade up of one or a combination of different plastic polymers. The most common items, constituting over 80 per cent of the litter stranded on beaches (Andrady, 2015) are cigarette butts, bags, remains of fishing gear, and food and beverage containers. Likewise, 90 per cent of the litter collected from sea floor trawls is made up of plastic (Derraik, 2002 and Galgani et al., 2015). Plastics have only been mass-produced for around 60 years and therefore it is impossible to know with certainty how long they last in the marine environment. Most types of plastic are not biodegradable (Andrady 1994). In fact, they are extremely durable. This means the majority of polymers manufactured today will persist for decades and probably for centuries, if not millennia. So-called degradable plastics may persist for a long time because their degradation depends on physical factors, such as exposure to light, oxygen and temperature (Swift & Wiles 2004). Biodegradable plastics also decompose through the mediation of certain micro-organisms. Plastics labelled as biodegradable, designed to undergo certain degrees of degradation in landfills or in terrestrial environments, may still persist for long periods under marine conditions (Kyrikou & Briassoulis, 2007; UNEP, 2015). Full degradation of a plastic item implies complete breakdown and decomposition into water, carbon dioxide, methane and other non- synthetic molecules. For the large majority of plastic items, even if they disintegrate by breaking down into smaller and smaller plastic debris under the influence of weathering, the polymer itself may not necessarily fully degrade into natural chemical compounds or chemical elements under marine conditions (Hopewell et al., 2009).
50
40
30
20
10
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 37
Collection sites
29
32
26 17
33
22
1
6
418
30
14
21
15
12
2
9
23
31
36
28
25
13
34
37
Sea oor Surface water Beach, shoreline
11
3
27
19
24
16
8
10
20
7
35
5
1. Bay of Biscay 2. North Atlantic harbours (4 sites) 3. South African beaches (50 sites) 4. Cape Cod 5. Sub-Antarctic Islands (9 sites)
20. Macquire Island 21. French Mediterranean Coast (avg.) 22. European coast (avg.) 23. Mediterranean Sea 24. Tasmania (88 sites) 25. Curaçao 26. South Wales 27. South Australia 28. Mexico 29. International Coastal Cleanups, 1992 (avg.) 30. Tokyo Bay 31. Georgia 32. Kodiak Island 33. Halifax Harbour 34. St. Lucia 35. Heard Island 36. Dominica 37. Fog Bay, Northern Australia
6. National Parks in USA 7. Prince Edward Island 8. Bird Island 9. North Paci c Ocean 10. Gough Island 11. Transkei, South Africa
12. Gulfs in W. Greece (2 sites) 13. Caribbean coast of Panama 14. Mediterranean beaches (5 sites) 15. NW Mediterranean sea bed (avg.) 16. New Zealand Beach 17. South German Bight 18. Island Beach State Park, New Jersey 19. Argentina
Source: Derraik, J., G., B.,The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review, 2002
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
7
DEFINITIONS
Size does matter
Animal groups a ected by entanglement, su ocation and/or ingestion
Debris size category
MEGA
1 metre
Plastic bottle cap
Whales, seals, dolphins, turtles, birds
MACRO
2.5 centimetre
28 mm
77 mm
Birds, fish, invertebrates
6 mm
MESO
lter
Cigarette
5 millimetre
Great black-backed gull
Polystyrene pellets
3 mm 2 mm
1 mm
MICRO
Fish, invertebrates, other filter feeders
1 micron*
Particle invisible to naked eye
Invertebrates, other filter feeders
NANO
Source: GESAMP, Sources, fate and e ects of microplastics in the marine environment: A global assessment, 2015
* one thousandth of a millimetre
8
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
DEFINITIONS
Which plastics oat and which sink in seawater?
Bottle caps (Polypropylene, PP)
Plastic bags (Polyethylene, PE)
Floats (Polystyrene, EPS)
0.92
0.95
1,00
1.01
Seawater density
Fishing nets (Polyamide or Nylon)
1,05
1.09
1,10
Containers (Polystyrene, PS)
1.15
1,15
Density Grams per cubic centimetre
1,20
Cigarette lters (Cellulose acetate)
Soft drink bottles (Polyethylene terephtalate, PET)
Textiles (Polyesther resin)
1.24
1,25
1,30
1.30
Plastic lm (Polyvinyl chloride, PVC)
1.35
1,35
1.39
Source: GESAMP, Sources, fate and e ects of microplastics in the marine environment: A global assessment, 2015
In addition to polymers, additives such as flame retardants (e.g. polybrominated diphenyl ethers), and plasticisers (e.g. phthalates) are also mixed into synthetic materials to increase their flexibility, transparency, durability, and longevity. Some of these substances, present in most plastic objects found in the marine environment, are known to be toxic to marine organisms and to humans (Rochman et al., 2015). The plastic used in the manufacture of an object depends on its intended use. The type of plastic will determine the ease with which an object can be recycled. Some plastics cannot be recycled, which means they enter the waste management system. If they make it into the marine environment, plastics that are less dense than sea water will float at the surface. Floating objects can be readily transported by wind, waves and surface currents and become widely dispersed across the ocean. Plastics that are denser than seawaterwill sink to the sea floor and accumulate or be redistributed, along with other sedimentary particles, through bottom sedimentary processes.
fishing nets and lost cargo containers. Moderate sized objects less than one metre long might include plastic bags, soda bottles or milk containers. Small spheres of expanded polystyrene are on the scale of millimetres. Micrometre-sized plastic beads are present in cosmetic products and synthetic cloth fibres or are derived from fragments broken down from larger plastic items. There has recently been a noticeable increase in concern about the implications of pollution by small sized debris, especially wheremade up of plastic. The term“microplastic” has been introduced to describe small plastic debris commonly less than 5 mm in diameter. The concern about microplastic pollution is due to its ubiquitous presence in the marine environment. Yet it is difficult to assess its quantity because of the small size of the particles and the fact that little is known about the chemical reactions and the extent of its incorporation into the trophic chain. Investigations are also being conducted into the implications of organisms’ exposure to and intake of plastic nanoparticles, particles smaller than 1 micron. With such limited knowledge of the ultimate ecological effects of microplastics and nanoplastics, there are concerns over their potential impacts at the level of ecosystems.
Marine litter comes in all sizes. Large objects may be tens of metres in length, such as pieces of wrecked vessels, lost
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
9
DRIVERS
Modern times, marine litter
Today´s deterioration of the global environment is closely linked to unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. The exponential increase in production and consumption over the last 50 years has seen a rapid transformation of the relationship betweenhumans and thenatural world–more so than inanyother period inour history –with escalating use of natural resources leading to environmental degradation (UNEP, 2015). The increase in production and consumption is across all sectors and generates a vast amount of waste, much of it contributing to marine litter. This includes waste streams such as wood, textiles, metal, glass, ceramics, rubber and above all, plastic.
The rapid rise in the use of oil and gas during the last half century has been accompanied by the development of a range of petroleum products, some of which, like petrochemicals, have other important applications beyond energy production. The global production of petroleum-derived plastic has also increased dramatically, from 1.5 million tonnes in 1950 to more than 300 million tonnes in 2014 (Plastics Europe, 2015; Velis, 2014). Some people have described this dramatic increase in the use of plastics as the “Age of Plastics” (Stevens, 2002) or “Our
Plastic Age” (Thompson et al., 2009). If the current trend where production increases by approximately 5 per cent a year continues, another 33 billion tonnes of plastic will have accumulated around the planet by 2050 (Rochman et al., 2013). It is very easy to understand why the volume of global plastics production has already exceeded that of steel in the 1980s (Stevens, 2002). Plastics have a broad range of characteristics that make them a good replacement for
Plastic waste produced and mismanaged
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
Canada
Russian Federation
Finland
United Kingdom
EU 27 plus Norway
Netherlands
Poland Germany
Ireland
North Korea
Belgium France
Ukraine
Croatia
United States
Japan
Italy
Turkey
Spain
Syria
Greece
South Korea
Iran
Portugal
China
Lebanon
Cyprus
Pakistan
Tunisia
Israel
Morocco
Hong Kong
India
Taiwan
Kuwait
Cuba
Mexico
UAE
Algeria
Dominican Republic
Haiti
Libya
Bangladesh
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Puerto Rico
Guatemala
Honduras
Myanmar
Oman
Trinidad and Tobago
Vietnam Philippines
Yemen
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Nigeria
Senegal
Thailand
Ghana
Venezuela
Costa Rica
Panama
Malaysia
Guyana
Sri Lanka
Somalia
Colombia
Cote d'Ivoire
Singapore
Ecuador
Papua New Guinea
Indonesia
Brazil
Peru
Angola
Mauritius
Australia
Chile
Uruguay
South Africa
Argentina
Coastal population
Plastic waste production Thousand tonnes per day, 2010
Million people
New Zealand
1 to 2 Less than 1 2 to 10 10 to 50 50 to 263 Land locked country
Total plastic waste produced
37
10 1 0,2
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.
Portion of plastic waste mismanaged
10
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
DRIVERS
nearly all traditional materials and they offer qualities unknown in naturally occurring materials. Plastic products and technologies provide huge benefits in every aspect of life, to the point where life without them is almost unthinkable. Many sectors of the economy use plastics, including food and water packaging, a myriad of consumer products like textiles and clothing, electrical and electronic devices, life-saving advanced medical equipment and reliable and durable construction materials (Andrady and Neal, 2009; Thompson et al., 2009). Plastic is convenient as a manufacturing material due to its durability, flexibility, strength, low density, impermeability to a wide range of chemical substances, and high thermal and electrical resistance. But it is also one of the most pervasive and challenging types of litter in terms of its impacts and management once it reaches the marine environment, where it is persistent and widely dispersed in the open ocean. A growing human population, with expectations of a higher standard of living and generally rising consumption patterns, is concentrated in urban areas across the globe. Our current lifestyle entails increasing consumption of products intended for single use. Plastic manufacturing and service industries are responding to the market’s demands by providing low weight packaging and single-use products without plans for end of life management. Plastic packaging is considered one of the main sources of waste. In Europe, plastic production comes in three broad categories: about 40 per cent for single-use disposable applications, such as food packaging, agricultural films and disposable consumer items; 20 per cent for long- lasting infrastructure such as pipes, cable coatings and structural materials; and 40 per cent for durable consumer applications with an intermediate lifespan, such as electronic goods, furniture, and vehicles (Plastics Europe, 2015). In the US and Canada, 34 per cent of plastic production was for single-use items in 2014 (American Chemistry Council, 2015). In China in 2010, the equivalent figure was 33 per cent (Velis, 2014). However, when we look at the plastic found in waste streams, packaging accounted for 62 per cent of the plastic in Europe in 2012 (Consultic, 2013). This confirms that plastic intended for a single-use product is the main source of plastic waste, followed by waste derived from intermediate lifespan goods such as electronics, electrical equipment and vehicles (Hopewell et al., 2009).
Global plastic production...
1 800
Million tonnes, 2013
1 500
Commonwealth of Independent States
EU 50
7
Japan
11
49
62
North America
18
41
China
Middle East and Africa
12
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
Marine plastic litter, like other waste or pollution problems, is really linked to market failure. In simple terms, the price of plastic products does not reflect the true cost of disposal. The cost of recycling and disposal are not borne by the producer or consumer, but by society (Newman et al., 2015). This flaw in our system allows for the production and consumption of large amounts of plastic at a very low “symbolic” price. Waste management is done “out of sight” from the consumer, hindering awareness of the actual cost of a product throughout its life. Sustainable long-term solutions to stop increasing amounts of plastic waste from leaking into the environment require changes to our consumption and production patterns. This is a complex task. In order to succeed, campaigns targeting behaviour change need to
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
11
DRIVERS
How plastic moves from the economy to the environment
Sectors using plastics (intermediate and nal consumption
Textiles and clothing
Construction
Food and drink
Cosmetics and personal care
Terrestrial transport
t Agriculture
i J
Plastic producers and converters (including Packaging)
i J
Shipping
Tourism
Fisheries and Aquaculture
Recycling
i >< i ><
i ><
i ><
i ><
i ><
Reuse, repair, remanufacture
BUY-A-LOT
ECONOMY
Retail of products and services
Waste and wastewater management
Microbeads in products, accidental releases, plastic blasting, degradation of buoys, loss of nets
Accidental or voluntary releases
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Final consumption by citizens i i
SOCIETY
littering, deliberate/illegal waste disposal
Litter washed into stormwater drains, micro bres, microbeads, bio- lters
Rawmaterial inputs fossil fuels and agricultural material for bioplastics
loss of packaging, tyre wear, accidental releases
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
. .
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . .
.
. Land ll
. .
. . .
.
. . . .. . . .
.
. .
Washed out and windblown waste from land lls
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. . .
. . . . . . . . .
. .
.
. .
.
. . . .
.
.
. .
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ..
. .
.
.
. . .
.
.
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
12
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
DRIVERS
take into account differences in demographics (such as gender, age, income and social status).
of shifts in the right direction, the magnitude of change needed will take a substantial amount of time.
There are obviously benefits in terms of energy, climate and health from using plastics and therefore the goal should not be to completely move away from plastic, but to use it more efficiently and in an environmentally sustainable way. Even with all the efforts made in the separation and collection of plastic waste, the proportion of plastics that are effectively recycled globally may not even reach 5 per cent of production (Velis, 2014), with large regional variations. The annual volume of globally traded plastic waste destined for recycling was around 15 million tonnes in 2012 (Velis, 2014), with China being a leading import country for plastic scrap recycling. Profound changes are needed to reduce the amount of pollution from plastic waste. Such changes will affect society and industry and, while there are many examples
And yet there is no time to lose. The forecasted impacts of marine litter demand the urgent development of alternative, efficient solutions. Short-term solutions should be implemented to reduce the immediate negative effects, while the necessary long-term changes in consumption and production are incentivised through policy, economic and education/awareness mechanisms. It is clear that plastic has multiple value and functions in our society. There is a need for further research into the demographics of consumer behaviour specific to marine plastic pollution, and willingness to change those behaviours. But given the negative (and unknown) impacts that plastic has on the marine environment, it is necessary to take urgent measures to reduce our dependency of short-lived plastic and to prevent it from reaching the marine environment.
How much plastic waste is produced worldwide
Plastic waste generation rate Kilograms per person per day
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
Source: Jambeck, J., R., et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science, 2015
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
13
IMPACTS
There has been widespread publicity about pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris and its impact on organisms. Images of the brightly coloured plastic stomach contents of dead seabirds and countless whales, dolphins and turtles caught in floating debris or wearing discarded plastic rubbish are routine. But this is not only about large marine creatures swallowing or getting entangled in rubbish; organisms at every trophic level, living both on the seabed and in the water column, are also affected. Ecological impacts of marine plastic debris and microplastics
The plastic diet Plastic debris can have similar size characteristics to sediment and suspended particulate matter and can be ingested by filter feeding or sediment ingesting organisms. Lugworms, amphipods and barnacles have all been shown to ingest plastic fragments and fibres (Thompson et al., 2004). Even very small organisms at or near the bottom of the food chain, like filter feeding zooplankton, have been observed in the laboratory to take up microplastics (Cole et al., 2013; Setälä et al., 2014). Zooplankton usually excrete the particles within hours (which is comparable to natural food) but some How plastics enter the food web How plastics enter the food web
zooplankton have been found to retain microplastics for up to seven days (Cole et al., 2013). The ingestion of polystyrene particles by zooplankton has been found to significantly decrease their nutritional intake (because they can eat up to 40 per cent less real food) and also their reproductive output (Cole et al., 2015 and Lee et al., 2013). Apart from providing zero energy, a diet of non-nutritional microplastic beads also affects how these organisms deal with food shortages. Usually they instinctively decrease their metabolic rate to save energy when faced with starvation – however this does not occur when the diet contains microplastic beads (Cole et al., 2015).
Sea birds
Sea birds
Less dense microplastics oating on surface water Less dense microplastics oating on surface water
Annelids
Marine mammals Marine mammals
Annelids
Microplastics in beach sediments Microplastics in beach sediments
Zooplankton Zooplankton
Pelagic sh
Fouled microplastics sinking Fouled microplastics sinking
Pelagic sh
Mesopelagic sh Mesopelagic sh
Resuspended microplastics Resuspended microplastics
Bivalves
Bivalves
Demersal sh
Demersal sh
Holothurians Holothurians
Crustacans
Crustacans
Microplastics in benthic sediments Microplastics in benthic sediments
Sources: Lusher, A., Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Distribution, Interactions and E ects, in Bergmann, M., et al., Marine Anthropogenic Litter, 2015
Sources: Lusher, A., Microplastics in the Marine Environment: Distribution, Interactions and E ects, in Bergmann, M., et al., Marine Anthropogenic Litter, 2015
14
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
IMPACTS
The presence of marine litter in birds, turtles and mammals is well documented. A recent comprehensive review revealed marine litter in 100 per cent of marine turtles, 59 per cent of whales, 36 per cent of seals and 40 per cent of seabird species examined (Kuhn et al., 2015). Despite the large percentage of animals swallowing plastic debris, death as a result of plastic ingestion is probably too infrequent to affect the population structure. However, other effects may be more significant. These include partial blockage or damage to the digestive tract and reduction in foraging due to feelings of satiation, all of which can result in poor nutrition and a consequent decline in health (Kuhn et al., 2015). Poisoned by plastic? Apart from the physical risk from plastic, there is also concern that marine organisms are at risk from the ingestion of hazardous chemicals that are in the plastic or adsorbed on its surface. The ability of plastic particles in the ocean to attract organic chemicals that don’t dissolve, which include many well-known toxic substances, has led to a growing number of studies looking at plastics as a source of toxic chemicals in marine organisms.
Microplastics have been found in many other filter feeding and sediment ingesting organisms, including amphipods, sea cucumbers, mussels and marine worms (Graham and Thompson 2009; Murray and Cowie 2011; Van Cauwenberghe and Janssen 2014; von Moos et al., 2012; Wright et al., 2015). It appears that some organisms commonly consumed by humans can retain plastic for several weeks (e.g. mussels; Browne et al., 2008) and show varying responses to the ingestion of plastic. For example, the blue mussel has been observed to have a strong inflammatory response and the Pacific oyster has exhibited modifications to feeding behaviour and reproductive disruption (Sussarellu et al., 2016). There is much less information on the impact of the microplastics that are increasingly being found in fish, but there is growing concern due to the potential impact on people who eat fish. During the 2009 Scripps Environmental Accumulation of Plastics Expedition (SEAPLEX) in the North Pacific Gyre, a total of 141 fish from 27 species were examined for the presence of plastic particles. More than 9 per cent of the fish had plastic in their gut (Davison and Asch 2011). Similarly, a study of fish caught in the English Channel revealed that more than 30 per cent of those examined had plastic in their gut. It is currently difficult to determine the connection between the health of fish and the presence of microplastics (Foekema et al., 2013; Davison and Asch 2011; Rummel et al., 2016). However, it is generally thought that significant ingestion of microplastic material can, over time, negatively affect the health of fish by falsely satisfying hunger or causing internal blockages (e.g. Wright et al., 2013). Plastic in faeces and other aggregates The concentration of microplastic at the ocean surface is thought to be lower than expected, suggesting that it is somehow being removed to deep sea areas (Cózar et al., 2014). Microplastics can sink when they acquire ballast. It has been suggested that one mechanism involved is the incorporation of ingested plastic into faecal pellets (Wright et al., 2013; Setälä et al., 2014; Cole et al., 2016). Algal aggregates, which are common in surface waters, can also incorporate microplastics (Long et al., 2015). The faecal pellets and aggregates eventually sink, taking themicroplastics with them (Long et al., 2015).
Plastic bioaccumulation in the food web
Predators
. . . . . .
. . . .
. .
.
.
.. . . . . . .
.
.
. . . .
.
. .. . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
. . . . .
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
. .
. . .. . .
. . . .. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.
.
. . . .
.
Microplastics
.
. . . . .. .. . . .
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .. . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
. .. .
.
. . .
.
.
Plankton
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . .
.
.
.
.
. .
Smaller sh
.. . .
..
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
Larger sh
Source: Rochman, C., M.,The Complex Mixture, Fate andToxicity of Chemicals Associated with Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment, in Marine Anthropogenic Litter, 2015
Plastic bioaccumulation in the food web
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
15
Predators
IMPACTS
Number of species with documented records of marine debris ingestion Plasticized animal species - Ingestion
Dugongs and sea cows
Penguins
Marine ducks
Divers
True seals
5
1
3
4
3
(7.7%)
16
(60%)
(27.8%)
Pelicans, gannets and boobies, tropicbirds
(60%)
(21.1%)
40
Invertebrates
Whales
Turtles
Eared seals
6
7
7
16
8
(53.8%)
(100%)
(>0,001%)
(61.5%)
(23.9%)
Toothed whales
(61.5%)
92
84
55
Gulls, skuas, terns and auks
Albatross and other Procellariiformes
Fish
(39.6%)
(0,28%)
(59.6%)
Source: Kühn, S., et al., Deleterious E ects of Litter on Marine Life, in Bergmann, M., et al., Marine Anthropogenic Litter, Springer, 2015
A recent review of microplastics as a vector for chemicals found that the fraction of organic chemicals absorbed by plastics is small compared to other carriers of chemicals in the ocean (these include water, dissolved organic carbon, black carbon and biota; Koelmans et al., 2016 and references therein). The ingestion of microplastics by marine organisms is unlikely to increase their exposure to organic chemicals (Koelmans et al., 2016) but the plastics themselves also release chemicals as they degrade, increasing the overall chemical burden in the ocean. Caught by plastic Entanglement in debris is a more obvious and proven risk to marine life than other impacts of litter, which are still subject to debate. More than 30,000 cases of entanglement (in 243 species) have been reported (Gall and Thompson, 2015). Entanglement can cause a quick or a slow death through drowning, starvation, strangulation or cuts and injury that cause infection (Laist 1997). Much of the damage to organisms is caused by discarded fishing equipment – so-called “ghost fishing”. It is a problem that affects predominantly higher taxa organisms: whales,
turtles, seals, dolphins, dugongs, sharks and large fish. For example, studies examining scarring on whales from the Gulf of Maine indicate that more than 80 per cent of right whales and 50 per cent of humpback whales have experienced entanglement in fishing gear (Knowlton et al., 2011; Robbins and Mattila 2004). In the North West Atlantic, it is estimated that between 1970 and 2009, more than 300 large whales died as a result of entanglement, a significant proportion of them since 1990 (van der Hoop et al., 2012). Northern Australia has a particularly high density of ghost nets (3 tons per km of shore line annually), which pose a threat to endangered marine fauna in the region (Wilcox et al., 2015). It is estimated that more than 8,000 nets collected between 2005 and 2012 could have been responsible for the deaths of more than 14,000 turtles (Wilcox et al., 2015). Ghost fishing entangles species other than those targeted by the fishing gear; it also results in impacts to the targeted species, as the gear continues to trap and catch them without harvesting. Smothering and other damage Much of the marine litter entering the ocean is initially
16
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
IMPACTS
Number of species with documented records of entanglement in marine debris Plasticized animal species - Entangled
Polar bear
Marine ducks
Whales
Dugongs and sea cows
Turtles
Penguins
Grebes
Divers
9
5
7
6
6
3
2
1
(40%)
(60%)
(38.5)
(100%)
(33.3%)
(26.1%)
(100%)
(69.2%)
Pelicans, gannets and boobies, tropicbirds
16
Eared seals
9
True seals
Toothed whales
13
20
24
(47.4%)
(100%)
(29.9%)
(24.6%)
89
92
Albatross and other Procellariiformes
(17.0%)
Invertebrates
39
Fish
Gulls, skuas, terns and auks
(28.1%)
(0.27%)
(0.06%)
Source: Kühn, S., et al., Deleterious E ects of Litter on Marine Life, in Bergmann, M., et al., Marine Anthropogenic Litter, Springer, 2015
buoyant and floats on the surface; however the ocean floor may be its final resting place (Goldberg, 1997). Large items, including discarded or lost fishing gear, quickly sink to the sea floor. These items can smother benthic organisms, crush vegetation and coral and turn sediments anoxic (Kuhn et al., 2015). Examples include fishing line wrapped around coral colonies causing death, plastic bags directly smothering organisms or reducing light penetration, and large items dragged along the sea floor causing physical damage (Kuhn et al., 2015; Yoshikawa and Asoh, 2004). Floating away The artificial habitats provided by floating marine debris can support a diverse marine ecosystem. Kiessling et al. (2015) report that globally, 387 taxa, including microorganisms, seaweed, and invertebrates, have been found on floating litter. They found that, in most of the world’s oceans, stalked barnacles (a prominent fouling species) were the most common organisms colonizing floating litter. It is not only large mats of litter that provide a home for marine organisms; one species of water
strider has found that microplastic particles provide an ideal site to lay eggs. Goldstein et al. (2012) suggest that the increase in numbers of the pelagic water strider Halobates sericues in the region of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is a direct result of the increase in hard substrate provided by microplastic. Floating litter provides an additional dispersal mechanism for natural floating materials such as kelp mats, pumice and wood. Although these rafts of rubbish, moved by the same wind and currents as natural material, do not provide new dispersal pathways, the persistence and wide distribution of large amounts of plastic in the oceans provides greater opportunity for dispersal (Lewis et al., 2005). It has been suggested that debris could play a part in the spread of invasive species. Kiessling et al. (2015) document numerous examples of potential invaders found on marine litter beyond their natural dispersal range. They conclude that changes to the temporal and spatial availability of rafts, caused by the growing quantity of marine litter, probably facilitate the establishment of species in new regions.
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
17
IMPACTS
Marine plastic debris and microplastics have substantial negative effects on marine ecosystems. This in turn affects ecosystem services, the economic activities relying on those services for revenue generation, sustainable livelihoods and the well- being of communities and citizens. The full extent of the impact of plastic pollution on marine ecosystems is still unknown and therefore the economic and social costs are difficult to fully assess. Knowledge is however fundamental to the development of effective and efficient methods for reducing potential impacts (UNEP, 2016c, Newman et al., 2015). Economic and social costs of marine plastic pollution
The economic activities directly affected by marine plastic debris and microplastics include shipping, fishing, aquaculture, tourism and recreation (UNEP, 2016c). The fact that these debris are easily dispersed in the marine environment makes it difficult to trace their specific origins and identify how they got there. In some cases, the industries affected by marine litter are also its source (e.g. plastic litter from tourism, fisheries, shipping, etc.) even though they have an interest in addressing the problem. Often the polluters do not bear the cost of polluting. It is however in the interests of many sectors of the economy to find strategies to reduce marine litter, as this can help to reduce the burdens on them. The only global assessment to date aimed at monetary valuation of the natural costs associated with the use of plastic in the consumer goods industry rates the cost across all sectors to be approximately 75 billion dollars per year (UNEP, 2014). An independent analysis of this dataset revealed that the cost associated to impacts on marine ecosystems could be estimated to be at least 8 billion dollars per year. The food, beverage and retail sectors were responsible for two thirds of these costs. This estimate comprises the revenue loss to fisheries and aquaculture and the marine tourism industries, plus the cost of cleaning up plastic litter on beaches. This upstream approach allows the different sectors to realise their relative impact on the marine environment (risk) and to identify measures that could reduce their use of plastic (opportunities). There is a clear lack of connection between sectors of the economy producing plastic products and those affected by the inappropriate disposal of those products (principally fisheries, shipping and tourism). There are,
however, complex interrelationships between the sectors involved. For example, the fishing industry provides resources for the food industry and the tourism industry depends on (or is a participant in) the food and beverage industries. The shipping industry provides services to the retail, food and beverage industries and is a participant in the tourism industry. These interdependencies, if properly highlighted and utilized, could be pivotal in creating true cross-sectoral engagement in providing solutions to the challenges posed by marine litter. In the shipping sector, marine litter can damage vessels by fouling ship propulsion equipment or cooling systems to the point of causing breakdowns and delays. There are direct costs linked to repairs, rescue efforts, and loss of life or injury, but there are also indirect costs related to loss of productivity and disrupted supply chains, leading to revenue losses. For example, damage caused by litter to shipping is estimated to cost 279 million dollars per year in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation region (APEC, 2009). In the fishing sector, costs connected to marine litter are due both to damage to vessels and gear and to catch reduction. Vessel damage results primarily from litter sucked into inlet valves and rubbish snared around propellers. Catch reduction results from ghost fishing by discarded gear and mortality related to ingestion of marine litter. The total loss to the industry is difficult to estimate but as an example, the European Union fishing fleet is estimated to lose 81.7 million dollars (61.7 million euros) per year (Arcadis, 2014). In the tourism sector, losses are related to the pollution of beaches and coasts which can discourage visitors. The reduction in visitor numbers leads to loss of revenue,
18
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
IMPACTS
jobs and livelihoods. In the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation region, marine litter is estimated to cost the tourism sector around 622 million dollars per year (McIlgorm et al., 2011). Alongside the economic costs, there are social costs. These include reduced opportunities for recreational activities, health risks to coastal visitors (cuts from sharp items on the beach or in the water), and loss of the physical and psychological benefits of access to coastal environments (such as a reduction in tension and stress due to experiencing nature and/or physical activity). In areas with poor waste management the costs can be unfairly borne by coastal communities or remote regions, such as Small Island Developing States, that are especially affected by the concentrated accumulation of litter drifting on ocean currents. As previously mentioned, there is evidence that harmful microorganisms and pathogens can colonize the surface of marine debris (Caruso 2015). Plastics found in rivers have been observed to act as vectors in the spread of pathogens and algal bloom species (McCormick et al., 2014). Keswani et al. (2016) recently reviewed the literature on microbial associations with marine plastic debris and concluded that they may increase human exposure to pathogens at swimming beaches, but more research is necessary to determine the potential for disease transmission. An area that deserves further consideration is the psychological impact related to the perception of the risks and impacts of marine plastic debris and microplastics. Particular attention needs to be paid to the perceived health risks to consumers from the accumulation of microplastics and associated chemicals in seafood, including possible gender differences in chemical uptake. The risk posed by macro debris to large, emblematic marine fauna (whales, seals, turtles and seabirds) has implications for animal rights. In addition, the ethical implications of polluting natural habitats that have high biodiversity and aesthetic value also need to be considered. The final impact of this is two- fold: (1) the impacts on psychological well-being even if none of the previously mentioned services (recreational or therapeutic) are affected; and (2) potential behaviour change (i.e. reduction in fish consumption and/or consumer attitude towards plastic intensive products) even if there are no existing measured economic or ecological impacts (UNEP, 2016a).
The impact of plastic pollution on oceans is at least $8 bn per year Natural capital cost of marine plastic pollution by consumer product sector
. . i r
J
i >< i >< i ><
i ><
i
i ><
Automobiles
14
Furniture Consumer electronics
15
44
65
Medical and pharma- ceutical products
Tobacco Athletic goods
86
Durable household goods
94
166
Restaurants
Toys
214
Clothing and accessories
282
333
Footwear
334
Personal care products
345
734
Retail
Non-durable household goods
902
Food
Soft drinks and ice
3 135 Million dollars
1 370
Source: UNEP,Valuing Plastic, 2014
Wyles et al. (2015) conducted an experiment where they asked volunteers to rate photographs of a beach – with or without litter, and with different types of litter. They found that the presence of litter on the beach made it less attractive to the research participants, who rated the photos according to how they made them feel and the likelihood that they would choose to spend time in such a place. The research participants preferred the clean beaches to the littered ones and expressed negative feelings towards the photos with litter. The debris in the photos was either “fishing litter” – ropes, nets etc. from the fishing industry, or “public litter” – items that could have been left by visitors to the beach. Participants reported that both kinds of litter made the landscape less attractive, but the “public” litter even more so.
Marine Litter Vital Graphics
19
Made with FlippingBook