Environmental Risks Microplastics PDF

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
OF MICROPLASTICS
Maria Gorycka
Faculteit der Aard- en Levenswetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
OF MICROPLASTICS
Maria Gorycka
Stichting De Noordzee
6 July 2009
Supervisor: dr. Bert van Hattum

Stichting De Noordzee: Jeroen Dagevos
2nd Supervisor: dr. Mieke Tromp Meesters
(front page photo from

NOAA Marine Debris Program)
468017 (research project) - 18 ects

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank a few people that have been important to the
realization of this paper.
Firstly Mr. Jeroen Dagevos and Dr. Bert van Hattum for help, time and
valuable comments for the accomplishment of this project. But most of
all for their encouragement and shared passion in the subject.
I am also very grateful to all who participated in the interviews without

whom it would not have been possible to fully understand the
complexity of the subject and reach such diverse recommendations and
conclusions.
I would also like to thank to all my colleagues from the Stichting De

Noordzee for support and a warm atmosphere facilitating the
conduction of this project.
TABLE OF CONTENT
PART ONE
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 PLASTIC MARINE LITTER 7
3 THE NORTH SEA 12
3.1 PHISICAL CHARACTERISTICS 12

3.2 MARINE HABITATS 15
4 THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTICS AND THEIR FATE IN THE MARINE

ENVIRONMENT 17
4.1 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS 17

4.2 BIODEGRADATION AND PERSISTENCY 20
5 MICROPLASTICS 25
5.1 SOURCES OF MICROPLASTICS 27
PART TWO
6 IMPACTS OF MICROPLASTICS 32
6.1 INGESTION 34
6.1.1 LATEST EVIDENCE ON MICROPLASTIC INGESTION 36
6.2 TOXICITY 38
6.3 TRANSFER WITHIN THE MARINE ORGANISMS 40
6.3.1 MICROPLASTICS AND COMPOUNDS FROM MANUFACTURE PROCESSES 41
6.3.1.1 PLASTICISERS 41
6.3.1.2 PLASTIC MEDIA AIRBLASTING 43
6.3.2 MICROPLASTICS AND POPS 44
6.4 FLOATING MICROPLASTICS 47
6.5 ACCUMULATION OF MICROPLASTICS ON THE SEA FLOOR 48
6.5.1 HYDROPHOBIC CONTAMINANTS IN UK COASTWATERS 49
6.6 PHYSICAL HAZARDS 53
7 ABUDANCE OF MICROPLASTICS IN COAST WATERS 55
PART THREE
8 SOLUTIONS 61
8.1 ECOQO FOR PLASTIC PARTICLES IN STOMACHS OF SEABIRDS 65
8.2 MARINE STRATEGY DIRECTIVE 70
8.3 PLASTICS DEBRIS LOAD FROM THE SEA BASED ACTIVITIES 71
8.3.1 MARPOL CONVENTION 71
8.3.2 DIRECTIVE ON PORT FACILITIES FOR SHIP GENERATED WASTE AND CARGO
RESIDUES 73
8.3.3 ‘CLEAN SHIP’ CONCEPT 74
8.4 PLASTIC DEBRIS LOAD FROM LAND 75
8.5 PLASTIC DEBRIS FROM BEACHES 76
8.6 BANS, FEES AND SOURCE REDUCTION SHEMES 78
8.7 PLASTIC DEBRIS FROM PRE-PRODUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL SITES 79
8.8 RECYCLING AND BIODEGRADABLES 80
8.9 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS 82
9 SUGGESTIONS FOR POLICY IMPROVEMENTS 84
9.1 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS 85

9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 89
9.2.1 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 89
9.2.2 AWARENESS 90
9.2.3 FUNDING 92
9.2.4 ECOQO 94
9.2.5 PLASTIC INDUSTRY 95
9.2.6 RECYCLING AND BIOPLASTICS 96
9.2.7 MANDATES 98
9.2.7.1 MARPOL ANNEX V AND PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES DIRECTIVE 101
9.2.8 DIRECT INPUT 106
10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 107
11 CONCLUSIONS 109
12 REFERENCES 113
13 ANNEXES 129
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF MICROPLASTICS_______________________________________________
1 INTRODUCTION
Plastics are extremely important in modern day life; they have brought many societal benefits.
Production of plastics and its use has grown due to their numerous advantages over the more
traditional materials (Plastic Europe, 2006; Gordon, 2006). Their intrinsic properties, together
with a low price and apparent ease of disposal makes them a very convenient material for
industry and consumers. However, it is these same properties which makes plastic a desirable
material that cause plastic debris to be hazardous to marine environment and to accumulate as
litter in both landfill and in the aquatic environment. Plastic litter degrades in the environment
very slowly causing a problem that needs a long-term solution. Furthermore, plastic pieces are
often buoyant, allowing them to easily circulate with ocean currents and be transported over
great distances. The global increase of plastic production and plastic litter go hand in hand,
despite global treaties preventing dumping of waste at sea and efforts protecting water quality
(Lattin, et al, 2005; Plastic Europe, 2006). For example, the volume of microplastic litter in
the North Pacific tripled (Lattin et al., 2005) and the amount of plastic debris off the Japanese
coast increases by a factor of 10 every 2-3 years, both, only during the last decade (Haruo,
2000). Also the Oslo/Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
North-Sea Atlantic (OSPAR) in its reports (Quality Status Report, 2000) indicates that the
marine litter problem is still increasing.
Plastic material makes up 60-80% of marine debris, and about 90% of floating debris
worldwide (Gordon, 2006). However, if one thinks about marine litter, the typical picture
which comes to mind is mostly onshore or afloat items from post-consumer plastic waste such
as PET bottles, detergent containers and food wrappings. This is however just one piece of
whole picture. Small pieces of plastic, often not visible to the bare eye are believed to pose a
far greater threat to the environment. The major environmental consequences caused by
plastic debris, as recently and increasingly under the scientific spotlight, is the grave threat
from small plastic debris (Thompson, et. al., 2004). This paper deals with the newly emerging
problem that microplastic pose.
Alarming quantities of plastic litter have been found worldwide, both off shore and on
beaches. However, it is difficult to predict the total amount of waste annually introduced into
the seas. Countless large items of plastic debris (which in this report will be called
1
macroplastics) are accumulating in marine habitats worldwide and may persist for centuries
(Thomson et al., 2004). Data from several monitoring programs, education workshops etc. can
estimate the magnitude of the problem. As an example, Stichting De Noordzee, the leading
non-governmental Dutch organization protecting the North Sea, conducts several educational
programs (e.g. the 2008 Coastwatch Program). Recently, also microplastics are documented
to be abundant in oceans. Richard Thompson, the major researcher on microplastics in the
North Sea environment, states that accumulation rates are about 100 million kilograms
annually (Thompson, et. al., 2007).
As we can see, plastic debris has reached global proportions and is a perceived as one of the
most significant pollutants of coastal and open oceanic surface waters. This attention to
macro- and mega- plastic litter was drawn already almost twenty years ago (Shomura and
Godfrey, 1990). Plastic litter has been subjected to much research and studies. At present, this
threat receives broad attention and is covered by several international regulations. Plastic litter
plays an important part in every marine organization as well as in educational programs
increasing the public awareness. Over the past 40 years, large items of plastic debris have
frequently been recorded in habitats from the poles to the equator (Thompson et al., 2004).
Smaller fragments, “microplastics”, a newly recognized and defined threat to environment,

have received far less attention. However microscopic plastic fragments and fibers are also
widespread in the oceans and have accumulated in the pelagic zone and sedimentary habitats.
Over the years the impacts of microplastic litter were evaluated based on the new evidences
and findings. Microplastic pollution was identified and documented from 1970s onwards.
Polystyrene spherules less than 2 mm in diameter were found in coastal and open waters of
the north-western Atlantic Ocean and in UK estuaries. (e.g. Carpenter et al., 1972; Colton et
al. 1974, Kartar et al., 1973). In September 2008, the “International Research Workshop on
the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris” in Washington, USA, was
held, the first conference bringing microplastics into broader attention of the scientific and
political community, gathering the major researchers working on this problem (Allsopp, et.
al., 2009).
For the past decade there was speculation over the impacts of small plastics, but no specified
and uniform results on the subject were made (Betts, 2008). Only recently, scientists have
2
begun to realize that slowly decomposing plastic materials may present a long term threat for
marine food chains (Betts, 2008). Attention is now focused on the possible role of
microplastics in transporting marine pollutants. Nevertheless, research efforts have not yet
established the exact consequences emerging from microplastics pollution; the existing
publications are only predicting the possible scenarios (Thompson, et. al., 2004).
Plastic are recorded to be ingested by numerous marine organisms, often mistaking it with
food (Gordon, 2006). Commonly it was agreed that by no doubt small plastic particles were
ingested not only by many seabird and fish species, but even by zooplankton and marine
invertebrates; the possibility of the blockage within intestines is also widely acknowledged.
Speculations on satiation on plastics reducing the reproductive performance or even leading to
starvation and death are also reported. In general, it is agreed that small plastic litter is not
beneficial to any marine organisms and at best the benign effects may be only bio-inert. (e.g.
Auman et. al., 2004; Cadee, 2002; Franeker et al., 2005; Gregory, 1978; Nevins et al., 2005;
Robards et al., 2005; Rothstein, 1973; Ryan, 1988; Winston, 1982;). In 2008, small plastic
debris has been identified as a global environmental problem and created a need for a parallel
research and policy focusing on solutions to establish problems associated with the
production, usage and disposal of plastics. (Arthur et al., 2009, Committee on the
Effectiveness of International and National Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris
and Its Impacts, 2008).
The abundance of small plastic litter brings a need for a broad and diverse set of solutions.
The attention should be focused on the manufacture, usage, and disposal of plastic materials
(Gordon, 2006).
This report will attempt to explore the subject of microplastics, going in depth on their
impacts and related legislation, gather the existing studies and explain to the reader why it
should receive further attention. The master thesis will try to answer the following main
questions:
- What are the impacts of the microplastics found in the North Sea?
- Which possible recommendations for the improvement of the European Ships’
Directive and for the Marpol Annex V can be found?
3
This is further operationalized in the following sub-questions:
- What are microplastics, and what are their sources?

- What are the main threats posed by microplastics?
- What is the abundance and scope of microscopic plastic particles in the North Sea
waters?
- Description of current regulatory framework, with the main international
agreements, directives, policies (EU, IMO, OSPAR)
- Stakeholders involved and describing their role and interests
- What are the loopholes of the present marine legislations dealing with the
microplastics?
The information is based largely from papers that have been published very recently, in 2008
and 2009. Interviews held with marine lobby groups and with the leading scientists working
on marine litter are used as a reference base highlighting the significance of the problems
becoming apparent throughout the course of this paper.
The study will aim to understand the inter-linkages between the impacts and risks associated
with microplastics and the identification of possible improvements of recent marine directives
and policies of the European Union, Dutch government, the International Marine
Organization (IMO) and OSPAR. The paper is divided into the three parts, separating the
chapters from introducing the reader to the subject (Part 1) to illustrating the main impacts of
microplastics (Part 2) to finally focusing on policy evaluations (Part 3). The study will start
with an introduction into the background of marine plastic litter (chapter 2) and the North Sea
(chapter 3), followed by the characteristics of macro and micro plastics (chapter 4). This will
help to put the paper into context. Then, the sources, impacts and abundance of microplastics
will be identified (chapter 5, 6 & 7 respectively). From this lessons will be drawn about the
risks to humans, marine life and the environment, recognizing the important points to be taken
into account when dealing with the marine directives (chapter 8). One section (chapter 3) will
illustrate the physical characteristics of the North Sea and the evidences of the existence and
fate of microplastics in the North Sea will be gathered and combined within this report. A
description of the existing legislation on marine litter will be given (chapter 8), which will be
followed by an identification of its loopholes and the policy improvements will be proposed
(chapter 9).
4
The work will join two approaches, one imposed by the Institute for Environment Studies
(IVM) at the Vrije Universiteit – the management framework, and the second by the Stichting
De Noordzee – namely the impacts of the microplastics.
5
PART ONE
6
2 PLASTIC MARINE LITTER
Plastics have existed for over a century. Their versatility has lead to a significant increase in
their use over the past 30 years, and have rapidly become a major part in our everyday life. In
general, plastics are lightweight, durable, strong and cheap, hence suitable for a wide range of
manufacturing processes. Unfortunately, these same properties are the reasons why plastics
are hazardous to the environment. (Derraik, 2002).
Due to the population growth, the demand for the use of the plastic materials rises. Likewise
the material choice for plastics increases, raising the number of package resins.
Correspondingly, the plastic component of marine litter is predicted to increase over the years.
(Andrady, 2005) Furthermore, plastic material consumption and rapid disposal (within only
one year after production) is an ever growing trend, growing at alarming rates (Richard
Thompson, personal conversation). The world production of plastic resins has increased by a
factor of 25 during the period 1960-2000; at the same time, plastic recovery remained below
5% (Moore, 2008).
The need for protecting the environment from the hazards posed by plastic pollution has been
ignored for a long time. Only within the last couple of decades has it begun to be recognized
as a serious problem calling for urgent solutions. Plastics also buoyant, therefore an increasing
load of plastic debris can be transported over long distances and settle in environments where
they may persist for centuries. Long lasting ignorance, coupled with rising consumption and
increasing dumping of plastics into the worlds water ways has led to a serious problem faced
by marine ecosystem proliferating plastic debris as a potential hazard. (Derraik, 2002)
Plastics constitute the majority of marine litter worldwide as highlighted in Table 2.1
(Derraik, 2002). The methods used in the studies (Table 2.1) are not standardized, hence can
not be compared. However, it is clear that proportion of the plastic debris consistently varies
between 60% and 80% of the total marine litter (Gregory and Ryan, 1997). Only in US
plastics were reported to be the fastest growing segment of the municipal waste stream, with a
9-fold increase (Moore, 2008).
7
Table 2-1: Proportion of plastic among marine debris worldwide (Derraik, 2002).
Percentage of debris
Locality Litter type items represented by Source
plastics
1992 International Coastal Cleanups Shoreline 59 Anon (1990)
St. Lucia, Caribbean Beach 51 Corbin and Singh (1993)
Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic Seabed 92 Galgani et al. (1995a)
NW Mediterranean Seabed 77 Galgani et al. (1995b)
French Mediterranean Coast Deep sea floor >70 Galgani et al. (1996)
European coasts Sea floor >70 Galgani et al. (2000)
Caribbean coast of Panama Shoreline 82 Garrity and Levings (1993)
Georgia, USA Beach 57 Gilligan et al. (1992)
50 South African beaches Beach >90 Gregory and Ryan (1997)
88 sites in Tasmania Beach 65 Gregory and Ryan (1997)
Argentina Beach 37–72 Gregory and Ryan (1997)
9 Sub-Antarctic Islands Beach 51–88 Gregory and Ryan (1997)
South Australia Beach 62 Gregory and Ryan (1997)
Kodiak Is, Alaska Seabed 47–56 Hess et al. (1999)
Tokyo Bay, Japa Seabed 80–85 Kanehiro et al. (1995)
North Pacific Ocean Surface waters 86 Laist (1987)
Mexico Beach 60 Lara-Dominguez et al. (1994)
National Parks in USA Beach 88 Manski et al. (1991)
Halifax Harbour, Kanada Beach 54 Ross et al. (1991)
Price Edward Is., Southern Ocean Beach 88 Ryan (1987b)
New Zealand Beach 75 Smith and Tooker (1990)
Two gulfs in W. Grece Seabed 79–83 Stefatos et al. (1999)
South German Bight Beach 75 Vauk and Schrey (1987)
FogBay, N. Australia Beach 32 Whiting (1998)
South Wales, UK Beach 63 Williams and Tudor (2001)
8
Plastic litter is found in each part of the marine environment: floating on the ocean surface,
throughout the water column (Lattin et al. 2004), stranded debris on shorelines and debris
present on the seafloor (Allsopp, et. al., 2006).
Plastic litter is annually increasing in its amount worldwide (Derraik, 2002). Both continuing
dumping, and already present slowly breaking down debris, contribute to increased
accumulation of the litter in the marine environment (Allsopp, et. al., 2006). For example,
plastic litter in the UK coastline doubled between 1994 and 1998, while in some part of the
Southern Ocean the amount increased as much as 100 times (Allsopp, et. al., 2006).
Data for the North Sea, from the study by Galgani et. al. (2000) on determining the density of
marine debris on the seafloor along European Coasts, finds an average of 528 items/km2,
which has, after the Mediterranean Sea, the highest concentration of the plastic debris for the
North Atlantic Ocean and Europe area.
Figure 2.1: Results (average) of the Stichting De Noordzee “Coastwatch” program (Stichting
De Noordzee, 2009).
4% 2% 1%
6% Plastic
8% Rope/Net
Wood
Paper
Metal
12% 52% Glas
Textile
15% Other
It is difficult to predict the total amount of waste annually introduced into the North Sea.
Richard Thompson states it is about 230 million pound (104 million kg’s) annually (Betts,
2008). However data from several monitoring programs, education workshops etc can
estimate the magnitude of the problem. Stichting De Noordzee conducted, in 2008 a
Coastwatch program for high school pupils examining the composition of waste along 45 km
of the Dutch coast. The results are shown in figure 2.1.
9
Figure 2.1 gives the clear view that plastics constitute by far the major part of the marine litter
in the Netherlands. This exercise can also approximate that similarly this is the case across all
coastal areas of other North Sea countries.
Plastic ends up as litter in the marine environment when accidentally lost, carelessly handled
or abandoned. They may also come from the direct input from industrial sites and wastewater
run-offs and municipal drainage systems. The main water based sources of plastic pollution
comes from abandoned fishing gear and dumps from the ships. Data from Horsman, (1987)
estimated that merchant ships dumped 639,000 plastic containers each day around the world.
The major land based sources on the other hand originate from, and accumulate around the
industrialized countries, mostly in the form of packaging. Plastic litter however is also found
in high quantities in remote and non-industrialized areas such as Tonga, Rarotonga and Fiji.
This is due to the buoyant and persistent properties of such debris.
It is difficult to arrive at an accurate percentage of the land sourced and sea sourced plastic
debris which accounts for total marine litter. No uniform or conclusive figures can be found.
However, most of the publications relate to the United Nations Joint Group of Experts on the
Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP) – they have estimated that land based
sources cover 80% of marine debris and the
rest 20% from are as a result of sea based
activities (Sheavly, 2005). The only specified
numbers are given for the separate regions.
For example, in Canada, the study (Ross, et.
al., 1991) revealed that that 62% of the total
marine litter found in the harbors was derived
from recreation and land-based sources.
(Derraik, 2002) Thompson et. al. (2004), adds
to this the list of most commonly found
plastics at the beaches and at sea as being
broken or discarded fishing gear, pellets,
scrubbers, microplastics, films, and flakes.
Table 2.2 lists most common types of plastics
found at sea.
10
The majority of plastic and other synthetic wastes are produced in the more developed,
industrialized countries. Conversely, the less developed with more rural economies countries,
generated much smaller amount. It is likely however, that as the less developed nations
become more prosperous and enter stages of mass consumerism, they too will come to
contribute increasingly to plastic litter, further implicating the problem and threat to the
marine environment. (Allsop et. al., 2006)
Plastic litter is a great threat to the marine environment, especially to marine fauna. Plastic
debris can attract encrusting organisms as drift plastics (Winston, 1982), and easily be
ingested or entangled (Figure 2.2) by various marine organisms (Rothstein, 1973; Mallory, et.
al., 2006). Documents list at least 267 species worldwide, including 44% of all seabirds, 43%
of all marine mammals, 86% of all turtles, as well as fish species (Laist 1997). The total
amount of species is rather difficult to predict or may be underestimated; some affected
species may either sink or be eaten by predators, and hence remain undiscovered (Allsopp, et.
al., 2006). Other injuries and fatalities to marine fauna are caused by starvation, suffocation,
and drowning (Gordon, 2006).
Other effects of caused by plastic

pollution (large plastic debris) include
the aesthetic impacts, repercussions of
the ghost fishing and concerns of the
consequences on coastal economic
activity (especially fishing and tourism)
(Galgani, et. al., 2000; Allsopp, et. al.,
2006). The scope of those issues
exceeds however the scope of this
paper.
Still lots of research needs to be done to establish and understand the entire scope of the
effects of the impact of the plastic litter on marine environment, little is known about the
effects of entanglement and ingestion as well as about the increasing habitat availability in
global waters. (Ryan and Moloney, 1993) Recently the research and awareness of the subject
increased, but no comprehensive review of plastic litter impacts has been done (Gordon,
2006).
11
3 THE NORTH SEA
This report is written within de Stichting De Noordzee, a non-governmental organization

directed into the sustainable use and a biodiverse North Sea. Hence, the paper will try to focus
on the problem of microplastics to the local conditions of the North Sea. However, due to
very little research conducted on microplastics in the North Sea as well as due to the wide
range of uncertainties concerning the subject in general, it is impossible to illustrate the full
range of the microplastics fate in the North Sea. Instead, the evidence of the microplastics
threat in the North Sea will be shown on a basis of existing research and available data and
combined with a problems mention in this paper.
To introduce the reader with the North Sea environment, its physical characteristics and the
main marine habitat will be briefly described.
3.1 PHISICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The North Sea is a semi-enclosed and epi-continental large marine ecosystem in Northern
Europe, situated between the Scandinavian Straits (the Skarregat and Kattegat), the English
Channel, and the area of South 62°N. (Ducreotoy et al., 2000; Ferm, 1996)
Formed in the Holocene, the North Sea is a relatively shallow sea (especially the Southern
Bight), deepening to the north, with average depth of 90m. The deepest part is called the
Norwegian Trench, reaching 700m. The shallow extreme is noticed in the Dogger Bank,
where depths are only around 20m. (Ducreotoy et al., 2000; The Marine Forum for
Environmental Issues, 1990)
12
Figure 3.1: Map of the greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and the Kattegat, and the Channel,
bathymetry shown in meters, general circulation, amphidromic points are shown as well.
(Ducreotoy et al., 2000).
The western and northern coasts are characterized by rocky and mountainous shores, sandy
beaches, estuaries, fiords and cliffs. The eastern coast is dominated by sandy beaches and
dunes. (Ducreotoy et al., 2000)
The climate is temperate, influenced by an inflow of Atlantic water and by dominant westerly
winds. The North Sea receives short-term continental influences and longer-term weaker
oceanic influences. Prevailing south-west winds alternate with easterly winds. Thermal
stratification is vertical, which results from its shallow basin nature. (Ducreotoy et al., 2000;
Ferm, 1996)
13
From the north the North Sea is connected to the Atlantic Ocean, however high inputs of low
salinity water comes from the Baltic Sea via the Scandinavian Straits as well as from rivers.
The drainage basin of the North Sea includes rivers flowing to the Baltic. Countries within the
drainage area are: the United Kingdom – England and Scotland, France, Belgium,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway and
Denmark. The total river input comprises 300-350 km3, while the total catchment area is
about 840 000 km2. (Marine Forum for Environmental Issues, 1990) Coastal freshwater
inputs to the North Sea is shown in Table 3.1.
In 2000, it was calculated, that about 185 million people lived within the North Sea region
(Ducreotoy et al., 2000), with population densities from 50 to 1000 inhabitants for each
square kilometer (Ferm, 1996). This data can indicate the problem of North Sea pollution
originating from man-made sources: “the highest concentration of microplastics exists next to
the highly populated areas; the highest levels of microplastics “hot spots” seem to originate
from the inputs from the big continental rivers.” That is also the reason that the Baltic Sea,
which is not open to the ocean waters, is even more polluted by microplastics than the North
Sea (Fredrik Noren, personal conversation).
Table 3.1: Coastal freshwater inputs to the North Sea. (Ducreotoy et al., 2000).
Coastal areas Run-off (km3yr-1) Catchment area (km2)
Scotland
16 41 000
(including Forth)
Norway
58-70 45 500
Skaggerak and Kattegat
58-70 102 200
East cost of England
(including Tyne, Tees, Humber and Thames) 32 74 500
Denmark and Germany (including Wadden Sea)

32 219 900
The Netherlands and Belgium
(including Wadden Sea, Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt) 91-97 221 400
English Channel
(including Seine) 9-37 137 000
Total 296-354 841 500
14
The northern part of the North Sea is moderately deep and receives a strong oceanic
influence. The southern part is shallow and carries a big sediment load. The land surrounding
the southern part is much more industrialized than northern part, and hence is more polluted
by the water input. Nutrients carried from industrialized regions via rivers, are responsible for
algal blooms. (The Marine Forum for Environmental Issues, 1990)
Distribution and water masses mixing in the North Sea depend on tidal currents,
meteorological conditions as well as on the run-off from rivers and the Baltic Sea. The most
dominant are the westerly winds. The main circulation performed by the winds and tides is
anticlockwise along the coast of the North Sea, which is the cause of short flushing times.
Such condition is desired; it should be noticed however, that sometimes it can be changed by
temporary prevailing easterly winds extending the flushing time, which for the whole North
Sea is calculated to be about one year. For different subregions, however, the flushing time
differs from 28 days for northern parts to 40 days for central northern part. The period of time
from entrance of a substance into a water body to leaving it is called the residence time. For
polluted coastal waters the residence time is relatively high. (Ilyina, 2006)
All of the above characteristics, including the high input from European river and the typical
properties of the semi enclosed sea, focus on the susceptibility of the North Sea to the high
pollution, and hence the persistent accumulation of microplastic debris. However,
microplastics are dispersed at much higher rates than the macro plastic litter (Fredrik Noren,
personal conversation). The following chapters will clarify the reasons while explaining the
unique properties of microplastics. To determine the abundance of microplastics in highly
polluted Seas (like the North Sea), a creation of microplastic “hot spots” is required (this will
be further evaluated in chapter 7). However, to extend any study on microplastics and identify
the global trends, methods such as the protocols and routines of the monitoring programs, etc.
must be standardized (Richard Thompson, personal conversation).
3.2 MARINE HABITATS
The North Sea is the habitat of a great number of species, starting with benthos and plankton
and finishing with large mammals. Further chapters of this report will describe the threats of
microplastics on the marine environment, the present section will provide the brief description
15
of north sea species, potentially vulnerable to microplastic pollution and its environmental
consequences.
Benthos are the plants and animals of the sea bed. They are the beginning of the food chain
for many species (The Marine Forum for Environmental Issues, 1990). Benthic assembles are
distributed in the North Sea depending on the size of sediment. In the southern part, where
coarse sediments are found, commonly Nephtys cirrosa is found. In the northern part, with
dominant fine sediments dominant species like Exogene verugera are found. (Ducreotoy et
al., 2000)
Plankton organisms in the North Sea range from <1 μm to >60 cm. Phytoplankton 12
production is greater in the costal zone than in the open North Sea. The exception is Dogger
Bank area. Boundaries for those organisms are the UK north-east tidal front and front between
Kattegat low salinity water and Skagerrak higher salinity water. (Ducreotoy et al., 2000)
There are 224 fish species found, the majority of which includes typical species of
semienclosed shelf-sea, however deep-water species are also found, mostly in the Norwegian
Trench and in the Skagerrak. The most common fish speicies are haddock, whiting and cod,
found across the whole basin, as well as saithe and pout in the north part, dab, grey gurnard,
plaice, mackerel, sand-eels and herring in more southern waters. (Ducreotoy et al., 2000)
Bird population has a great importance in terms of feeding and breeding. An example of its
significance is the fact that about 4 million seabirds, comprised of 28 species, breed in this
area. Offshore species include mostly fulmars, guillemots, kittiwakes and gulls. The most
common inshore species include gulls and terns. (Ducreotoy et al., 2000)
The most common mammals include seals, porpoises and dolphins. As it was described in
previous chapters, pollution connected with plastics litter is found in mammals food-chain,
resulting in physiological damage and declination of species. (Shatalov et al., 2004)
16
4 THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTICS AND THEIR

FATE IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
4.1 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Plastics is a common term for a broad family of organic materials of typically high molecular
weight suitable for the manufacture of industrial products. This term is often interchangeably
used with the term polymers. This is however only partially true, a common phrase says “All
plastics are polymers but not all polymers are plastic”. Other polymeric compounds are of
biological and inorganic origin, including starch, proteins and DNA. Polymeric nature is just
one of many chemical properties of plastics. (Harper, 2006) Figure 4.1 illustrates a
microscopic speck spot on a polyethylene sample magnified 15,000 times.
Plastics are also moldable and synthetic, derived

from fossil fuels or cellulose and transformed
through various chemical processes. Most
plastics are derived from petroleum products
(e.g. naphtha). Thermal decomposition of such
raw material leads to extraction of monomers
(such as ethylene, propylene, butane/butylenes
and aromatics) and is followed by
polymerization process. The type of plastic
produced depends on the different alteration of
monomers during the polymerization process.
Example of polymerization of ethylene to
polyethylene is shown in Figure 4.2. (NOWPAP,
2007)
17
The polymerization process can lead to

the creation of weak or strong carbon-
hydrogen bonds. The weaker of the two
characterizes the amorphous structure
(e.g. polyethylene), appearing like a
loose pile and entangled strings. The
stronger bonds are typical for the
crystalline structure (e.g. Polystyrene)
were the molecules are packed tightly
together. (Harper, 2000) Figure 4.3
illustrates both structures.
After polymerization, polymers are mostly powdered or in a lump form, hence usually they
are processed into pellets for easier handling. The final products are processed for example by
molding, to various shapes and forms. (NOWPAP, 2007)
Two groups of plastics are distinguished: thermoplastics

and thermosetting ones. The first group can be repeatedly
thermally softened and hardened by cooling, which means
that these kinds of plastics can be remolded and reused
practically indefinitely. For this reason, most
thermoplastic products are suited to a wide range of
purposes, like packaging, food containers and other
households products. More durable and heat resistant
thermoplastics are used in automobiles, machinery and
electrical products.
Thermosetting plastics on the other hand, harden
permanently after being heated. Due to their high melting
points they are used mainly for high-heat resistant
products. (NOWPAP, 2007)
18
The most important intrinsic properties

of plastics include their flexibility of
design for a variety of uses, high
corrosion resistance, low weight, shatter
and water resistance, and air
impermeability (Gordon, 2006). The
carbon - containing long molecular
chains give them a unique characteristics
(hard, flexible, strong, transparent,
elastic, etc.). Plastic products come in a
variety of shapes and textures. They have
an application in almost every day
activity. Hence they are often enriched
by variety of additives (bioactive
monomers) in a way to improve their
general performance and reduction of
costs (Betts, 2008). They can be either
molded to conform different shapes by
heating or dissolved with liquid solvents.
Difference in a composition is manifested by varying the type of secondary side atoms (like
side groups and length of side branches) connected to the carbon or carbon backbone. As for
an example, benzene side group replacing the hydrogen atoms changes a soft flexible
polyethylene into a hard and brittle polystyrene, whereas the length of the side branches
causes spaces within the amorphous areas. (Harper, 2006)
Plastic additives comprise a diverse group of materials. For example, some are complex
organic molecules (such as antioxidants and light stabilizers) designed for remarkable results
at very low loadings. Others are a few commodity materials (such as talc and glyceryl
monostearate) which also can significantly improve the plastics properties. (Harper, 2000)
Usually only a few additives are used in the production of plastics, however like in the case of
vinyls, rubber, coatings, and adhesives, between 10 and 20 additives can be used to enhance
processability and give the plastic the final properties it needs to fulfill its use. It is said that
19
about 25% of plastic production is constituted by additives. (Harper, 2006). A list of the major
families of additives is given in Table 4.1.
Most plastic additives serve as a commercial use, including UV stabilizers, flame retardants,
softeners, non-stick compounds and colorants. About 50% of the overall plastics’ weight is
estimated to be composed of filters, reinforcements and additives by weight. (Moore, 2008)
The large number of additives used in the manufacturing of commercial plastics pose a
significant problem once the plastic enters its end of life stage and the additives begin to be
released.Their deleterious effects are described in chapter 6.3.1.
Recent attention on plastics is focused on so called “bio-polymers”. Polymers occurring in

their pure form in nature are all biodegradable, but the synthetic bio-polymers are only those
originating from non-petroleum sources (including cellulose based cellophane, rayon, and
derived from fermentation polyactic acid and polyhydroxyalkanoate). (Swift, 2003) Bio-
polymers biodegrade much faster than petroleum based ones. The rates of their
biodegradability however, are much dependent on the environment in which they are disposed
of. Hot, aerated composting media, based on the metabolism of fungi, bacteria and insects are
favorable to their biodegradation. Therefore, the marine environment, having rather cold
conditions, are much less suitable for degradation of the compostable bioplastics. (Wirsen
1971)
4.2 BIODEGRADATION AND PERSISTENCY
Industrial plastics are defined as “one of many high-polymeric substances, including both
natural and synthetic products, but excluding the rubbers. At some stage in its manufacture,
every plastic is capable of flowing, under heat and pressure, if necessary, into the desired final
shape” (Berins, 1991). Table 4.2 summarizes the most common plastic materials used in
fishing gear application.
20
Table 4.2: Types of Plastics Used in Fishing Gear Applications (Andrady, 2000).
Type Density (g/cm3)* Buoyancy Gear type
Polyethylene 0.96 Float Trawls

Polypropylene 0.90 Float Trawls
Nylon 6 or 66 1.14 Sink Trawl sections, gill nets
Saran fiber 1.70 Sink Seine nets
Plastics included in Table 4.2

combine various unique properties,
that make them best suited for fishing
gear. For example, due to their good
elasticity, very high strength and low
perceptibility in the water column,
they are favoured for their high
efficiency and catchability. (Andrady,
2000)
Plastics persist in marine environment

and significantly contribute to
increasing marine debris load. This
problem from an environmental point of view is magnified by the slow rate of biodegradation
of plastics. Although from a practical viewpoint, the biodegradability of plastics is important,
due to increased duration of its use. (Harper, 2000) This problem is illustrated in Figures 4.4
and 4.5 which shows two dead Fulmars’ at a partial state of decay. Various plastic fragments
and indeed whole pieces can be seen intact within their carcasses. Figure 4.6 shows a dead
tuna fish and the small plastic particles found in its stomach.
21
The physical characteristics of

most microplastics, show high
aging resistance and minimal
biodegradation (Moore, 2008).
Several factors can contribute to
plastics embrittlement to
individual polymer molecules,
but further degradation must
occur in order for the material to
become bio-available (Moore,
2008). Plastics can breakdown in the presence of solar ultraviolet radiation, nevertheless if the
plastics contain an efficient light-stabilizer (which is the case for fishing gear), it may readily
reduce the efficiency of photodegradability. Therefore, solar light does not have much of an
effect in this process. Another factor contributing to the photodegradation is the slow
oxidation of plastic, with oxygen and air facilitating the breakdown. Also hydrolysis
contributes to plastic breakdown. However, both, oxidation and hydrolysis are very slow
processes, comparably to the time period of the biodegradation itself, and the latter one is
available only for special and very few types of plastics. Therefore there is no effective
reliable mechanism to readily contribute to plastics biodegradation in the marine environment.
22
It is not however unambiguously clear what is the exact lifetime of plastics. This depends on
factors such as the temperature of the water column, the amount of UV-B isolation and the
biotic potential of the environment. (Andrady, 2000) Gregory (1978) estimated the durability
of plastic pellets to last from 3 to 10 years, however their additives are probably extending
this range from 30 to 50 years. The average time of degradation of selected materials is shown
in Table 4.3.
Nevertheless that microplastics in general are believed to be resistant to biodegradation, the

mechanical action may gradually break them down. It should however be underlined, that
most of those biodegradable plastics are composed with biodegradable materials such as
starch (Klemchuk, 1990). Also some plastics are documented to be susceptible to
biodegradation by bacteria and fungi (Gregory and Andrady, 2003). However, the non-
biodegradable plastics outnumber those biodegradable ones, hence the fraction of
biodegradable plastics is very small (Thompson, 2004). The eventual and exact time of
biodegradation of plastics in the marine environment still remains unknown (Andrady, 2005).
Long-term biodegradability means that the plastics will persist in the environment for a very
long time, therefore constitute to a global environmental problem.
Table 4.3: Time taken for objects to dissolve at sea (Hellenic Marine Environment Protection
Association, 2009).
Paper bus ticket 2-4 weeks

Cotton cloth 1-5 months
Rope 3-14 months
Woolen cloth 1 year
Painted wood 13 years
Tin can 100 years
Aluminium can 200-500 years
Plastic bottle 450 years
Long-term or non – biodegradability is a readily understandable problem. But what about its
toxicity? Is the commonly spread “plastics are toxic” belief true? It should be underlined
here, that in a conventional sense, this is not valid, due to their bioinert properties (do not
23
interact with a biological tissue). If ingested by an animal, the material will pass through the
animal almost virtually unchanged. Concerns for the toxicity of plastics are rather, focused on
the presence of various additives as well as the plastics ability to absorb and concentrate
compounds (both toxic and non-toxic) present in the sea water. (Andrady, 2005) Hence, the
physiological effects concerns any bioavailable compounds desorbed from plastics by marine
biota (Moore, 2008).
In addition, microplastics are able to adsorb, concentrate and transport toxic compounds to
benthic communities or to other organisms that ingest them in general (Committee on the
and Its Impacts, 2008). This is illustrated in figure 5.6 B. The latest research addresses this
issue on the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which generally have a very high partition
coefficient and are very effectively concentrated in the plastic material. This issue will be
raised while discussing the impacts of microplastics in chapter 5.
The amounts and types of plastic debris expelled from land to sea are controlled mainly by
topography, storm and current activity, litter source proximity and the extent of human
activity on or near beaches. Deposition and plastic retention on the other hand, is controlled
mainly by the composition and degradation rates of the plastic particles. (Corcoran et al.
2009)
24
5 MICROPLASTICS
Recent research by Thompson et al., (2007) reports that the size frequency of plastic debris is
highly skewed towards smaller particles debris. To support this argument, microplastics
compose over 80% of stranded plastic in the Tamar Estuary in the UK, as shown in Figure
5.1. Another study concerning microscopic particles in the northeast Atlantic shows the
increase of microplastic volume over the last forty years (Figure 5.2). (Thompson et al., 2007)
Both data mirror the global rise in plastic production and can be a good approximation for
scaling up the scope of the total volume of microplastics.
Figure 5.1: Size composition of plastic debris in Tamar Estuary,

united Kingdom (note log scale,) (Thompson et al., 2007).
Figure 5.2: Accumulation of microplastic in the water column in the

northeast Atlantic, with the global plastic production figures for the
same period superimposed for comparison (Thompson et al., 2007).
25
The term “microplastics” has been used since the threat of microscopic plastic debris was
recognized, however unspecified description was causing confusion of the actual dimension
of the problems the microplastics brought. Only recently this term was properly defined. The
International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine
Debris in September, 2008 defined microplastics as “plastic particles smaller than 5 mm”
(Arthur et al., 2009). The definition does not include the lower border for the microplastic
size, however it is conventionally assumed to range between 5mm and 333 μm. The latter
number originates from the size of the mesh neuston nets that is generally used to capture
plankton and floating debris. The sampling
procedure however in the seawater is still
missing and therefore it is difficult to
establish the universal lower bound range
level. The choice of the upper bound on the
other hand, was based on the fact of
increasing the scope of the ecological effects,
go beyond the limited studies which are
focused on physical blockage of
gastrointestinal tracks. The upper 5mm
boundary can be misleading while using the
term “micro”, usually used for compounds not
visible to the human eye. The research
community has a different opinion on this
matter: for example Mr. Franeker states that
microplastics can only be ingested by accident, hence the “visible” particles (e.g. the
industrial plastics) could not possibly satisfy this assumption (Jan Andries van Franeker,
personal conversation). For the time being, the Steering Committee chose to broaden the
scope of compounds included due to the early stage of research, with reservation to separate
the “small plastics” from “microplastics” when the knowledge on the subject is more
advanced. (Arthur et al., 2009). Such separation would bring the different light to both –
physical and chemical effects will change with the decrease of the size (Richard Thompson,
Jan Andries van Franeker, personal conversations). Figure 5.3 shows the microscopic
particles of PVC and figure 5.4 shows the microplastic fiber from the shoreline. At present,
methods identifying microplastic debris allow to investigate microplastics of the size down to
approximately 20 μm (Thompson, et. al., 2004), however it is already feasible that the size
26
range of microplastics in the environment is present at the much smaller nanometer scale
(Thompson, et. al., 2008).
The choice of the size range seems to reflect the average size of microplastics reported in
recent publications. For example, the plastic particles found in Hawaiian beaches range from
0.8 to 6.5 mm (Corcoran et al. 2009). Ng and Obbard (2006), studying Singapore’s costal
waters reports the existence of even smaller particles, of 1.6μm.
Plastic pellets are found across the globe

in surprisingly high amounts, not only in
waters surrounding highly industrialized
areas, but also in remote and non-
industrialized places such as Fiji or Tonga
in the Southwest Pacific (Derraik. 2002)
or in the Southern Ocean south of New
Zealand (Allsopp, et al.,2006).
Furthermore, as larger plastic debris
mainly floats on the surface, the
microplastics can also be found in the
water column and on the seabed according
to Richard Thompson, a major researcher
of microplastics in the North Sea
environment. (Betts, 2008).
5.1 SOURCES OF MICROPLASTICS
Most plastic found in marine debris are predominantly embitter parts of larger items, however
minor, mostly industrial pellets are identified. The US Environmental Protection Agency in
1992 stated in a report that the sources of so called virgin materials originates from the losses
during manufacture and transport prior to reaching the fabrication stage (EPA, 1992).
27
A consequence of the “Plastic Age” is materials ability to increase in uncountable numbers of

different sizes, shapes and colors (Corcoran et al. 2009; Moore; 2003). Figure 5.5 illustrates a
heterogeneous microplastics sample.
Thompson et al (2007), distinguish two most likely sources of microplastics. The first one
originates from small plastic particles used as an abrasive scrubber in cleaning products and
the second one describes a group fragmentized from larger particles. Due to the dynamic
properties of some plastics (e.g. fibres), the microplastics of very small microscopic scale are
rather originating from the first source (the direct input) since it is not possible for them to
fragmentize to such a small size as a natural function (Fredrik Noren, personal conversation).
The first commonly recognized

source of microplastics originates
from industrial and domestic
products (which include toilet,
hand, body and facial cleaners,
cosmetics, tiny bead scrubbers used
in washing products, powders and
resin pellets used as the basic
thermostatic industry feedstocks,
abrasive plastic beads used to clean
ships) (Betts, 2008; Derraik, 2002;
Moore, 2008; Thompson et al.,
2004 (Gregory, 1977, 1978; Shiber,
1979, 1982, 1987; Redford et al., 1997; Moore et al., 2001, Zitko and Hanlon, 1991; Gregory,
1996, Reddy et al. 2006)). Microplastics of this kind are likely to be transported with sewage
via wastewater treatment facilities, subsequently entering aquatic habitats. Thompson et al.
(2007) suggests that considerable potential for microplastic debris of this kind exists to
accumulate in freshwater and marine environments. Those products are found to contain small
(less than 1mm in diameter) polyethylene and polystyrene particles. Products used for
machinery cleaning and boat hulls in dockyards (process known as “media blasting”) contain
acrylic, melamine and polyester particles (0.25 – 1.7 mm). Other areas of microplastic use
include the range of medical applications (e.g. drug delivery systems). (Thompson et al. 2007)
28
The report of International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of
Microplastic Marine Debris added to the above described microplastic sources: plastic pellets,
exfoliants, microplastics used in rotomilling processes and other consumer product uses,
therefore widening the “primary” source of microplastics definition to all sources produced
either for direct use or as a precursors to other products.
The “secondary source” of microplastics concern those formed from the breakdown of larger
plastic material (Arthur et al., 2009). It concerns the weathering of larger plastic of, among the
others, flotsam and jetsam (Betts, 2008). Corcoran et al. (2008), states that most of the plastics
found in the beaches, feature both chemically weathered and mechanically eroded surface
textures, and therefore indicating beaches as an excellent depositional settings for the
fragmentation of plastic debris.
Oxidation due to the solar

radiation increases the plastic
degradation by causing a bond
cleavage which reduces the
molecular mass of polymers
(Thompson et al 2007).
Oxidation processes together
with the additional abrasion
resulted in breakages along
fractures leads to plastic
disintegration and embrittlement
(Corcoran et al., 2009). Figure
5.6 shows such process by
illustrating changes in the texture
of the microscopic plastic
sample. The fractionated plastics due to UV-B radiation however are no more biodegradable
than the untreated polymer (Moore, 2003). Plastic materials subjected to weathering are
broken down and washed into the sea, unfortunately, they degrade very slowly through
mineralization and hence may remain indefinitely in the microscopic form (Corcoran et al.,
2009).
29
It must be underlined, that degradation of plastic particles is more likely to occur on land than
in the sea water, where solar radiation and mechanical erosion is minimal (Andrady, 2000).
Hence, this suggests that the microplastics percentage will be lower at the beaches than in the
sea water.
Some researches report (e.g. Thompson et al., 2007) that fragmentation may also be caused
within the marine environment through wave action and abrasion from sediment particles. In
general, secondary microplastic production rates depends on the plastics characteristics, the
extent of the weathering and lastly on the energetics of the local environment (Arthur et al.,
2009).
30
PART TWO
31
6 IMPACTS OF MICROPLASTICS
As mentioned in chapter 2, the consumption of plastc products is continuing to increase and

so does the plastic litter in the marine environment (Derraik, 2002). However, despite the
numerous studies on the marine plastic litter, there is still relatively little information
regarding the impacts of the plastics on the marine environment. Conclusive data which could
demonstrate the negative impacts which microplastics exert upon the marine environment are
also still not available (Arthur et. al., 2009). However, increasing awareness and knowledge
concerning those impacts are observed (Derraik, 2002). Microplastics and their impacts on
marine biota are covered by very few studies, hence the estimation of the overall scale of the
small plastic debris problem is not possible to be made. The following chapter will gather
information from existing studies on the impacts of microplastics highlighting the most
significant findings.
Over the years the impacts of micro and macro plastic litter were evaluated based on the new
evidences and findings. Laist (1997) lists that plastic litter in general affects at least 267
species worldwide, including 86% of all sea turtle species, 44% of all seabird species, and
43% of all marine mammal species. For now it could be only assumed that these species are
affected also by the microplastics (Thompson, et. al., 2008). However, the total number of the
species affected by plastics is greater, if the data from the already documented species
ingesting the microplastics are added.
The microplastic persistence in mussels, has implications for predators, including birds, crabs,
starfish, predatory whelks (Petraitis, 1987) and humans (Thompson et. al., 2008). Larger
plastic particles were already found in the seal fecal and suggestions were drawn that the
source of the material originated from fish in their diet which have previously accumulated
plastic. It is still uncertain however, if plastic pieces of any size are indeed transferred along
the food chains. (Thompson, et. al., 2008) This is however very plausible due to increasing
amount of studies documenting the phenomena. For example, polystyrene microparticles (0.1-
2 mm) are already known to accumulate in fish. Over 20% of snail-fish (Liparis liparis) and
flounder (Platichthys flesus) from the Bristol Channel (UK) was found to containe
polystyrene particles in their stomach content (Kartar, et. al., 1973). Polystyrene
microparticles were also found the fish’ (Myoxocephalusaenus, Pseudopleuronectes
32
americanus, Roccus americanus, Menidia menidia species) and in the polychaete worm
(Sagitta elegans) stomach contents in USA (New England coast) (Carpenter, et. al., 1972).
Fish and mussels (the latter further described in 6.1.1 chapter) are widely sought after as a
food source for humans, hence the suggestion can be drawn, that microplastic pollution may
also be up-taken to the human organism.
Several studies examined the possible negative effects of the presence of microplastics within
marine organisms. For example, studies on mice intraperitoneally injected with microplastics
showed that phagocytic uptake of polyester microplastic particles (polylactic acid) through
changes in the morphology and viability of phagocytes, can lead to cellular damage (Lam, et.
al., 1993). Another research on hamsters injected with 60 nm polystyrene particles in the
blood stream have shown that these particles can induce thrombosis (presence of a blood clot
in a blood) (Nemmar, et. al., 2003). Thompson, et. al., (2008) suggests that the presence of
microplastics in the circulatory system may impede blood flow leading to damage of the
vascular tissues and changes in cardiac activity. One of the sources of microplastics’ harmful
impacts drawn by Thompson et. al. (2008) concerns the abrasion of ingested plastic in the gut
cavity resulting from the digestive process. For example, sediment particles were already
documented to be present in the gut of seabirds (Villiers, et. al., 2004) and fish (Mauchline, et.
al., 1984). Those particles combined with the muscular contractions may abrade plastic giving
rise to microplastics in their gut. (Thompson, et. al., 2008)
Speculations on satiation on plastics reducing the reproductive performance or even leading to

ulceration, starvation and death are also reported. Commonly it was agreed that by no doubt
small plastic particles were ingested by many seabird and fish species; the possibility of the
blockage within intestines is also widely acknowledged. Despite the fact that the impacts are
still not fully recognized, it is commonly agreed that small plastic litter is not beneficial to any
marine organisms and at best the benign effects may be only bio-inert. (e.g. Auman et. al.,
2004; Cadee, 2002; Franeker et al., 2005; Gregory, 1978; Nevins et al., 2005; Robards et al.,
2005; Rothstein, 1973; Ryan, 1988; Winston, 1982;).
During the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of
Microplastic Marine Debris in Washington held in September, 2008, its participants have
recognized that the impacts of microplastics on the marine environment are based on the
following factors (Arthur et. al., 2009):
33
 the documented occurrence of microplastics in the marine environment,

 the long residence times of microplastics and hence their accumulation in
marine environment,
 their demonstrated ingestion by marine organisms
It must be underlined, that due to the early stage of microplastic research, all of the studies
connected to the subject bring lots of uncertainties with a need for further and broader
research. For example, phenomena concerning microplastics as the media transporting
contaminants with regard to sorption and leaching is not fully understood (Teuten, 2007). It is
also difficult to determine what is the exact impact of microplastics as sources or sinks of
these pollutants to the oceans (Arthur, 2009). It is strongly recommended, that the studies of
microplastics should be scrutinized in both the laboratory and in the field. Cooperation
between researchers is required and should be utilized to determine the “life cycle” of
microplastics for different marine environments as well as for the general assessment of the
ecosystem-level impacts of microplastics on the marine environment. (Arthur, et. al., 2009)
The following subchapter will evaluate the impacts due to microplastic ingestion by marine
organisms. This will be followed by the discussion on the toxicity of microplastics and its
additives. Next section will discuss the transfer of microplastics within marine fauna, with
regards to the type of their source. Another section will focus on the threat connected with the
sorption of POPs to microplastics and their accumulation on the seafloor.
6.1 INGESTION
Plastic ingestion by marine organisms is a subject of much research, and is regarded as one of
the most important issues with the global environmental dimension. It is documented that
macroplastics (more than 5mm in dimension) are regularly uptaken and retained by a variety
of marine animals (more then 260 species documented), including fish, birds, turtles, and
cetaceans (Derraik, 2002, Teuten, 2007). The ingestion of microplastics due to the range of
methodological problems have not receive much attention yet (Thompson, 2007).
What might be surprising to some readers, is that scientists during the International Research
Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris in Washington
held in September, 2008 agreed that it is rather not likely that microplastics, as opposite to the
34
impacts of larger marine plastics, could cause widespread ingestion-related effects on large
organisms including birds or marine mammals (Arthur et, al., 2009).
Microplastics, occupies similar size range as plankton. Therefore, the potential for ingestion is
greater and the range of animals affected can be also wider. Several studies report that
particles as small as 20 μm are ingested by invertebrates, such as lugworms (deposit-feeders),
amphipods (detritivores) and barnacles (filter-feeders) (Thompson et al., 2004) and by
protochordates such as salps (Moore et al., 2001). Laboratory trials also showed that 10 μm
polystyrene microspheres are indeed ingested by filter feeding polychaetes, echinoderms, and
bryozoans (Thompson, 2008).
Ingestion and translocation processes are stated to be affected by the physical properties like
shape (e.g. fibers, spheres, irregular fragments), polymer type (e.g., polystyrene, polyethylene,
polyester) and charge of the particles. It is also suggested that as plastic particles degrade they
decrease in size, and monomer content and its surface properties also change. For example,
styrene content of polystyrene microspheres influences its ability to be phagocytised, as
showed by studies on human white blood cells. (Thompson, et. al., 2008)
The effects of microplastics ingestion by marine organisms were identified and divided into
three modes of action. The first is connected with the physical blockage and damage of
feeding appendages or the digestive tract, the second with leaching of plastic component
chemicals into organisms after digestion. The last one concerns the ingestion and
accumulation of sorbed chemicals by the organism. (Arthur et al., 2009)
Once ingested, microplastic may be either retained in the digestive tract, egested through
defecation or transferred through the epithelial gut lining into body tissues (Thmpson, 2008).
The ingestion itself depends on the parameters which determine the potential availability and
the position of the debris in the water column, that are: size, shape, and density of the
particles. For example, plastics with a low density tend to float, increasing the probability of
being ingested by filter feeders or planktivores. Plastics with a high density (e.g. polyvinyl
chloride – PVC) on the other hand, will sink and accumulate in the sediments, increasing the
likelihood of ingestion by deposit filters. (Thompson, 2007) Table 6.1 lists the latest findings
on the evidence of microplastics ingested by a variety of marine animals.
35
Table 6.1: List of marine organisms and corresponding ingested microplastics (Thompson et
al., 2004; Ward and Shumway 2004; Thompson et al. 2008).
Marine organism Microplastic: type and its mean size
amphipods (detritivores) PVC (230 μm)

barnacles (filter feeders)
lugworms (deposit feeders) ingest small
plastic fragments
polychaetes (filter-feeding) polystyrene (10 μm)

echinoderms (during feeding assays)
bryozoans
bivalves have been shown to ingest
microspheres
polystyrene (2 μm)
mussels (Mytilus edulis)
(in gut captivity)
The deleterious effects of ingested plastics on the marine organisms indicate the need for
proper legislation to drastically decrease the plastic litter production at sea (Cadee, 2002).
This issue will be extensively evaluated in chapter 9.
6.1.1 LATEST EVIDENCE ON MICROPLASTIC INGESTION
Scientists from Plymouth University investigated the ingestion, translocation, and

accumulation of microplastics in mussels Mythilus edulius. Mussels were selected for the
study due to the worldwide occurrence and as an important component of benthic groups, and
due to the fact of being an important diet component of various intertidal predators (including
humans). They were supposed to act as “ecosystem-engineers” by occupation of primary
space, filtration, and provision of secondary habitat. (Teuten et. al., 2009)
The aim of the study conducted by Dr. Richard Thompson was to monitor possible biological
effects of mussels after exposure to the polystyrene microplastic particles. The results showed
that in a very short time (12 hours) mussels exposed to microplastic treatment accumulated
polystyrene microspheres in their gut cavity and in the digestive tubules. This phenomena is
illustrated in Figure 6.1. (Thompson, et. al., 2008)
36
Mussels have an open circulatory system, the hemocytes (cells of an immune system of
invertebrates), circulate throughout the organism and the connective tissue of major organs. It
was suggested, that therefore microplastics could be transported to these organs.
Within 3 days microplastics were found in the hemolymph (a blood analogue used by all
arthropods and most mollusks that have an open circulatory system) and in the hemocytes
where they have persisted for over 48 days. This findings are significant, because the previous
research only showed that microplastics
may either be retained in the digestive
tract of marine organisms (Derraik, 2002)
or egested in the form of feces (Eriksson,
et. al., 2003). Still research is needed to
establish how quickly microplastics can
translocate to the circulatory system and to
the mechanisms by which these particles
are taken up across the gut or extracellular
barrier and accumulate in the hemolymph.
(Thompson, et. al., 2008)
It should be noticed, however, that the study on the ingestion and translocation of
microplastics within the mussels resulted in no significant reduction in either the oxidative
status of hemolymph, the viability and phagocytic activity of hemocytes, or filter-feeding
activity. However, the researchers underlined that it is, too early to suggest that ingestion and
or translocation of microplastic does not cause any toxicological effects. (Thompson, et. al.,
2008)
In the section 6.3.2, sorption of POPs to the microplastics was found. The presented study of
mussels suggests that those contaminants may be uptaken due to the evidence of persistence
in the hemolymph of mussels for over 48 days therefore providing a possible route for the
transport of chemicals to various tissues (Thompson, et. al., 2008).
It was also found during the mussel study, that the abundance of microplastics was greatest
after day 12 and was followed with a decline. An important discovery was made: smaller
polystyrene particles (3.0 μm) were found in a greater amount (over 60%) than the larger (9.6
37
μm) particles, which suggests that fragmentation of plastic particles increases the potential for
accumulation in the tissues of an organism. (Thompson, et. al., 2008)
The mussels research was conducted in laboratory conditions. It should be noticed, that in the
natural environment mussels would be exposed to various types of microplastic, (e.g.
polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride, and acrylic); furthermore the
exposure would occur throughout the entire mussels’ lifetime. Therefore, the real impacts
may differ from those observed in the laboratory trials. Further research using a wide variety
of both, organisms and polymers over varying exposure periods, are necessary to determine
the biological consequences of microscopic debris. (Thompson, et. al., 2008)
It is clear now that microplastics can indeed be ingested by marine organisms. The question is
what happens thereafter? Laboratory studies try to find an answer as to whether the
microplastics transfer from the gut to the other body tissues. At present, it is known, that after
ingestion, microplastics can be either retained in the digestive tract or absorbed by
phagocytosis into the epithelial lining of the gut. For the first case, it was found that lugworms
(Arenicola marina) are capable of rejecting the microplastics from the body within their fecal
casts. As for the second case, it was proved that polystyrene microplastics can translocate in
rodents from their gut to the lymphoid system, from where microplastics are transferred to the
other tissues (Hussain et al., 2001). This happens because lymphoid system supplies the
circulatory system of the organism. It is suggested that due to the similarity between rodent
digestive systems to many other marine organisms, that the translocation within the marine
organism body in general is most likely. (Thompson et al. 2007)
The next question concerns how much danger due to microplastic ingestion is connected with
the toxicity. The following subchapter is concentrated on the understanding of this threat.
6.2 TOXICITY
Toxicity of microplastics is connected with intrinsic toxicity of microplastics (or more

specifically of its additives and its monomers) and their large surface area. Released, desorbed
monomers of microplastics (additive-derived pollutants – chapter 6.3.1 and sorbed pollutants
38
e.g. POPs – chapter 6.3.2) can be highly carcinogenic, reproducing abnormities in humans,
invertebrates and in rodents. (Betts, 2008; Thompson, 2007)
To understand the sorption and desorption kinetics of polymers, partition coefficient (K) are
used in chemistry analysis. When the polymer is in direct contact with a solution (e.g. water),
the distribution of low molar mass solutes between the solid and liquid phases occur. This
process is determined by the differential solubility in the two phases. Desorption (leaching of
component from the polymer) to sorption (binding of components from the solution by the
material) depends on the interaction upon equilibration of the two phases, namely the value of
the partition coefficient. Plastic additives of low molar mass, such as plasticizers or
antioxidant, leach to the environment at the rate that depends on the partitioning to the
surrounding material. The equilibrium polymer-solution partition coefficient is defined as the
ratio of the concentration of the solute in the polymer to that in the solution (e.g. water) and
depends on the polymer, solute and the composition of the liquid phase. (Gasslander, et. al.,
2007) Gasslander, et. al. (2007), evaluating the polyethylene, polypropylene and
polyethylenecobutyl desorption-sorption in properties in water, calculated that the equilibrium
polymer-solution partition coefficient applicable to the substances of a large hydrophobic
range can vary over nine orders of magnitude (K = -0.5 to 8.5).
As described in chapter 4.1, plastics usually are enriched by different additives already during
the manufacturing process, including organotin (a catalyst), nonylphenol (an antioxidant),
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (flame retardants), triclosan (an antimicrobial). Furthermore,
plastics are able to act like sponges by absorbing and concentrating hydrophobic
contaminants, including the majority of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), like
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), at concentrations with magnitudes several orders higher
than of surrounding marine environment (Mato et al., 2001). (Betts, 2008; Thompson, 2007)
Toxic load can be correlated with the plastic ingestion (described in chapter 6.1) and as
suggested by Mato et. al. (2001), the contaminated plastic particles may serve as toxins source
to marine organisms ingesting them. Furthermore, toxic effects are suggested to compound
damage resulted from the impacts related to the plastic ingestion by marine organisms
(Committee on the Effectiveness of International and National Measures to Prevent and
Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts, 2008).
39
The above considerations directs us to the next subchapter concentrated on the further transfer
of the toxic substances to marine organisms.
6.3 TRANSFER WITHIN THE MARINE ORGANISMS
It is believed, that ingestion of microplastics facilitate the transportation of chemicals into the
wildlife. Microplastics can be seen as the carriers of pollutants, like POPs and heavy metals
from invertebrate organisms ultimately to higher tropic levels (Gregory, 1996). Microplastics
have a much greater surface area to volume ratio in comparison to macroplastics, hence the
potential of transporting different compounds is significant. (Thompson, 2007). Some
additives and POPs are hazardous and if sorbed to microplastics the toxicological effects on
the organisms which have ingested those particles would largely depend on the concentrations
of the contaminants; however, it is still not known to what extend the microplastics can
transport those pollutants and whether such transport would increase the threat to the
environment (Richard Thompson, personal conversation).
According to Thompson, exposure to wide variety of organisms is facilitated by microplastics

distribution combined with their small size (Betts, 2008). Eriksson and Burton (2003)
documented transmission of microplastics up the food chain by surveying Southern fur deal
scat on Macquarie Island. This research results showed that scats contained microplastics
from Lantern fish (myctophids), and consumed by seals.
Another important factor to be mentioned in this subchapter is the focus on the ecosystems of
the sea-surface microlayer (SML), which is complex and sensitive to pollution. This
microlayer is a nursery for the juveniles and pelagic larvae of numerous species, which must
be protected from the potential and continual threat from microlitter. (Hardy, 1987). Plastic
scrubbers used in air blasting may pose an additional hazard to the microlayer ecosystems
(Allsopp et al., 2006).
Two routes of transfer has been identified so far. First one is the release compounds from
manufacture processes as plasticizers, antimicrobials and flame retardants (Arthur et. al.,
2009). This route is also concerns various harmful plastic additives and other synthetic
chemicals contained in plastic resins (Mato et. al., 2001). The second transfer mechanisms
40
originates from the release of POPs and other hydrophobic compounds dispersed in the
environment and sorbed to plastic debris due to POPs low polarity (Mato, et. al., 2001; Arthur
et.al., 2009). This issues are further evaluated in the following subchapters.
6.3.1 MICROPLASTICS AND COMPOUNDS FROM MANUFACTURE

PROCESSES
It was already mentioned that biodegradation of plastics is a slow process. This does not mean
however, that plastic polymers and their additives are not bioactive. The polymerization
process is never completed in 100%. The remaining monomer which builds the blocks of
polymer, can migrate from the polymer matrix into compounds with which they come in
contact. For example, A. Sajiki and Yonekubo (2003) investigated that polycarbonate plastics
exposed to the salts of the sea water, show accelerated leaching of bioactive bisphenol-A
monomer, a building block of several important plastics and plastic additives, known to be a
common endocrine distrupter.
Commercially used monomer additives (such as softeners, UV stabilizers, flame retardants,

non-stick compounds, and colorants) leach out at faster or slower rates depending on the
environmental conditions (Moore, 2008).
Additives have been investigated during several studies on marine litter. For instance,
nonynphenols was discovered in the plastic resin pellets from Japanese coasts (Mato, et. al.,
2002) Phthalates type (compounds used most commonly as a softener for products made with
polyvinyl chloride) were detected in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River watersheds
samples (Moore, et. al., 2005a). Both of the additive types may exhibit endocrine disrupting
effects (interfering with natural hormone functions) in some marine species (Jobling, et. al.,
1996).
6.3.1.1 PLASTICISERS
Special attention should be focused towards microplastics derived from cosmetic

preparations, hand cleaners, production waste from plastic processing plants, and airblast
cleaning media. It was already documented during studies of Los Angeles and San Gabriel
41
Rivers that about 2 million microplastic particles of that origin were found (Moore, 2008);
hence it could be assumed that a number of a similar order of magnification can be found in
rivers flowing into the North Sea. Cleaners, containing polypropylene, polyethylene or
polystyrene particles of diameter about 75µm exists and were patented at the international
market since 1970s however the scope of their use, pattern and volume is not known (Zitko
and Hanlon, 1991).
Several studies documented the existence of micro polystyrene spherules; Kartar et al., (1973)
reports particles found in the guts of juvenile marine fish. Figure 6.2 illustrates the
microplastics isolated from a cosmetic cleaner. It was also found that phenanthrene, a priority
pollutant, was transmitted to the lugwarm (Arenicola marina) by polyethylene contaminated
with it (Teuten et al., 2007). It is speculated, that micro plastic scrubbers causes intestinal
blockage in smaller fish (Zitko and Hanlon, 1991). Microplastics of this kind can also adsorb
and accumulate POPs and deliver them to biota. This problem will be revealed in the
subsequent subchapter.
To demonstrate the size and

exemplify the significant threat
which microplastics of this kind
bring, I will use Gregory’s (1996)
findings, shown in the Table 6.2.
Gregory noticed, that those
micrograins may have replaced
granulated walnut and apricot
husks, or even pumice and
diatomite. The label on the product
commonly describe the material as
“non-adhesive polygrains”,
however, the chemical analysis showed that those compounds instead as described, are
polyethylene particles. Gregory also stated that those particles found are available in majority
of plastics cleaning scrubber cleaners. Zitko and Hanlon (1991) also found grains of
polystyrene in their studies on cosmetic cleaners.
42
Table 6.2: Weights of plastic micrograins ( > 0.63 µm diameter) in several locally (New
Zealand) available hand cleaning and cosmetic preparations (Gregory, 1996).
Formulation Wt 100 g-1 (of product)
Hand cleaner A 3.5 g
B 0.19 g
C 6.91 g
Facial Scrub A 2.30 g
B 3.04 g
C 1.62 g
Plasticizers enter the environment and can come into human contact due to their slow
migration to the surface of the product. Andrady (2000) stated that plasticizers are found
commonly in low levels dispersed in the environment and that it is believed that they are
being ingested along with food; moreover, the plasticizers are connected with the endocrine
disruption, increasing health concern. The latter statement needs yet to be properly
investigated, however other studies, such as conducted by Ng and Obbard (2006) have already
documented that xenoestrogens accumulate at the microplastics presence in the SML. (Moore,
2008)
It should be underlined that the studies described bring lots of uncertainties and further
research is required to dispel the incoherencies. Still very little is known about the chemical
composition and rates of leaching of integral microplastics in the seawater. Therefore, at
present, it is difficult to estimate whether plasticizers or flame retardants are indeed a
significant source of microplastics distribution to the global waters (Arthur et. al., 2009).
6.3.1.2 PLASTIC MEDIA AIRBLASTING
Another potential source for microplastic pollution originates from stripping paint technology
from metallic surfaces and cleaning engine parts by blasting it with a plastic media replacing
the sand previously used for this purpose (Gregory, 1996). It takes up to 10 times of recycling
before this material loses its cutting power and has do be discarded; this significantly decrease
the grain size (Nelson, 1990).
43
Plastic particles used in cleaning aircraft and machine parts may be contaminated by heavy
metals, at environmentally undesirable or even hazardous levels (Gregory, 1996), as shown in
Table 6.3.
Table 6.3: Heavy metal contamination of wastes from plastic airblasting media, Auckland,
New Zealand (Nelson, 1990).
Metal Mg kg-1
Cadmium 3-9
Chromium 60-100
Lead 110-190
Mercury 0-0.2
Microplastics of plasticizer origin as well as those contaminated by heavy metals without an

isolation and protection at sites of industrial applications as well as proper landfill disposal
management, can easily pass through storm water and sewerage systems or even to marine
waters where due to floating properties, they can be further dispersed by surface currents
(Gregory, 1996; Zitko and Hanlon, 1991). However, it must be noticed, that again further
analysis is needed on this issue, since several evidences show that there is no significant
difference between concentration of pollution near the discharge point sources and elsewhere
around (Gregory, 1996).
6.3.2 MICROPLASTICS AND POPs
To introduce the reader to this subchapter, a brief description of POPs will follow.
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are described as toxic, long-lived in the environment
(persistent), bio-accumulative (often called lipophilic), mostly hydrophobic, semi-volatile and
so easily transported over the long range. All POPs have in common one or more aromatic or
aliphatic cyclical ring structures, an absence of polar functional groups and variable number
of halogen (e.g. chlorine) substituents. (Fiedler, 2007; Moore, 2002; Shatalov, 2004)
44
One of the most important properties persuant to POPs is their ability to bioaccumulate. This
process leads to the increase in their concentration from the environment to the first organism
in the food chain; the process called biomagnification. This shows the tendency of the
pollutants to concentrate while moving within the tropic levels. Hence, even small
concentrations found in the environment can be dangerous. (Ilyina, 2006; Moore et al., 2002)
Figure 6.3 illustrates this phenomena.
Microplastics have been shown to

absorb different hydrophobic
compounds including polychlorinated
biphenyls PCBs – from the POP group,
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
(DDE), and nonylphenols (Mato, et. al.,
2001). High concentrations of
microplastics such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PBCs), dichlorodiphenyl
trichloroethane (DDT), nonylphenol
polyaromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons
were found in marine habitat locations
in Japan, Mexico, and North America
(Carpenter, et. al., 1972; Mato, et. al.,
2001)
Microplastics have been reported to hold concentrations of PCBs (one of the POPs) more than
1 million times higher than those in surrounding water (Betts, 2008). Similarly, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found in similar concentrations on plastic fragments in
the Los Angeles and San Gabriel River watersheds (Moore et. al., 2005a). Furthermore, those
findings are consistent with the concentrations of PAHs found in storm water in the same
examined Californian locations. Hence, as Gordon et. al. (2006) state, resin pellets from
industrialized areas are found to contain larger PCBs amounts than those from a remote site;
the contaminant levels in the surrounding marine environment therefore determine
contaminant concentrations in plastic resin pellets. This conclusion may be important for the
studies on the abundance of microplastics in the North Sea, which is a water basin surrounded
by highly industrialized countries.
45
Mato et. al. (2001), established that hydrophobic contaminants (here: PCB and DDE) are not
only able to bioaccumulate in the small industrial-origin resin pellets, but can also steadily
increase its concentration with time. This results confirmed that the seawater is the source of
POPs found in the small plastic pellets and that the contaminant adsorption to the plastic
surfaces is a mechanism of enrichment (Mato, et. al., 2001)
It was found that sorption equilibrium distribution coefficients from seawater onto
microplastics varied by more than an order of magnitude (polyethylene ›› polypropylene ›
polyvinyl chloride) (Teuten, 2007). That is one of the reasons that at present, microplastics
ability of sorption of bioaccumulative POPs receives increased attention. Teuten et al., (2007)
adds that the increased surface area of microplastics accompanying fragmentation of
weathered plastics further increase their uptake capacity and transport of POPs. Furthermore,
the uptake capacity most probably depends on the type, age, size and shape of microplastics
(Richard Thompson, personal conversation). It should be noticed, however, that plastic
bioaccumulation through food chain is only reported from the last decade onwards, hence
further research is needed to cover the uncertainties which the present findings bring.
The Committee on Shipborne Wastes (1995) lists cases reported on the ingestion of
microplastics by marine fauna in different levels of the food chain: bald eagles preying on
parakeet auklets containing plastics in their stomachs, shorteared owls preying on blue-footed
boobies ingesting fish with plastic pellets. Furthermore, the latest research, lead Y. Mato and
H. Takada from Tokyo University, to reveal that streaked shearwater chicks (a common
Japanese and Australian seabird) fed only on fish take up 3 times the concentrations of PCBs
while consuming plastic pellets (Mato, 2001). Another group of researchers, from Plymouth
University show that lugwarms living in the sediment environment mixed with microplastics
saturated with a small amount of phenanthrene, bioaccumulate it (Teuten, 2007). Also the
most recent studies on the exposure of phenolic compounds confirms the statement that
ingestion of microplastics can be a direct route of POPs to higher animals, such as seabirds
(Betts, 2008).
Nevertheless. for a full view, it must be added that several studies suggest that
biomagnification does not play an important role in transport of such endocrine disrupting
compounds (Betts, 2008). It is possible, that the adsorption could actually decrease the
46
bioavailability of the adsorbed compounds (Zitko and Hanlon, 1991). Commonly it was
agreed during the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of
Microplastic Marine Debris in 2008, that microplastics are unlikely to be an important global
geochemical reservoir for historically released POPs. It is also not clear if microplastics play a
larger role as chemical reservoirs on smaller scales. Despite the high affinity for microplastics
in the seawater which results in elevated concentrations of POPs on microplastic particles,
these POPs may not be readily bioavailable. Regardless of the documented ingestion of
microplastics by some marine organisms, the net effect of POPs transfer to the marine
organisms is still rather unclear. Nevertheless, the scientists agreed that POP ingestion is
increased, but still unknown are the physiological conditions under which plastic-associated
POPs would be assimilated by marine organisms upon ingestion of plastics. (Arthur et. al.,
2009) The need to clear up these uncertainties calles for further research into the subject.
6.4 FLOATING MICROPLASTICS
Plastic particles either float on or near the water surface, are suspended at mid depths, or sink
to the bottom of a water body, depending on the polymer type and the additives of the plastic
item as well as on the density of the receiving water (Gordon, 2006).
Many plastics are less dense than water and float on the SML, where POPs can be
concentrated by up to 500 times that of the underlying water column (Teuten, 2007).
Microplastics may provide a mechanism for transport of POPs to remote and pristine
locations due to the fact that they are buoyant and can be transported to distant locations
(Derraik, 2002). Thompson et al. (2004) suggests that plastics could therefore become
important in transportation of contaminants on a global scale.
Moore et. al. (2001) reported that plastics can constitute a stable substratum for the
colonization by various marine organisms (Moore, et. al., 2001). Floating and migrating
plastic particles (including those of very small size), transport invasive and alien species
(Derraik, 2002). One larger side of the floating item usually is exposed to the sun and the
other is ballasted with fouling organisms (Moore, et. al., 2001). Such transport can be
detrimental to littoral, intertidal, and shoreline ecosystems (Gordon, 2006). The introduction
47
of alien species may seriously disturb the marine ecosystems as well as seriously threatening
its native biodiversity (Derraik, 2002).
The passenger marine organisms include bacteria, diatoms, algae, barnacles, serpulids,
hydroids, tunicates, and some species of bryozoans (Winston, 1982; Derraik, 2002). As
Moore et. al. (2001) suggests, plastics can be very attractive to some marine organisms like
barnacles, either due to the lack of ability of most other organisms to colonize the semi-
flexible and smooth plastic surfaces, or due to their ability to persist and grow without being
sloughed or broken.
Derraik (2002) reports studies which reveal the possible decrease in global marine species
diversity by as much as 58% if the worldwide biotic mixing will continue to rise. For
example, bryozoan Membranipora tuberculata, is believed to have crossed the Tasman Sea,
from Australia to New Zealand, encrusted on plastic pellets (Gregory, 1978). Derraik (2002)
lists that the same species were found on plastics washed ashore in USA; hence their
abundance seems to increase worldwide. However, in the North Pacific Central Gyre study,
only less than 10% of micro debris was found to host the multicellular fouling organisms
(Moore, et. al., 2001).
Furthermore, plastics together with other floatable marine debris can cause a serious water
quality problems, inhibiting the growth of aquatic vegetation, decreasing spawning areas and
habitats for fish and other organisms (Gordon, 2006).
6.5 ACCUMULATION OF MICROPLASTICS ON THE SEA FLOOR
Another potential danger to marine environments exists from the accumulation of plastic
debris on the sea floor. According to UNEP report (2005) as much as 70 percent of the total
marine litter input sinks to the sea bed in both shallow and deep parts of the oceans.
Majority of consumer plastics are neutrally buoyant, hence grains of sand trapped in their
fouling matter or seams make many plastics (including microplastics) sink to the sea floor.
(Moore, 2008) The vertical organic and inorganic particulate sinking fluxes may be
compromised by microplastics settling in the water column (Gregory, 1996). This process can
slow down the gas exchange and sequestration between the overlying waters and the pore
48
waters of the sediments, and by doing so – disrupting or smothering inhabitants of the benthos
(causing hypoxia or anoxia) and generally altering the normal functioning of the marine
ecosystem and life on the sea floor. It is also believed, that benthic debris is interfering with
carbon cycling in waters. (Goldberg, 1994; Moore, 2008)
Another point to be mentioned, as Andrady noticed, is that plastic fishing gear is increasing in
density, due to copious fouling. Plastics of this kind can hence become negatively buoyant
until fall down below the photic zone where due to lack of sunlight float again. This means
that the natural marine debris may be prevented from reaching the seabed where it is a main
sequestration vector for atmospheric CO2 due to its mixing with buoyant plastics (Moore,
2008)
Sorption of contaminants to plastics by inhibiting microbial degradation can preserve the

contaminants in marine environment (Teuten, et. al., 2007). Teuten et al. (2007) state the
results of their research suggest that sorption to plastics or sediments back into solution
extend several orders of magnitude; furthermore, desorption occurs more rapidly from the
sediments than from the plastics. This study reveals that two natural sediments, as little as one
phenanthrene microgram per one sediment gram significantly increased the accumulation of
this microplastic by an invertebrate worm, it is hence postulated that transport of POPs to
sediment dwelling organisms at the base of the food chain and as such provide a mechanism
for magnification of contaminants all over the food web.
The more detailed considerations about sorption and desorption of contaminants into
sediments and the possible transport of them through the sediment marine organisms will be
discussed following subchapter chapter
6.5.1 HYDROPHOBIC CONTAMINANTS IN UK COASTWATERS
Richard Thompson (University of Plymouth) is one of the leading scientists focusing on the
small plastic debris. His works provide the most broad information of microplastics in the
North Sea. Presented data in this chapter will show his latest researches on microplastic from
UK coastline and discuss its findings and will examine the relative contribution of
49
microplastic as compared to sediment for the transport of hydrophobic compounds to marine

organisms dwelling in sediments under environmental conditions
In July 2006, samples of natural marine sediments were collected from Mothecombe, and
from Plym Estuary, both in Devon (UK), locations which are known to have consistently low
contents of microplastics (Thompson et al., 2004). The aim of the experiment was to find in
laboratory conditions the sorption behavior of phenanthrene to PVC, polypropylene and
polyethylene microparticles and to sediments. The choice of plastics was made due to their
highest production volume in Western Europe (Assosiation of Plastic Manufactures in
Europe, 2006) and their high contribution to the total plastic debris in the environment
(Teuten et al., 2007). Characteristics of both plastics and sediments are given in Table 6.4.
Microplastics of size between 200 and 250 µm provided high surface area for sorption.
Table 6.4: Characterization of Plastics and Sediments( a Calculated. b n.d.: Not determined.
c
Median particle size, determined by LALLS) (Teuten et al., 2007).
% organic carbon BET surface area

Solid phase Particle size (µm) Texture
content (OC) (m2g-1)
Polymers
Polyethylene 200-250 86 a 4.37 Granular polymer

a
Polypropylene 200-250 86 1.56 Granular polymer
PVC 200-250 200-250 38 a n.d. b Granular polymer
c a
PVC 130 127 38 1.76 Granular polymer
Sediments
Sand 40%; silt

Plym 35 c 0.67 ± 0.15 2.08
57%; clay 3%
Mothecombe 191 c 0.18 ± 0.09 1.37 Sand 96%; silt 4%
Most of the plastics found were synthetic, significantly most abundant in subtidal sediments,
what demonstrated that microscopic plastics are common in sedimentary habitats.. They
included acrylic, alkyd, poly (ethylene, propylene), polyamide (nylon), polyester,
polyethylene, polymethylacrylate, polypropylene, and polyvinyl-alcohol. These plastics have
a wide range of uses (clothing, packaging, rope)which suggests that the fragments resulted
from the breakdown of larger items. Similar types of plastics were found in the water column
50
as in sediments, what indicates that polymer density is not a major factor influencing
distribution, and other factors should be used in future studies. (Thompson, 2004)
The analysis included examining the phenanthrene concentration in sorption experiments in

liguid and solid phase. Table 6.5 shows the results.
Table 6.5: Recovery of Phenanthrene (PHE) in Each Phase in Sorption Experiments ( a Initial
aqueous (PHE)= 3 Μm) (Teuten et al., 2007).
a
Total PHE recovered in each phase (%)
Total recovery
Liquid Glass wall Solid
(%)
In seawater
Polyethylene 4.6 ± 0.5 0.6 ± 0.3 80.5 ± 6.4 85.7 ± 6.5
Polypropylene 37.4 ±0.7 1.2 ± 0.4 35.6 ±0.9 74.1 ± 1.2
PVC 200-250 67.6 ±8.6 1.3 ± 0.2 27.3 ±3.8 96.3 ± 4.8
Plymn seiment 73.8 ±2.0 2.4 ± 1.1 3.3 ± 0.5 79.5 ± 2.2
Mothecombe
88.1 ±3.9 2.0 ± 0.4 0.4 ± 0.1 90.5 ± 4.5
sediment
In sodium taurochloate
Polyethylene 56.3 ± 1.3 0.7 ± 0.2 38.4 ± 0.8 95.4 ± 0.7
PVC 200-250 93.4 ± 5.1 0.5 ± 0.1 3.7 ± 1.3 97.7 ± 4.3
Mothecombe
94.6 ± 6.9 0.6 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.2 95.4 ± 6.5
sediment
The studies revealed that the concentrations of phenanthrene in seawater range between 0.6
and 6.1 µm L-1, which predominantly enters aquatic systems in large pulses during storm
water. It was found out, that the order of sorption magnitude was higher for polyethylene than
for PVC and polypropylene. This can be explained due to the larger volume of internal
cavities, allowing easy diffusion of compounds into polymer (Pascall et al., 2005). (Teuten et
al., 2007)
The results showed also the preferential uptake of the contaminant onto plastics, as compared
to sediments. This has a potential significance in geochemical determinations of phenanthrene
concentrations in soils and sediments. Small amounts of this contaminant present could result
in a large increase in the hydrophobic contaminants concentrations in the sediment. (Teuten et
al., 2007)
Phenanthrene, like other environmentally persistent contaminants has a large distribution
coefficient, which brings a potential for plastics to transport those contaminants. It was
51
already mentioned (chapter 5.3) that plastics can be widely distributed due to their density
smaller that that of water and the fouling properties may result in their subsequent sinking.
Furthermore, contaminants sedimentation may lead to their sequestration in offshore
sediments, with minimal microbial degradation due to strong binding to plastics. It was
indicated, that the rate of desorption from plastics is much lower than from sediments.
However, those amounts are still able to release considerable amounts of sorbed compounds.
(Teuten et al., 2007)
The potential of plastic

transportation of phenenthrene to
sediment dwelling organisms and
further up in the trophic level was
also examined, using the benthic
deposit feeder, A. marina. Samples
of sediments with a low organic
carbon content containing 0-500
ppm plastic by mass. (Teuten et al.,
2007) The concentration of the
contaminant within A. marina is
shown in Figure 6.4.
The results showed that the addition

of plastic to the sediment decreases the bioavailability of the contaminant present, whereas
seawater mixture is related with the contaminant presence, but no plastic. Researchers
explained this phenomena due to the scavenging of the contaminant by the highly toxic
sorbent plastic reducing the equilibrium concentration in the other phases (including the
organism). This predicted beneficial effects of plastics reducing the contaminant
concentration in benthic organisms is however rather short-lived, if at all, due to the high
uptake of contaminants onto plastics and the longetivity of plastics in the environment.
Few important points should be underlined from the described research study. Firstly, plastics
due to their sorptive properties should be considered as constituent components in sediment
and soil analyses. Secondly, the readability of sorbed pollutant burden and the subsequent
desorption form plastics in sediments and seawater should be ascertain, especially when it is
52
taken up by sediment dwelling organisms. Thirdly, sediment dwelling organisms, are the base
of the food chain, presenting the high potential for the contaminants transport throughout the
food web. Moreover, the potential for plastics to transport contaminants at plastic abundances
already present at polluted sites is significant, especially due to the fact that only a small
amount of plastic is enough to sorb a significant amount of contaminant. (Teuten et al., 2007)
6.6 PHYSICAL HAZARDS
Another impact of plastic litter on marine organisms concerns the physical hazard. The
harmful effects concern the ingestion of plastics followed by the possible mechanical
blockage of intestinal tract, gastric enzyme secretion, diminished feeding stimulus, lowered
steroid hormone levels, delayed ovulation and reproductive failure (Azzarello et. al., 1987).
Those worsening physical conditions can eventually cause a serious internal injury or even
death (Carpenter et. al., 1972; Rothstein, 1973). Several studies however, also indicate that
some organisms may eventually regurgitate plastic particles together with other indigestible
matter, hence reducing the harmful effects (Azzarello, et. al., 1987). Concerning amounts of
ingested plastic items (documented in chapter 9.1), and wide range of organisms found to
ingest plastic particles, especially many seabird and fish species (e.g. Carpenter, 1972;
Gregory, 1978; Ryan, 1988; Franeker, et. al., 2005) this type of hazard seems rather
significant.
Derraik (2002), suggests that ingested plastic debris, depending on the species type, may
reduce uptake of the food. Seabirds which do not or barely regurgitate solid matter (e.g.
Procellariiformes) can accumulate plastic particles leading not only to a gastrointestinal
blockage, but also to feeding stimulus and activity problems. Both hunger and satiety are
controlled by receptors in the hypothalamus of bird's where stimuli perceived by the central
nervous system control the intake of the food. Factors affecting satiety include dehydration
and distention of the stomach or intestines, whereas conditions affecting hunger include
empty stomach contractions, low temperatures, and the sight of food. Therefore, by
preventing stomach contraction or by sustaining stomach distention, large quantities of plastic
litter present inside the stomachs can reduce feeding activity alerting 'satiety' to the
hypothalamus. Furthermore, it was documented that plastic particles inside birds’ stomachs
may slow down the secretion of gastric enzymes or the movement of food into the small
intestine. (Azzarello, et. al., 1987)
53
Above speculations concern rather larger plastic items. Laboratory tests have shown that
Arenicola marine (lugwarm) egests polyvinylchloride particles as small as 230µm with their
fecal casts (Thompson, 2004). Other studies on rodents and humans, on the other hand,
showed that both polyvinylchloride and polystyrene particles of less than 150µm translocate
from gut cavity to their lymph and circulatory systems (Thompson, 2008).
Blockage of the digestive systems, transfer of items to the circulating system and their
retaining in the blood system however, are also speculated to occur due to the presence of
microplastics within organisms of marine species. However, to investigate this suspicions,
more research needs to be done and such impact would probably depend on, among the
others, the type and densities of microplastics. (Richard Thompson, personal conversation)
Experiments with the segments of rats colonic tissue indicated that smaller particles
translocate more rapidly than larger particles (Szentkuti, 1997). It is still not certain whether
ingested microplastics do translocate from the gut cavity to the circulatory system or whether
the process of translocation is more readable for microplastics than for larger plastic particles
(Thompson, 2008).
“The physical volume ratio is relatively low for ingested larger plastic particles, however
physical hazard rather declines with decreasing the size of the plastic particles whereas
chemical hazard seems to increase with the decreased particles size”; this statement, if
documented by research, can help in future to improve the definition of microplastics
separating the term to “small plastics” and microplastic respectively (Richard Thompson,
personal conversation).
54
7 ABUDANCE OF MICROPLASTICS IN COAST WATERS
Currently there are no consistent methods for collection, isolation, identification and
quantification of microplastics in marine environment (water, sediments, and organisms)
(Arthur, et. al., 2009).
Few studies conducted quantified microplastics analysis, mostly concerning areas from North
Pacific (Table 7.3). No studies concerning the global dimensions were done. This chapter will
bring closer a study of microplastics in Swedish coast waters. Kommunenes Internasjonale
Miljorganisasjon (KIMO), an international association of Local Authorities working towards
cleaning up the North Sea pollution, together with an “N-research” conducted a research
analyzing the abundance scope of microplastics in Swedish west coast waters. It should be
underlined, that this was the first study on the quantification of the concentration of
microscopic plastic particles in the sea.
The prevalence of microplastics in both planktonic and benthic sediments was analyzed with
the use of samples from waters and from bottom sediments along the Swedish west coast
(from Gothenburg and 120 km northwards). (Noren, 2007)
55
The study was performed by using plankton net so as to concentrate the plankton from surface
water, by washing low density particles from sediment samples and by the use of net with
finer mesh. The samples were quantitatively analyzed with the strict selective criteria so that
the samples are not mistaken with the living marine microorganisms (like for example fibres
from animals, plants and protists or algae sprouts). (Noren, 2007). Examples of the
microplastics found are shown in Figure 7.1.
Table 7.1: Number of plastic particles concentrated with 80 µm plankton net (Noren, 2007).
The amount of particles in number per m3
Red Blue Black / Milky- Total +/- sd

fibres fibres transp. white number
spheres of
particles
per m3
Lysekil, Southern harbour 50 1 900 450 0 2 400

Lysekil, Southern harbour, 100 550 500 0 1 150
inner harbour
Lysekil, Southern harbour, 50 350 200 0 600
orthern Släggö
Lysekil, outer Sleg 50 100 50 0 200
Björkö harbour, mean of 2 0 400 250 0 450 283
Samples
Björkö ferry,mean of 3 0 200 100 0 167 126
Samples
Tjuvkils huvud, harbour 50 200 0 0 250
Stenungsund, location 3 25 0 25 1 575 1 625
Stenungssunds leisureboat 50 150 50 850 1 100
Harbour
Stenungsund, location 4 50 300 50 750 1 150
Stenungsund, industrial 0 150 0 102 400 102 550
Harbour
Lysekil, Gäven-Byxeskär 80 120 320 40 560
Lysekil, Gäven 70 160 80 0 310
The results of “N-research study” showed that the amount of microplastics passing through
zooplankton net is a considerably greater source of pollution than realized before (Table 7.1).
Table 7.2 shows the characteristics of the particles examined from both water and sediment
samples. It was also indicated that amount of microplastic pollution load from one examined
location (Stenunsgun) reached over 100 000 per m3 (plastics of ~0.5–2 mm in diameter),
which can be associated with a polyethylene production plant localized at the site. This
finding directs the focus for the further evaluation of the concentration of micropollutants
56
around the run-off area from the large pollution sites. The author of the N’research report
underlines the importance of the further research on microplastics in the bottom sediments;
examination of historical occurrence of microplastics is needed to prove that the increase of
the vector of organic pollutants is followed with the decrease of the size of microplastics.
(Noren, 2007)
The results of amount of microplastics found shown in Table 7.1 indicate that the occurrence
of the specific type depends on the type of location. Furthermore, it was suggested that
microplastics can originate from a careless handling of material during manufacture
processes. (Noren, 2007)
Table 7.2 Number of plastic particles concentrated with 450µm zooplankton net and from sediment
samples (Noren, 2007).
Particles Color Size (mm) Sample volume

(m3)
With 450µm zooplankton net
Sample 1 1 plastic film Milkywhite/transp. - 130

Sample 2 2 extruded White 2*3 72
polystyrene
2 extruded White 1*1
polystyrene
1 hard plastic Wite 3*3*1
particle
5 plastic film Milkwhite/transparent 3*4
Sample 3 1 plastic particle White 141
1 plastic particle White/transparent
1 plastic particle White/transparent
1 plastic particle White
1 plastic film Grey/transparent
From sediment samples
Tjuvkils harbour 2 plastic Milkwhite/transparent 7*1*1 100 ml

5 plastic Milkwhite/transparent 1*1*1
Stenungsund, 332 plastic spheres Milkwhite/transparent 0.5 – 1 mm diam. 100 ml
industrial harbour
Stenungsund, 34 plastic spheres Milkwhite/transparent 0.5 – 1 mm diam. 100 ml
location 3
It should be underlined, that the studies were conducted within the small geographic area, and
the results shown in this chapter can be used only to magnify the problem in the North Sea,
not to an accurate indicate the regional occurrence. When dealing with the scope of the
57
occurrence of microplastics, sea and ocean currents which help drifting the floating particles
must be taken into considerations. (Noren, 2007)
Concentrations of microplastics found (range of 0.01-0.14 per m3) are similar to those from
similar studies (range of 0.01-7 per m3) of North Pacific, Shetland Islands, California and
USA north east coast (Table 7.3). The average numbers of sediments found (Table 7.2) are
also consistent with the numbers evaluated along the English coast (Thompson et al, 2004).
(Noren, 2007)
Table 7.3: Results from previous studies (Noren, 2007).
Particle
Reference concentration Sea Sample type
(per m3)
(Moore et al., 2005b) 0.43 – 2.23 North Pacific Offshore, surface

(Moore et al., 2005b) 5.0 – 7.25 North Pacific Inshore, surface
(Moore et al., 2005b) 0.017 North Pacific Offshore, subsurface
(Thompson et al, 2004) 0.01 – 0.06 Scotland – Shetland Inshore, surface
(Latin et al., 2004) 0.5 – 18 Kalifornien Inshore, surface
(Carpenter et al., 1972) 0.01 – 2.6 USA north east Coastal waters
The new study conducted by N’research, which results has not yet been published, states
similar outcomes: the study of different locations within the Baltic and North Sea coast found
the anthropogenic microplastics originating from the direct input, in the range ~2000 to
20,000 particles per cubic meter and of size between 10 – 100 µm (Fredrik Noren, personal
conversation).
Another study, of Thompson et al., (2004) concentrated on the abundance of microplastics

between Scotland and Shetland Islands dating back to the 1960s. Their research indicated a
significant increase of quantity of microplastic litter over the past 40 years. This statement
could be stretched from local to wider area, however to prove this statement more research is
needed. All of the measurements and studies on the abundance of microplastics conducted
until now are too sparse to make general statements on temporal trends and spatial
distributions (Arthur, et. al., 2009). Most of the methods used are labor-intensive and tedious,
which probably are biased towards microplastics and the results may significantly differ from
58
the surrounding natural particles (Thompson, et. al., 2004). Those methods may also
underestimate levels of microplastics of very small size or neutrally colored microplastics
(Arthur, et. al., 2009). During the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence,
Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris it was proposed to conduct studies focused on
establishing the so called “microplastics hot spots” including the measurement from surface
waters, sediments and native deposit- and filter-feeding organisms. Such approach could help
in evaluation of the global trends as well as could help to improve and standardize the
methods currently used for collection, species impacts and removal of microplastics (Arthur,
et. al., 2009). To establish the “hot spots”, more information is needed, among the others,
about their possible habitats, fate, water current, water column mixing and its suspension
(Richard Thompson, personal conversation).
59
PART THREE
60
8 SOLUTIONS
So far, this paper has illustrated the threat which plastic debris poses to the marine
environment and how it represents a significant problem for stakeholders which are difficult
to be resolved. Due to the enormous diversity of plastic debris waste, its source, its pathway
and composition, the solutions to this kind of pollution problem have to also be diverse.
This section will provide information about governmental, industrial and non-profit
organization programs addressing plastic debris showing several international and local
government as well as non-profit organization efforts and initiatives addressing those issues.
The following subchapters will bring a brief revision of the most important EU Directives
concerning the plastic litter, however due to the restrictions on the scope of the paper, the
chapter will concentrate mainly on the North Sea plastic debris load from ships and on
monitoring programs. The other legal aspects load will be briefly mentioned.
Currently, no existing legislation concerned with water pollution has included microplastics
within its scope. The subject itself is a newly recognized problem (September, 2008 – Arthur
et al., 2009), and research on the subject is currently in its infancy. However, workshops, like
the International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic
Marine Debris and scientific papers are increasing the awareness of the microplastic problem
and highlight the need for further investigation on their impacts on the marine environment. It
can be predicted that a cleanup of microplastics from marine litter is a rather difficult task;
also there is yet no economically viable way to remove this debris from the seas. This leaves
the option for prevention rather than mitigation. Policies should rather focus their attention on
the causes and sources of plastic pollution right across the lifecycle of the material with focus
on disposal and recycling as well as monitoring schemes to obtain statistical data. Only by
first measuring the problem can solutions begin to be derived to manage the problem with the
final aim of cleaning the marine environment. However, even if the amount of litter load to
the oceans is reduced at first place, due to the persistent characteristics of plastics, the litter
problem would last for many years, demonstrating the considerable time existing for many
organizations trying to tackle marine litter (Storrier, 2006). Cooperation and collaboration at
the local, regional, national and international level is necessary. Education in combination
with provisions for adequate waste facilities and enforcement of legislation is required to
61
tackle marine plastic litter. The main key to control marine litter is to tackle it at source; an
economically sustainable management option that complies with the precautionary approach
(Storrier, 2006; personal conversations with several lobby groups). Different management
actions are obligatory to result in a reduction in plastic litter from the various sources.
Microplastic litter originates from both the fragmentation of the larger plastic items and from
the direct input. It is necessary that the prevention measures will concern both sources. Only
then can volumes of litter be significantly reduced. The scope of the paper is focused mainly
on the secondary sources – the fragmentation, however, a brief discussion about the measures
concerning the direct input of microplastics will follow in chapter 10.
Macroplastics on the other hand, are subjected to several directives, however there are
currently no programs that deal with the issue in a comprehensive way, incorporating all
sources and all solutions. Microplastics as a newly recognized threat to environment should
be specified and included in its contents. Legislation connected with the macro debris is also
important to microplastics – as described in chapter 5.1 – one of the sources of microplastics
is the fragmentation of larger plastics. Consequently, reducing the macro debris can prevent
creation of micro debris. This could be done by decreasing the input and by the mitigating
measures. But how to reduce the already existing marine litter if no legislation that address
cleaning up the oceans exists (Goosse, 2009)? This question is needed to be urgently
answered by the coordinated dialogue of all stakeholders involved in the littering.
Marine litter, includes a large number of issues and involves many stakeholders. Policies and
measures are needed with regards to discarded and lost fisheries materials, mariculture,
single-use packaging and stimulation of awareness among stakeholders and public in general.
The biggest challenge however will concern not “how”, but “who”. Mrs. Jesse Goossens in
her “Plastic Soup” underlines the reasons: “nobody wants to take responsibility” (Goossens,
2009).
It was recognized on the first international conference on plastic debris - “Plastic Debris,
Rivers to Sea” that the main actions concerning the plastic debris pollution should join the
following: improved coordination, increased research, decreased litter, control, improved
waste management, achieving zero discharge of pre-production plastics and decrease of
product and packaging waste (Gordon, 2006) Combined education, provision of adequate
waste facilities and enforcement of legislation are the key issues in tacking the marine litter.
62
Table 8.1: The main global Conventions and Agreements related to marine litter activity
United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea

Defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for
businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. Those guidelines oblige nations
to use their authority and jurisdiction to prevent degradation of the marine environment, including prevention of
land- and ocean-based discharges of marine debris.
Agenda 21 and Johannesburg Plan of implementation

A comprehensive plan of action be taken globally, nationally and locally by the organizations of UN system,
in every area in which human impacts in the environment. Establishes rules concerning Environmentally Sound
Management of Solid Wastes and Sewage related Issues.
London Convention 1972 and the 1996 Protocol

Expected to be replaced by The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
other Matters. International treaty limiting the discharge of wastes that are generated on land and disposed of at
sea. In particular, plastics and other persistent synthetic materials are prohibited for dumping.
MARPOL Convention 73/78 Annex V

The most important global treaty for the pollution prevention from the operation of ships. Annex V deals with
different types of waste from ships that prohibits disposal of all plastics and requires parties to provide reception
facilities for the disposal of the wastes.
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
(OSPAR Convention)
Regulates the international cooperation on environmental protection in the North-East Atlantic. It combines and
up-dates the 1972 Oslo Convention on dumping waste at sea and the 1974 Paris Convention on land-based
sources of marine pollution. Work carried out under the convention is managed by the OSPAR Commission.
Basel Convention
Agreement for controlling the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes. Includes criteria for
“environmentally sound management” of hazardous and other wastes. Any hazardous marine litter from land-
based sources falls under the scope of the Convention. Some non-hazardous marine litter could be considered as
wastes requiring special consideration.
Global Programme of Action (GPA) for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities
The program identifies nine pollutant source categories including the marine litter. Gives recommendations for
possible national, regional and international actions.
63
In other words – an economically sustainable management option complying with the

precautionary principle. Cooperation and collaboration is required at the local, national, and
international level. Also different management options and actions are needed for an effective
marine litter reduction from the various sources. (Storier, 2006). The following subchapters
will evaluate on the subjects.
Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP) recognizes the following reasons explaining the
increasing volume of marine litter (NOWPAP, 2008):
 Deficiencies in the implementation and enforcement of existing international and
regional agreements, national regulations and standards,
 Littering practice in the shipping sector,
 Lack of land based litter reception infrastructure,
 Lack of awareness among relevant stakeholders and public in general.
The most important body fighting marine pollution is the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), an agency of the United Nations responsible for ship safety and environmental
protection. Apart form the IMO, there is a Basel Convention (Basel Convention on the
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal) responsible
for regulating the export of hazardous substances. Other organizations playing roles in
developing binding rules related to pollution are regional bodies, such as European
Commission and various national authorities. Inter-ministral North Sea conference process
and the national regional seas conventions (for the North Sea case – the OSPAR Commission)
are the regional forums which initiate developments and organize regional solutions;
numerous IMO instruments and regulations have come about while being a result of
initiatives from the regional forums.
The potential to reduce marine littering (mainly from ships) for the long term, comes from
both amendments to MARPOL Annex V and support to the “Clean Ship” concept. The most
promising measure for the reduction of marine litter in the North Sea from shipping
(including fisheries) is a further refinement of the implementation of the EU Directive on Port
Reception facilities. All of these will be further discussed in the following subchapters.
(OSPAR, 2008)
64
The following subchapters will describe briefly the existing legislation on marine litter, while
chapter 10 will construct the recommendations for possible policy improvements concluded
from interviews with lobby groups. A stakeholder analysis will also be made.
8.1 EcoQO FOR PLASTIC PARTICLES IN STOMACHS OF SEABIRDS
This chapter will show the use of Fulmars as a monitoring indicator for plastic litter,
contributing to the development of an ecological quality objective. The Dutch study
conducted by J.A. van Franeker, a major researcher from the “Save the North Sea” program,
will be used to bring closer this issue. It will be shown that due to the new evidences from
recent studies, microplastics can be subjected to this program and hence be a tool used for
policy regulations.
It was presented during an International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and
Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris (2008) that Fulmars can contribute to ecological quality
indicators (Arthur et al., 2009). Fulmars stomach contents provide a convenient metric not
only for the bird itself, but for the full range of ecological adverse effects. Furthermore, the
marine litter monitoring program using plastic abundance in Fulmars stomachs was
implemented by OSPAR as the “Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs)” for the North Sea”
(OSPAR, 2008). The EcoQO approach is proposed to became an element in the European
Marine Strategy (Franeker, 2009).
The fulmar studies concerns mostly the macroplastic litter; only some connections to
microplastics are drawn, for example, between their ingestion and seabird death (Mallory et
al., 2006). The overall impact of microplastics on the seabird populations is either unknown or
not considered to be large enough to justify further investigation at present (Arthur et al.,
2009). Mr. Franeker separated the definition of microplastics - the “small plastics” and the
“micro plastics” – the particles he finds are the small cylindrical plastics (Jan Andries van
Franeker, personal conversation).
Such monitoring programs however, like the one done in the Netherlands using Foolish
Fulmars, is a good example showing how to tackle the plastic litter within the policy issues
and with increasing public awareness. Hence, the following discussion will briefly show the
65
reasons and ways to tackle this issue as well as will try to indicate how further study on
microplastics ingested by seabirds may be a useful tool for establishing the proper policy
annex concerned with the impacts of microplastics.
The EcoQO used for Fulmars monitoring program is based on the weight of plastic particles
found. The OSPAR document (2008) defines the objective as follows: “There should be less
than 10% of northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) having more than 0.1 g plastic particles in
the stomach in samples of 50 to 100 beach-washed fulmars found in winter (November to
April) from each of 4 to 5 areas of the North Sea over a period of at least five years.”
(OSPAR, 2008).
EcoQO used on plastic particles in stomach of seabirds is a very convenient and valuable
policy instrument in monitoring of the North Sea from numerous reasons (Arthur et al., 2009).
Firstly, it is relatively easy to understand by decision makers, stakeholders and non-scientists
in general. It stimulates the awareness and attracts much public attention stimulating
compliance with measures taken. Secondly, such quality objective is sensitive to a
manageable human activity which can be controlled by management intervention. Thirdly due
to the persistence of plastics in the environment, the long-time lags are suggested in response
of the metric to changed activities. EcoQO seems to be a good measurable connection of the
metric to the input-rates of litter in the marine environment. Moreover, this objective is easily
and accurately measured, and has a relatively low error rate with a consistency and
comparability between neighboring locations. Another benefits from the use of Fulmars as
quality indicators, includes its responsiveness to human activity, Fulmars abundance in the
North Sea which is measurable over the large area and finally, it benefits from realistic
objectives and data. (OSPAR, 2008)
66
The Northern Fulmar is chosen to be a

particularly convenient species for
measuring the plastic pollution by
stomach content analysis, due to their
abundance in the North Sea environment
foraging exclusively at sea (unlike other
species like e.g. gulls). Fulmars retains
slowly digesting materials in their
stomach, integrating the plastic litter
pollution at levels encountered at sea
over a number of weeks in a particular
area. (OSPAR, 2008, Franeker, 2009).
Cadee (2002) suggest that one of the
reasons explaining the plastic ingestion
by seabirds is their mistaking the
floating plastic debris for cuttlebones, an
internal, partly air filled shells of
cephalopod organisms used in regulating
the animal’s buoyancy and
replenishment the calcium carbonate stocks.
The studies revealed that the plastic loads decreased during the last decade. In 1980s 67% of
Fulmars in the Netherlands had more than 0.1 gram of plastic in the stomach. Peak values
were reached with 87% in 1997 and with 85% in
2006 with the average decreasing rate. (average
values). Van Franeker suggests that the evaluation of
the graph should not be based on the yearly
comparison, but on the averages and trends over a
large number of years. (Franeker, 2009). Figure 8.1
illustrates this phenomena.
As for the North Sea (locations of the studies shown

in Figure 8.2), the results reveals that Dutch Fulmars
67
have twice as much plastic in their stomach than those from the Scottish Islands (Franeker,
2009). During 2002-2004 the south eastern North Sea was the most polluted (by plastics)
area with 60% of fulmars exceeding 0.1 g of plastic in the stomach. Other areas include 44%
of Fulmars from the Scottish isles, 56% for East England and 51% for Skagerak area. For the
comparison only 26% of Fulmars exceeding 0.1 g of plastic in their stomach comes from the
Faroe Islands, outside the North Sea. Quantitatively, an average mass for North Sea Fulmars
is 0.4 g of plastic in their stomach. In the mouth of the North Sea and far outside, the data is
lower, with average of ± 0,2 in Fulmars from Scottish isles and ± 0.1 for the Faroe Islands
fulmars. (Franeker, 2005) The results are shown in Figure 8.3.
This data indicates that the most concentrated regions of plastic litter are situated in the south
of the North Sea, and along the coast, so areas with the highest industrial input and where the
most polluted European rivers flow. See chapter 3.1 and Table 3.1. The low percentage of
Fulmars affected by plastic litter outside the North See can signify that the plastic marine
pollution is much higher for semi-closed seas surrounded by the highly industrialized
countries than that for the oceans.
The Fulmar study resulted in three scenarios of the future allowable plastic litter level in the
seabirds: no plastic particles allowable, < 2% of Fulmars with > 10 particles (or > 0.1 g) in
68
stomach and < 10% of Fulmars with > 0.1g plastic in stomach. The first two were rejected, as
it was decided to be too unrealistic. The last one became an official regional level of the
EcoQO metric, as being ambitious though achievable. A biologically meaningful level could
not be established because a “no effect” level could still be harmful to other components of
the ecosystem. Hence, any choice that is taken is primarily a political choice. (OSPAR, 2008)
The choice of the EcoQO was followed by the establishment of the monitoring program
covering a numerous locations throughout the North Sea. Those collection programs are
mostly conducted as a part of existing long-term Beached Bird Surveys, but also are subjected
to a number of cleanup programs (see chapter 2 for “Coastwatch” Stichting De Noordzee
program) and seabird rehabilitation activities. That collection is also very convenient from a
financial point of view – they involve no or very little additional costs. (OSPAR, 2008)
The Fulmar study does distinguish small industrial plastics (± 4 mm) in its findings. This size
fits to the definition of microplastics established on the International Research Workshop on
the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris. However, as it was
mentioned in chapter 5.0, the definition will be improved in the future and the microplastics
will be separated from the small sized plastics if science advances. Mr. van Franeker on the
other hand, does not state whether the small plastic pellets should be classified as a
microplastics (van Franeker, personal conversation). Hence his fulmar research should not be
directly shown as an example of an existing legislation on microplastics phenomena. It can be
only shown as an example of the EcoQO possible established in the future used microplastics
content within marine organisms, plausibly fish or mussels (John Mout, personal
conversation). This statement will be further evaluated in the following chapter.
The Fulmar study used for monitoring of micropollutants in the seawater is also a valuable
tool for the observations on the differences in pollutant concentrations and their possible
correlation with the pollution level in surrounding environment. The history of the
microplastic exposure to the contamination may be reflected from the pollutant content and
congener profile of plastic pellets. For example, for pellets transported over a long distance,
the pellet content does not reflect only the local pollution of the region they are collected, but
also pollution along the entire transport path since their release to the marine environment.
Hence the sources, pathways and oceanographic processes controlling plastic pellets
dispersion and transport in the seawaters may be established. (Mato, et. al., 2001).
69
8.2 MARINE STRATEGY DIRECTIVE
The European Marine Strategy and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)
can be a promising instrument in the future to deal with the microplastic pollution. The
Directive has not yet been implemented, and microplastics will rather not be included in its
regulations from a start, though if the science advances and more information will be known
on microplastics impacts, the subject may be included in the Directives further amendments.
Marine Strategy Framework Directive is a part of EU Marine Strategy and was adopted in
June, 2008. The goal of the Directive is in line with the Water Framework Directive
objectives. The latter requires surface and ground waters to be ecologically sound by 2015.
The Strategy is the first step in establishing the European Maritime Policy, which would
harmonize the marine economy with the marine environment ideally with the support of
excellence in marine science.
The strategy aims to promote “sustainable use of the seas and conserving marine ecosystem”
(Directive 2008/56/EC) and is designed to complement the existing legislation dealing with
marine pollution as well as give this problem a holistic approach for the oceans management
(dealing with industrial, recreational and most importantly environmental issues). The
Directive is therefore a significant environmental part of the European future maritime policy,
intended to reach the full economic potential of European seas in harmony with the marine
environment. Each Member State is bounded by the Directive to develop its own national
marine strategy.
The main priority of the Directive is to achieve “good environmental status” of European
marine waters by 2020 and to protect the resource base upon which marine-related socio-
economic activities depend.
One of the descriptors of determining the good environmental status states that “properties
and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment”
(Directive 2008/56/EC). At present (from May, 2009), the Committee is considering what “do
not cause harm” statement should exactly refer to. This process should be finished by May
2010, which gives a rather short period of time for the Committee to investigate, hence the
70
precautionary approach is necessary. After the investigation stage, the appropriate

standardized criteria limits and conditions will be established for each Member State to be
respected from then on. Microplastics should definitely be taken into account in the
Committee investigation and its issues included in future amendments of the Directive. (Vera
Coelho from Seas at Risk, personal conversation)
8.3 PLASTICS DEBRIS LOAD FROM THE SEA BASED ACTIVITIES
8.3.1 MARPOL CONVENTION
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) adopted
on 2.11.1973 at the IMO, is the main international convention which deals with prevention of
marine environment pollution by ships from both operational and accidental causes. It
combines two treaties from 1973 and 1978 and was updated by amendments through the
years. It covers pollution issues (pollution by oil, chemicals, harmful substances in packed
form, sewage and garbage) in six annexes each in one respectively. The plastic marine
pollution is included in Annex V of MARPOL Convention and this chapter will evaluate this
subject.
71
The main idea of Annex V (which came into force in (1.07.1997) is to eliminate and reduce
the amount of litter being dumped from ships into the sea. The litter includes food, domestic
and operational waste. It completely prohibits the disposal of plastics anywhere into the sea
(Figure 8.4), and puts rigorous restrictions on discharges of other waste from ships into
coastal waters and areas recognized with heavy maritime traffic and/or low water exchange,
so called “Special Areas” (the latter include: the North Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic
Sea, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, the Gulfs area, the Wider Caribbean Region and Antarctic
area). Annex V of MARPOL convention also force governments to ensure the provision of
services at ports for the reception of waste.
MARPOL Annex V includes restrictions and guidelines for the proceedings of waste carried
by ships (e.g. through the inspection of foreign ships, limits of the weight of garbage carried,
garbage management plan and record books, placards, etc.) although it does not impose itself
stricter requirements. It makes it easier to control the waste however, due to the tracking the
garbage by regular ship controls.
The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has established a framework,

method of work and timetable for a MARPOL Annex V revision on a marine litter subject.
The IMO is currently revising this document and is consulting with relevant organizations and
bodies to assess its effectiveness. Microplastics are not included or at least defined as a threat
anywhere in the MARPOL Convention. It is not expected that this session will bring the
threats from microplastics onto the agenda. The evaluation on this matter based on the
opinions of the several stakeholders will be given in the next chapter.
Despite the efforts of enforcing MARPOL into reality, the Convention is still widely ignored.
Derraik (2002) indicates that ships continue to dump waste, and the number is estimated to be
6.5 million tons of plastic per year. However, the investigation of MARPOL effectiveness
gives mixed results. Some studies suggests the reduction of debris in oceans and beaches
(Sheavly, 2005), some of them show its stagnation (e.g. Henderson, 2001) or even increase
(Barnes and Milner, 2005). It is suggested that the evaluation of the effects of MARPOL
depends on the geographical factors, and the sites surveyed are too small and restricted to
local conditions (Barnes and Milner, 2005).
72
In addition to MARPOL, the European Union proposed an objective for the European Marine
Strategy to “eliminate marine litter arising from illegal disposal at sea by 2010”. Furthermore,
one of the objectives of the EU Directive on Port Reception Facilities for Ship-generated
Waste and Cargo Residues (EC2000/59) states the reduction of waste discharges from ships at
sea and improving the handling waste in port facilities. (Allsopp et. al., 2006) This topic will
be further evaluated in chapter 10.
8.3.2 DIRECTIVE ON PORT FACILITIES FOR SHIP GENERATED

WASTE AND CARGO RESIDUES
Another measure which forms a part of the EU policy on safe and clean seas is the European
Directive on Port Facilities for Ship-generate Waste and Cargo Residues adopted in 2000. Its
main objective is to “reduce the discharges of ship-generated waste and cargo residues into
the sea, especially illegal discharges, from ships using ports in the Community, by improving
the availability and use of port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo
residues, thereby enhancing the protection of the marine environment” (Directive
2000/59/EC).
The Directive was formulated due to the EU’s concern about the ineffective implementation
of the MARPOL Convention, particularly with no significant improvement and continuous
waste discharges at seas from ships. The Directive is aiming to ensure a major reduction in the
marine pollution by means of provision of adequate port reception facilities in Europe.
Furthermore, the directive obliges ships to make use of the facilities provided. Ports on the
other hand, should provide sufficient facilities, as well as presenting a management plan.
Proper monitoring for the compliance with the Directive and sufficient support by appropriate
Member State’s should also be provided. Fees adopted by ports for the reception of waste
should be designed in such a way as to encourage vessels to use the facilities rather than dump
waste at sea. The information of non-compliance should be forwarded by the authorities to
other EU ports which ships may intend to visit. (UNEP, 2005)
73
8.3.3 ‘CLEAN SHIP’ CONCEPT
The phrase “Clean Ship” was created by the “Seas at Risk” organization. The concept was
introduced on the Stichting De Noordzee conference in Delft University of Technology in
January 2002 on the impacts of shipping and strategies making shipping greener. The “Clean
Ship” concept was the outcome of that meeting stating that it should be feasible to build and
operate a “Clean Ship” if the right conditions were provided. After the Inter-ministerial North
Sea meetings in Bergen (in 2002) and Gothenburg (2006), the concept was included in the
Bergen Declaration and the Gothenburg Declaration. Since then the term has passed into
popular parlance, being used by regulators and stakeholders form the shipping sector. (Seas at
Risk, 2007)
The concept introduces a new way of managing the strategies in the shipping industry, with
the environmental protection being the main concern. The “Clean Ship” operates and is
designed in and integrated matter so as to abolish harmful emissions and discharges, it is also
constructed in such a way as to recycle waste in the most environmental and sustainable way.
It should maximize the opportunities for safe and environmental navigation. (Seas at Risk,
2007)
At present, only a small niche of ship owners and marine stakeholders are actually proving
economical and technically feasibility from operating ships. The current regulations are not
encouraging to high environmental standards, they are rather lagging behind the current best
available technologies (BAT) and practices. The concept is hence helping to fill the gap
between BAT and regulatory standards together with the national maritime policies and The
IMO. It is proposed that the concept can be used to uncouple growth in shipping from
environmental harm at the EU level. (Seas at Risk, 2007)
Concerning the marine litter problem, the “Clean Ship” states the ultimate goal should be a
zero discharge by means of prevention and reduction of waste generation as well of recycling,
on-board separation and processing and the mandatory discharge to adequate reception
facilities. To achieve this goal, waste handling management should be properly designed;
waste streams originating from garbage, engine room waste and cargo residues would need to
be handled with proper equipment both on board and in port and the awareness amongst the
74
crew should be increased in order to decrease the amount of waste ending up at sea. (Seas at
Risk, 2007)
8.4 PLASTIC DEBRIS LOAD FROM LAND
As it was stated earlier in the paper, the land based marine debris constitutes as much as 80%
of the total global debris pollution load (Gordon, 2006). However, due to the scope of this
paper and main focus directed in the pollution from ships, this chapter will not evaluate in
detail the legislation oriented at pollution from land based sources. Instead, the main
directives dealing with those issues will be described.
To reduce the load to capture plastic debris to the North Sea, regulations are imposed within
the European Union. The most important one is the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC), a European Water Policy (which came into force in December, 2000) which
helps reducing the pollution load to the seas, sets the objectives for water protection for the
future and minimizes the amount of pollution entering urban waterways. In general, it aims in
achieving a sustainable good ecological status in all European waters by 2015 and assesses
long term changes in water status caused by human activity. It does not set exact regulations,
but gives each country space to fit the national legislation to put it into practice and arranges
and coordinates existing European water legislation. The latter especially concerns directives
controlling pollution emissions (EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive)
and directive setting criteria for wastewater treatment and sewage systems (Urban Waste
Water Treatment Directive).
It must me underlined, that the Water Framework Directive does not concerns directly marine
litter, it only states a goals for an inland and coastal waters to reach at least “good ecological
status” (For example, in UK this has been done by establishing 14 UK river basin districts
with appropriate environmental objectives.) Until recently, there was no connection of the
Directive to the other ones dealing with the water pollution and the holistic approach was
needed. Due to the alerted public and policy makers of a serious loophole in EU legislation, in
June 2008 Marine Strategy was finally adopted (as described in chapter 9.2). That was a mile
stone for plastic debris issues.
75
To deal with the microplastics load from sourced from land, a proper regulation within the
European Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) is needed. The text of the
directive does not include any plastic issues, therefore future amendments to seal this
loophole are needed.
In comparison, USA wastewater regulations established by Water Resource Control Boards in

connection with Clean Water Acts define the so called total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
aiming in reducing the waste input to urban waterways. Its imposed structural controls
however, typically captures only macro debris (> 5 mm), as the legal TMDL definition of
waste is antropogenic debris that can be trapped by a 5 mm mesh screen (California regional
Water Quality control Board, Los Angeles Region). However, it must be noted, that according
to the Los Angeles study, 90% of the plastic litter is macro debris and 13% is a micro debris.
Therefore, also the USA directive should be enhanced. (Moore, 2008)
Another regulation to be mentioned is the Directive on the landfill of waste (1999/31/EC). Its
main objective is to prevent and reduce the negative environmental effects from the
landfilling of waste, including the pollution of surface and subsurface water. This Directive
applies to collected marine litter entering landfills as well as the garbage from the landfills
entering the seas and becoming marine litter. Again however, plastic pollution is not defined
in the text, suggesting further revision and investigation.
8.5 PLASTIC DEBRIS FROM BEACHES
Plastic debris can be efficiently removed during beach clean-up and monitoring programs
presently undertaken in different countries through a mixture of voluntary work and
government funding. Example of an educational project was the Dutch “Coastwatch”
conducted by Stichting De Noordzee described in chapter 3. Beach cleanups by civic groups
raise the awareness among the public of the plastic debris problem (Moore, 2008).
Furthermore, at the local level, cleanup programs are “excellent public participation exercise”
helping to raise public’s attention to marine litter problem as well as creating a sense of
environmental responsibility (Storrier, 2006).
76
As we can see, the challenge does not concern the awareness or the lack of data from various
regions. Instead, it is related to the lack of standardization and compatibility between methods
and results from various projects making the comparison and general assessment of beach
clean-up operations is difficult (OSPAR, 2007).
Local authorities, NGOs and numerous volunteers are contributing to the worldwide clean-
ups. It must be mentioned, that the cost of beach clean-ups can be high. UNEP (2005) reports
that only in 1998 during the beach clean-up covering 164 local North Sea communities, six
million US dollars were spent. This number rises annually (UNEP, 2005), so this problem
should be taken into consideration while discussing the improvements for policies on the
marine litter.
One of the global cleanup programs include the International Coastal Cleanup (ICC). A year
round program coordinated by the US NGO – the Ocean Conservancy, with participants form
104 different countries. ICC gathers information on the litter collected globally, and hence is
an important database on the marine debris. (Sheavly, 2005)
In the OSPAR region, The OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter (2000-
2006) has been conducted. It was the first European project covering the entire OSPAR region
assessing the marine litter pollution. Nine countries were involved (Belgium, Denmark,
France, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and UK). For the Netherlands
the company coordinating the project was Stichting De Noordzee. It was proposed that
monitoring program developed during the OSPAR pilot project can be a cost effective means
of regular part of the OSPAR Joint Assessment and Monitoring Program (JAMP). The results
of the monitoring programs are proved feasible in identifying the trends in the marine litter
occurrence on beaches. Therefore, it can be used as a basis for the marine management
decisions and policy development. (OSPAR, 2007). Moreover, the quantitative studies on a
marine pollution are complementary to the Fulmar Litter EcoQO (described in chapter 9.1),
which increases identification of litter items and sources (OSPAR, 2008).
It is important, that in addition to cleanup programs, sufficient recycling and disposal facilities
are provided. The implementation of port and other marine facilities must be supported by
regional and international regulations ensuring proper care of waste disposal. (UNEP, 2005)
77
A combination of education, provision of facilities dealing with adequate waste reception and
legislation enforcement in needed to tackle the beach litter.
Beach surveys are used as quantitative and qualitative (plastic types, their degradation rate
etc) indicators of small plastic debris (McDermid et al., 2004; Storrier, 2006). Despite the
abundance analysis tool, they are also important for the research on seabirds ingestion. For
example, observations of peckmarks provide data on the importance of plastic ingestion by
birds (Cadee, 2002). The evidence of mistakenly ingested plastic debris by cuttlebones is
briefly described in chapter 9.1.
8.6 BANS, FEES AND SOURCE REDUCTION SHEMES
In addition to clean ups and monitoring programs, many national regulations support reducing
the amount of litter. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the
bans and fines for littering any public places, including beaches. Furthermore, regulations like
the EPA’s Code of Practice gives powers to local authorities to keep its’ beaches clear of
litter. Other examples of such regulations include the US bottle bills and presently being
considered UK 10 pence tax on the plastic bags.
Consumers are responsible for the proper disposal, however even bigger responsibility for the
plastic cleanup lies within the plastic industry. One of the threats of plastic litter from this
sector originates from plastic packaging, used in a global trade. Several bans concern the toxic
additives in plastic packaging (e.g. Bisphenol-A) (Moore, 2008), but this is only one part of
the packaging issue. Producers of consumer plastics should have an incentive to either
minimize the use of their products, or to design for easier recycling. The legal documents
regulating the packaging issues include the “Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive”
(94/62/EC) and the UK “Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulation 2003”, both
imposing manufactures to design its products in such way so as to permit its reuse and
recovery and to minimize its environmental impact during the packaging waste disposal. In
addition, European countries are also responding to so-called “green-dot” initiatives supported
by EU Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste. This directive puts a direct
responsibility and specific packaging waste reduction targets on the plastic manufacturers,
importers and distributors. Those are obliged to develop their own take-back scheme or join
78
industry-driven non profit organizations. The latter, like the Green Dot Program (covering 19
European countries and Canada) collects, sorts and recycles used packaging as well as
encourages product and packaging to give waste a value while being recycled. Schemes like
the “green dot” help reducing plastic waste that ends up in the seas, however more universal
take-back schemes are needed. (Moore, 2008)
8.7 PLASTIC DEBRIS FROM PRE-PRODUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL

SITES
The plastic industry must take a responsibility not only on the products but maybe even more
importantly, on the waste products. Plastic resins from pre-production (pellets, powders and
production scraps – grindings, cutting and fragments from processing of plastics) and
additives used for coloring or creating a specific characteristic of processed plastics can enter
the waterways during the transport, packaging and processing when the Best Management
Practices (BMP) is inadequately handled. These debris can also be released from conveyance
mechanisms on site. Together with storm water and wind can pollute nearby waterways and
further on beaches and seas. According to Moore (2008), those accidentally released pre-
production plastic debris contribute about 10% to the plastic debris problem. The USA
handles this problem by the use of a “Operation Clean Sweep” (OCP), the plastics industry’s
attempt to educate those involved in production and processing about proper resin pellet
disposal. (Moore, 2008)
Operation Clean Sweep is a joined program of the plastic division from the American
Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Society of the Plastic industry (SPI) which strengthens
efforts to educate and change behavior in the plastics industry. Its main goal is the zero pellet
loss, achieved by a proper management on the resin pellets containment, reclamation and/or
proper disposal. Moore underlines that despite the difficulties concerned with the cooperation
with several manufactures, approximately 50% reduction in pellet discharge has already been
achieved. (Moore, 2008; Operation Clean Sweep, 2009)
“Zero Waste” concept is supported by most of the significant worldwide NGOs (e.g.
Greenpeace). It practice, if properly addressed, it could be an ultimate solution to waste
prevention by means of a responsible waste strategy encompassing reduction, reuse,
79
recycling, producer responsibility and ecodesign. This concept would require the adoption of
more responsible waste strategies, at local, national and international levels. (Allsopp, et al.,
2006)
OPC is a good example of a joint effort of ways preventing accidental plastic debris release
where each segment of the plastic industry from resin producers through transporters to bulk
terminal operators is involved.
Another way to fight with the plastic debris pollution originating from the industrial sites is
the use of the EU Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE) aiming at prevention of
environmental damage by so called “polluter pays principle”, that is by forcing polluters to
pay both prevention and remediation costs. The polluter, or in other words, an industrial
operator, while dealing with the hazardous activities, is bounded to the strict liability regime.
Another Directive to be mentioned is the European Directive on packaging and packaging

waste (Directive 2004/12/EC). This regulation aims in preventing the packaging waste by
encouraging re-use and recycling of packaging while avoiding distortions in the internal
market. Richard Thompson suggests, that efforts should be made to increase the life span of
the usage and reduce the supply; this should be an industry and governmental long term goal
(Richard Thompson, personal conversation).
8.8 RECYCLING AND BIODEGRADABLES
Numerous technical and economic issues arise when recycling plastic marine litter. Economic
issues include general lack of recycling plants, difficulty in sustaining a constant supply of
plastic marine litter, requires time and effort (i.e. additional cost) and experience to separate
recyclable and non-recyclable plastics, to sort plastic into different types and to untangle and
remove foreign objects. (NOWAP, 2007) Operational costs and the price of a recycled
product itself is often exceeding the prices of virgin plastic resin (Brandrup, 2003; Selke,
2000). Furthermore, for some plastics, the cost of transportation is high. Other treatment
methods are often less time consuming and costly. (NOWPAP, 2007)
80
Plastic is hard to purify mainly due to the penetration of contaminants into the polymer
matrix. The difficulty also comes with the separation of composites and mixed plastic waste
as well as with the requirement of different reprocessing technologies. Furthermore,
contaminants are not driven off during the manufacture due to their specific melting
properties (melt above the water boiling point). (Brandrup, 2003; Selke, 2000) Furthermore,
closed cycles of recycling are often impossible due to the product contamination. For
example, a layer of virgin plastic is frequently required to be added to the recycled plastic
resin for food contact applications. Due to those complications to plastic recycling, and in
spite of the separation schemes for households, only 5% of plastics in the US is recycled, and
most of plastic ends up as landfill or otherwise discarded. (Moore, 2008).
Some of the technical and economic issues mentioned above may be solved in the future due
to technical advancements, others are more difficult to solve, mainly due to the multi
influence by less controllable factors, such as lack of demand for recycled material,
fluctuation of raw material prices, high recycling costs and lack of recycling plants
(NOWPAP, 2007). The research society, on the other hand is more in favor of the recycling
solution to the increasing in amount marine litter. This will be further evaluated in chapter 9.
As mentioned in chapter 4.2, a small percent of plastics are defined as “biopolymers” (those
non-petroleum based). At present, the price for bio-plastics is higher that for the petroleum
based ones, hence the substitution is not occuring at a satisfying pace due to its high cost .
(Moore, 2008). Furthermore, it is believed that biodegradable plastics do not fully breakdown,
especially under marine conditions, and leave behind some non degradable hazardous
constituents. The exact degradation time is unknown but it is documented that they can persist
long enough to cause threat to environment. (Allsopp et. al., 2006) It is also possible, that
biodegradable plastics can be generally perceived as a “litter friendly” material leading to less
responsible and more wasteful practices than in the case of more conventional plastics
(UNEP, 2005). Those considerations should serve to pin point that biodegradable plastics are
not necessarily a proper substitute for the conventional petroleum based plastic materials.
As reported in New York Times, the biodegrable plastic market was projected to grow from
30-40 million to 250 million pounds, while petroleum based plastics sell at 250 billion
pounds, which is 1000 times that rate (Werne, 1999). Any modification of natural polymers
change their properties and hence their biodegradable characteristics, so evaluation for
81
biodegradability for those modified polymers should be evaluated in the same manner as
purely synthetic ones (Swift, 2003; Moore, 2008). Nevertheless, bio-plastics should be
assigned with their resin code labeling, as proposed by many national governments, in order
to control and diagnose the pollution form such source (Moore, 2008).
8.9 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
Despite the restrictions provided by the MARPOL convention, each year, surveys show an
increase of garbage along coastlines produced, with the biggest part by plastics (chapter 2).
Hence to deal with the marine litter originated from the ships it is a matter of education going
along with strict marine directives. (MARPOL Convention text, 2009)
Most plastic litter originates form land-based sources (Gordon, 2006). It is therefore important
that stakeholders and public in general are properly educated. For example, education in
schools can be helpful not only for children, but by spreading the knowledge and learned
habits – to their families (Derraik, 2002). An example of such campaigns is the Australian
“keep the sea plastic free” (Allsopp, et. al., 2006) and Dutch “Coastwatch” campaigns
organized by Stichting De Noordzee (chapter 2).
The importance of the education must not be underestimated as Derraik (2002) notices. It can
be more effective than strict laws and bans. Especially in terms of microplastic pollution
where legislation is only recently starting to notice the marine litter as a serious environmental
threat and certainly for microplastic litter itself the existence on the policy agenda requires a
long time to follow. Additionally, as Mrs. Vera Coehlo from Seas at Risks notices, awareness
should be increased not only for the public or within schools, but also within each stakeholder
involved in the plastic life cycle, especially in the sea sector (personal conversation).
Another aspect of education and awareness comes from the countries undergoing economic
development. Those countries often pursue economic growth by exploiting the environment.
Unlikely issues of plastic pollution, their usage and disposal are taken by them into
consideration if that would compromise any short term economic profit. Furthermore,
developing countries are often found to not to comply with MARPOL Annex V requirements.
(Derraik, 2002)
82
Combination of both legislation and the creation of ecological consciousness through

education together with “think global, act local” attitude, should be a fundamental long-term
solutions to tackle the plastic litter problems. In general everybody, beginning with public,
through to all the stakeholders involved in sectors from each plastic life cycle to the scientific
community, should share responsibility of ensuring that governments and businesses change
their attitudes towards the plastic litter problem. (Derraik, 2002) Further evaluation of the
importance of education and awareness will be described in chapter 9, based on the several
opinions from lobby groups.
83
9 SUGGESTIONS FOR POLICY IMPROVEMENTS
Despite measures taken over the past 20 years or so, there does not seem to be any significant
improvement concerning the decrease of the volume of marine litter during the last ten years,
as OSPAR Quality Status Report (QSR) (2000) informs. The problem concerning marine
litter is even likely to worsen if sufficient measures will not be taken which would improve
the existing legislation for preventing and reducing marine litter (Committee on the
and Its Impacts, National Research Council, 2008).
Further policy actions should be prioritized by international, national and local activities
(UNEP, 2005). QSR (2000) identifies the them:
 Adequate enforcement of MARPOL Annex V requirements,
 Rapid adoption, implementation and enforcement of the EC Directive on Port
Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Waste and Cargo Residues
 Designation of a larger part of the OSPAR Maritime Area as a MARPOL Special Area
 Educational campaigns, for general public and stakeholders form tourism, fishing and
shipping sector
 Relocation or improvement of coastal landfill management.
The process of tackling marine litter is difficult, often slowed down due to the division of the
responsibilities and resources across different organizations and management regimes. The
change leading to the improvement of the present solutions for marine litter will require the
transformation of both the regulatory and non-regulatory incentives. Furthermore, it will
require improved leadership, coordination and integration of resources and mandates.
(Committee on the Effectiveness of International and National Measures to Prevent and
Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts, National Research Council, 2008)
As it was stated earlier in this paper, no legislation addressing the microplastics pollution
exists (Arthur, et. al, 2009). Due to their properties, microplastics are proved to be present in
every part of the global ocean: the surface, water column and the seabed (reference).
Additionally, there are found not only in the waters of the highly industrialized areas, but also
in distant locations (reference). It may seem very difficult or even impossible to clean up the
84
microplastics from the global waters. Therefore, solutions to deal with this kind of pollution
should be focused mainly on their source – prevent the microplastics input to the marine
environment. Furthermore, due to the early stage of the microplastic research, a precautionary
approach should me taken “whether or not release plastics to the environment at the start”
(Richard Thompson, private conversation). This approach is needed to hold until the
uncertainties about microplastics are better understood (Vera Coehlo, personal conversation).
Three main factors are needed to introduce microplastics into the political agenda – increased
awareness, more research and improvement of the existing legislation addressing the plastic
waste. All factors should happened at the same time, only then more attention will be given to
microplastics and will the “window of opportunity” be made. It is necessary to move beyond
the existing solutions and start more concrete measures; “stop discussing about problems and
begin enforcing the appropriate measures” (John Mout, personal conversation).
Two sources of microplastics have been identified – the direct input of microplastics from the
industrial and domestic products, as well as the breakdown of larger plastic items (Arthur, et,
al., 2009). The solutions for the microplastic pollutions should therefore include measures
tacking both of those sources.
The scope of the paper binds this research to focus only on one of the sources of the
microplastic pollution – namely the fragmentation from the larger pieces. The discussion on
the improvement of the legislation dealing with the plastic litter in the sea based on the
dialogue with stakeholders from the marine sector will follow. The need for the further study
on the measures addressing the direct input of microplastics to the environment will be
explained in the end part “recommendations for the further study” of this paper.
9.1 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS
Chapter 9 described various ways of dealing with the marine litter. As it was showed, there is
no single solution, the microplastic pollution needs a joined changes in technological, social
and organizational matter. There is a wide range of groups which are considered stakeholders
(any, group or organization causing, being affected by or being concerned with microplastic
litter) in the issue of microplastic pollution. The multi marine stakeholder approach needs to
85
include all actors involved; their interdependence and cooperation with a strong will to make
a difference together with a clear understanding and share of the responsibility enforced by
appropriate legal directions and solutions is required.
An identification of stakeholders in the microplastic – and in general plastic litter is important

in the considerations of how to target solutions. Stakeholders groups are classified according
to the relationship to the issue of plastic litter, either positive or negative (or both) potential of
the group on the issue and lastly their influence in affecting and supporting change and action
addressing the marine problem.
The stakeholders from the marine sector selected to be relevant for this report investigations
are listed in Table 9.1. The notes from the interviews are placed in the Annex 1. Some lobby
groups were difficult to reach, hence not all of the planned interviews were conducted.
86
87
88
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF MICROPLASTICS____________________________________
9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The microplastic phenomena is an early recognized topic. Researchers, non-governmental

organization and policy makers are slowly becoming aware of the threats arising from the
microplastic pollution. An example is the International Research Workshop on the
Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris held in Washington in September
2008, which gathered environmental research scientists from around the globe discussing on
the fate and impacts of microplastics and outlining the potential next steps in the microplastic
research.
It must be acknowledged however, that according to Richards Thompson, “at present the
problem should be rather a concern than an alarm”, we may only presume that according to
the existing research microplastics may pose a serious threat to humans and the environment
(Richard Thompson, private conversation). To state that the microplastics should be called a
serious and urgent problem more research is needed, solving the existing uncertainties and
filling the gaps in the existing knowledge on the subject. More information is needed to state
the scope of the possible threat posed by microplastics and the exact persistency in the
environment; however the concern for the subject must be raised before introducing the exact
solutions and measures (Jan Andries van Franeker, personal conversation).
The pathway moving the microplastics issues out from the research and development stage
and into the political agenda, should include several factors occuring at the same time. Most
importantly, more scientific and integrated research on a large scale is needed which should
be accompanied by an awareness campaign directed both to the general public and the policy
makers. Only then can the subject be translated into political actions.
9.2.1 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Microplastics as was mentioned throughout this report still hold a lot of questions to be
answered and are a challenge for scientists to tackle with the many uncertainties they bring.
The International Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic
Marine Debris has documented and presented the already known and agreed upon facts about
microplastics by the research community. However, points of disagreements still exist
between researchers. Certain scientists oppose certain technical details relating to the fate of
89
microplastic, for example, as was mentioned in chapter 6.3.2, the adsorption of hydrophobic
compounds, their bioavailability and the general relation to the microplastics is largely
debated. This could be the first line of the further research – does the adsorption could
actually increase or decrease - like some claim (Zitko and Hanlon, 1991) - the bioavailability
of the adsorbed compounds?
Richard Thompson suggests that future study should focus on investigating the types and
densities of microplastics. Furthermore, he states that more research need to be done to
answer the unknown - what does the physical hazards of microplastics depend on. There is
also a need for more information on the impacts and patterns of the effects before any
political decisions are to be made addressing the measures concerning the microplastic
pollution. At present, the spot light is focused on the relation of microplastics with POPs –
scientists are investigating to what extend the microplastics can transport the contaminants.
The most important question needed to be answered however, is “what we are trying to
protect?” (Richard Thompson, personal conversation).
John Mout notices that more research should be focused on the actual level of harm the
microplastics may cause, since most of the present research is focused on the separated
effects, especially the translocation of those pollutants up the food chain and leaching of
sorbed contaminants within the bodies of marine organisms (John Mout, personal
conversation).
Finally if the above uncertainties are answer, the last question to be asked is – do we really
need to develop protection measures? (Richards Thompson, personal conversation).
9.2.2 AWARENESS
Raising public awareness of the emerging problems posed by microplastic pollution is vital
for a change in behaviour as to how plastics are consumed and disposed of, furthermore
raising public awareness should serve to further elevate the issue into the international
political agenda.. Awareness is thus a precondition for any change to happen (Jan Andries van
Franeker, personal conversation). Plastic marine litter is not a familiar subject to the general
public. Mrs. Jesse Goossens stated that it was shocking for her to learn that the problem is so
90
severe, almost impossible to clean and that its toxicity concerns not only the environment, but
also human health (Jesse Goossens, personal conversation). Mrs. Vera Coelho admitted that
she was not aware of the prohibition to dump plastics into the sea (Vera Coelho, personal
conversation). If the people actively involved in environmental protection are not fully aware
of the diversity of the problems posed by marine litter, the general public awareness and
knowledge is probably even less.
Awareness should be raised by appropriate campaigns directed at each stakeholder who plays
a role in the cause of plastic littering, (plastic industry, marine business, consumers, etc).
Media should also play a role at some stage. The scale of such campaigns would need large
funding and centralized coordination; organizations like UNEP and The IMO should be the
suitable forums to start such programs on a global scale. Educational campaigns addressing
plastic litter, or possibly microplastic litter, should aim to remove the public ignorance about
the effects, and the “out of sight, out of mind” perception currently the case, by giving more
guided information about how plastics have both an advantagageous side as well as a
disadvantageous one. The information given should include explanations regarding the
persistence and accumulation of plastics as well as the effects the plastic litter has on the
environment. Such programs should be put in the right context, so that can be easily
understood, clear and transparent. The line of information should be given in a non-
accusatory way, illustrating the effects clearly caused by the target group of the program;
showing that the problem lies not “because we use plastics, but how we use them”. Such an
approach may stimulate a joint sense of responsibility for plastic usage. Similarly raising
public awareness about the microplastic phenomena, should be done in such a way as to
stimulate peoples minds. (Edo Donkers, personal conversation)
Educational campaigns, introduced as early on as in primary school could change the

behavior not only among children but also among their parent and wider society (Jesse
Goossens, personal conversation). Such campaigns are already taking place worldwide, one
example is the Jack O’Neil educational program where children are taken onboard his boat
and are shown how the litter harms the marine environment (Jesse Goossens, personal
conversation). However, we can only expect a significant change if such educational
programs are obligatory and made part of the countries national curriculum (Edo Donkers,
91
It must however be mentioned that not only an increase of awareness amongst the public is
need but perhaps more importantly a change within the stakeholder and lobby groups sphere..
Lets start with the plastic industry consumer relation. Jesse Goossens notes that growing
production of plastic world wide is a result of the consumers image of plastics as being
fasionable, convenient and the use of it “care free”. Plastic producers are all to happy to allow
this image and popularity of plastic to go un-checked. A dialogue between the industry,
researchers and environmentalists is necessary as to make the industry realize that a new
direction of plastic life can be profitable for them at the same time as being less harmful to the
environment and marine ecology. Mrs. Juanita Castano - the chief of the UNEP interviewed
by Mrs. Jesse Gossens stated that UNEP has summoned the experts and invited
representatives of the plastic industry to cooperate and find common solutions in such a way
that brings rapid changes. (Jesse Goossens, private conversation) Also the consumers must be
taught how to properly dispose of their waste, and of their options for environmentally sound
waste disposal processes. In other words, consumers must create an environmentally friendly
habits of the waste handling. (Edo Donkers)
An increasing number of seafarers also call on the need to increase environmental awareness
within their industry to lift the persistent ignorance common within. An increased sense of
responsibility is needed for each individual’s action to improve the behavior regarding the
handling of waste. Senior staff are usually instructed how to implement the policy documents,
however the rest of the ship’s crew members also need to develop good environmental
behavior. To achieve that, taking advantage from the already existing good communication
between ships and the port authorities, harbors could provide trainings for the seafarers
teaching environmental friendly behavior and informing of the effects from the dumping the
waste into the sea. (Eelco Leemans, Edo Donkers, Jons Okhuizen, Jonas Wahlin, John Mout,
personal conversations) Marine workshops are already established as obligatory and the
program will start in the near future (Edo Donkers, personal conversation)
9.2.3 FUNDING
Funding is an important part of any measure designed to tackle marine pollution. Mr Franeker
stated, that more research on plastics could be done in his Fulmar study if only the funding
92
stream could be found (Jan Andries van Franeker, personal conversation). This is not an
isolated case, much research has a potential to extend its scope, but due to the lack of funding
have to cease their projects.
Again rasing awarenesss of the issues posed by micro plastics to the marine environment is
important, this time in order to attract higher budgets for research sponsorship..At present,
projects addressing marine litter are only guided by its initiators (e.g. OSPAR) but are rarely
sponsored. EU Directives are designed for collective impacts dealing with large scale
problems however each EU member state has to individually implement them and research
the issues alone. National budgets are limited, and often they sponsor mostly project used for
multiple purposes (e.g. Fulmar study for both EcoQO and the monitoring system for the Port
Reception Facilities). Private funds on the other hand, are difficult to obtain. Jan Andries van
Franeker, personal conversations).
At present, most of the funding for the measures addressing marine litter comes from local or
regional authority. A call for shared funding streams supported by a superior centralized
approach is rising. Ideally, each stakeholder involved in any part of the plastic life span
should finance its own part. At present it is difficult to say who should pay because of the
numerous sources of the litter and the uncertain percentage share of each source; furthermore
the data differs in various statistics (Vera Coehlo, personal conversations)
The key point in extending microplastic research and increasing its scope is to develop a
“funding package” (John Mout, personal conversation). The centralized funding system could
be an ultimate solution to give the research the broader scale needed. In Sweden, for example,
the Swedish Environmental Board invests in a microplastic research –investigating the
abundance and effect of microplastics in the Baltic (the report is not yet published) (Frederik
Noren, personal conversation). Since several countries share shores with the sea, they too
could play a co-jointed stake in the project in order to provide it more funding and deeper
scope. The Fulmar study in the OSPAR area on the other hand, was able to do this without
problems in the Save the North Sea international project (Jan Andries van Franeker, personal
conversation). In terms of projects concerning plastic consumption, the funding should be
provided via organizations like UNEP (Edo Donkers, personal conversation).
93
The centralized system always creates problems – who should be a leader, how to divide tasks
and responsibility, etc. Mr. Jan Andries van Franeker proposes a system where every
country/state/company included in the project could be responsible (including the funding
part) for the area of “specialization” covering an entire scope of the project. Such system can
avoid confusion and mutual blame, improve the quality and speed up the project. (Jan Andries
van Franeker, personal conversation).
Funding will play a key role in future actions addressing microplastics. It should be
remembered, that only well prepared, documented and presented projects receive the funds
(Eelco Leemans, personal conversation).
9.2.4 ECOQO
Public campaign can stimulate public behavior, however more concrete tools must be made to
steer policy makers. An example of such a tool is the Eco Quality Objective – the plastic
stomach contents of the Northern Fulmars. Chapter 9 has shown how such EcoQO can be a
transparent and easily understandable tool for policy makers, stakeholders and public in
general. Furthermore, the EcoOQ not only shows the harm done to the environment, but more
importantly, states the actual levels of the pollution (more in chapter 10.2.7).
If scientific advances, and more information will be known on the impacts and patterns of the
effects, microplastics have for example in mussels or other marine organisms (plausibly the
filter feeders) they too could also be used as a EcoQO (Richard Thompson, Jan Andries van
Franeker, private conversations). John Mouat suggests certain fish species as a possible
EcoQO indicator, since, (as opposed to mussels, or other filter feathers) they have a closed
blood circulation. Furthermore, fish play more important role in the food chain regarding
humans, and are suspected to accumulate more of microplastics. (John Mout, personal
conversation)
Mr. Jan Andries Franeker notices that it is rather difficult to obtain an EcoQO status. Political
attention is needed so that more research is funded and hence, possible. The organisms which
would become an indicator must be understandable for the policy makers and public in
general; need for sufficient funding plays also an essential part (Jan Andries van Franeker,
94
personal conversation). If all the conditions are met, and more research is done, the
microplastics content in the marine organisms expressed as an indicator by the EcoQO can be
an important tool leading to a development of a new maritime policy.
9.2.5 PLASTIC INDUSTRY
At present vast quantities of resources are extracted in order to produce plastics which in turn
are discarded in approximately one year following production. The long term goal should
therefore concern the increase of the usage span and ultimately to reduce demand. The blame
can not be directed to a unity (the industry, retailers, or ourselves separately) but rather to all
of us as a whole. Plastic industry, government and consumers should be responsible for such a
change. Cooperation of all the actors involved is necessary to bring the change. (Richard
Thompson, Jan Berends, Jesse Goossens, Jan Andries van Franeker, Edo Donkers, private
conversations) In the Netherlands the change has already started: a coordinated collection
program between the Plastic Heroes and the Ministry of the Environment has started (Lex
Oosterbaan, personal conversation).
Changing is challenging, especially when the change calls for activities which are viewd as
profit cuts for strong lobby groups such as the plastic and oil industry (Jesse Goossens,
personal conversation). The final solution however for decreasing the plastic litter lies in
producing and using less plastic (Eelco Lemans, personal conversation). The change of
consumer and producer behavior must therefore be strengthen by an efficient system dealing
with the plastic waste which adheres to the polluter pays principle. The plastic industry must
be responsible for the end life of their products, just as producers of electronic equipment are
responsible for their end of life products under the WEEE Directive and car manufacturers
under the ELV Directive. This sense of responsibility should be strictly regulated by the
government (Eelco Lemans, Jan Andries van Franeker, personal conversations).
According to Lucas Reijnders, Jan Andries van Franeker, Eelco Leemans and Jan Berends,
the best solution could be a deposit/refund system with the return rate approaching 100%.
Sometimes systems of bans and fees must be bounded by the mandate to force a change; for
example the United Stated this June encouraged a ban on the use of disposable plastic bags
(Jesse Goossens, personal conversation). Jesse Goossens also points out that after a transition
95
period following the ban (especially for the packaging), the strict regulations could be then
dropped thus pointing out that usually just transition period between one type of behaviour to
another is enough to bring the most important part of change – change in the consumer
behavior. In addition to bans, a system of awards and incentives should be used to encourage
the change.
Collection of plastic waste should be obligatory and bounded by mandate. The responsibility
should lie in the plastic producers sector (Jan Andries van Franeker, Lex Oosterbaan, personal
conversations). Mr. Lex Oosterbaan also suggests that the price of the collection and
recycling should be included and reflected in the plastic material price, even if such change
would make the product more expensive (Lex Oosterbaan, personal conversation). Such
systems are already in place in Europe for certain types of products such as electronic
equipment.
Another system invoking change could be a system of plastic labeling for “safe” plastics
(without toxic additives and/or fully recyclable). Also labels providing information about the
composition of the plastic item could stimulate the behavior of the consumers. Similar to the
way labels on cigarette packets advise about their harm to health. Ultimately changes in the
area described above are all levied upon the producers of plastic and the plastic industry per
se. It is high time that the European Commission and other governing bodies world wide
introduce certain policy initiatives which aim at addressing not only the use of plastic in
packaging (as per the Packaging Directive) but also its use in other applications, thus bringing
a shift from the one time convenient use of plastic to a more thoughtful and balanced use of
the commodity. The economic incentives embedded within such rules and regulations levied
upon the producers of plastic should also serve for incentives for the greener reinvention of
the product. (Jesse Goossens, personal conversation)
9.2.6 RECYCLING AND BIOPLASTICS
Despite the obstacles and problems of recycling companies described in chapter 9 there are
still expectations and hope for recycling as being the most important, long term solutions for
decreasing the plastic litter (Richard Thompson, Jesse Goossens, private conversations).
Recycling could be supported by the deposit-refund systems for plastic material, which
96
“would generate plastic waste streams that can easily be turned into relatively high quality
secondary plastic products” (Lucas Reijnders, private conversation).
Recycling should be supported by the production of less diverse plastic items; this action
should be supported by appropriate governmental regulation. The binding mandate is needed
because unions and unwritten agreements with the plastic industry often quickly expire, and
the responsibility to clean op the waste products abandoned. (Jan Andries van Franeker,
personal conversation)
The plastic waste can additionally be used for other purposes if the problems with the low
quality of the recycled plastic material are solved. For example, “the plastic waste can be used
for the energy generation as a substitute for the energy from the fossil fuels” (Jan Berends,
As for bioplastics, the research community is more cautious. Even if scientific research and
technological advances are made, the application of fully bioplastics material will be limited.
Parts of the new products, due to its application, will still be composed of the non-
biodegradable plastics. Care must be take while labeling bioplastics as “green” – when
discarded the non-biodegradable part will still persist in the environment, furthermore
bioplastics’ current use in products today call for higher volumes to be used due to their
weaker nature compared to traditional polymers which presents another environmental issue,
that of increased weight for transportation, another polluting activity. This suggest that
bioplastics are not the ultimate solution for decreasing the plastic litter. Furthermore for both
the recycling and bioplastics industry, lessons must be taken from the bankruptcy of many big
plastic recycling and bioplastics companies occurring over the last century (Werne, 1999).
Not only public must put pressure on the recycling and bioplastics alternatives. Also markets
must be prepared for the introduction of those alternatives from the traditional plastic
production.
The responsibility of the plastic industry should lie in the reinvention of plastics design, Not
only the recycling and bioplastics should receive attention but also non-toxic additives should
replaced the toxic ones like Biphenol A (the latter is still permitted to be produced and sold as
an additive in most countries, including the Netherlands). Mrs. Goossens lists countries which
have introduced bans on these toxic additives, Canada, Japan and a few states within the US
97
(e.g. Illinois). However, toxic additives must be banned by a European mandate as a whole,
the selective bans are not enough to force the industry to change. The principle Cradle to
Cradle invented by the Michael Brangart proves possibility of such additive replacement,
making it even plausible that a new “safe” material cheaper for both production and retail to
be invented and produced. (Jesse Goossens, personal conversation).
9.2.7 MANDATES
A promise for microplastics to be included in the scope of future legislation is the new Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (Frederik Noren, Vera Coehlo, John Mout, private
conversations). John Mout notices that this could happen soon possibly by 2015 (John Mout,
personal conversation). The text of the Directive states that “marine litter can not cause harm
to the coastal and marine environment” (2008/56/EC). As it is one year before the Directive
comes into force, the Committee has still time to investigate what this statement should
exactly refer to. It is of course too soon (mainly due to the limited knowledge) to mention
microplastics within the scope, but a hope exists that due to the already increased awareness
and increasing amount of research, that future amendments of the Directive will include the
microplastics. It is therefore necessary for more research to establish the actual level of the
harm from microplastic pollution. If that would happen, the appropriate standardized criteria,
limits and conditions will be established, binding every Member State to certain targets and
regulations. Such targets should be based on the actual pollution levels rather than on the level
of harm to the environment some materials cause. The previously mentioned possible
development of the new EcoQO for microplastics and the data from the various clean-up
monitoring programs could enable this. (Vera Coehlo, John Mout, private conversations)
Measures addressing the marine litter, like beach clean-ups should be obligatory. They should
follow OSPAR Convention rules which should firstly be changed with regards to the
requirement for such clean ups to have certain scientific background for monitoring. Instead,
a “non-parametrical” analysis allowing a free liability is needed. Such backgrounds could be
sourced by organization like the national environmental consultancy research institutes (e.g.
Detares, Imares, universities) or projects like the Fulmar study (Lex Oosterbaan, personal
conversation).
98
UNEP in November 2006 has prepared “Guidelines for the Development and Implementation
of Regional Strategies for addressing Marine Litter” in order to address the marine litter
problem at the regional level in the Northwest Pacific region (NOWPAP, 2008). The
objectives of such a plan is to prevent, monitor and remove the existing litter. The critical
factor guaranteeing the success of the Action Plan is the combination of the national and
regional actions. East Asian Seas, the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, the
Caribbean, the Black and the Caspian Seas. (NOWPAP, 2008)
The creation of the UNEP guidelines were done in a belief that the Marine Litter is a complex
problem caused by a large number of activities and failures requiring a multi-faceted response
and the involvement of all the stakeholders. Such Plan is focused to reach the potential of all
implementers including government, plastic industry, the environmental community, and
universities so that they can reflect numerous opinions and approaches for the solutions to
marine litter. Efforts for reducing the amount of litter in Europe are at present, mainly focused
on the passage and implementation of an international treaty to prevent the discharge of
plastics at sea, volunteer beach monitoring and cleanups and on the waste management
practices within the marine business. Action Plan proposed by UNEP could bring a
centralized system widening the range of measures, including the litter reduction at the start,
wastewater pollution control, educational programmes to develop more environmental
friendly behavior. For example, Californian Action Plan is created on the base of the
following actions: (Gordon, 2006)
- Improve coordination
- Increase research
- Decrease litter
- Control construction debris
- Improve garbage management
- Achieve zero discharge of pre-production plastics
- Decrease product and packaging waste
North Sea countries did not yet develop international or national strategies addressing marine
litter which would harmonize and centralize already existing efforts and measures dealing
with this kind of pollution. Such harmonized action plans could overcome problems existing
for the present prevention, monitoring and removal measures: the problems with funding of
99
the projects, the lack of exemplary leaders and coordinated effort, the non effective existing
legislation addressing the marine litter and marine pollution in general and lastly the need for
more research. The North Sea Action Plan could satisfy these conditions and could be a good
idea to improve the effectiveness of the already existing measures addressing marine litter.
All of the lobby groups interviewed agree that the development of such plans could be a long
term efficient solution addressing plastic litter. In the Netherlands only, the main role in
establishing such a plan would have to have the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of
Agriculture and Fisheries and Ministry of Transport and Water Management involved. For the
North Sea area, the Strategy should be coordinated by OSPAR; one should be aware however,
that the creation of the international uniformed strategy could be difficult due to the different
legislation on the waste management existing in each country. (Lex Oosterbaan, Eelco
Leemans, Edo Donkers, personal conversations)
An idea of the creation of a Dutch national group dealing in the centralized way with the
marine litter was risen on the last years meeting of government officials with the leading
researchers on the subject (Lex Oosterbaan, personal conversation). Within the OSPAR area
“the marine litter group exists but has too little attention to coordinate the actions between the
North Sea countries” (Lex Oosterbaan, personal conversation). This directs us to the need of
more attention to be given to the marine litter, possibly being subjected of the cooperating
projects between the North Sea countries.
John Mout points out, that “it is very likely that the need of such Plan will be pointed out at
the OSPAR meeting in 2010 and could even be proposed to be established in the near future”
(John Mout, personal conversation). To introduce the idea of the Action Plan addressing the
Plastic Litter for the North Sea area to the Member States, a well documented example (the
assumptions and real enforcement of already existing case – like the Californian Action Plan)
must be made. Such plan would need to have transparent information on the share of
responsibilities within the actors involved to prevent misinformation, miscommunication and
possible backing ups of several groups (for example port authorities-ship owners-
inspectorate). In this way the effectiveness of the already existing legislation concerning
marine litter may be improved. (Vera Coehlo, personal conversation).
100
One more interesting issue raised by the research community is the discovery of the high
amounts of the microplastics originating from car tyres and from road dust; “if the further
research will investigate the phenomena, the legislation could be followed regulating the
change in the composition of the car tyres” (Frederik Noren, private conversation).
9.2.7.1 MARPOL ANNEX V AND PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES

DIRECTIVE
This scope of the paper focuses on sea-based plastic pollution. Therefore separate attention
will be now given to the implementation of MARPOL Annex V and the European Port
Reception Facilities Directive. All of the interviewees agreed that both of the documents are
proven to be ineffective due to the observed continuous increase in the volume of marine
litter. Microplastics, are not specified in those documents, however are also bounded by them
because are part of marine litter. Ineffectiveness of MARPOL Annex V suggests that despite
prohibition, plastics are still dumped to the sea. One of the sources of microplastics is the
fragmentation of larger items, hence the enhancement of the those policy documents should
be of the fore most importance.
Ineffectiveness was also recognized as the problem originated from both, the port and the ship
sides of the waste stream; all of the interviewees recognized the reasons including the lack of
awareness of the effects of dumping the waste to the sea (especially among the shipping
industry), lack of proper waste handling onboard (e.g. lack of proper facilities or not enough
storage capacity), lack of enforcement of the MARPOL convention – it seems to be cheaper
to dump waste into the sea. Another point of agreement is that even if the ships indeed
comply with the regulations, its documentation and information flow is too vague. In general,
“the environmental issues are still not one of the priorites in the maritime business” (Edo
Donkers, personal conversation).
The interviewees have also agreed that extending the ban on dumping the plastics into the sea
to the complete ban of the dumping any waste could be the final solution to significantly
decrease marine litter originating from the ships. All waste should be obliged to be disposed
of at the port. The Netherlands could be an example in this matter - at present uses a “rule of
thumb” – about 75% of the ships waste volume must be disposed; unfortunately at present the
101
European Committee is not keen to make the disposal of all the waste mandatory (Meindert
Vink, personal conversation).
Jan Andries van Franeker recognizes the enforcement of the Port Reception Facilities
Directive as being a “non-customer friendly” policy. Together with others (Mauritus Prinssen,
Eelco Leemans and Lex Oosterbaan) he states the need for the system of waste reception
operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, strictly regulated by the government as well as the
decrease in the competition between ports (possibly by more uniformed system made for all
European ports) as being necessary. Handling and the separation of waste should be done
more uniformly and regulated with more consistent rules so that waste disposal may be
cheaper and easier (Jorgen Wallroth, Jons Okhuizen, Jonas Wahin, personal conversations).
The ship-port waste management system must be transparent and the information flow
between the port reception facilities must be fluent (Edo Donkers, personal conversation). The
waste should be allowed to be disposed at the port side in the large range of limits; not too
low – so as to allow most of the waste to be disposed in the port, and not too high – so as to
prevent the overload of the port reception facility capacity, prevent the ships to deliberately
toxicate the port site and prevent the high operational costs (Eelco Leemans, Edo Donkers,
personal conversations).
Mr. Meidert Vink proposed to put waste containers for plastics next to the place where the
ships moor at the port to facilitate the waste disposal for the seafarers. It is however difficult
to document such disposal, and therefore difficult to keep a record for the compliance with the
Port Reception Facilities Directive. This idea, if improved could help the efficiency of the
ship-port plastic waste flow. (Meindert Vink, personal conversation)
Not only shouls the system of waste handling be more uniformed throughout the European
ports, but also the fee system for the waste reception should be more uniform (Jorgen
Wallroth, Vera Coehlo, Edo Donkers, Lex Oosterbaan, personal conversations). Present fee
systems mandated by the Port Reception Facilities Directive state that only 30% of the waste
disposal cost should be included in the general harbor fee, the remaining 70% can be handled
by each port in its own way (Vera Coehlo, personal conversation). Therefore the change of
the present system is needed to avoid the factors being a consequence of present system: the
confusion among the crew owners, the competition between ports and the still ineffective
102
amount of the volume of the waste disposed at the port sides (Vera Coehlo, Jorgen Wallroth,
Jonas Wahlin, John Mout, personal conversations).
The most efficient fee system recognized by Jorgen Wallroth, Jons Okhuizen, Eelco Leemans,
Vera Coehlo, John Mout, Edo Donkers, Meindert Vink and Lex Oosterbaan, should be so
called “non-special”, or “fixed”, no extra cost to the total harbor charge, that is included 100%
in the general harbor fee (like it is being done e.g. in port of Vlissingen), preferably
transparent for the payer in the bill, compulsory - paid regardless if the of whether or not the
waste is offloaded. The only additional costs could be paid in the rare situations when the
waste disposed at port exceedes the upper limits – then the ship owner needs to cover the
additional costs (Meindert Vink, personal conversation). Such system would reflect the
polluter pays principle at the same time as would be regarded as profitable for seafarers since
the “costs” of dumping would be equal to those of the proper disposal at the ports.
Unfortunately, according to Mr. Meindert Vink, the European Committee is not planning to
make any radical changes in the close future regarding this matter (Meindert Vink, personal
conversation).
Systems like the refund fee, where the money is returned when no waste is disposed, were
criticized and recognized as the negative incentives promoting the illegal discharges (Jorgen
Wallroth, personal conversation). The only exception for the partial refund or the discount can
be acceptable if the ship has an agreement with the waste company and the national maritime
administration to deliver and dispose all the waste from the ships (Jorgen Wallroth, Jonas
Wahlin, personal conversations). No fee systems in theory seem to be a good solution to
prevent he illegal discharges In practice however, that would not be a case. Such systems
would not be profitable for ports, hence very few would decide to switch for this kind of
system; for long distance sails it would become non-profitable for ship to sail an extra few
miles for the adequate port – the illegal dumping would again be the cheaper option (Vera
Coehlo, personal conversation). No fee system could be however, used for a few years
uniformly in the European ports followed by a restoration of a non-special fee system. The
EU could provide a sufficient fund and oblige the ports to collect as much waste from the
ships as possible so that an average waste production onboard could be created and used for
the policy regulations. (Edo Donkers, personal conversation)
103
Previously mentioned is a need for an education campaign among the shipping sector to be
followed with the sense of the shared responsibility. For example, both shipping and
insurance companies should be both responsible for any damage caused, e.g. from the
accidental loss of litter at sea (Jesse Goossens, personal conversation). That is especially
important, due to too low minimum capacity storage for waste bonded by the law. An
increased allowable storage capacity which would suit the period of sailing at sea and the
number of the crew members is needed; the present minimum capacity is claimed to be easily
overloaded and somehow encouraging the illegal discharges. Furthermore standardization for
the waste handling onboard is crucial, for example concerning the compacted/segregated
containers – this solution would also ensure easier disposal at port sites. (Eelco Leemans, Jons
Okhuizen, John Mout, Edo Donkers, personal conversations).
The common notion states that the fine system imposed on ships not complying with the
policy documents is always an effective tool encouraging seamen to comply with the existing
regulations (Jons Okhuizen, Jonas Wahlin, Vera Coehlo, personal conversations). However,
because problems with the waste handling sometimes lies on the harbor site, also ports should
receive a fine if they are not able to provide sufficient waste reception facilities, fail with the
separation of the waste and/or when they do not comply with the regulations in general (Jos
Okhuizen, personal conversation).
Not only fines, but also incentives are needed to encourage the disposal at the port site. Those
could include port dues differentiated for the cleaner ships, award system, taxes and subsidies
for example for installations, pilot projects of waste management systems, etc. (Eelco
Leemans, John Mout, Edo Donkers, personal conversations)
As mentioned while discussing the importance of the awareness, many seamen point out that
the rise in the sense of responsibility and learning process of proper behavior to the waste
handling onboard should be encouraged by the port authorities by means of governmental
subsidies (Jonas Wahlin, personal conversation).
At present, the only way to check a ships non-compliance with the Convention is when no
plastic is brough to and disposed of at the port (Meindert Vink, personal conversation).
Therefore, an efficient monitoring system is believed to prevent the illegal waste discharges at
sea. Proper monitoring systems (inspite of the difficulty of its enforcement) are needed which
104
would explain the reasons for ships not disposing waste in the port and evaluate the place of
its disposal (another port or the sea) (John Mout, Vera Coehlo, personal conversations). The
centralized monitoring system (advisably funded by the EU) could provide a useful database
providing such information. Such monitoring could decrease the problems connected with the
ship originated waste even by 50% (Edo Donkers, personal conversation).
Standards, strict and specified, good management practices, clean ship approach, guidelines
and rules for waste handling should be made onboard to improve the waste management
(Eelco Leemans, Jonas Wahlin, John Mout, personal conversations). There is great need for a
system which would predict how much waste at ports is expected to be delivered (Vera
Coehlo, Lex Oosterbaan, personal conversations). Jesse Goossens and Edo Donkers suggest
that the list of cargo and items onboard should be made when the ship is sailing out. In such
way, the ports could estimate how much waste a ship should bring to the harbor when
docking. Port authorities should control every ship visiting the ports and check the log books,
certificates, etc. concerning the waste management; such system despite difficulties in
enforcement at many large ports, should replace the current system where the ship
management needs to take care of the proper waste reception (e.g. call the agent) (Eelco
leemans, Edo Donkers, personal conversations). The information of the list of the average
waste onboard should be included in the legislation, so that every ship would be obliged by
the mandate to document a specified amount of waste carried onboard (Edo Donkers, personal
conversation). Furthermore the fines should be imposed when the ship management can not
prove why they do not dispose of the estimated amount of waste (Jesse Goossens, Vera
Coehlo, Meindert Vink, personal conversations). The money from the collected fees could be
used for example, for the new system hardware surface (Edo Donkers, personal conversation)
At present the Paris MOU on Port State Control is regulating the handling of the waste within
the European ports and checks compliance to the MARPOL Convention; also the project
checking the compliance with the Waste Directive exists. The first system must be improved
so that all the waste is obligatory to be disposed of at the port side, the second must be
formalized and published. (Meindert Vink, personal conversations). However, despite their
loopholes, both systems can be regarded as the initial steps for the creation of efficient system
monitoring the waste handling between European ports.
105
All of the described measures expected to improve the effectiveness of the marine policies
should be supported by the fluent communication between all the actors involved. An open
dialogue of a mutual learning is needed to create new ideas on how to balance the
environmental protection with the profit for the maritime industry. At present the
communication between the seafarers and the ports as well as the ports and the shipping
inspectorate is rather good and fluent (Jonas Wahlin, Meindert Vink, Lex Ooserbaan). This is
also true to communication taking place at the national level between participants from the
government and the NGOs (Lex Oosterbaan, personal conversation). Such trends are a good
beginning for a change in the new maritime policy.
9.2.8 DIRECT INPUT
One of the solutions addressing the direct input of microplastics could be, as pointed out by
Richard Thompson, the need for replacing synthetic additives with natural ones, so that the
direct input of plastic scrubbers may be decreased (Richard Thompson, personal
conversation).
Prevention measures are not sufficient. Mitigation actions should be taken simultaneously. An
investigation should be made towards the enforcement of the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive (Directive 91/271/EEC). The wastewater treatment facilities should be improved in
terms of pollutions untreated (and more specifically - in case of the microplastics – particles
allowed to pass through). The improvement would help to reduce other problems regarding
particulate discharges in general. Membrane filters (already applied in some plants) should be
used more widely (Lucas Reijnders, personal conversation).
The direct input of microplastics are not however within the scope of this report, the need of
an extended research concerning this subject will be expressed in chapter 10.
106
10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
This project has gathered the existing research on microplastic litter, described the known
impacts and shown the line drawn by scientists for the future research investigating
microplastic litter. In terms of the policy evaluations, this paper focused on the most
important legislation tackling with the marine litter and tried to develop a pathway for
microplastics to cross out the research and development stage and reach the political agenda.
There is much more investigation needed to be done. The scope of the paper focused the line
of this study on the sea based litter sources, on the MARPOL Convention and on Port
Reception Facilities Directive respectively. This however covers only part of the microplastic
litter problem. The land based sources, namely the direct microplastic input, are crucial to be
investigated to give a whole picture of the microplastic pollution. Research is needed to check
the efficiency of the wastewater plants in purifying the micro pollution.
Mrs. Jesse Goossens pointed out that all earth waters are connected and hence there is a
danger that the drinking water maybe be contaminated with microplastics (Jesse Goossens,
private conversation). It is therefore recommended to extend this study also in terms of the
water treatment.
The investigation of the plastic industry and customers behavior towards plastics is also
recommended so that the complexity of the subject can be fulfilled and complete solutions be
drawn.
Further study focused on the direct input of microplastics should focus on the information
from the chemical industry on the type, hazards and additives (Richard Thompson, private
conversation). Such study should go along with more scientific research on the impacts of
microplastics focused on microplastics and their effect in the entire food chain.
A further evaluation of the both the micro and macro plastic subject is needed for any regional
or national Action Plan dealing with Marine Litter, especially as such group is already
considered to be develop in the Netherlands (Lex Oosterbaan, private conversation).
107
The paper proposed to develop a concrete measures dealing with microplastic pollution,
which would not only state the impacts, but also the levels of the pollution. To reach this
approach and develop appropriate tools (e.g. the EcoQO for microplastics) an increased
scientific research, political-economical analysis with the raising of an awareness within the
public and the policy makers are necessary.
108
11 CONCLUSIONS
Plastics have existed for over a century. Their versatility has led to a significant increase in their
use over the last 30 years in all aspects of every day life. Plastics are lightweight, durable, strong
and cheap, hence suitable for a wide range of manufacturing processes. Unfortunately, these same
properties are the reasons why plastics are also hazardous to the environment.
Marine plastic litter is usually associated with the post-consumer plastic waste covering beaches
or with the appalling pictures of marine animals entangled in plastics. This is however just one
piece of the whole picture. Small pieces of plastics, often not visible to the bare eye are believed
to pose a far greater threat to the environment.
This paper revised the publications and the reports from the researches concentrated on
microplastic pollution. Part one of this paper introduced the reader with the subject, stated the
main characteristics and problems of the plastic litter, described the conditions of the North Sea
and showed the unique properties of plastics. The information on microplastics was collected and
the review of the impacts was evaluated in the part two. Part three consisted with the gathered
opinions of both leading researchers and stakeholders concerned with the plastic litter; the
pathway consisted with actions needed to include the microplastics phenomena to the legislation
was evaluated.
Microplastics are very dangerous pollutants due to their properties and their worldwide
abundance. Studies concerning microplastic particles in the Northeast Atlantic showed the
increase of microplastic volume over the last forty years. Microplastics are found not only in
waters surrounding the highly industrialized areas, but also in the remote places far from
industrialized regions. Not only floating on the surface, but also accumulating on the seabed. The
information of the global distribution trends is limited, however if the future research would study
the global abundance, their results are likely to be shockingly high!
It should be noted,, that despite the numerous studies on plastic litter (including small and micro
plastic litter), there is still relatively little information regarding the impacts of plastics on the
marine environment. Conclusive data which could demonstrate the negative microplastics’
impacts on the marine environment are also still not available, however an increasing awareness
and knowledge concerning those impacts are observed.
109
Microplastics were already proved to have numerous negative impacts on the marine
environment. The most important dimension receives the ingestion by marine organisms and the
toxicity from the sorbed contaminants. At present, research is focused towards the relation
between microplastics and hydrophobic compounds (like POPs). Plastic additives and their
endocrine disruptive effects are also under the spotlight. In general, microplastics are of a great
concern due to the two types of effects: physical and chemical. The chemical effects are likely to
increase with the decrease of the size of the plastic item while the opposite trend is likely for the
physical effects. According to Richard Thompson, the leading scientist focused on the
microplastic pollution, this statement creates a new line of study for the future of microplastic
research.
Present data points out that microplastics can be dangerous not only to the marine environment,
but also to humans. For example, mussels have been proved to ingest microplastics. As a part of
our food chain, microplastics could be considered to be therefore present in the human organisms.
Furthermore, despite the advance in the water treatment, no tests are done for the presence of
microplastics; the new threat emerged therefore concerning the contamination of the drinking
water. Microplastics and especially the marine environment, should be therefore a principal
subject of the present environmental concerns.
Much more research investigating microplastics and their impacts upon environment is necessary.
It is essential to state what are the actual levels of harm from microplastics as well as to
investigate what we are actually should protect. Increased research will also show if microplastic
pollution is seriously increasing the already known threat from the macro litter and whether
special measures tacking this kind of pollution are indeed necessary.
Due to the enormous diversity of plastic debris waste, its source, pathway and composition, the
solutions to microplastic pollution have to also be diverse. The knowledge of the origin and
harmful behavior in different marine organisms of microplastics is crucial for any actions and
measures concerning the plastic litter. It is an early recognized threat, policy makers and lobby
groups are slowly becoming aware of the seriousness and consequences of the small plastic litter.
In September, 2008, the first international workshop investigating the microplastic phenomena
was held: the research community has not raised the alarm yet, however advice to concern
microplastics as an important environmental concern are emerging.
110
Currently, no existing legislation concerned with the water pollution has included microplastics
within its scope. The subject itself is a newly recognized problem, and research on the subject is
in its infancy.
The cleanup of microplastics from the marine litter is a rather difficult task, also there is yet no
economically visible way to remove this debris from the seas. This leaves the option for the
prevention rather than mitigation. Threats from microplastics should be balanced between the
political, economical and scientific conditions. Policies should focus their attention on the causes
and sources of plastic pollution right across the lifecycle of the material with focus on the disposal
and recycling as well as monitoring schemes to obtain statistical data. Only by first measuring
the problem can solutions begin to be derived to manage the problem with the final aim of
cleaning the marine environment.
However, even if the amount of litter load to the oceans is reduced at first place, due to the
persistent characteristics of plastics, the litter problem would last for many years,
demonstrating the considerable time existing for many organizations trying to tackle marine
litter. Cooperation and collaboration at the local, regional, national and international level is
necessary. Education combined with proper provisions of adequate waste facilities and
enforcement of legislation is required to tackle plastic litter.
The main key to control microplastic litter is to tackle it at source; an economically

sustainable management option that complies with the precautionary approach. Different
management actions are obligatory to result in a reduction in plastic litter from the various
sources. Microplastic litter originates from both the fragmentation of the larger plastic items
and from the direct input. It is necessary that the prevention measures will concern both of the
sources. The final solution should therefore be the decrease of the input of microplastic and
macroplastic waste to the marine environment. Furthermore, to achieve any results, the
continuous investigation and a joined approach between lobby groups is necessary.
The precautionary approach was taken while creating the recommendations in this paper.
Despite many gaps and un-answered questions, it can be stated that microplastics indeed pose
a serious threat, and the future research will very likely further reveal its negative effect.
Knowledge on the marine pollution in general has yet much to be discovered, new facts and
111
threats are continuously emerging. It should therefore be of upmost importance that marine
litter receives the priority on an international, national and regional level.
112
12 REFERENCES
 Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santillo, D., Johnston, P., “Plastic Debris in the World’s
Oceans”, Greenpeace Report, Netherlands, 2006
 American Chemical Society,” 'Microplastics' may pose previously unrecognized

pollution threat”, ScienceDaily, 2.11.2007. Retrieved 7.04.2009 from
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071029092034.htm
 Andrady A. L., “Plastics and their impacts in the marine environment” Proc.
International Marine Debris Conference on Derelict Fishing Gear and the Ocean
Environment, August 6–11, 2000 Hawaii Convention Center Honolulu, Hawaii.
 Andrady A. L., “Plastics in the Marine Environment: A Technical Perspective”

Plastic Debris, Rivers to Sea Conference, September 7-9, 2005 City of Redondo
Beach, California
 Anon, “Plastic cups found in fish”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 6, pp. 148, 1975
 Arthur C. A., Baker J., Bamford H. (eds.), “Proceedings of the International

Research Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects, and Fate of Microplastic Marine
Debris”, September 9-11, 2008 Washington, NOAA Technical Memorandum
NOS-OR&R-30, 2009
 Association of Plastic Manufacturers, “An analysis of Plastics Production,

Demand, and Recovery in Europe”, AMPE: Brussels, 2006
 Auman, H. J., Woehler, E. J., Riddle, M. J., Burton, H., “First evidence of
ingestion of plastic debris by seabirds at sub-antarctic heard island”, Marine
Ornithology 32, pp. 105-106, 2004
 Azzarello, M. Y., Vleet, E. S., “marine birds and plastic pollution”, Marine
Ecology - Progress Series 37, pp. 295-303, 1987
113
 Bhattacharya, B., “Materials Selection and Design”, Indian Institute of

Technology KANPUR, Mechanical Engineering Course Syllabus. Retrieved
15.04.2009 from http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IIT-
KANPUR/material_selection/lecture9/9_2.htm
 Barnes, D. K. A., “Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism
dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean”, Marine Biology 146, pp. 815-825, 2005
 Berins M. L., “SPI Plastics Engineering Handbook of the Society of Plastic

Industry, Inc”, 5th Ed., Springer –Verlag, 1991
 Betts, K., “Why small plastic particles may pose a big problem in the oceans”,
Environmental Science and Technology 42 (24), pp.8995-8995, 2008
 Brandrup, J., “Polymers, polymer recycling, and sustainability”, In: Andrady, A.

L., (ed.), “Plastics and the environment”, Wiley, New Jersey, USA, pp. 253-562,
2003
 Cadee, G. C., “Seabirds and floating plastic debris”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 44,
pp. 1294-1295, 2002
 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. “Total
maximum daily load for trash in the Los Angeles River Watershed”, Los Angeles,
CA.
 Carpenter E. J., Anderson S. J., Harvey G. R., Miklas H. P., Peck B., “Polystyrene
spherules in coastal water”, Science 178, pp. 491-497, 1972
 Committee on the Effectiveness of International and National Measures to Prevent

and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts, National Research Council, “Tackling
Marine Debris in the 21st century” The National Academic Press, 2008
114
 Committee on Shipborne Wastes, “Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans:

Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea”, Commission on Engineering and
Technical Systems (CETS), National Research Council, Washington, 1995
 Colton J. B., Knapp F., D., Burns B. R., “Plastic particles in surface waters of the
northwestern Atlantic”, Science, 185, pp. 491-497, 1974
 Corbin, C.J., Singh, J.G., “Marine debris contamination of beaches in St. Lucia
and Dominica” Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, pp. 325–328, 1993
 Corcoran, P. L., Biesinger M. C., Grifi M., “Plastics and beaches: A degrading
relationship”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, pp. 80-84, 2009
 Derraik J. G. B., “The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A

review” Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, pp. 842-852, 2002
 Directive on packaging and packaging waste. Directive 2004/12/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council. Retrieved 12.05.2009 from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu
 Directive on the landfill of waste. Directive 1991/31/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council. Retrieved 28.05.2009 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu
 Ducreotoy, J. P., Elliott, M., De Jonges, V. N., “The North Sea”, Marine Pollution
Bulletin 41, pp. 5-23, 2000
 Environmental Liability Directive, Directive 2004/35/CE of the European

Parliament and of the Council. Retrieved 5.05.2009 from http://www.bmu.de
 EPA “Plastic pellets in the aquatic environment sources and recommendations.

Final report”, US Environmental protection Agency. EPA 842-B92-010, 1992
115
 Eriksson C., Burton H., “Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic
particles in fur seals from Macquarie Island”, AMBIO: A Journal of the Human
Environment 32 (6), pp. 380-384, 2003
 Ferm, R., “Assesing and managing man-made impacts on the marine environment
the North Sea example”, The Science of the Total Environment 186, pp. 3-11, 1996
 Fiedler H., “Guidance for Analysis of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)”;

UNEP Chemicals Branch, DTIE, Geneva 2007
 Franeker, J. A., Heubeck., M., Fairclough, K., Turner, D., M., Grantham, D. M.,
Stienen, E. W. M., Guse, N., Pedersen, J., Olsen, K. O., Andersson, P., J., Olsen,
B., “Save the North Sea Fulmar Study 2002-2004”, A regional pilot project for the
Fulmar Litter EcoQ0 in the OSPAR area, Alterra rapport 1162, Wageningen, 2005
 Franeker, J. A., Meijboom, A., Jong, M., Verdaat, H., “Fulmar Litter EcoQO
Monitoring in the Netherlands 1979-2007 in relation to EU Directive 2000/59/EC
on Port Reception Facilities”, Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem
studies, Report nr: C032/09, Wageningen IMARES, Wageningen, 2009
 Galgani, F., Burgeot, T., Bocquene, G., Vincent, F., Leaute, J.P., Labastie, J.,
Forest, A., Guichet, R., "Distribution and abundance of debris on the continental
shelf of the Bay of Biscay and in Seine Bay”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 30, pp.
58–62, 1995a
 Galgani, F., Jaunet, S., Campillo, A., Guenegen, X., His, E., “Distribution and
abundance of debris on the continental shelf of the north-western Mediterranean
Sea”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 30, pp. 713–717, 1995b
 Galgani, F., Souplet, A., Cadiou, Y., “Accumulation of debris on the deep sea
floor of the French Mediterranean Coast”, Marine Ecology Progress Series 142,
pp. 225–234, 1996
116
 Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplets, A., Verin, Y., Carpenter, A.,
Goraguer, H., Latrouite, D., Andral, B., Cadiou, Y., Mahe, J.C., Poulard, J.C.,
Nerisson, P., “Litter on the sea floor along European coasts”, Marine Pollution
Bulletin 40, pp. 516–527, 2000
 Garrity, S.D., Levings, S.C., “Marine debris along the Caribbean coast of Panama”
Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, pp. 317–324, 1993
 Gasslander, U., Arbin, A., Albertsson, A., “Polymer-water partition coefficients of

the extended range measured by using organic modifiers in the aqueous phase”,
Polymer 48, pp. 75-23-7530, 2007
 Gilligan, M.R., Randal, S.P., Richardson, J.P., Kozel, T.R., “Rates of

accumulation of marine debris in Chatham County, Georgia”, Marine Pollution
Bulletin 24, pp. 436–441, 1992
 Goldberg, E. D., “Diamonds and Plastics Forever?”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 28

(8), pp. 466, 1994
 Gordon, M., “Eliminating Land-based Discharges of Marine Debris”, In:

“California: A Plan of Action from The Plastic Debris Project”, California State
Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA, 2006
 Goossens, J., “Plastic Soup”, Lemniscaat Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,

2009
 Gregory M. R., “Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic granules on

beaches” New Zealand journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 12 (4), pp.
399-414, 1978
 Gregory, M. R., “Plastic ‘Scrubbers in Hand Cleansers: a Further (and Minor)

Source for Marine Pollution Identified”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 32 (12), pp.
867-871, 1996
117
 Gregory, M. R., Ryan, P.G., “Pelagic plastics and other seaborne persistent
synthetic debris: a review of Southern Hemisphere perspectives” In: Coe, J.M.,
Rogers, D.B. (Eds.), “Marine Debris – Sources, Impacts and Solutions” Springer-
Verlag, New York, pp. 49–66, 1997
 Gregory M. R., Andrady A. L., “Plastic in the marine environment. In: Andrady
A., L., editor. Plastics and the environment”, New York : John Wiley, pp.379-401,
2003
 Harper C. A., “Modern Plastic Handbook” McGraw-Hill Handbooks, 2000
 Hardy, J. T., “Anthropogenic alteration of the sea surface”, Marine Environmental

Research 23, pp. 223-225, 1987
 Harper C. A., “Handbook of plastic technologies” McGraw-Hill Handbooks, 2006
 Haruo, O., Fukamoto, Y., “A Sorting Method for Small Plastic Debris Floating on
the Sea Surface and Stranded on Sandy Beaches”, Bulletin of the Faculty of
Fisheries 51(2), pp. 71-93, 2000
 Hellenic Marine Environment Protection Association, “International Convention

for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of
1978 relating thereto (MARPOL)”. Retrieved 20.04.2009 from
http://www.imo.org/TCD/contents.asp?doc_id=678&topic_id=258
 Henderson, J. R., “A pre- and post- MARPOL Annex V summary of Hawaiian

monk seal entanglements and marine debris accumulation in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands, 1982-1998”, Marine Pollution bulletin 42 (7), pp. 584-589,
2001
 Hess, N.A., Ribic, C.A., Vining, I., “Benthic marine debris, with an emphasis on
fishery-related items, surroundingKodiak Island, Alaska, 1994–1996”, Marine
Pollution Bulletin 38, pp. 885–890, 1999
118
 Horsman, P.V., “The amount of garbage pollution from merchant ships”, Marine
Pollution Bulletin 13, pp. 167–169, 1982
 Hussain N., Jaitley V., Florence A. T., “Recent advances in the understanding of
uptake of microparticulates across the gastrointestinal lymphatics” Advanced Drug
Delivery Reviews 50, pp. 107-142, 2001
 Ilyina; T., “The fate of persistent organic pollutants in the North Sea, Multiple
Year Modal Simulations of γ-HCH, α-HCH an PCB 153”; Hamburg Studies on
Maritime Affairs, vol.7; Hamburg 2006
 Jobling, S., Shehan, D., Osborne, J. A., Sumpter, J. P., Inhibition of testicular
growth in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to estrogenic
alkylphenolic chemicals”, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15 (2), pp.
194-202, 1996
 Kanehiro, H., Tokai, T., Matuda, K., „Marine litter composition and distribution
on the seabed of Tokyo Bay”, Fisheries Engineering 31, pp. 195–199, 1995
 Kartar S., Milne R., Sainsbure M., “Polystyrene waste in the Severn Estuary”,
Marine Pollution Bulletin 4, pp.144, 1973
 Klemchuk P. P., “Degradable Plastics: A Critical Review”, Polymer Degradation

and Stability 27, pp. 183-202, 1990
 Kot-Wasik A., “Water quality control, part 3: Human impact on water resources”,
Analytical Chemistry Handbook, Politechnika Gdańska, pp. 86– 183, 2005
 Laist, D.W., “Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic
debris in the marine environment”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, pp. 319–326,
1987
 Laist, D. W., “Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine

debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion
119
records”, in: Coe, J. m., Rogers, D. B., (eds.), “Marine debris – sources, impacts
and solutions”, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 99-139, 1997
 Lam, K. H., Schakenraad, J. M., Esselbrugge, H., Feijen, J., Nieuwenhuis, P., “The
effect of phagocytosis of poly(L-lactic acid) fragmentsoncellular
morphologyandviability”, Journal of Biomedial Material Research 27, pp. 1569–
1577, 1993
 Lara-Dominguez, A.L., Villalobos-Zapata, G.J., Rivera-Arriaga, E., Vera-Herrera,

F., Alvarez-Guillen, H., “Source of solid garbage in Campeche beaches, Mexico”,
Revista de la Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural 45, pp. 133–142, 1994
 Lattin, G. L., C. J. Moore, A. F. Zellers, S. L. Moore, and S. B. Weisberg., “A

comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths near the
southern California shore”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 49, pp. 291-294, 2004
 Lattin, G., Moore, C., Zellers A., “Density of Plastic Particles found in
zooplankton trwals from coastal waters of California to the North pacific Central
Gyre”, in: “Proceedings of the Plastic Debris, Rivers to the Sea Conference.
Retrieved 3.05.2009 from http:// www.plasticdebris.org , California, 2005
 Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappel, R., “Abandoned, lost, or

otherwisediscarded fishing gear” UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies 185,
United nations Environment Programme, Rome, 2009
 Mallory, M. L., Robertson, G. J., Moenting, A., “Marine plastic debris in northern
fulmars from Davis Strait, Nunavut, Canada”, Marine Pollution bulletin 52, pp.
800-815, 2006
 Manski, D.A., Gregg, W.P., Cole, C.A., Richards, D.V., “Annual Report of the
National Park Marine Debris Monitoring Program: 1990 Marine Debris Surveys”,
National Park Services, Washington DC, 1991
120
 Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Directive 2008/56/EC of the European

parliament and of the Council. Retrieved 28.05.2009 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu
 MARPOL 73/78 Annex V, International Maritime Organisation, text of

Convention. Retrieved 29.05.2009 from
 http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=258&doc_id=678
 Mato, Y., Isobe T., Takada, H., Kanehiro, H., Ohtake, C., Kaminuma, T., „Plastics
resin pellets as a transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine
environment”, Environmental Science and Technology 35, pp. 318-324, 2001
 Mato Y., Takada, H., Zakaria, M. P., Kuriyama, Y., Kanehiro, H., “toxic
chemicals contained in plastic resin pellets in the marine environment – spatial
difference in pollutant concentrations and the effects of resin type”, Environmental
Science, 15 (6), pp. 415-423, 2002
 Mauchline, J., Gordon, D. M., “Occurrence of stones, sediment and fish scales in
stomach contents of demersal fish of the Rockall Trough”, Journal of Fish Biology
24 (4), pp. 357–362, 1984
 McDermid, K. J., McMullen, T. L., “Quantitative analysis of small-plastic debris

on beaches in the Hawaiian archipelago”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 48, pp. 790-
794, 2004
 Moore, C. J., Moore, S. L., Leecaster, M. K., Weisberg, S. B., “A comparison of

plastic and plankton in the North Pacific central gyre”, Marine Pollution Bulletin
42, pp. 1297-1300, 2001
 Moore, M. R., Vetter, W., Gaus, C., Shaw, G. R., Müller J., “Trace organic
compounds in marine environment”; Marine Pollution Bulletin, 45, pp. 62 – 68,
2002
 Moore, C. J., “Trashed: across the Pacific Ocean, plastics, plastics everywhere”,
Natural History Magazine 112 (9), 2003
121
 Moore, C. J., Lattin, G., Zellers, A., “A Brief analysis of organic pollutants sorbed
to pre and post-production plastic particles from the Los Angeles sand san Gabriel
river Watersheds”, presented at Plastic Debris, Rivers to Sea Conference
September 7-9, 2005a
 Moore, C. J., G. L. Lattin, and A. F. Zellers., “Density of Plastic Particles found in

zooplankton trawls from Coastal Waters of California to the North Pacific Central
Gyre”, The Plastic Debris Rivers to Sea Conference, Redondo Beach, California,
USA. 2005b
 Moore, C. J., G. L. Lattin, and A. F. Zellers., “Density of Plastic Particles found in

zooplankton trawls from Coastal Waters of California to the North Pacific Central
Gyre”, The Plastic Debris Rivers to Sea Conference, Redondo Beach, California,
USA. 2005
 Moore, C. J., “Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly

increasing, long-term threat” Environmental Research 108, pp. 131-139, 2008
 Nelson, P., “Waste minimization in the surface coating industry”, Proceedings

Second Annual Conference, Waste Management institute Inc. Palmerston North,
new Zealand, pp. 85-96, 1990
 Nemmar, A., Hoylaerts, M. F., Hoet, P. H. M., Vermylen, J., Nemery, B., “Size
effect of intratracheally instilled particles on pulmonary inflammation and vascular
thrombosis”, Toxicology and Applied Pharmocology 186, pp. 38–45., 2003
 Nevins, H., Hyrenbach, D., Keiper, C., Stock, J., Hester, M., Harvey, J., “Seabirds
as indicators of plastic pollution in the North Pacific” Paper for plastic Debris
Rivers to the Sea Conference 2005
 Ng K. L., Obbard J., P., “Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore’s coastal

marine environment” Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (7), pp 761-767, 2006
122
 Norén, F., ”Small plastic particles in Coastal Swedish waters”, KIMO Sweden,
2007
 NOWAP “Recycling Plastic Marine Litter”, Special Monitoring and Coastal

Environmental Assesment regional Activity Centre of the Northwest Pacific
Action Plan. Retrieved 11.05.2009 from http://www.cearac-project.org/, Japan,
2007
 NOWAP “Regional Action Plan on marine Litter”, 2008
 “Operation Clean Sweep”. Retrieved 5.05.2009 from

http://www.opcleansweep.org
 OSPAR 2007, “Monitoring of marine litter in the OSPAR region”, OSPAR Pilot
Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter, Biodiversity Series, Publication
Number: 306/2007
 OSPAR 2008, “Background Document for the EcoQO on plastic particles in

stomachs of seabirds”, OSPAR Commission, Biodiversity Series, Publication
Number: 355/2008
 Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, Directive 94/62/EC of the European

parliament and of the Council. Retrieved 5.05.2009 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu
 Pascall, M. A., Zabik, M. A., Zabik, M. J., Hernandez, R. J., “Uptake of

polychrorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from an aqueous medium by polyethylene,
polivynyl chloride, and polystyrene films”, Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 53, pp. 164-169, 2005
 Petraitis, P. S., “Immobilisation of the predatory gastropod, Nucella lapillus, by its

prey, Mytilus edulis”, Biological Bulletin 172 (3), pp. 307-314, 1987
123
 Plastics Europe, “Analysis of Plastics Production, Demand and Recovery in

Europe; Plastics Europe”, Association of Plastic Manufacturers: Brussels, pp 1-20,
2006.
 Port Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Waste and Cargo Residues, Directive
2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Retrieved 27.05.2009
from http://eur-lex.europa.eu
 Quality Status Report, OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 2000
 Ross, S.S., Parker, R., Strickland, M., “A survey of shoreline litter in Halifax
Harbour 1989”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 22, pp. 245–248, 1991
 Rothstein, S., “Plastic particle pollution of the surface of the Atlantic ocean;
evidence from a seabird” The Condor 75, pp. 344-366, 1973
 Ryan, P.G., “The origin and fate of artefacts stranded on islands in the African
sector of the Southern Ocean”, Environmental Conservation 14, pp. 341–346,
1987b
 Ryan, P. G., “Intraspectic variation in plastic ingestion by seabirds and the flux of
plastic through seabird populations”, The condor 90, pp. 446-452, 1988
 Ryan, P. G., Moloney, C. L., “Marine litter keeps increasing”, Nature, 361, pp. 23,
1993
 Sajiki J. Yonekubo J., “Leaching of bisphenol A (BPA) to seawater from

polycarbonate plastic and its degradation by reactive oxygen species”,
Chemosphere 51 (1), pp. 55-62, 2003
 Seas at Risk, “The Clean Ship Concept: A strategy for uncoupling growth in
shipping from environmental harm”, http://www.seas-at-risk.org, 2007
124
 Selke, S. E., “Plastic Recycling and Biodegradable Plastics”, In: Harper, C. A.,
“Modern Plastic Handbook”, McGraw-Hill Handbooks, pp. 12.1-12.108, 2000
 Sezen, T., “Polymer Modeling Activity”, Stanford University website. Retrieved

11.04.2009 from
http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/folding/education/paperclip.html
 Shatalov V., Breivik K., Berg T., Dutchak S., Pacyna J., “Persistent organic
pollutants”; EMEP assessment, Part 1: European Perspective, pp. 129-150,
Norwegian Meteorological Institute, 2004
 Sheavly, S. B., “Sixth Meeting of the UN Open-ended Inforal Consultative

Processes on Oceans & Law of the Sea. Marine Debris – an overview of a crucial
issue for our oceans” June 6-10, 2005
 Shomura R. S., Godfrey M., L. (eds.), “Proceedings of the Second International

Conference on Marine Debris, April 2-7, 1989, Honolulu, US Dept. Commer.,
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154, 1990
 Smith, P., Tooker, J., “Marine debris on New Zealand coastal beaches”,
Greenpeace, Auckland, 1990
 Stefatos, A., Charalampakis, M., Papatheodorou, G., Ferentinos, G., “Marine

debris on the seafloor of the Mediterranean Sea: examples from two enclosed gulfs
in Western Greece” Marine Pollution Bulletin 36, pp. 389–393, 1999
 Stichting De Noordzee, “Coastwatch”. Retrieved 17.04.2009 from

http://coastwatch.nl
 Storrier, K. L., McGlashan, D. J., “Development and management of a coastal

litter campaign: The voluntary coastal partnership approach”, Marine Policy 30,
pp. 189–196, 2006
125
 Swift, G., “Biodegradable water-soluble polymers”, In: Andrady, A. L. (ed),

“Plastics and the Environment”, Wiley, New Jersey, USA, pp. 491-519, 2003
 Szentkuti, L, “Light microscopical observations on luminally administered dyes,

dextrans, nanospheres and microspheres in the pre-epithelian mucus gel layer of
the rat distal colon”, Journal of Controlled Releases, 46, pp. 233-242, 1997
 Teuten E. L., Rowland S.J., Galloway T. S., Thompson R. C., “Potential for
Plastics to Transport Hydrophobic Contaminants”. Environmental Science and
Technology 41 (22), pp. 7759-7764, 2007
 The Marine Forum for Environmental Issues “Marine forum of environmental

issues. North Sea report 1990”, London 1990
 Thompson R., Olsen Y., Mitchell R. P., Davis A., Rowland S. J., John A. W. G.,
McGonigle D., Russel A. E., “Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic?” Science 304,
pp. 838-838, 2004
 Thompson R., Browne M. A, Galloway T., “Microplastic – an emerging

contaminant of potential concern?” Integrated environmental assessment and
Management 3(4), pp. 559-561, 2007
 Thompson R., Browne B., Dissanayake A., Galloway T., Lowe D., “Ingested
Microscopic Plastic Translocates to the Circulatory System of the Mussel, Mytilus
edulis (L.)”, Environmental Science and Technology, 42 (13), pp. 5026–5031,
2008
 UNEP, “Marine Litter, an analytical overview”, 2005
 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, Directive 91/271/EEC of the European

Parliament and of the Council. Retrieved 4.05.2009 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu
 Vauk, G.J.M., Schrey, E., “Litter pollution from ships in the German Bight”
Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, pp. 316–319, 1987
126
 Villiers, M. S., Bruyn, P. J. N., "Stone-swallowing by three species of penguins at

sub-antarctic Marion Island”, Marine Ornithology 32, pp. 185–186, 2004
 Ward J., Shumway S., “Separating the grain from the chaff: Particle selection in
suspension- and deposit- feeding bivalves”, Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 300, pp. 83-130, 2004
 Water Framework Directive, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council. Retrieved 4.05.2009 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu
 Werne, S., “Trying to be freen, many companies invested in biodegradable

plastics. They ended up in the red”, New York Times, February, 1999
 Whiting, S.D., “Types and sources of marine debris in Fog Bay, Northern
Australia”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 36, pp. 904–910, 1998
 Williams, A.T., Tudor, D.T., “Litter burial and exhumation: spatial and temporal
distribution on a cobble pocket beach”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 42, pp. 1031–
1039, 2001
 Winston J. E., “Drift Plastic – An expanding niche for a marine invertebrate?”,

Marine Pollution Bulletin 13 (10), pp. 348-351, 1982
 Wirsen, C., “Microbial degradation of organic matter in the deep sea”, Science 171
(3972), pp. 672-675, 1971
 Zitko, V., Hanon, M., “Another Source of Pollution by Plastics: Skin Cleaners
with Plastic Scubbers”, Marine Pollution Bulletin 22 (1), pp.41-42, 1991
127
ANNEX 1
NOTES FROM THE INTERVIEWS
1) Mr. Richard Thompson – University of Plymouth

2) Mr. Fredrik Norén – N’research
3) Mr. Lucas Reijnders – University of Amsterdam
– Open University of the Netherlands
4) Mrs. Jesse Goossens – Plastic Soup
5) Mr. Jan Andries van Franeker – EcoQO – Fulmar study
6) Mr. Maurits Prinssen – Port of Rotterdam
7) Mr. Jörgen Wallroth – Port of Gotteborg
8) Mr. Jonas Wahlin – Svenska Orient Linien AB.
9) Mr. Jons Okhuizen – Forestwave fleet.
10) Mr. Eelco Leemans – Stichting De Noordzee
11) Mrs. Vera Coelho – Seas at Risk
12) Mr. John Mout – KIMO International
13) Mr. Edo Donkers – ProSea
14) Mr. Jan Berends – DSM
15) Mr. Meindert Vink – Netherlands Shipping Inspectorate
16) Mr. Lex Oosterbaan and – Ministry of Transport, Public Works
Mrs. Barbara Wenneker and Water Management – Water Directorate
128
13 ANNEXES
1) MICROPLASTIC RESEARCH
Conversation with Mr. Richard Thompson, Reader in Marine Benthic Ecology at the
University of Plymouth, one of the leading researchers on microplastics issues.
1) In the Netherlands, NGOs talk more and more about the threat posed by the impacts of
microplastics. How does the research community perceive the scope of the problem?
Should policy makers and lobby groups push the microplastic subject into the political
agenda?
- At present the problem should be rather a concern than an alarm. We still need to know
more about microplastics issue. An early stage of the research shows that it may be a
serious threat for human and the environment mainly due to process of absorption of
additives and POPs.
2) I have identified the impacts of microplastics: this are the negative effects connected with
the ingestion, intrinsic toxicity connected with the monomers and additives desorbing
inside the organisms, possible transfer within marine organisms up to the food chain,
effects connected with sinking of microplastics to the seafloor, sorption of POPs to
microplastics and lastly microplastics as a transfer medium of marine species. Did I miss
something important?
- One more impact could include the physical hazard problem which would include the
blockage of the digestive systems, transfer items to the circulating system and retaining in
the blood system. Though this are still the speculations. More research needs to be done,
such impact would depend, among the others, on the type and densities of microplastics.
3) Now I would like to ask you more detailed questions. According to your reports, you
believe that plastics can potentially transport contaminants. As documented on
microplastics conference in Washington in September, 2008, two routes of transfer has
been identified so far: the release compounds from manufacture processes as plasticizers,
antimicrobials and flame retardants and the release of POPs dispersed in the environment
and sorbed to plastic debris.
Are the bioaccumalive properties of POPs influence microplastic behavior to which they
are sorbed into?
- Wrong to drove the line. It seems likely that microplastics can have a physical hazard. The
volume ratio is relatively low for ingested larger plastic particles however physical
hazard rather declines with decreasing the size of plastic particles. Chemical hazard on
the other hand seems to increase with the decreased particles size.
Which characteristics of microplastics increases the uptake capacity and transport of

POPs?
- Again it is difficult to be sure, but it rather concern the type, age, size and shape of
microplastics.
129
Several studies suggest that biomagnification does not play an important role in transport
of such endocrine disrupting compounds (Betts, 2008). It is possible, that the adsorption
could actually decrease the bioavailability of the adsorbed compounds? To what extend
those chemicals can transfer up the food chain? Do they biomagnify?
- No comment on this question.
4) What kinds of potential toxicological consequences could be possible deducted in the

future from the studies on the accumulation of ingested microplastics in marine
organisms?
- This should be regarded as an urgent topic and receive further evaluation. Some
additives and POPs are hazardous and the toxicological effects largely depends on their
concentration. The questions which should be asked in the further studies are to what
extend the microplastics can transport contaminants. POPs are already documented to
be dangerous to the environment, hence do microplastics as a transport medium
increase the threat any more likely?
5) You have conducted microplastics study on the abundance of microplastics in the UK

coastal waters. KIMO International together with “N-research” conducted similar study on
Swedish coastal waters.
What conditions/limitations exists for evaluation of an abundance of microplastics and

establishment of “microplastic hot spots”?
- To establish such hot spots more information is needed on for example, kinds of habitat
they could likely exist, their fate, water current, water column mixing, its suspension, etc.
It is difficult to predict such hot spots, of course it is easy in case of the accidental release
of microplastics (for example due to the ship spillage).
To what extend results from your study could be used to create the map of microplastics
in the North Sea, or the map of even more global dimensions - so that general trends of the
fate of microplastics could be established?
- Such studies can be done if the methods used would be standardizes (protocols, routines
of the monitoring programs, etc.)
Are there any standardized methods which could characterize microplastic particles (to
collect, isolate, identify, and quantify)?
- Not at the present.
6) In the report from the workshop on phenomena of microplastics held in Washington last
year, it was suggested that when science advances, “small plastics” can be separated from
the term “microplastics”. Does such separation is expected to be done due to different
effects the two groups are posing? If so, what kinds of impacts do they concern?
130
- The separation of the ‘small size” from microplastics is likely to concern the physical
hazard. The physical effects are likely to decrease with the decrease of the size whereas
the chemical effects will rather increase with the decrease of the size of plastic size.
7) Which of marine species and which of their life stages are possibly most vulnerable to the
microplastic exposure? What are the factors influencing ingestion?
- It is not known yet. More information is needed on the microplastics distribution and the
marine habitats related.
8) In your opinion, are there any possible ways to include microplastics subject in the
existing legislation on marine litter? From one side the legislation seems to concern the
same patterns as for the bigger plastics due to the fact of fragmentation of plastics; but
what to do with the direct input of the microplastics from, e.g. cosmetic cleaners?
- More research is still needed. I would rather use a precautionary approach whether or
not release plastics to environment at the start. Regarding the direct microplastic input,
more information is needed from the chemical industry on the type, hazards, additives,
impacts etc. At the past those cosmetic plastic particles where of natural origin. We
should be asking is it necessary to replace a natural additives with the synthetic ones.
9) Mr. Franeker in The Netherlands works on the plastics inside the Fulmars stomachs as the
indicators for the Eco Quality Objectives. Do you think that in the future it would be
possible to establish such EcoQO using microplastics for example in mussels?
- Long day off. We need more information on the impacts and the patterns of effects to
decide what to do. Caution is recommended. No point of cleaning up the litter if we can
prevent their release, input. However, in the future, if science advances and wider
knowledge will be available that could be an option. But first we need to investigate what
we are actually trying to protect and is it really necessary to develop a quality objective,
or some other measures should be made.
10) What kind of economical instruments could mitigate and eventually prevent the input of
microplastics into the marine environment? Which plastic issues need to be changed?
- -Packaging issue should be taken into consideration. Plastics are persistent in the
environment so what is the point of the present trend of spend lots of our resources on
producing plastics and discarding them after only one year of usage? Efforts should be
made to increase the life span of the usage and reduce the supply. This should be an
industry and governmental long term goal.
11) Recycling of plastics and bioplastics: both are being questioned in terms of their
effectiveness and the real hazard which their pose to the environment. Please state your
opinion.
- Recycling in my opinion should be the most important long term solution. Yes, there are
some negative effects concerned with this process, and specific conditions should apply,
but those effects can be reduced if the life span usage of plastics is increased and so the
end of life recycle ability can be improved.
131
- In terms of bioplastics, there is no single answer. They have a potential to reduce the
recycling. Recycling is a compromise by a shortcut however, should not be treated as the
solution for the marine litter. Some applications exists but are very limited and specific.
Furthermore, many of bioplastics don’t degrade naturally. Also, many of those materials
rely on crops and its production poses a competition to the food supply.
132
2 MICROPLASTIC RESEARCH
Conversation with Mr. Fredrik Norén, specialist in marine phytoplankton from the “N-
research” - Swedish consultancy company.
1) What are the results of the N-research study on the abundance of microplastics in the
Swedish coastal waters?
- During this research we studied 19 different location in both Baltic and North Sea coasts.
Number of anthropogenic microplastic particles found is in the range of about 2000 to
20.000 per cubic meter. The size varied between 10 – 100 µm.
2) Is it possible to distinguish the origin of the particles found? Is it possible to predict

whether their source is from the fragmentation of the larger particles or from the direct
input to the sea?
- The particles found originate from the direct input. It is rather not possible that those
particles would be a fragmented fragments from two reasons. Firstly, particles found are
fibres, the same as are found on the t-shirts (by the morphology of the garments). Secondly
due to the dynamic properties of the fibres it is not possible of the plastic item to
fragmentize to such small microscopic debris.
3) The “N-research” on the abundance of the microplastics was conducted by analysing the
Swedish coastal waters. To what extend results from your study could be used to create
the map of microplastics in the North Sea, or the map of even more global dimensions - so
that general trends of the fate of microplastics could be established? What kinds of
conditions/limitations exists for the evaluation of an abundance of microplastics?
- Microplastics are very dispersed in the world oceans. At much higher rate than the
macroplastic litter. The highest concentrations exists next to the highly populated areas. In
Europe the highest levels and microplastics “hot spots” seem to originate from the inputs
from big continental rivers. Our new research detected the very high levels of this kind of
pollution in the center Baltic. The higher levels than those from the North Sea could be
explained by the fact that the Baltic Sea is a closed sea, not open to an ocean waters,
hence the pollution is accumulated within its basin.
3) Attention to threats from microplastics is now raising. In your opinion, are there any
possible ways to include them in existing legislation on marine litter?
- Hopefully the emerging European Maritime Strategy Framework Directive will include the
microplastic pollution. However, to make it happen an initial research must be conducted
investigating the possible sources of as well as the negative effects of the microplastic
pollution. At present, the N-research have found out very high amounts of microplastics
originating from the car tyres and from the road dust. If the further research would
investigate this phenomena, the legislation could be followed regulating for example the
change in the composition of the tyres design
133
3) What kind of actions should be made to support further wide-scale research on

microplastics?
- Funding is needed. The Swedish Environmental Board is interested in investing in the

microplastic research. Currently, the project is conducted on the abundance of the
microplastic pollution in the Baltic Sea. The report will be soon published. Initially I can
say that very high levels of this kind of pollution were detected in the center Baltic.
134
3) MICROPLASTIC RESEARCH
Conversation with Mr. Lucas Reijnders, professor of environmental science at the

University of Amsterdam and at the Open University of the Netherlands.
1) In your opinion, how to minimize the environmental impact of the waste packaging
materials?
- Confining myself to plastic wastes, the best solution would be a radical privatization on
the basis of deposit (payable to sellers)/refund systems for plastic products, with
deposits/refunds so high that return rates approach 100%. This would reflect the
polluter-pays principle, would drastically reduce littering and would generate plastic
waste streams that can easily be turned into relatively high quality secondary plastic
products.
2) How to decrease the amount of the direct input of microplastics to the sea basins?
- To the extent that small plastic particles enter sewage systems, membrane filters (that
are in fact applied in a number of sewage treatment plants) might solve the problem (as
they might solve a number of other problems regarding particulate discharges from
more conventional sewage plants).
135
4) PLASTIC SOUP
Conversation with Mrs. Jesse Goossens, the author of the “Plastic Soup”.
1) What were the most surpraising things you have heard while interviewing the
stakeholders from the plastic sector?
- I didn’t know that the problem is so severe, I though that there is just a lot of rubbish in
the Oceans easy to clean up with a help of few ships. However, only 4% of the plastics is
actually floating and the rest is below the water column, impossible to clean up.
Therefore, the major problem is to find the answer on how to stop the input of plastics
(and of other rubbish) to the oceans – that was my first shock.
- The second one was about the toxicity of the plastics themselves, that it doesn’t only
influence the environment (the oceans), but also our health.
- I found out that especially in America, but also within Europe the lobby of the plastic
industry is so strong, that they all want it to stay the way it is. For instance, they don’t
want to get rid of the disposables. Luckily the United Nations, just three days ago
encouraged the ban on the plastics bags. However, people in the United States are very
oppose to such bans. I was shocked in the way that they (US) really didn’t want a
change.
- Another shock for me was to learn about the threat from the microplastics. We can’t
clean the oceans from microplastics – if we would sieve them out of the sea, we would
kill the sea life. Furthermore, the threat from those particles comes also from the
persistent organic pollutants they attract. The microplastic also still contain the toxic
additives (the plastics are hardly degradable). Moreover, microplastics go up to the food
chain – starting from plankton and fish. We already know that in fats of this fish we find
the same toxins that are sorbed to or added to plastics.
2) Do you think that the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive provides a
good start for a change?
- Yes, definitely. If people don’t want a change than you need to have rules to make them
realize the significance of this change. I oppose to lot of rules, but when it comes to the
environment, I think that it is very important that every now and then we need them. If it
is imposed by law, than people have to look for other ways, after a while it becomes a
habit followed by no need to have rules anymore.
3) Should the producer pays principle be also imposed on the plastic producers or should
the solution lie in the change of consumers behavior? What kind of change is needed?
- I think everyone has to change. Just as there is no guilty party in the damage done to the
environment – we can’t blame the industry, retailers or ourselves separately. We can
blame all of us as a whole. That’s why I think that everybody should pay their own
responsibility in the change. The consumers should for example not throw the plastic
material after as little as one year after the purchase. The industry on the other hand,
should reinvent the plastics in the way that the plastic that is going to be disposed is
really biodegrable, and the other plastics which can not be composed of such material
should be really recyclable.
- The other things include making the plastics non-toxic. The responsibility for such
change should be taken by the plastic industry. It is possible to make each plastic non-
136
toxic and really recyclable, for example use of the non-toxic additives which would give
the plastic item the same properties as the toxic ones do. I have spoken to Michael
Brangart, the one of those who crated the principle Cradle to Cradle - he proved that it
is possible for the several kinds of plastics to be substituted with the non-toxic plastic
“equivalents”. New non-toxic additives could be even cheaper to produce and for
consumer to buy if would be produced in the same amounts as those which are produced
now. We need a change in the mentality.
4) What is the reason of the failure and bankruptcy of the recycling companies in the last
decade?
- There are several problems which have caused the failure of companies in the past.
There are several reasons explaining this phenomena: right now we have an oil crisis
that people rather use a new oil to make new plastics than recycle, even though the latter
is more profitable. However, the lobby of oil industry is very powerful and the decision
for the change lies somehow in their hands.
5) What needs to be changed in the plastic industry behavior? What actions would help to
accomplish that?
- We have to talk to the plastic industry, what I am doing now within Europe. I was asked
to come to Brussels and speak with their international partners about how to change the
image of plastics. The best action that would bring the change would happen when the
European Union would ban the toxic additives that are used in plastics. The problem is
that certain chemicals are already banned, but they can still be used as a building blocks
of polymers (plastics). The same can happen with the plastic bags: if the kind of additive
is banned, the manufacturer will look for another way to produce it. It is however always
the easiest way to lean back and live the things just the way they are. Especially when
one earns money is “leaning back”. No one has to loose the job because the alternatives
and new additives also have to be produced. That is how we should convince the plastic
industry - that they will not loose money and that they can have profit if they change they
way of producing materials.
- The plastic industry should not only be within the scope of the system of fines in the case
of the non-compliance with the law, but also to the system of awards. Plastic producer
needs some sort of incentives to reinvent its product so that would be able to place a
logo on the product proving its composed of “safe material”.
- I have talked to Juanita Castano, the chief of the UNEP and she told me that they have
informed the plastic industry that UNEP is willing to collaborate and if only they would
like to join and work together the common solution could be find. In my opinion, such
cooperation is necessary for a rapid change.
6) What actions are needed to bring the change in the consumer behavior?
- I would like personally if there would be some logo (labeling system) which can be
placed on the safe plastic. For instance, the baby bottles contain BPA (Bisphenol A), a
very toxic compound. Several states (e.g. some states of US like Chicago, France - Paris,
Toulouse, in every state of Canada and Japan, etc.) have already introduced the bans for
such bottles. However, we (the Netherlands) still produce them. Just go to e.g. HEMA
and you learn that it is even impossible to find this bottle without the toxic plastic
additives. As a mom I would love to have the bottle without BPA and a logo on it which
137
says “this is safe, this is non-toxic plastic”. At present the consumer doesn’t know how
toxic certain kinds of plastics are. For instance, the mostly used plastic – PVC, is very
toxic; if people would be aware of its toxicity and how it influences their children, they
wouldn’t buy it.
- Not only the “safe labels” but also labels with the information of the components of the
plastic material. I have suggested to the minister Cramer (Dutch Minister of
Environment) to label the plastic products, in the same way as we do on the cigarettes
packs – that the product the consumer is buying is harmful for the human health and the
environment.
- Another idea is to educate children in schools. If children would know about plastics and
what harm they cause to the environment, then they would think twice if they will throw
improperly the plastic item away. Education started at young level can create a big
change in the behavior and could raise the awareness of the entire community. For
instance, in the United States, one of the people I spoke to was Jack O’Neil who does
exactly that – takes children on his boat and shows the children what the Ocean actually
is and how we are harming it by our rubbish. Such educational program changes not
only the children, but also their parents. Parents are much more influenced by they
children than we think.
7) In your book you described the effects and solutions. What would be the long-term
solution to decrease the plastic liter originated from ship based activities?
- We do have a MARPOL and the London Convention which are prohibiting ships to dump
the plastics to the sea. To prevent the illegal discharges we should control it in more
efficient way, for example by creating a list of cargo and the list of items being onboard
when the ship sails out. Such list will allow ports to estimate how much waste ship
should bring to the harbor. Furthermore, the system of fines should exist for those who
do not dispose the right amount of litter that is proven to be produced. The strong system
of high fines is usually followed by the compliance to the existing laws.
- Some of the waste present at the sea does not mean that was illegally dumped but could
also end up in the sea due to the heavy storm. Therefore, the shipping and the insurance
companies should pay for any damage caused by the lost waste at the sea. The ship
owners should be responsible for their cargo (as well as for cleaning, search and taking
out the lost container). If such responsibility would exist, the crew would be much more
aware of the careful cargo handling onboard, and would see the importance of proper
sealing the containers to the ships.
8) How do the policy groups perceive the scope of the problem of microplastics?
- I think that a lot of policy makers don’t even know that the microplastics exist, and even
if they do, they don’t think that microplastics are harmful. It is very important that they
are aware and clearly informed about the danger of microplastics and also of the
amount of microplastics that is out there (e.g. in the North Sea). The Dutch policy
makers didn’t even check the drinking water in terms of the microplastic pollution. This
is important – all water systems on Earth are connected to each other and so if we find
microplastics in the oceans and the microplastics in the rivers, then those particles must
be also find in our drinking water.
138
9) What should be the initial actions helping to expand the investigations on microplastics
and eventually introduce the problem to the policy makers?
- We should do both – increasing the research and the improvements of the policies and
the same time. I think we should tell people what is going on as well as we should try to
develop the measures to stop their input to the environment. The plastic industry must
begin to produce clean products, enclose their product life cycle, and be responsible for
their waste. In Europe we have the filters preventing the small particles ending up in the
sea, however, those filters do not catch the microplastics. We need to find some way to
prevent getting the microplastics into our nature. That should be the responsibility of the
plastic industry.
139
5) EcoQO FOR PLASTIC PARTICLES IN STOMACHS OF SEABIRDS
Conversation with Mr. Jan Andries van Franeker, the international Fulmar project co-
ordinator based at Alterra-Texel Marine and Coastal Zone Research in The
Netherlands.
1) In the beginning I would like to ask you about the International Research Workshop on the
fate of microplastics in Washington held last September, the one that you have been a
participant. Could you tell me what is in your opinion the general perception of the
problems connected with microplastics within the “research community”? What is the
scope of the problem?
- It is recognized as a threat. In terms of what we know whether it is a real threat, or how

big it is, how long will it last however, we simply don’t know enough yet. The very first
research is starting now. What we know is that plastic break down into small pieces. We
have examples of this items getting inside the filter feeding organisms, and there is a line
of work that shows that there is a lot of pollutants attached to plastics. Firstly it is needed
to raise concern before introducing the real work. The sort of work that is needed for now
is in a large part experimental, very expensive work.
2) Your work on Fulmar as a EcoQO objective indicate the occurrence of small plastic
particles (industrial plastics, ± 4 mm.), but you do not define them as microplastics (as
stated on the Washington workshop on microplastics). Mallory in Hawaiian case studies
has already used the phrase microplastics in their studies on seabirds.
Is it possible for your studies to rephrase your term of “industrial plastics” to
microplastics, or some additional assumptions/research are needed. Please evaluate.
- I distinguish this small industrial particles from the microplastics. They have a total
different shapes. The industrial plastics are like cylinders. On the workshop it was indeed
defined as 5mm but many people had different views and ideas concerned with their size
(1mm or 0.1 mm). I would not join small plastics to the same definition as microplastics.
These industrial plastics would not be ingested by filter feeders by accident. The size of the
ingested plastic would be smaller.
3) Is it possible in the future to extend your study to micro size of plastics? What conditions
are needed to do so?
- It is difficult. A lot of experimental work with mussels or filter feeding types of organisms
is needed.
4) Is it possible in the future to create EcoQO basing on the microplastics inside mussels or
other organisms? What are the conditions needed to achieve such status?
- The way to become an EcoQO is very obscure. For plastics in birds, there was an
attention in the 1980s, and at some stage someone from the political group stated that
there is a need to know more about litter in the marine environment and asked why don’t
we use these birds. It happened that at the same time we were actually conducting a detail
work on Fulmars. First we need to have a clear indicator, show the politicians and the
public that what you want to use is a good indicator. Gradually it may take part in the
140
political process. It is also a matter of money. There is not a lot of funds for those EcoQOs
business.
5) EcoQO has been funded by both - the Dutch monitoring program of the Netherlands
Ministry of VenW and the international “Save the North Sea” project. EU funding ceased,
leaving the first funding option alone. Are there any other options to financially support
the program?
- The Dutch government funds the birds from the Dutch coast part of the project (the
analysis of the birds’ stomachs, getting the material to the lab). On and off they paid very
little to coordinate and advice internationally on the EcoQO. The big step expanding the
scope was indeed the Save the North Sea project. After that there was a year without
money and then there has been an award given by NYK logistics (a big transport logistics
company for shipping industry) followed by two years of NYK funding. The last source
ceased their funding due to the crisis in the business. Now I am looking for some
additional funding. The government funding part of the Dutch birds is rather safe. They
use it as a monitoring system of the European directive on the Port Reception Facilities,
measuring its effectiveness and showing the amounts of the litter.
6) EcoQO is a part of OSPAR work. Shouldn’t it be funded by that organization?
- Yes, but OSPAR is a pretty difficult to tackle organization. How they work is that at some
stage they agree that “we need to do this or that”, but then they do not put money to do
this in a one big fund. According to their guidelines, each country has to do it by itself and
then at some stage report back. Hence, at the moment the implementation of this EcoQO
in the OSPAR region is working rather poorly. In some areas it probably works fine, like
there are EcoQOs related to the fisheries: those projects have a good implementation
structure within the North Sea (there are all sorts of institutes that are getting paid for
that work and they simply have to channel some of the data into the system). However, for
other EcoQOs, in which there are no regulations structuring all of the OSPAR countries,
the financing is a big problem.
7) How to improve this situation?
- There should be either one centralized fund or the tasks should be divided within OSPAR
countries based on their “specialization”. For example, Holland is a leading country on
the issues of marine oil and litter pollution; and so Holland would be responsible to fund
all issues needed to be done around the North Sea connected with the fields of their
expertise. Another country would pay, for example, for the ecotoxicological work, etc. For
now Germany and Norway are willing to invest in the Litter EcoQO, but due to the fact
that some other countries prefer to wait for the European Marine Strategy Framework
Directive they also are choosing to withdraw their money from the project.
8) Fulmar EcoQO is formulated based on the weight of plastics in Fulmar stomachs. OSPAR
in its 2008 report recommended to reconsider it. Please evaluate.
- The original research was based on the number of plastic items, and we recommended to
change it to weight. Weight related to the volume and size much better than the number of
items. For example a bird’s stomach content may contain a more than a thousand pieces
141
of plastics, but very tiny, having less impact on the bird than a large plastic item (bag for
example).
10) More and more impacts of microplastics are being recognized as a serious threat to marine
organisms. In terms of microplastics, which factors could be chosen in the EcoQO
formulation?
- It’s a money issue. We are forced to work as cheap as possible, so we could measure each
individual item, but instead of doing so we record a number of items in a number of
different categories in the stomach, and weight them together. In this way we can obtain
an average mass per particle. For fulmars the average mass for a particle is 0.01 g – so
pretty small particle already. To tackle the whole problem in my view, you will always
need to have some sort of reference in mass or volume. The statement “there is a million
particles in whatever volume of water” does not tell much on how much of that litter is
around and how it may change if each of those particles breaks down again. If these
particles break in two, the figure is different. Hence, that sort of reference is needed to pin
point where you are on the scale.
11) What conditions/limitations exists for evaluation of an abundance of plastics/microplastics

in the North Sea using the Fulmar EcoQO? To what extend results from your study could
be used to create more global trends?
- We are not measuring microplastics. Micro size is below my level, and that size would
have a different distribution than the plastic size I am finding. Microparticles I expect to
be more equally distributed over the worlds’ oceans and if its not yet that case it will be.
The size of material that we are looking at is bigger. Those particles are concentrated near
the areas of input, and part of that is blown out and cleaned from the coast. This will
remain at different distribution than the microplastics. For the size that we look at there is
one of the reasons of the choice of the Northern Fulmar, because it breeds all around the
North Atlantic and in the North Pacific. We’ve stimulated Canadian group, working on the
Arctic Fulmars to do the same and the newly trained Californian research group on the
Pacific fulmars is emerging. In theses way by using the same species we can compare the
results from the different locations. For the areas where there are no Fulmars– for the
certain part of the OSPAR the alternative birds species are used. Regions described in the
European Marine Strategy for example the Mediterranean, Azures, Canaries Islands areas
we do the test projects with other tube nosed seabirds species. In Malta we are now
starting a pilot project to check if the Northern Fulmar can be replaced for some other
species.
12) How to use the Fulmar EcoQO for a policy document? Is there a way to use is for the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive?
- EcoQO system sets a target of what is considered to be an acceptable quality of the

environment. As long as that target has not been reached, it means that government (or
whoever is involved) needs to take action to work towards that target. Fulmar EcoQO is
not a free type of monitoring stating that “things are getting better or worse”, the target is
very clear indicating what direction of action must be taken.
142
13) What kind of political instruments can mitigate and eventually prevent the input of
microplastics into the marine environment?
- The European Port Reception Facility Directive is in principle a “good one”. If it would
be implemented in the way it was initially planned to, the big change would be made. The
implementation of the Directive is not working efficiently. The present system works in a
way that every ship pays a fee to dispose their rubbish, and harbors compete to be as
cheap as possible. So, for example, if Rotterdam is about to put an extra money on the fee
for the litter reception, they are looking immediately on what are the fees of other harbors
in the area (e.g. the one in Antwerp) In this way they prevent the ship to dispose their
litter in the competing harbor. In Holland, the initial intention of the 100% indirect
financing of oil waste and the household type of waste, was decreased to the 30%. In
addition, harbor authorities are making it very complicated for ships to deliver their
waste, as if encouraging the illegal dumping. For example, ships are obliged to announce
24 hrs ahead if they have rubbish to dispose at the harbor site, which is ridiculous,
because every ship always have some rubbish to be disposed. Furthermore, ships can only
deliver their waste during the office hours – huge Rotterdam harbor, one of the biggest in
the word, providing a 24hrs economy, allows the waste to be dumped only during the
office hours. And if the ship disposes the waste outside the office hours or during the
weekend, the ship have to pay an additional fee. Waste can not be mixed with food waste
(The MARPOL Directive allows food waste to be dumped into the sea). Those things are
just examples of not-customer friendly policy.
- For the plastic packaging industry the “gentlemen agreement” between the government
and the industry apply. The manufacturers can produce whatever they like, as long as they
coordinate the litter collection, making sure that there is not much litter on the streets.
And so they spend millions on putting rubbish bins out, but as soon as that agreement
stops the collection projects is ceased and the packaging waste is again dumped
improperly littering the environment. Holland was pretty good – for example beer bottles
were almost all the same for the several brands of beer. Not many plastic bottles were
used. Now due to the “gentleman’s agreement” different brands produce different bottles,
many of them without the return deposit fee. Holland is pretty good in recycling glass and
paper. They start some sort of the same activity for plastics. Recycling of plastics is only
feasible if you reduce the number of different types of plastics. It is very difficult to collect
plastic waste because of this “agreement”. In my opinion the solution lies in the one type
of bottle (as well as one type of cap) for all the producers. This solution should also
include a deposit fee. The consumer after bringing back the item should decide whether to
reuse the item, return it so that it can be remelted or recycled. Producers responsibility of
the plastic waste is unfortunately not well understood. They are indeed agreeing that the
consumers should dispose their waste in a responsible way, paying some money to raise
the public interest. Nevertheless, their main interest is to produce more and more. There
are many ways in which the collection of waste by the producers may be organized, but
that is not happening in many countries.
14) What should be the “start point” to make changes in described situations?
- Awareness is its basic part. It is also one of the major aims of the Fulmar work that we do.
There are many ways in which you can monitor plastics in the environment, but the fact
that an animal is eating is very attractive to the politicians and public. The next step are
the rules from government. For example, the rules concerning packaging, as I say “as
little diversity in the packaging products as possible, including a deposit fee system”.
143
15) Are you planning to increase your Fulmar study to some new research on the plastics
found in birds’ stomachs?
- I would like to make some additional studies, but so far can not see the channels to get the
money to do it. The fact that we do the pilot study in the Mediterranean using other
seabird species out of the OSPAR area is more or less that I drag a little bit of money from
other projects. I am not able to get out a “real” money at the moment to do more than I do
now. The monitoring of Fulmars has to be as cheap as possible. I would love to do more in
terms of the chemical load of contaminants from plastics into birds; investigate if the
contaminants leach out from the plastics inside the stomach and possibly reach the
animals tissues, but simply I don’t have money to do so. The samples taken are stored in
the freezer.
144
6) PORT RECEPTION FACILITY IN PORT OF ROTTERDAM
Conversation with Mr. Maurits Prinssen, Project Manager Strategy, Port Planning and
Development, Port of Rotterdam.
1) What are the reasons of the ineffectiveness of implementation of MARPOL Annex V

Convention and the European Directive on Port Reception Facilities?
- Port of Rotterdam receives the waste 24/7, so its waste reception facility unlikely can be a
reason. Possibly the discharge to the sea is connected with lower (no) costs or inefficient
monitoring.
2) How effective is the Reception Facility in Port of Rotterdam?
- This question should be asked to Meindert Vink from Transport and Water Management
Inspectorate. Port of Rotterdam makes an annual reports which include the total amount,
cost and fees.
3) What kind of fee is used on vessels for a waste disposal?
- Fixed fee, the waste disposal cost is separated from the total charge from ship operators.
The fee is charged regardless of whether or not waste is offloaded. If the ship disposes the
waste in the port the discount is used so that part of the cost is given back.
4) Do you think that the use of other financing system (for example “free of charge systems”,
“no special fee” or “deposit refund system”) would be a better option to deal with the
waste received?
- I could only answer this question if different systems would be used in the past. Fixed fee
however was used from the beginning of the binding of the European Port Reception
Directive, so I do not have any example for the comparison.
5) What qualitative and quantitative standards for port adequacy exist, or should be made if
do not exist?
- Set of standards and regulations exist. The height of the fee, disposal discounts and processing rights are
based on the ships Main Engine Capacity. For Annex V waste, 2 categories of collection and processing exist depending
on the waste volume (3 and 6 m3) and appropriate discount maintenance waste is set.
145
7) PORT RECEPTION FACILITY IN PORT OF GOTTEBORG
Conversation with Mr. Jörgen Wallroth, the Harbor Master, Port of Göteborg.
1) What kind of fee is used on vessels for a waste disposal?
- Non special fee is used, in which the cost of reception, handling, and disposal is included
in the overall port fees or general environmental fees and charged regardless of whether
or not waste is offloaded. Additionally, according to the Swedish law, ships which have an
agreement with the Swedish Maritime Administration are within the scope of exemption
and they don’t have to pay the fee. If company have vessels that are on schedule, they may
apply for this special agreement separate for each vessel from their fleet.
2) Do you think that the use of other financing system (for example “free of charge systems”,
“no special fee” or “deposit refund system”) would be a better option to deal with the
waste received?
- Ships even if they don’t discharge any garbage, have to pay for it. Ports won’t be cheaper
for the disposals; even if they throw all the waste into the sea, they have to pay for the
facilities anyway. From this reason I think that the non-special fee system is quite good.
3) In what way port reception facilities could be improved in terms of acceptance and proper
management of vessel waste and what kind of incentives could be given to the ship
owners to encourage the proper disposal?
- Of course everything can always be better. What is important is that different countries
have approximately the same systems and rules regarding the separation of waste. In this
way the disposal may be cheaper and easier. It must be approximately or exactly the
same. Otherwise the system differentiation can be problematic for the crew members and
can contribute for the waste dumping at the sea. Furthermore, the fee system should also
be approximately the same. Its understandable that the amount of money that the vessel
pays for its waste can not be the same in each country and each port, but the fee system
should be the same.
4) What kinds of incentives could be given to the ship owners to prevent or decrease the
amount of illegal discharges?
- One problem is that some ports still do not have waste reception facilities. In others it is
difficult to discharge (especially the oil residues and the household waste). In some ports
such systems exists where the vessels which do not use the facilities have the money
refunded when leave the port. This is an example of the negative effect incentive,
promoting the illegal discharges. For a system where the vessel has to pay regardless the
use of the facilities or not, I don’t see the reason for the vessel to dump their waste into
the sea instead doing so in the port.
146
8) SWEDISH ORIENT LINE
Conversation with Mr. Jonas Wahlin from Svenska Orient Linien AB.
1) How does Swedish Orient Line deal with the waste disposal?
- We have our own facilities onboard, different containers for different waste. We have an
agreement with the waste company where we deliver all the waste from ships. That’s why
we have an exemption from the port fee for waste and we don’t pay any fee.
2) What kinds of incentives could be given to the ship owners to be able to properly dispose
the waste onshore and at port reception facilities?
- I think there should be an encouragement from the port site - some sort of subsidizes from
the government should exist.
3) During you work on the cargo ships did you observe any problems with the port waste
reception sites? If so, what did they concern and what could be improved in the future?
- I didn’t really see any problems from that side. The communication between ships and the
port authorities are usually non-problematic. The possible problems with the waste
handling rather come from the ships’ side.
4) What could be improved for the better waste handling either at the ports or onboard the
ship?
- I think its up to the ships’ owners to have the standards onboard, because in ports the ship
owners can normally choose what to give ashore. Ports should provide means allowing
the separation of the waste and also ports should differ in prices.
5) Do you think that existing system allowing ports to choose in what way to implement the
port reception directives should be sustained, or the more harmonized and uniformed
approach should be made?
- It would be easier if all ports would have the same system, and of course if in the end the
ship owner is not covering big costs.
6) How to prevent illegal discharges? (e.g. no-special-fee system for generated wastes,
remuneration of reasonable costs to the fishermen for transporting waste to the port
reception facilities)
- It is very difficult to prevent that, the cheaper the fee for the disposal and easier do
dispose at the port site, the less waste will be dumped into the sea. It should be also
connected with raising of the awareness among the crew.
147
9) FORESTWAVE
Conversation with Mr. Jons Okhuizen, captain of the cargo ship of the Forestwave fleet.
1) In your opinion, what is the best fee system for the waste reception?
- Even when there is no fee for the waste disposal, it only means that there is no additional
charge included in the general harbor fee. I as a captain am also encouraged by other
ship owners to avoid additional cost. I always check if there is an additional cost for the
waste disposal. If yes, we keep the waste onboard and dispose it in the other port where
there is no additional fee.
2) During your work on the cargo ships did you observe any problems with the port waste
reception sites? If so, what did they concern and what could be improved in the future?
- Sometimes garbage reception sites are not really convenient to have containers standing
by at all the time and the garbage trucks do not have an opportunity to separate the
garbage hence all the waste is eventually dumped in one big dumping place. Sufficient
number of waste reception sites on port could help for both sites (ports and vessels
owners). To improve this situation the officials who monitor and inspect the
implementation of the Port Reception Facilities Directive should apply fines for ports who
do not comply with the regulations. The same happens with the ships – if my ship don’t
comply to the regulations I may receive the fine or even be banned for sailing.
3) What kinds of incentives could be given to the ship owners to encourage them to properly
dispose - at port reception facilities?
- According to the Conventions like the MARPOL one, all the ships are obliged to dispose
waste as environmentally friendly as possible. Fines usually work quite good, especially
when they are very high they increase the attention of the ship owners for proper waste
handling.
4) How to improve the waste management onboard the ship?
- Training for all sailors increasing the environmental awareness and environmentally
friendly behavior would be a good idea, since the crew members are usually only
following the captains order. Senior staff (e.g. captain) is usually already instructed about
the MARPOL and how to implement it.
5) How to prevent the illegal discharges?
- Some illegal discharges could be decreased if the minimum storage capacity is increased
by law. The present minimum capacity for the storage of plastics, food waste, etc, can be
easily overloaded and while being at the see the crew is somehow forced or encouraged to
throw away the waste to the sea or burn the less contaminating waste. Usually the ship
owners do not want to spend any more money that is absolutely necessary. For example,
increased plastic waste storage capacity from half to one cubic meter can increase the
amount of waste stored and therefore - prevent the way of the pressure to throw the waste
overboard.
148
10) STICHTING DE NOORDZEE
Conversation with Mr. Eelco Leemans, a Coordinator Maritime Campaign at Stichting

De Noordzee.
1) In 2006, UNEP has prepared “Guidelines for the Development and Implementation of
Regional Strategies for Addressing Marine Litter” with a three goals to be achieved:
prevention, monitoring and removal of existing marine litter.
Do you think that creation of national strategy addressing the marine litter would help
increasing the efficiency of already existing prevention, monitoring and removal
measures? Why Europe doesn’t have such action plans? Who should be involved in
creation of such national marine litter strategy (e.g. academia, industry, non-governmental
organizations), and what responsibility would each member have?
- That could be an idea to propose such action for the Dutch policy makers. What happens in
the OSPAR area is that there is a beach litter monitoring program and that there is a lot of
cleanup programs, but mostly there are private. In the Netherlands only, the main role in
establishing such national action plan would have the Ministry of Transport and Water
Management. For the North Sea area, the main role should have OSPAR.
- I don’t know why such plans are not made for the North Sea countries, nor whether it is a
better option for the existing means addressing the marine litter problem. Once I had a
meeting with somebody from OSPAR working on the marine issues and that person wasn’t
too open for any projects in the North Sea area. I had the impression that according to him
it is much more important to run such programs in the developing countries. I understand
this attitude, because the “rich” countries already have all kinds of programs addressing
the marine litter run by several national and private organizations and their governments;
in developing countries it is more difficult to get funds for such projects.
- That could be an option for the waste reception system in European ports, however difficult
to create due to the fact that every country has their own internal legislation on the waste
management.
2) What are the reasons of the illegal dumping of the waste within scope of the MARPOL
Annex V?
- There are several reasons. After speaking to many seafarers and people from the maritime
industry I conclude that some of the reasons come from the ship itself, such as not enough
capacity for the waste storage, regarding proper waste handling as an unimportant issue,
ignorance – crew is not aware of the effects of the dumping the waste into the sea or claims
“we’ve always have done it in this way”, money – it is too expensive to deliver the waste to
the port. The last reason mentioned connects the problem to the outside, being some sort of
external reason.
3) Regarding the reasons mentioned, how to prevent or mitigate them?
- That should be in a new revision of the MARPOL: every ship should have an appropriate
hardware and the garbage management systems. What happens now, ships can have only a
small container, which once is full- is full. Enough capacity is needed for the trade the are
doing. The capacity should suit the period of sailing at the sea and the amount of the crew
members.
149
- Strict, very specified good management practices, guidelines for waste management and
rules should also be created (like it already exists for other marine operations - safety
issues and cargo operations). State control as it happens for the safety issues, should come
onboard the ship while docking at the port and check stuff, certificates, log books etc.
- Another solution is training programs for the seafarers.
- Free of charge (non-special fee- included in the total harbor fee) for the waste disposal at
the port site is essential to reduce the competitiveness of the cheap option of dumping the
waste at the high sea.
4) Should the measures fighting with the illegal discharges be focused on systems of
incentives for the ship owners or on the system of fees and bans? Please evaluate.
- It needs both. The MARPOL has a baseline to which all the ships have to comply with. To
strengthen this baseline incentives are needed. Such as the incentives used in the port (e.g.
port dues can be differentiated for cleaner ships), taxes, subsidies (for installations, pilot
projects of waste management systems, etc.)
5) In your opinion, what is the most efficient system of the waste reception and the most
efficient fee for the waste disposal?
- In theory, the efficient system of the waste reception would work 24 hours, 7 days a week
(so not only during the office hours) allowing the ship to dispose all the amount and every
type of the waste. It must not be too difficult to dispose the waste at the port site. The
management of the facilities must be regulated by the national government.
- The fee should be indirect, included in the general harbor fee, paid regardless if the waste
is disposed or not. However, if the system is all-inclusive with no limit, there is a possibility
that some ship may overload the capacity of the port reception facility with all its garbage.
Therefore care in creation of an “ideal” system is needed.
6) When the science advances and more proved information is available about the impacts of
microplastics, how to put that issue on the political agenda?
- In general, what applies also to microplastics, the final solution is to use less plastics.
Ships should not allow to provide free plastics bags. Regulating and mandatory refund
systems are needed. Plastic industry should be strictly regulated by the government, not
allowed to produce and sell more and more and partially be pressured to feel responsible
for the end life of their products.
- For the microplastics, the public awareness must be raised and translated to the political
actions. If the research is well documented and presented, the ministry may decide to fund
the research and projects mitigating the impact.
150
11) SEAS AT RISK
Conversation with Mrs. Vera Coelho, an office manager/policy officer at Sea at Risk.
1) What is the Seas at Risk perception of microplastic pollution phenomena?
- It is a relatively new subject in terms of lobby. Other subjects like the general marine litter
pollution were (since last decade) more exposed. Although some sort of awareness of
possible threats concerning the small plastic pollution have already existed. For Seas at
Risk it is a new subject.
2) Where should the funding supporting the mitigation measures concerned the impacts of
plastic litter come from?
- There is no centralized approach – every country deals with the subject by themselves, in
a different way. Most of the funding comes from local/regional authority. Money usually
comes from the municipality budget. It is difficult to say who should pay because the
sources of litter varies and the share of percentage source input is uncertain, the data
differs in various statistics. If the percentage share would be known, it would be easier to
establish the appropriate share of funding.
3) In what way could the national governments increase the awareness of plastic litter
problem in the society (e.g. cleanups, education programs, information flows)? Although
there is a clear evidence that a plastic litter is a problem, effects in overall assessment have
not been coordinated or targeted to guide the research. What kind of priorities for further
national actions fighting with the plastic litter should be created? What kind of
performance measures should be made?
- Indeed awareness raising is very important. However should go beyond the beach issue.
Litter comes all way up, hence the awareness should not only include clean ups, but
should concern the entire life span of plastic. Attention should be made for the following
issue: the small local governments from coastal areas often pays entirely for the beach
cleanup, while the litter comes from different sources, through land, from industries, etc.
Hence, more centralized funding is needed, as well as awareness should be raised not
only in public or within schools, but within each stakeholder involved in the plastic life
cycle, especially in the sea sector (e.g. shipmen, port authorities etc.).
prevention, monitoring and removal of existing marine litter.
Do you think that creation of national strategy addressing the marine litter would help
increasing the efficiency of already existing prevention, monitoring and removal
measures? Why Europe doesn’t have such action plans? Who should be involved in
creation of such national marine litter strategy (e.g. academia, industry, non-governmental
organizations), and what responsibility would each member have?
- Lack of UNEP Regional Action Plan in Europe is a good questions for lobby groups and
stakeholders. It should definitely should be proposed in EU for the evaluation. The lack of
action plan in Europe may come from the lack of awareness, and not many studies and
151
revisions made. It is a Member State problem. Good way to push the issue up through the
agenda would be to show the Member States the example (e.g. the way it is done in
California). Such plan would have a transparent share of responsibilities within the
stakeholder, which could decrease the misinformation, miscommunication and backing up
from several groups (for example port authorities – ship owners – inspectorate) and could
therefore improve the effectiveness of implementation of several directives concerning the
marine litter
5) Prohibition of plastic disposal to the seas by MARPOL Annex V.

Despite the prohibition, plastic litter is documented to be increasing in its quantity. What
are its possible reasons?
- I was not aware plastic was prohibited. I think among many confusion is spread about
phrasing of the Annex regulations. For example, if one throws a computer off board, is it
concerned as a “plastic item”? It contains different parts, not only plastics.
- The reasons of the continuous dumping despite the regulation probably include the low
(literally no) cost of dumping, nobody will can possibly find out that such process
occurred, no fee will have to be paid.
6) Fee system in port Reception Facilities. What kind of fees apply, which in your opinion
are the most effective (e.g. free of charge system, no-special fee, fixed fee, deposit-refund
fee)?
- As stated in the Port Reception Directive, 30% of PRA cost must be included in the
general fee. Remaining 70% each port can handle in their own way. However, due to this
freedom of choice some sort of competition among the ports exists. Understanding of
system is not well understood among ship owners – this is possibly one of the most
important weaknesses of the system. More centralized approach is needed to reduce
confusion and improve the effectiveness of the Directive.
7) How to prevent illegal discharges? (e.g. no-special-fee system for generated wastes,
remuneration of reasonable costs to the fishermen for transporting waste to the port
reception facilities)
- No fee system in theory sounds good. However, it is definitely not profitable for ports.
Also, ships sail long distances, port facilities with no fee system are only few, hence it is
also not profitable for the ship owners to sail extra miles to such port. Again dumping at
the sea would be cheaper. To helping preventing such illegal discharges some regulations
according to the expectations of amount of waste at port from ships to be delivered should
be made. Such regulations could be followed by a fee for the non-compliance. Monitoring
itself especially in the high sea is very difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, raising the
awareness and more harmonized system are necessary.
8) Attention to threats from microplastics is now raising. Are there any possible ways to
include them in existing legislation on marine litter?
- Attention of the problem is definitely raising. The European Marine Strategy states clearly
that marine litter can not cause harm. It is a European law, so all of the Member States
will have to oblige to it. At present, The Committee is investigating what “do not cause
harm” statement should exactly refer to. The implementation of this Directive should start
152
in one year (May, 2010), which is rather a very short time for Committee to investigate
(they were set up this month). After the analysis, the Committee will give advice to the
Member States and the political process will start. Of course the analysis will include the
research stage where all of the uncertainties about marine litter issues exist. The
precautionary approach is hence necessary. After this stage, the appropriate standardized
criteria, limits and conditions will be established for each Member State country to be
respected from then on. Microplastics should be definitely taken account in the Committee
investigation and its issues included in future amendments of the Directive.
153
12) KIMO INTERNATIONAL
Conversation with Mr. John Mout from the KIMO International, a Local Authorities
International Environmental Organization.
1) MARPOL Annex V prohibits the disposal of the plastics to the seas. Despite the
prohibition, plastic litter is documented to be increasing in its quantity. What are its
possible reasons?
- First of all it concerns the lack of awareness, especially among the shipping industry. It
may also be because of the lack of proper waste facilities on board, as well as due to the
lack of the working enforcement of the convention – it is simply cheaper to dump the
waste to the sea.
2) Regarding the reasons mentioned, what actions could improve the present situation?
- Complete ban of the waste. Also building the awareness among the crew members.
Efficiency of monitoring in port side is also crucial. At present, there is no system that
would be able to find out the reasons why the ship does not dispose its waste in the port,
whether it is because the waste was disposed in another port or maybe was dumped into
the sea in between the ports.
3) What kinds of management practices could be created to give a good example and
guidance for the ship owners to develop marine friendly habits?
- Arrange the clean ship approach, good practice and behavior, impose award system
which would discourage the waste not being stored on the shore site. Financial incentives
are also needed.
4) How could port reception facilities be improved in terms of acceptance and proper
management of vessel waste? What other (alternative) disposal options could be
suggested?
- As above. In addition, no special fee imposed on ships for the disposal of the waste,
meaning that no extra cost should be made in addition to the total harbor charge
(although many EU officials and port authorities would not agree with such statement).
The waste disposal should be compulsory (despite whether or not the ship has waste or
not). No differentiation in the system should be made to avoid confusion within the ship
owners. Standardization for the waste level onboard is also crucial. The standards should
concern compacted/segregated containers – this could reduce the need of handling and
easier the disposal at ports.
5) Attention to threats from microplastics is now raising. What is the actual scope of the
problem?
- Microplastics are found in all parts of the marine environment – water column, sediments,
onshore and offshore, especially around the harbor and industrial areas. The key thing is
to develop a funding package to increase the scope of the research on microplastics.
Currently, the research is being done on the biological impact of microplastics
(concerning e.g. sorption of POPs, flame retardants, etc.) – especially by the Plymouth
154
University research team. The research include the investigations of the translocation of
those pollutants up to the food chain, as well as the leaching of sorbed contaminants
within the marine organisms bodies. The current line of research should focus on the
actual level of harm the microplastics may cause.
6) Are there any possible ways to include microplastics in existing legislation on marine
litter?
- The most promising possibility is the Marine Strategy Directive. However, to include
microplastics in that Directive more research is needed; the Directive states that the
“properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine
environment”. Therefore, is a necessary first to establish the actual level of the harm
microplastic pollution. At present very little study focused on such approach is being
done. The start of such project is depends on the funding available. To include
microplastics in that Directive it should be also visible what is accepted in the economical
sense. Initially, the Directive will probably base on the targets on the pure amounts of
pollution input rather that on the statements of the actual harm. It will take 6 years
revision to switch from the input to the harm to environment phrased regulations. At
present, only the Netherlands is focusing on the EcoQO of the plastics inside Fulmars
stomachs. Other OSPAR members are rather focusing on the data from the beach
monitoring programs.
7) Mr. Franeker in The Netherlands works on the plastics inside Fulmars stomachs as the
Eco Quality Objectives. Do you think in future it would be possible to establish such
EcoQO using microplastics for example in mussels?
- Dr Thompson the Plymouth University is currently working on the transfer of pollutants

within the marine organisms and is trying to establish the actual levels that microplastic
pollution pose. It is also indicated that if such EcoQO indicator would be established in
the future, that would rather be done using the fish species than mussels, and that is due
to the fact that fishes due to their body structure (e.g. closed blood circulation) and the
role they play in the food chain are probably accumulating more of microplastics than the
filter feeders (such as mussels) and hence pose a greater danger.
prevention, monitoring and removal of existing marine litter. Such Action Plans focused
on the land based marine litter pollution have been already established in some OSPAR
countries. The North Sea countries do not have such plans.
Do you think that creation of regional strategy for OSPAR region addressing the marine
litter would help increasing the efficiency of already existing prevention, monitoring and
removal measures? If so, what actions are needed to establish such plan and which
stakeholders should be included?
- At the moment KIMO International is leading a group which monitors the pollution
aspects, as well as deals with the statistics of different techniques (like fighting with the
data figures). At the OSPAR meeting in 2010, it is very likely that the need of such Plan
will be pointed out and could even be proposed to be established in the near future. Also
the microplastic subject should be included in 6 year time in the European Marine
Strategy Framework Directive revision, as explained before. In order to target the
155
removal and prevention measures, first the numbers and figures from monitoring must be
established. However, it is correct, that it is a time to move beyond the monitoring issues
and start more concrete measures. Stop discussing about problems and begin enforcing
the appropriate measures.
156
13) PROSEA
Conversation with Mr. Edo Donkers from ProSea.
1) In what way the national governments could increase the awareness of plastic litter
problem in the society?
- An important solution should be an education campaign. About 60% of this program

should be devoted for the general education on plastics issue, and the remaining 40%
should be given for the specific users (maritime business, consumers). The basic theme of
such campaign for all its participants would consist of the information regarding the
persistence and accumulation of plastics in the environment. Such program should be put
in a right context, so that be easy to understand for a default participant. The education
programs should include the primary school aged children; the line of the teaching should
be done in a none-accusing way. Additionally, the information should be clear and
“visible”, for example, the sea litter should be seen through the prism of a black box, a
non-bottomless litter and the pools of floating garbage, whereas a beach litter as a visible
unpleasant sites.
- The organization like UNEP, IMO should be the suitable forums to start such education
campaigns on a global scale.. Those organizations would be more preferable than the
European Union which campaigns could be only restricted to its area. The language used
in guidelines (“a user manual”) should be very transparent and clear, written in the
major global used languages, so that the information can be easily understood by the
policy makers.
2) Where should the funding supporting the prevention and mitigation measures at the
national level concerning the impacts of plastic litter come from?
- The main regions in terms of the plastic consumption – the US and Europe as a region
should provide funding via UNEP.
3) What kinds of priorities for the further national actions fighting with the plastic litter
should be created?
- The priority for the marine litter should be two-fold: education and the enforcement of the
existing legislations dealing with the marine pollution.
- During the last 10 years, much has been already improved in terms of the maritime policy.
Firstly, the polluter pays principle, that is the financial contribution from the ships to the
port reception facilities whether or not disposed the waste. This system has already been
proved as a positive incentive to use such facilities as well as to the increase the amount of
waste ashore. Secondly, the monitoring process of the waste delivery (e.g. ships are obliged
to report in advance how much waste are going to dispose at the port).
4) Would the more similar or/and centralized system enforcing the port reception facility
directive be a good or bad idea to improve the directive effectiveness? Please evaluate.
- It would be a good idea. The problem is though to put the ambition on the realistic level:
the policies on the waste processing on land are different in each country, hence it would
be difficult to create uniform systems. However, the centralized (European) port-to-port
monitoring system could create a useful database evaluating the amount of waste
157
delivered in each (European) port. Such a database, together with a regulation imposed
on each ship to provide the information on the amount of waste and the port chosen for its
disposal, could decrease current problems connected with ship waste even by 50%.
- Also the standardization of containers and separation of waste is necessary worldwide.
5) Who should be involved in a creation of the centralized approach dealing with marine
litter issues?
- For monitoring it should be the EMSA. EU should set up the system with a few key ports
in Europe so that the information flow is streamed clearly indicating how much and where
each ship is disposing its waste. The information concerning the port reception facilities
(including the prices of the waste processing) in Europe in such system should be
updated, clear and transparent.
6) What are the reasons of the illegal dumping of waste to the sea.
- One of the major reasons is ignorance about the effects of the dumping. Secondly it is still
difficult for the ship to find a right facility of waste disposal. Costs are also the reasons- it
is cheaper to dump the waste into the sea. The other reason is the lack of support from the
office site of both ship owners and the offshore stuff. Also, the environmental issues are
still not one of the priority in the maritime business.
7) Regarding the reasons mentioned, how to prevent or mitigate them?
- Do not “protect” people in the port having the priority of making profit over the
protecting the environment. Also the European Union has to realize that the ship-port
waste management is a very complicated system and need to be transparent; the efficient
information flow between the port reception facilities is also necessary. Making profit is
not the main reason of the illegal dumping, as the ships are already forced by the
Directive to pay at the port sites. The problem rather needs the removal of the ignorance
and raising the awareness. The workshops for the entire maritime sector must be provided
(already it was established that in the near future the marine educational workshops will
be obligatory to the seafarers). Furthermore, to prevent ignorance and blaming one
another, the sector has to be regarded as a whole.
8) Which fee system for the waste disposal at the port is the most effective one?
- In my opinion, the combination between the Scandinavian and the Dutch system. The fee
system should be transparent and feasible. It must be clear how much the ship has to pay
for the waste.
- It is necessary to create the system which could create the average amounts of waste
onboard. Such information should be then put in the legislation. In this way, every ship
would be obliged by mandate to have and document a specified amount of waste carried
onboard. It would make easier to enforce both the monitoring and the fines system.
- The limits of the amount of waste possible to be delivered should not be too low to allow
most of the waste be disposed in port.
- No fee could also be a good idea, but only for few year time, followed by a non-special fee
system. EU could provide a fund to create a system where every European country is
obliged to take as much waste from the ships as they can. In this way an average waste
158
production onboard data can be created and as previously mentioned - put into a
legislation.
9) What kinds of incentives could be given to the ship owners to encourage them to properly
dispose their waste?
- The current European policy uses the polluter pays principle. The financial positive
incentives would have a rather negative effect, could lead to false results. However some
kinds of rewards could be made, but I believe that the sector is not yet ready to implement
it.
10) What could be possibly improved in the port reception facilities?
- The best system for ships would be when the company collecting that waste go alongside
every ship that has reported that has a waste onboard and check whether the ship has
delivered that waste. Like it is already happening in some Italian ports. Such systems
should exchange the ones applied for example in Rotterdam. Current systems provide
notification forms from ships of the waste disposed, but ship owners are still obliged to
call the waste collection company by themselves. The implementation of proposed
changes in ports like Rotterdam is however difficult due to their (big) size. Money for the
new system hardware surface should come from the collected fees from ships waste
disposal (with exemption to the ships in need of such support from for example developing
countries). The fund from EU should be used for the creation of the database (which
facilities are present in Europe).
11) How does the communication between captains and the port authorities looks like?
- The good example is the Rotterdam which have an easy to access for ship owners IT
system dealing with the waste reception. However such systems are rare. Very often, the
port authority pays little attention to provide guidelines and proper communication to the
ship owners in terms of the waste reception. In my opinion, port authority should play
more intermediate role, or at least should provide incentives to use the reception facility.
12) What actions must be made so that microplastic phenomena can be included in the
legislation?
One idea is that media could play a role in some stage. It would be necessary to create a
campaign providing information diverted for all the maritime sector (marine
professionals, fishermen, ports, offshore drilling units, shipping organizations, etc).
Elements of such campaign should be: raising awareness, removing/decreasing ignorance
about the effects on the sea, correcting the “out of sight, out of mind”, information about
the plastics as the problem of balancing their advantages with their disadvantages. The
last element should be showed not as a threat for a society but put in the historical context
exposing the long neglected negative side of plastics – showing that the problem is not
that we use plastics, but how we use them. In such way people learn about the joined
responsibility to “put this materials in place”. Similarly raising public awareness of the
threats from microplastics should be done in a way to “make people think”. Education of
the maritime sector has to result in an increased responsibility for each individual’s
action concerning the waste handling.
159
13) How to stimulate the plastic industry to encourage decrease of diverse production and
increase responsibility of plastics life span?
- My opinion on this is very unorthodox, as an environmentalist: recycling of plastics is a

problematic way. As for the responsibility for the plastic waste it is not as much problem
of the industry, but rather of the consumers. Hence, it is necessary to teach the consumers
how to deliver their waste and how the waste is process, teach not to blame the industry
but simply develop the environmentally friendly habits. Nevertheless, the communication
between the industry and the consumer is still too vague.
160
14) PLASTIC INDUSTRY
Conversation with Mr. Jan Berends, the environment and product safety manager at
DSM, the Life Sciences and Materials Sciences Company.
1) How should the plastic industry deal with their responsibility to minimize the
environmental impact of packaging?
- Any system that is effective should be applied. The plastic litter is accumulating due to
both the past and present continuous input of the pollution to the seas. In the Netherlands,
the processing of waste is within the scope of the governmental regulations. Together with
the improved consumer behavior and cooperation with the Confederation of Netherlands
Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW) the packaging waste input to the seas can be
minimized.
2) How effective is the implementation of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive?
- To evaluate the efficiency of the Directive the quantities of the past and present
discharges must be compared. If the result indicates the inefficiency of the regulations,
more measures must be taken, for example, payment from the bottles and the deposit fees.
If the results indicate that the regulations are indeed effective, than the plastic waste can
be used for some additional purposes. For example, if the problems concerned with the
low quality of the recycled plastic materials are solved, the plastic waste can be used for
the energy generation as a substitute for the energy from the fossil fuels (oil).
161
15) NETHERLANDS SHIPPING INSPECTORATE
Conversation with Mr. Meindert Vink, the Senior Advisor at the Netherlands Shipping
Inspectorate.
1) Is the communication between the inspectorate and the Ports in the Netherlands fluent?
Are there any problems that you have observed?
- No problems observed, we have a very good contacts with the Port Authorities.
2) Marine Litter is not decreasing in its amounts according to the OSPAR monitoring
programs and the Fulmar studies. What is the role of the shipping industry in this
phenomena?
- In Europe we have the Waste Directive covering the entire Europe. We work together to
collect all the garbage. At present we obtain very good results. Slight increase in the
amounts of the waste delivered to the Port Facilities is observed. Unfortunately, still we
find lots of waste and garbage in the sea. The reason in my opinion is the lack of
awareness among the crew at the problems. It is easy to throw the waste into the sea, but
also unwise because it is free to deliver the waste to the port, there is no more any
additional cost to do so. I don’t know why many ships refuse to deliver their waste to the
Port Reception Facilities. We work very close together with the Port Authorities,
especially in the Rotterdam, and quite often they inspect the ships and ask the crew why
they do not deliver their waste. There are still not aware that it is free to do so. Of course,
they have to call the agent, who takes care of the litter to bring it ashore to the Port
Reception Facility, nevertheless the crew still believe that using the service of such agent
costs money. The ports are very keen on improving this situation and try to inform all the
crews about waste reception system. This is very difficult to do, due to the amount of ships
entering the port. We try to do our best, but unfortunately we still observe the waste being
dumped into the sea.
2) Which port in the Netherlands is the most and which is the less efficient in the
implementation of the Port Reception Facilities Directive?
- It is impossible to establish due to the fact that all the ports are completely different. For
example, Rotterdam is a very big port, whereas Scheveningen operates only few ferries
and fishing ships, Ijmuiden operates almost only builder carriers and fishing ships.
Therefore it is impossible or very hard to compare those ports
- The next thing I want to mention is that the Port of Vlissingen has a very good fee system
for the waste reception.
3) In your opinion, which fee system for the waste reception is the most efficient in terms of
the waste reception?
- At present, different European ports have different systems, mainly due to their different
size and role as well as due to the differences in the types of ships they are operating. The
European Committee has made an investigation on this matter and as far as I know there
are no plans for any radical change. As for the Netherlands, the best system would be like
the one in Vlissingen, where the fee is 100% indirect, of course within the stated limits.
The upper limits are necessary, because otherwise (like it used to be in Sweden) it
162
becomes too expensive to handle the waste. If one ship exceeds the limits, then has to pay
for the excess. The limits are set quite high, and such situation however, occurs very
rarely, if ever.
4) What kind of incentives could be given to the ship owners to encourage them to properly
dispose their waste?
- The waste disposal in the port site is almost for free now. The fine system could be
implied, if it is documented that the ship dumps the waste to the see. This is unfortunately
very hard to prove. Furthermore, Annex V of the MARPOL Convention allows the waste
to be dumped in the sea. The only exemption is a total ban to dump plastics. Therefore if
we want to protect the sea we must not allow to dump any kind of waste to the sea. This
consent makes it very hard to inspect whether the ship dumps plastics or not. The only
way to check for certain that the ship has broken the law is when it is discovered that the
ship in the port do not have the plastics onboard.
5) Is there any monitoring system or a database between the ports showing how much and
where the specific ship has disposed its waste?
- There is no database, the port may only ask the crew members to prove that they have
already given their waste in the port they were before. If it is not documented then such
crew may have a serious problem. Within the Europe there is a Waste Directive,
MARPOL Annex V and Paris MOU on Port State Control, all regulating the handling of
the waste. We investigate only the implementation of the MARPOL Annex V. The concept
for the monitoring of the compliance with the Waste Directive also exists, but is in its
early stage, and is not yet formalized or published - hence is not yet properly working. I
don’t know why it take so long time to formalize this project. The information flow
between the European ports of the waste delivered in each port is done through the Paris
MOU Port State Control (having an easy to use website). This system do not oblige the
ship to deliver its waste ashore, it allows to keep it onboard. It is obligatory in the system
concerned with the Waste Directive where it alerts the ports of the ships on the sea which
previously did not deliver their waste. In Holland there is a limit for waste obligated to be
delivered to the port – about 75% of the waste volume must be spared onboard. We call it
a rule of thumb. The European Commission however, do not approve this idea mostly due
to the fact that some ships have very big capacity for the waste storage.
6) What could be possibly improved in terms of acceptance of the waste in the Port
Reception Facilities
- There is always a lot of to do about the separation of the waste – each port have different
separation rules. However there are rather no problems at the Port Reception Facilities.
- I have proposed to have waste containers just next to the ships moored in the harbor in
every port so that every crew member can easily dispose their plastic waste (plastic bags,
packaging waste etc.). This is however problematic since it is impossible to document
such actions, and proves are needed for the records of a compliance with the Port
Reception Facilities Directive.
163
16) GOVERNMENT
Conversation with Mr. Lex Oosterbaan and Mrs. Barbara Wenneker, the Co-ordinators
of International Affairs in the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management
at the North Sea Directorate.
1) How does the Dutch government deal with the problem of marine litter? What is the share
of the responsibility?
- With respect to the Waste in general it is the responsibility of the Ministry of the
Environment. The Ministry of Transport consists of two policy Directorates – the Water
Directorate and the Shipping and Civil Aviation Directorate. The general relation of the
marine litter to the Ministry of Transport is to be responsible for the creation of the clean
water environment (both rivers and the North Sea). We work for the Water Directorate
(Rijkswaterstaat), and we are very aware of the amount of litter present in the sea, we are
responsible for the downstream side of all the Dutch rivers, hence deal with the litter
present in the water, try to clean it up as much as possible. However from the legal
perspective we don’t have a lot of force since legislation is redrafted for the Shipping
Directorate. They are responsible for the preparation of the Dutch legislation for the
Dutch shipping, they care about the implementation of the MARPOL and are also
responsible for the monitoring of the Dutch Port Reception Facilities. Furthermore, they
use the data from the Fulmar study – number of plastic particles in the seabirds stomachs.
The enforcement of the legislation is done by the Shipping Inspectorate – they control
ships in the harbor checking if they comply with the laws and regulations with the respect
to waste disposal.
2) Is the communication between all the Authorities mentioned fluent? Please evaluate.
- I think that the shipping part is pretty well covered, I think that the communication
between the Inspectorate and the Shipping Directorate is especially good. For the IMO
MEPC meetings we have in the Netherlands the national pre-meetings with the
participants form NGOs like Stichting De Noordzee, KIMO presenting their concerns
(with for example, the implementation of MARPOL or the Port Reception Facilities
Directive).
3) Who is paying for the cleanups of the Dutch cost and Dutch part of the North Sea?
- No money for the cleaning the litter at the sea from our side. The Water Inspectorate
monitors the litter in the Dutch litter. We use this data to come up with the measures and
to put pressure on our Shipping Directorate so that they in turn inform IMO about the
need for urgent solutions. As you can see our department plays a coordinating role,
checking the sources of the litter.
4) Do you thing that the creation of the Dutch national strategy addressing the marine litter
would help increasing the efficiency of the already existing prevention, monitoring and
removal measure? If so, what actions are needed and which stakeholders should be
involved?
- At present there is no national group dealing directly with the marine litter nor any
centralized way to tackle this problem. Last year a meeting was held where together with
164
the leading researchers we agreed that creation of a reference for such national group
could be a wise idea. The group dealing with the marine litter should include the ministry
of environment and the ministry of fisheries.
- The Netherlands uses the OSPAR Convention (which covers the while North-East
Atlantic). However the monitoring of the beach litter is still voluntary and we are trying
very hard to make it more obligatory. For example, one of the rules applied for the
monitoring is that it should have some kind of scientific background. This is rather
difficult, hence we are trying to find a way to “non parametrical” analysis which would
allow to have a free liability - like the use of Fulmar study or the Dutch consultancy
looking at our beach litter and presents some quantitative trends.
- It is a good question whether such plans would be a “better” option. Within the OSPAR,
the marine litter group exists, but there is little attention to coordinate the actions between
the North Sea countries. At present, countries like Germany and UK do not have sufficient
measures to deal with the marine litter. A centralized system is needed to avoid
postponing actions due to recrimination of the North Sea countries.
5) What kind of priorities for further national actions fighting with the plastic litter should be
created if a national group dealing with the marine litter would exist? What kind of
performance measures should be made?
- I think it is too early to predict what the priorities would be. Once the group would be
established, each member involved would have a different opinion on those priorities. For
now it is clear that the main focus should be on the plastic issues. The change of the
attitude towards the handling of the plastic waste is already observed – the Ministry of
Environment together with Plastic Heroes has started a plastic collection program.
- Plastic industry should have a responsibility to deal with the end of life of plastic they
produce (collect and e.g. recycle), a good way would be to include the price of those
process in the plastic material price, even if the product would become more expensive.
7) What improvements should be made to deal with the illegal discharges of the waste into
the sea?
- The waiting time of the ship to deliver its waste should be decreased: sometimes ships
arriving to the port during the evening hours has to wait till the next day to do so.
Therefore, a 24/7 service could improve the situation. Another idea could be to make
obligatory for the ship to deliver specific amount of waste in every port it docks. It is
possible, that the ships do deliver their waste in each port, however the documentation
and information flow of the waste delivered is not really efficient.
8) What kind of fee system of the waste reception is the most efficient?
- In my opinion, it should a 100% indirect fee for the waste delivered within the specified
limits - to balance the volume of the waste delivered. Furthermore, the more uniform
system should be applied to clarify and make the information more transparent.
8) How does the Ministry deals with the innovations and newly emerging problems
connected with the environmental pollution?
- Both – our Ministry and the Ministry of the Environment have the research institutes, (our
organization is called the Waterdienst. Additionaly, due to continuous reorganizations
165
most research is being carried out by Deltares, Imares and consultancy firms.
Fundamental research is carried out (or in collaboration with) by Universities. All of the
organizations mentioned play the intermediate role bringing the ideas and proposals (we
act as the executive board).
166

Environmental Risks Microplastics PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Risks Microplastics PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS

Supervisor: dr. Bert van Hattum

(front page photo from

468017 (research project) - 18 ects

I am also very grateful to all who participated in the interviews without

I would also like to thank to all my colleagues from the Stichting De

2 PLASTIC MARINE LITTER 7

3 THE NORTH SEA 12

3.1 PHISICAL CHARACTERISTICS 12

4 THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTICS AND THEIR FATE IN THE MARINE

4.1 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS 17

5.1 SOURCES OF MICROPLASTICS 27

7 ABUDANCE OF MICROPLASTICS IN COAST WATERS 55

9 SUGGESTIONS FOR POLICY IMPROVEMENTS 84

9.1 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS 85

10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 107

Smaller fragments, “microplastics”, a newly recognized and defined threat to environment,

This is further operationalized in the following sub-questions:

- What are microplastics, and what are their sources?

2 PLASTIC MARINE LITTER

1992 International Coastal Cleanups Shoreline 59 Anon (1990)

St. Lucia, Caribbean Beach 51 Corbin and Singh (1993)

Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic Seabed 92 Galgani et al. (1995a)

NW Mediterranean Seabed 77 Galgani et al. (1995b)

European coasts Sea floor >70 Galgani et al. (2000)

Caribbean coast of Panama Shoreline 82 Garrity and Levings (1993)

Georgia, USA Beach 57 Gilligan et al. (1992)

50 South African beaches Beach >90 Gregory and Ryan (1997)

88 sites in Tasmania Beach 65 Gregory and Ryan (1997)

Argentina Beach 37–72 Gregory and Ryan (1997)

9 Sub-Antarctic Islands Beach 51–88 Gregory and Ryan (1997)

South Australia Beach 62 Gregory and Ryan (1997)

Kodiak Is, Alaska Seabed 47–56 Hess et al. (1999)

Tokyo Bay, Japa Seabed 80–85 Kanehiro et al. (1995)

North Pacific Ocean Surface waters 86 Laist (1987)

Mexico Beach 60 Lara-Dominguez et al. (1994)

National Parks in USA Beach 88 Manski et al. (1991)

Halifax Harbour, Kanada Beach 54 Ross et al. (1991)

Price Edward Is., Southern Ocean Beach 88 Ryan (1987b)

New Zealand Beach 75 Smith and Tooker (1990)

Two gulfs in W. Grece Seabed 79–83 Stefatos et al. (1999)

South German Bight Beach 75 Vauk and Schrey (1987)

FogBay, N. Australia Beach 32 Whiting (1998)

South Wales, UK Beach 63 Williams and Tudor (2001)

Other effects of caused by plastic

3 THE NORTH SEA

This report is written within de Stichting De Noordzee, a non-governmental organization

3.1 PHISICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Coastal areas Run-off (km3yr-1) Catchment area (km2)

Denmark and Germany (including Wadden Sea)

Total 296-354 841 500

3.2 MARINE HABITATS

4 THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTICS AND THEIR

4.1 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Plastics are also moldable and synthetic, derived

The polymerization process can lead to

Two groups of plastics are distinguished: thermoplastics

The most important intrinsic properties

Recent attention on plastics is focused on so called “bio-polymers”. Polymers occurring in

4.2 BIODEGRADATION AND PERSISTENCY

Polyethylene 0.96 Float Trawls

Plastics included in Table 4.2

Tjuvkils harbour 2 plastic Milkwhite/transparent 711 100 ml