Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Ocean-based sources of plastic pollution: An overview of the main marine

activities in the Peruvian EEZ
Alejandro Deville , Ian Vazquez-Rowe *, Diana Ita-Nagy , Ramzy Kahhat
Peruvian LCA & Industrial Ecology Network (PELCAN), Department of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Av. Universitaria 1801, San Miguel, Lima
15088, Peru

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Marine-based activities are a critical source of plastic waste into the ocean. This is particularly important in
Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing countries with a competitive fishing industry, such as Peru. Thus, this study aimed to identify and quantify the
gear major flows of plastic waste accumulating in the ocean from ocean-based sources within the Peruvian Economic
Marine plastic debris
Exclusive Zone. A material flow analysis was elaborated to analyze the stock of plastic and its release to the ocean
Microplastics
Antifouling weathering
by a set of Peruvian fleets, including the fishing industry, merchant vessels, cruises, and boating vessels. Results
Material flow analysis show that in 2018 between 2715 and 5584 metric tons of plastic waste entered the ocean. The fishing fleet was
Peru the most pollutant, representing approximately 97 % of the total. Moreover, fishing gear loss represented the
highest single-activity contribution, although other sources, such as plastic packaging and antifouling emissions,
have the potential to become vast sources of marine plastic pollution.

1. Introduction
Ocean plastic pollution has become a matter of great concern to the
general public, especially in the past decade, due to the impacts that
these flows have on the marine environment (Cózar et al., 2014), marine
biota (Walkinshaw et al., 2020), and human health (Danopoulos et al.,
2020). This has generated a growing effort by the scientific community
to generate consciousness regarding the increasing amount of plastic
entering our oceans (Jambeck et al., 2015), its transport and fate, and
derived environmental impacts. Although plastic dissipation into the
environment, including the fraction that accumulates in the world's
oceans, is mainly linked to land-based human activities (Law et al.,
2020), it has been estimated that approximately 10–20 % of the marine
plastic debris originates from marine sources (Li et al., 2016).
Ocean-based plastic pollution has been extensively reported in the
scientific literature as linked to some major anthropogenic activities,
mainly in the fishing sector (Consoli et al., 2019). In fact, abandoned,
lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is considered to
represent the biggest share of marine-based plastic pollution (Mac­
fadyen et al., 2009; Richardson et al., 2019). ALDFG is known to be an
important concern in terms of what is usually referred to as “ghost
fishing,” that is, the ability of a fishing gear (FG) to continue fishing and
trapping animals after the fishermen have lost control of it (Gilardi et al.,
2020). Lost fishing nets and pots can accidentally capture marine ani­
mals, which can subsequently die due to their wounds, starvation, suf­
focation, or predation (Gilman et al., 2016). In turn, these trapped
organisms attract larger predators that may also get caught. When larger
predators die, they attract smaller organisms and the cycle continues
(Hammer et al., 2012).
FG is nowadays mainly made from plastic polymers and other less
numerous components, such as metals (i.e., hooks and weights) (Roman
et al., 2021). The most common polymers used are polyethylene,
expanded polystyrene, polypropylene, and nylon (Baeta et al., 2009;
Brown and MacFadyen, 2007). Typically, it takes hundreds of years for
ALDFG to degrade in the marine environment, while it continues to fish
for a prolonged period (Grimaldo et al., 2019). Furthermore, FG and
ALDFG can be a major source of microplastic pollution as they tend to
fragment significantly due to UV exposure, abrasion, and poor mainte­
nance, which unfortunately is common in the fishing and aquaculture
industries (Sundt et al., 2015).
Donnelly-Greenan et al. (2019) surveyed southern California bea­
ches for animal carcasses with a special focus on entangled animals from
1997 to 2017. They found that monofilament lines were the primary
source of entanglement (78 %). Additionally, 4 % of the entanglements
were categorized as suspected commercial fishing interaction that
involved a net. Most of the species affected were seabirds rather than

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ian.vazquez@pucp.edu.pe (I. Vazquez-Rowe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114785
Received 12 January 2023; Received in revised form 20 February 2023; Accepted 22 February 2023
Available online 5 March 2023
0025-326X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Deville et al.
marine species, with 97 % of reported entanglements. Richardson et al.
(2019), while reviewing over 40 years of fishing loss literature, esti­
mated that the total annual gear loss rates ranged from 0 % to 79.8 %
depending on the type of gear. A meta-analysis examining specific types
of gears was also performed in this study, indicating that approximately
5.7 % of all fishing nets, 8.6 % of all traps, and 29 % of all lines were lost
in 2017 (Richardson et al., 2019).
Different types of discarded FG affect different types of fauna. In fact,
lost fishing equipment can have a great negative impact not only on the
animals affected but also on the fishing industry due to lost and un­
wanted catches. For instance, it is estimated that around 110,000 lobster
traps are lost yearly in the Florida Keys, resulting in approximately
630,000 lobsters dying in ghost traps per year (Butler and Matthews,
2015). Similarly, coralliferous formation assemblies are particularly
exposed to lost fishing equipment (Beneli et al., 2020). In the Bay of
Naples (Italy), for instance, it was found that 28 % of all coral reefs were
entangled or covered by discarded fishing equipment. Furthermore,
continuous contact of FG with corals can become major pathways for the
dispersal of invasive species (Ferrigno et al., 2018). Pham et al. (2014)
found that debris reaching the seabed of the Mediterranean Sea and
Northeast Atlantic were composed mainly of plastic waste, of which 34
% were ALDFG and 41 % were nonrelated to the fishing industry.
However, in some locations, such as north of the Faroe Islands, the
Norwegian continental shelf, and several seamounts and ocean ridges,
ALDFG represents over 75 % of marine debris sampled. This may be due
to the intense fishing industry in the area, but also to a lower amount of
terrestrial sources of plastic in a low-density area of the world (Lusher
et al., 2017).
Based on the previous discussion, it appears to be evident that
ALDFG constitutes a major source of macroplastics, and its subsequent
degradation into microplastics represents a threat to marine biota and
human health, especially in major fishing nations (Deshpande et al.,
2020). Eriksen et al. (2014) found that ALDFG and fishing-related
equipment accounted for over 20 % by number and 70 % by weight of
all the floating litter bigger than 200 mm in diameter. Microplastic
debris linked to derelict FG is found in various marine organisms,
throughout all the trophic chain, ranging from mussels, lobsters, and fish
species that can enter the human body through the consumption of
contaminated seafood (Danopoulos et al., 2020).
Despite the importance of ALDFG in the context of ocean-based
plastic pollution, other sources of plastic release in the ocean should
not be underestimated (Zhang et al., 2021). For instance, vessels,
beyond those in the fishing sector, are an important source of micro­
plastics to the world's oceans due to antifouling weathering (Ghani et al.,
2022). Additionally, freight ships losing cargo to the ocean (Chen et al.,
2019), fishing vessels losing equipment other than ALDFG (Loubet et al.,
2022), and shipwrecks, which are still common, are all subject to a
certain degree of macro- and microplastic direct emission to the sea.
Other activities, which are not necessarily ocean-based but are linked
to the shipping industry, such as hull scrapings, vessel painting, and
maintenance activities, are a source of both direct and indirect micro­
plastics, although the quantification of these emissions remains an
understudied field (Bray, 2019). Modern antifouling paintings have
alkyd plastic polymers, and shipyards and marinas are sources of marine
microplastic pollution mainly due to hull painting and abrasive cleaning
activities, which generate a “cloud” of paint particles (Sundt et al.,
2015), and the infrastructure's closeness to the ocean and intertidal
zones (Chae et al., 2015).
Peru is one of the most important fishing nations in the world thanks
to the succulent productivity of its anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) fishery
and was only surpassed in total landings by China and Indonesia in 2018
(FAO, 2020). The Peruvian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is one of the
largest in America, with nearly 1 million km2 of marine territory
belonging to national jurisdiction, making the anchoveta, tuna (Thunnus
spp.), or giant squid (Dosidicus gigas) fishing fleets large and important in
the world's seafood supply chains. Moreover, as an important producer
2
Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785
of raw material, Peru exports abundant amounts of mineral ores, agri­
cultural products, and seafood or fishmeal, most of these through marine
freight. In parallel, as a peripheral country in the international sphere
and given the lack of a competitive terrestrial transport system in Latin
America, most imports arrive by cargo vessels. To a lesser extent, cruise
ships, boating vessels, and other minor fleets are also part of this com­
plex maritime system.
Therefore, given the environmental issues related to plastic pollution
from ocean-based sources and the lack of data about the release of many
of these plastic inputs to the ocean, this study aims to estimate the direct
emissions of plastic in the Peruvian EEZ due to shipping activities
through the use of a material flow analysis (MFA). For this, the impact of
ALDFG, hull weathering, and general waste littering, among other as­
pects, has been gathered and computed for the entire Pacific Peruvian
fleet. The results of this study are expected to be of utility to policy­
makers in a local and regional context, as well as a first holistic approach
for the shipping sector from a plastic pollution perspective in the Global
South. We expect that the results of this MFA study can be used in life
cycle assessments and other environmental management studies as
feasible benchmark values for shipping activities in Peru and Latin
America.
2. Methodology
2.1. Material flow analysis (MFA)
MFA is a well-established method in the field of industrial ecology
that addresses the modeling of material flows and stocks (Brunner and
Rechberger, 2016). It uses the mass conservation principle to measure
the inputs and outputs of an entire system (Ciacci et al., 2017).
Numerous studies have analyzed several materials and commodities of
important commercial value such as minerals and metals (Gottschalk
et al., 2010), plastic polymers (Laner et al., 2016), and other commod­
ities (Chen and Graedel, 2012) through MFA. Moreover, data quality is
of utter importance for the accuracy of an MFA study, and data gaps can
be generally overcome using the principle of mass balance (Kahhat and
Williams, 2012).
Most plastic MFA studies have focused their efforts on analyzing the
flows and stocks of different polymers considering an adequate disposal
as the cradle of the system (Johansen et al., 2022). For instance, Kawecki
et al. (2018) used MFA to estimate the local production of plastic
polymers in Europe. Similarly, Ciacci et al. (2017) analyzed the PVC
cycle in Europe and Switzerland focusing on recycling possibilities. In
contrast, literature regarding plastic leakage toward the ocean through
MFA is scarce and information regarding marine-based plastic waste
sources is lacking. Recently, Deshpande et al. (2020), using market in­
formation on FG and repair material purchased, gear stocks and material
collected for waste management treatment, estimated that approxi­
mately 381 metric tons of ALDFG were undocumented in Norway, while
assuming no variation in FG stocks.
In this study, the use of MFA is proposed as the methodological
framework to analyze plastic flows (macro- and microplastic) and
emissions toward the ocean from different ocean-based sources. These
plastic flows are considered direct plastic emitted from vessels toward
marine environments. Therefore, indirect flows through which, for
instance, plastic waste leakage from dumpsters or landfills originated
from shipping waste were excluded from the system boundaries. Hence,
the system boundary considered was the Peruvian EEZ, which accounts
for the first 200 nautical miles (NM) from the coast and covers a marine
area of approximately 1 million km2. The waste flows identified in this
geographical area, related to shipping activities, were ALDFG, hull
scraping and weathering, and general plastic waste generated on board
(GPW). Firstly, ALDFG is mainly emitted as a macroplastic, which then
can be fragmented and generate secondary microplastics. Secondly,
most antifouling paints have a percentage of plastic polymers in their
mix, which is emitted as microplastic through weathering and scraping.
A. Deville et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785

Finally, GPW accounts for the flows of plastic packaging consumed on Cruises' information was also retrieved from the APN (2022b). Finally,
board with the potential to be thrown overboard, making them essen­ the boating fleet is defined as all the nautical and marine sports vessels
tially a macroplastic flow. Furthermore, maintenance activities per­ with Peruvian flag, of which information was acquired through the
formed for Peruvian-flagged vessels in shipyards along the Peruvian registry by the Peruvian Coast Guard (DICAPI) (DICAPI, 2022a). Inter­
coast were also considered within the system boundary. In contrast, nationally flagged boating vessels passing/entering Peruvian waters
plastic emissions due to scraping, weathering, and maintenance activ­ were not considered in this study. This is because Peru is not a recog­
ities of aquatic infrastructures (i.e., ports, marinas, oil rigs, and waste­ nized as a nautical tourist destination, and international boating vessels
water treatment plants) were not considered in the analysis. The entering the country are negligible (APN, 2022a). Table 1 presents a
reference year considered to report the results was 2018, which was the summary of all the fleets operating in Peruvian waters.
most recent year for which high-quality data were available.
2.2.2. Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG)
2.2. Data acquisition and modeling In order to estimate the flow of ALDFG, data from the PRODUCE
database, which include FG used, vessel cargo capacity, targeted species,
2.2.1. Characterization of the Peruvian fleet length, beam, and other relevant data linked to the characteristics of the
The Peruvian fleet is defined as all the different types of vessels that vessels, were retrieved (PRODUCE, 2021). Furthermore, all the fishing
enter (or remain) inside the EEZ annually for different commercial and/ methods used were identified and quantified for the different fleets and
or recreational purposes without a minimum timeframe. For the purpose categorized accordingly. The abovementioned process is relevant due to
of this study, the fleet was divided into four main blocks: (i) fishing fleet; the different gear loss ratios across fishing fleets and FG used (Sher­
(ii) merchant fleet; (iii) cruise ships; and (iv) boating fleet, which is rington et al., 2016). Once these were grouped and accounted for, using
mainly recreational. It is worth mentioning that additional fleets have average literature FG loss rates (see Table 2), ALDFG plastic emissions to
been identified within the Peruvian fleet, such as military vessels, Peruvian waters were estimated. FG weights were obtained through
including coastguards, service vessels, as well as scientific and oceano­ personal conversations with Peruvian fishing industry stakeholders and
graphic vessels. However, these remained unaccounted for in this study main actors (see Table S1 in the SM).
given the fact that the information regarding their dimensions and
average residence time in the EEZ was lacking or unavailable. Despite 2.2.3. Antifouling emissions
this limitation, we hypothesize that their exclusion should not generate Plastic polymer emissions to the ocean from antifouling use gener­
a large effect on the final results as these represent a very small fraction ated due to weathering, scraping, and maintenance (including painting
of the Peruvian fleet. activities) were estimated separately for each fleet. This framework was
In the first place, in order to characterize the fishing fleet, this study considered due to the important differences between ship categories
followed the guidelines provided by the Peruvian Ministry of Production regarding activities performed, dimensions, time spent at sea, and dis­
(PRODUCE), which include three categories based on the fish hold ca­ tances traveled within Peruvian waters. This characterization is note­
pacity: artisanal fleet (hold capacity ≤ 10 m3), small-scale (10 m3 < hold worthy due to the different emission rates generated by the different
capacity ≤ 32.6 m3), and industrial (hold capacity > 32.6 m3) (PRO­ activities and ship categories. Furthermore, fleets were also separated
DUCE, 2021). The latter is separated into two different subfleets based into two groups: those that permanently stay in Peruvian waters (i.e.,
on the material of the hull: the steel fleet, which is predominant in a most fishing vessels and boating vessels) and those that enter the EEZ
number of vessels, and the wooden fleet (named Vikingas in the local transporting goods, crew, or passengers (i.e., most merchant ships and
nomenclature) (PRODUCE, 2021). It is worth mentioning that artisanal cruises).
and small-scale fleets can only fish within the first 5 NM, while the in­ On the one hand, for the permanent fleet (i.e., Peruvian-flagged
dustrial fleets are obliged to perform their fishing activities outside this vessels only), antifouling emissions were considered to occur both
limit. This division is made to protect spawning areas of different fishing while operating at sea and during maintenance and painting activities in
species in coastal environments (Espinosa, 2019), as well as to protect shipyards. On the other hand, given the geographical boundaries of the
artisanal fishing communities from competing with industrial-scale study, only antifouling emissions due to weathering and scraping
fisheries that are distributed throughout the coast (Oceana Peru, occurring within the Peruvian EEZ were included for the nonpermanent
2022). Figs. S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Material (SM) illustrate the merchant vessels and cruise ships. Moreover, each fleet was then
Peruvian coast and EEZ, and location of the most important ports with grouped according to its length to calculate the plastic polymers stock
information on their share of catch landings; imported and exported and emissions for each fleet and sub fleet. The artisanal fishing and
goods; and passengers arriving and/or leaving. boating fleets were clustered in 2-meter intervals due to their low
It is worth noting that there is an important Chinese jigger fleet average length, while the rest of the fishing fleet, in 5-meter intervals.
targeting giant squid just outside the Peruvian EEZ (Liu et al., 2013).
There is evidence, however, of prior illegal fishing activities by Chinese-
Table 1
flagged fishing vessels near and inside the EEZ of South American
Characteristics of the different marine fleets operating in the Peruvian Economic
countries, including Peru (Paulino et al., 2017; Aroni Sulca, 2018). In
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the year 2018.
2020, a large Chinese jigger fleet was found to be illegally entering the
Fleet type Number of Average length Data sources
Argentinian EEZ, escaping monitoring and control by turning off their
vessels (#) (m)
automatic identification systems (AIS) (MercoPress, 2020). This high­
lights the possibility and threat that they may also venture inside the Fishing Artisanal 12,415 7.9 PRODUCE
(2021)
Peruvian EEZ to perform illegal fishing activities. However, due to the Small-scale 1490 11.8 PRODUCE
lack of official information, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) (2021)
fishing linked to foreign fishing fleets entering the Peruvian EEZ was not Vikingas 804 17.0 PRODUCE
considered in this study. (2021)
Industrial - 821 33.4 PRODUCE
The merchant fleet is made up of all the vessels that enter the
Steel (2021)
Peruvian EEZ to exchange goods and raw materials, and that are Merchant 6523 177.6 APN(2022a)
received and dispatched by any given Peruvian port. Data regarding Cruises 79 197.3 APN(2022b)
merchant shipping activities in the country were obtained from the Boating 2257 6.8 DICAPI
Peruvian National Port Authority (APN) (APN, 2022a). Cruises are (2022a)
Total 24,389
described as all the passenger vessels received by any Peruvian port.
– –

3
A. Deville et al.
Table 2
Fishing gear loss rates per fishing method used in this study.
Fishing gear Loss (%) Reference
Longline 3.0 Macfadyen et al. (2009)
Purse seine 7.0 Richardson et al. (2019)
Trawls 18.0 Richardson et al. (2019)
Gillnets 6.6 Richardson et al. (2019)
Traps/pots 20.0 Macfadyen et al. (2009)
The merchant fleet and the cruise ships were grouped in 10-meter
intervals.
The average beam and length for each group were calculated and
used to estimate the wetted area (i.e., draft and freeboard) in which the
antifouling painting is applied. The amount of antifouling used per
square meter was obtained from a Peruvian painting company (Pinturas
Jet, 2022), considering 4.97 m2/L and assuming a two-layer application
throughout the hull. Furthermore, the plastic polymer content in weight
was assumed to be 25 % of the total for antifouling paints (Sundt et al.,
2015). Even though these emissions are calculated on an annual basis,
only a fraction is emitted in the Peruvian EEZ for the nonpermanent
fleet. To estimate the antifouling emissions within the Peruvian EEZ, the
total distance traveled inside the EEZ (by length group and port) was
calculated and put into proportion with the average distance traveled by
a merchant ship (approximately 155,670 NM per year) (World Shipping
Council, 2021). The ratios considered for the antifouling paint emitted
directly to the ocean are as follows: 1 % due to weathering and 5 %
during maintenance (3.2 % during abrasive blasting and 1.8 % during
painting) (OECD, 2009; Sundt et al., 2015).
2.2.4. General plastic waste generated on board (GPW)
GPW is considered in this study as the food plastic packaging and
plastic bottles consumed on board with the potential to be thrown out or
lost while at sea. GPW was calculated for the artisanal and small-scale
fleets only because the industrial fleet and Vikingas, which mainly
land anchovy for fishmeal production, are tightly controlled by Peruvian
authorities, and it was assumed that they unload all of their waste in
each landing. However, a portion of the waste generated by the latter
two fleets is expected to flow into the ocean indirectly through leakage
from open dumps along the Peruvian coastline (Cristóbal et al., 2022;
Ita-Nagy et al., 2021). This indirect leakage was not accounted for in this
research. However, it should be noted that many of the main fishing
ports along the Peruvian coast, such as Pisco or Chimbote, still lacked
landfill infrastructure in 2018, with most of their residues ending up in
large dumpsters (Cristóbal et al., 2022).
Onboard packaging consumption by fishermen was estimated first by
identifying the geographical distribution of the fishing population.
Thereafter, using information from ENAPREF (2012) and Vázquez-Rowe
et al. (2017), the diets of the different coastal regions were obtained. It
was assumed that fishermen in each region represented the average diet
described for that region by ENAPREF (2012). Finally, using the product
packaging factors detailed in Table 3, the plastic consumed on board by
the fishermen was obtained. Information regarding plastic consumption
during fishing trips is scarce. Recently, however, Ortiz-Alvarez et al.
(2022) trained fishermen in a small fishing community of northern Peru
Table 3
Food plastic packaging weight factors used.
Food groups Product packaging factora
Fruits and vegetables 1.05
Animal protein 1.1
Ready-made food 1.05
Groceries 1.08
a
Multiplying factor accounting for the weight of packaging in con­
sumer goods.
Retrieved from Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2021).
4
Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785
to segregate their waste on board in different bins to be brought to shore
for characterization and weighting. It was found that approximately 20 g
of plastic waste is generated per fisherman per day (Ortiz-Alvarez et al.,
2022).
It is important to mention that no reports regarding the amount of
waste thrown overboard have been identified. However, littering is a
common practice throughout the Peruvian coast, and floating debris
from fishing vessels is found near major and artisanal fishing ports and
known fishing zones throughout the world. For example, Maglić et al.
(2022) found that in Mallorca (Spain), plastic particles comprise nearly
82 % of all floating marine litter surrounding main port areas and ma­
rinas. In order to overcome this limitation and considering different
behaviors and littering rate scenarios, different GPW emission factors
were considered. Firstly, a factor of 10 % emission of the total plastic
waste generated on board was assumed, considering that the fishermen
show strong environmental awareness; a second factor of 50 %, as an
intermediate rate; and finally, a 90 % emission factor, assuming a sce­
nario in which fishermen show little interest in protecting the environ­
ment supporting their livelihoods. At least 10 % of all the GPW was
assumed to be unloaded with each landing. In fact, the wide range of
littering scenarios is chosen to understand the impact that better waste
management practices in the artisanal and small-scale fisheries can have
in terms of oceanic plastic pollution.
The time spent at sea by fishermen was estimated using common
regional fishing job activities, considering the duration and frequency of
fishing activities. It is important to mention that these estimations have a
substantial degree of uncertainty as vessels and crews have different
timeframes and periodicity that may significantly differ even for the
same species targeted in the same geographical area as operations
depend on multiple factors, such as the geographical availability of the
stock, fish hold capacity, and the species that are targeted. These time
ratios are the most typical based on information from experts and
stakeholders. They are also considered to continue being stable
throughout the year. Refer to Table S2 in the SM for details.
The number of fishermen on board was obtained from the national
census of marine artisanal fishing (INEI, 2013). However, Peru is a
country reporting high informality rates throughout all its economic
sectors (Vincent, 2018). As of 2012, informality in Peru reached 51.5 %,
meaning that over half of the labor force was informal (Maurizio, 2012).
More recently, the Foreign Trade Society of Peru (COMEX) reported that
informality levels had increased to 76 % in 2022 (COMEX, 2022). The
Peruvian fishing sector is not exempt from this situation, and the arti­
sanal and small-scale fisheries are highly informal (Christensen et al.,
2014). Hence, the real number of fishermen is unknown as different
state entities report different numbers (Ojo Público, 2020). For example,
the National Institute of Statistics and Computing (INEI in Spanish) re­
ported ca. 50,000 fishermen (INEI, 2013), while the Peruvian Coast
Guard only registered around 36,000, including those with and without
permits (DICAPI, 2022b). The Ministry of Production (PRODUCE, 2022)
estimated that approximately 71,100 artisanal fishermen operated in
2020, of which 87.2 % were informal because they do not have a
qualifying title or do not have a current artisanal fisherman license.
Considering that INEI (2013) has the only official artisanal and small-
scale fishermen census, this information was used for this study. This
limitation should be taken into consideration as it is expected that the
number of artisanal and small-scale fishermen may be substantially
higher. However, a sensitivity analysis considering the fishermen pop­
ulation reported by DICAPI and PRODUCE is performed. Finally, GPW
emissions to the ocean cannot be distinguished between fishing fleets
because INEI aggregates all the artisanal and low-scale fishermen into
one single category.
2.3. Establishing plastic waste emission factors for life cycle studies
Life cycle assessment (LCA) relies considerably on information
linked to multiple unit processes and emission factors taking place in a
A. Deville et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785

Table 4
Plastic emission scenarios proposed for the estimation of plastic pollution from ocean-based sources in the Peruvian EEZ in the year 2018.
Fleet Particle size Emission Scenarios Description
type

Fishing fleet Macroplastic ALDFG ALDFG Sc1 ALDFG considering littering rates described in Section 2.2.2.
ALDFG Sc2 Lower 95 % CI FG emission factor
ALDFG Sc3 Upper 95 % CI FG emission factor
GPW INEI Sc1 Based on data from INEI (2013) to estimate the informal fishing fleet. Considers that 50 % of the general plastic
waste is disposed of to the ocean
INEI Sc2 Based on data from INEI (2013) to estimate the informal fishing fleet. Considers that 10 % of the general plastic
waste is disposed of to the ocean
INEI Sc3 Based on data from INEI (2013) to estimate the informal fishing fleet. Considers that 90 % of the general plastic
waste is disposed of to the ocean
DICAPI Sc1 Based on data from DICAPI (2022b) to estimate the informal fishing fleet. Considers that 50 % of the general
plastic waste is disposed of to the ocean
DICAPI Sc2 Based on data from DICAPI (2022b) to estimate the informal fishing fleet. Considers that 10 % of the general
plastic waste is disposed of to the ocean
DICAPI Sc3 Based on data from DICAPI (2022b) to estimate the informal fishing fleet. Considers that 90 % of the general
plastic waste is disposed of to the ocean
PRODUCE Based on data from PRODUCE (2022) to estimate the informal fishing fleet. Considers that 50 % of the general
Sc1 plastic waste is disposed of to the ocean
PRODUCE Based on data from PRODUCE (2022) to estimate the informal fishing fleet. Considers that 10 % of the general
Sc2 plastic waste is disposed of to the ocean
PRODUCE Based on data from PRODUCE (2022) to estimate the informal fishing fleet. Considers that 90 % of the general
Sc3 plastic waste is disposed of to the ocean
Microplastic APE APE Sc1 Considers 1 % of emissions due to weathering and a 25 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc2 Considers 5 % of emissions due to weathering and 25 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc3 Considers 1 % of emissions due to weathering and 55 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc4 Considers 5% of emissions due to weathering and 55 % polymer content in the AP
Merchant Microplastic APE APE Sc1 Considers 1 % of emissions due to weathering and a 25 % polymer content in the AP
fleet APE Sc2 Considers 5 % of emissions due to weathering and 25 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc3 Considers 1 % of emissions due to weathering and 55 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc4 Considers 5% of emissions due to weathering and 55 % polymer content in the AP
Cruises Microplastic APE APE Sc1 Considers 1 % of emissions due to weathering and a 25 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc2 Considers 5 % of emissions due to weathering and 25 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc3 Considers 1 % of emissions due to weathering and 55 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc4 Considers 5% of emissions due to weathering and 55 % polymer content in the AP
Boating fleet Microplastic APE APE Sc1 Considers 1 % of emissions due to weathering and a 25 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc2 Considers 5 % of emissions due to weathering and 25 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc3 Considers 1 % of emissions due to weathering and 55 % polymer content in the AP
APE Sc4 Considers 5% of emissions due to weathering and 55 % polymer content in the AP

ALDFG: abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear.

AP: antifouling paint.
APE: antifouling polymer emissions.
GPW: general plastic waste generated on board.

given production system (Turconi et al., 2013). In fact, unit process data
can describe inflows and outflows at a process level. Unfortunately,
however, plastic emissions flow from ocean-based sources is still scarce
in the literature (Woods et al., 2021). Hence, in this study, a series of
emission factors for plastic waste emissions to the ocean compartment
were computed based on the data collected and processed for the
Peruvian fleets.
On the one hand, considering that Peru has a very characteristic
fishing industry with global importance, it is crucial to develop specific
emission factors that consider plastic leakage to the ocean. To develop
these unit processes, plastic leakage factors per metric ton of landed fish
were calculated. Moreover, GPW was estimated for the artisanal and
small-scale fishing fleets only. However, fishing fleet-specific emission
factors cannot be obtained and have to be applied to the whole Peruvian
fishing fleet. This is due to the fact that there are no reports of landed
resources identifying the fishing fleet that catches it.
On the other hand, for the remaining fleets, differing considerations
were assumed for reporting emissions factors based on the reference unit
of each fleet. In the case of the merchant fleet, plastic emissions were
considered both per NM traveled within Peruvian waters and metric ton
of imported and/or exported goods. Similarly, for the cruise ships fleet,
unit processes were considered not only for the distance traveled but
also per passenger entering or leaving the country. Finally, for boating
vessels, the number of plastic polymers annually leaked into the ocean
was estimated per vessel.
2.4. Combination of scenarios
To deal with the overall uncertainty of the assessment, which in­
cludes variations on reported data by governmental agencies, onboard
waste management practices, and data gaps related to the fate of FG
during fishing activities, among others, a combination of the different
variables is performed. Different plastic waste flow scenarios are
considered for each type of emission for each fleet. Thereafter, 6 sce­
nario groups were developed: (i) one group for ALDFG with 3 different
scenarios; (ii) a second group for GPW with 9 scenarios; and (iii) 4
antifouling polymer emission (APE) groups (one for each fleet) with 4
scenarios each (see Table 4). A combination is then generated by adding
one waste scenario per group. Subsequently, multiple combinations are
obtained by selecting a scenario within a group and keeping it constant,
while the scenarios of the remaining groups are changed until all
possible combinations for a single scenario within a group are covered.
This process is then repeated for each scenario in all groups until all
possible combinations are calculated.
For the lost FG, ALDFG scenarios were calculated using the lower and
upper FG emission confidence intervals (95 %) from Richardson et al.
(2019) and Macfadyen et al. (2009). In the case of GPW, two additional
options were considered. Plastic waste generation due to onboard food
and beverages was estimated using the fishermen population registered
by DICAPI (2022b) and PRODUCE (2022), together with the values re­
ported by INEI (2013). The same littering scenarios for GPW considered
in Section 2.2.4 are used for the analysis. Moreover, changes in

5
A. Deville et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785

antifouling paints due to the weathering rate and plastic polymer con­ Table 6
tent are considered. A range from 1 % to 5 % of antifouling weathering Estimated plastic waste flows to the ocean from the Peruvian fishing fleet in the
and a change in plastic polymer content (in weight) from 25 % to 55 % year 2018.
are assumed. The weathering increase is because APE estimates from Units/ Artisanal Small Vikingas Industrial –
OECD (2009) can be considered to be conservative (Bray, 2019; Sundt description scale steel
et al., 2015). Finally, the antifouling plastic content increment was Fleet size # 12,415 1490 804 821
studied because some authors consider that the plastic content in APE ALDFG t/year 312 291 1095 1306
should be analyzed as the whole solid portion of the paint (which also APE t/year 5.1 1.5 1.4 3.6
Subtotal t/year 316.8 288.1 1097 1309
includes fillers and pigments). Once dried, the antifouling paint becomes
Contribution % 10.5 % 9.6 % 36.4 % 43.5 %
a homogeneous mixture in which all the components are adhered Plastic emission t/vessel/ 0.02 0.19 1.36 1.6
together in one particle (Verschoor et al., 2016). While we acknowledge per vessel year
that the actual plastic portion in the microparticles emitted from the General plastic 10 t/ 239 No direct leakage
hull's paint due to weathering is not 100 % of the dry paint, we used this waste (t/year) % year considereda
50 t/ 419
percentage to analyze the whole portion of the particle emitted as well in % year
this scenario. 90 t/ 792
% year

2.5. Limitations ALDFG: abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear; APE: antifouling
polymer emission.
a
A series of limitations linked to the modeling of plastic stock and This study assumed that no direct leakage to the ocean is considered for the
leakage to the ocean had to be overcome in this study. In the first place, Vikingas and industrial fleets.
it was noted that APN does not have a registry of the drafts of the ships
entering and leaving the country. This impeded having a clear estima­ system boundary that was used, in which plastic leakage to the ocean
tion of variations in the freeboard of vessels, which depends mainly on from Peruvian fleets was assumed to remain inside the Peruvian EEZ.
the carried load. Consequently, draft and wetted areas were estimated However, there is no physical barrier in this limit preventing plastic
using beam/length/draft ratios for all vessels, an assumption that litter to flow into/from international waters or into/from the EEZ of
directly affects the ultimate quantity of antifouling estimated. Further­ neighboring countries (i.e., Ecuador and Chile). Similarly, considering
more, for the merchant fleet, the draft calculation considered the that the ocean is an imperfect sink for plastic waste, it is feasible to as­
maximum permissible carried load (i.e., maximum draft). sume that a fraction of the plastic waste estimated will be eventually
Secondly, Peruvian law states that the hull of a ship must be subject collected through anthropogenic activities or will drift ashore and
to maintenance every 2 years, although a 6-month tolerance period is beyond the ocean compartment. Hence, it is expected that a fraction of
usually allowed (i.e., a maximum of 2.5 years). Nonetheless, in the in­ the plastic waste that leaks into the Peruvian ocean is removed from the
ternational maritime community, the reapplication of antifouling varies system boundary through natural or anthropogenic processes (i.e.,
greatly depending on the vessel's dimensions, categories, and distance extreme weather, fishmeal and fish oil plants, and desalination plants).
traveled, leading to a different rate of weathering and scraping emis­
sions compared with the Peruvian fleet (Thompson Clarke Shipping Pty. 3. Results and discussion
Ltd. et al., 2007; Wezenbeek et al., 2018).
In the case of the fishing fleet, it is important to note that certain 3.1. Plastic stock and emissions in the fishing fleet
fishing methods tend to be similar to one another, with small variations,
which influences gear loss. In many cases, these differences in methods The total amount of plastic FG stock estimated for the Peruvian
are only found locally, so they are usually not reported in the literature. fishing industry added up to 41,773 metric tons. Furthermore, it is
Hence, due to lack of information, in this study, fishing methods were estimated that around 193 metric tons of plastic polymers are found in
grouped to fit the descriptions used by the international fishing com­ the antifouling coating of the entire fleet, of which approximately 6 % is
munity glossary. For example, both anzuelos and pinta are considered in emitted to the ocean. It can be observed that the most polluting fleets are
the international nomenclature as handlines; however, they differ in the industrial steel and Vikingas fleets, both of which target mainly the
size, dimensions, operation, and targeted species (see Table S1 in the SM anchoveta stock. The industrial steel fleet accounted for 44 % of all the
for further information). plastic emissions to the ocean, followed by Vikingas (37 %). As shown in
ALDFG estimates were calculated using the loss in FG proportions Table 5, despite having less vessels than the artisanal and small-scale
obtained from literature sources in the Northern Hemisphere (Mac­ fleets, both industrial and Vikingas fleets have a much higher stock of
fadyen et al., 2009; Richardson et al., 2019) due to lack of data for South plastic in both FG and antifouling polymers per vessel. This is due to
America; thus, the geographical representativeness of this assumption is their greater average cargo hold capacity. Thus, the vessels in both fleets
low. Moreover, information regarding the weight of FG in Peru is scarce. are, on average, bigger than those in the artisanal and small-scale fleets,
To overcome this limitation, different ratios of fish hold capacity and FG meaning that they have a superior wetted area and must carry larger FG
weight widely used in Peru were used. weights.
A final source of uncertainty in the study was the fixed geographical Total plastic waste entering the Peruvian EEZ from the fishing in­
dustry ranged from 3254 to 3806 metric tons in the year 2018 based on
Table 5 the estimations conducted in this study. Table 6 presents the detailed
Estimated plastic stock embedded in the Peruvian fishing fleet in the year 2018. amount of plastic leakage to the ocean, specified for emission type and
Fleet Fishing Fishing Antifouling Antifouling plastic
fleet, and Fig. 1 illustrates the overall stock, inputs and outputs of the
gear (t) gear/vessel plastic polymers polymers/vessel different plastic flows analyzed for the all the fishing fleets. ALDFG has
(t) (t) (kg) the highest contribution of plastic waste entering the ocean, ranging
Artisanal 4773 0.38 84.6 6.81 from 77 % to 90 % depending on the scenario assumed (see Fig. 1). The
Small scale 3390 2.28 24.7 16.55 antifouling coating shows the lowest share of plastic flows (ca. 0.4 %).
Vikingas 16,344 20.33 23.8 29.62 Meanwhile, GPW ranged from 7 % to 20 %. It is worth noticing that
Industrial – 17,266 21.03 59.8 72.88 plastic food packaging and plastic bottles consumed on board are not
steel
Total 41,773 – 192.9 –
considered stock but rather a flow of materials continuously entering/

6
A. Deville et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785

Fig. 1. Estimated plastic stocks and outflows related to the ocean in the Peruvian fishing industry in the year 2018 (results reported in metric tons).

Table 7
Estimated antifouling plastic polymer emissions in Peruvian waters related to the merchant fleet in the year 2018.
Origin or destination Distance traveled (NM) Voyages (#) Emission (t/year) % Emission Emission kg/voyage/year Emission g/NM/year

East Asia, Oceania 368,200 1841 1.34 1.7 % 0.738 3.69

Chile 1,487,975 2517 29.33 37.5 % 11.65 19.71
Rest of the World 2,518,613 4310 47.55 60.7 % 11.03 18.88
Peru (domestic) 695,587 2188 0.053 0.1 % 0.024 0.087
Total 5,070,376 10,856 78.28 – – –

NM: nautical miles.

exiting the fleet or leaking toward the ocean during artisanal and small-
scale fishing activities. This is because GPW is not permanent in fishing
vessels and is loaded before every departure. The results for ALDFG and
GPW reported in Table 6 are emitted in the form of macroplastics (>5
mm), although through time they are bound to become major sources of
secondary microplastics due to fragmentation and degradation pro­
cesses (Woods et al., 2021). In contrast, antifouling polymer emissions
are emitted as microplastics (<5 mm).
The artisanal fleet presents the lowest plastic emission and stock per
vessel. Despite having on average smaller vessels, it has the largest
number of vessels, roughly 10-fold higher than the rest of the fleets;
hence, it has a slightly higher total contribution than the second-largest
fleet, the small-scale fleet, which has a substantially larger plastic stock
per vessel.
The industrial fleet has a far greater polymer content per vessel (i.e.,
72.9 kg) in the underwater hull area as compared to the remaining
fleets. In fact, although industrial and Vikinga vessels have a similar FG
weight on board, the industrial fleet has on average more than two times
the wetted area, which results in a significant increase in the use of
antifouling painting. This may be explained by the fact that naval steel
vessels are more modern and have more and better equipment, tech­
nology, and facilities on board, which in turn results in larger vessels
regardless of the same relative cargo hold capacity.
3.2. Plastic emissions of the merchant fleet
In 2018, Peru received 4353 merchant vessels of all kinds (e.g.,
tankers, Ro-Ro containers, bulk carriers) from international waters, as
well as 2188 domestic voyages made between different Peruvian ports
(APN, 2022a). The port of Callao was the most important, receiving 48
% of the total weight handled. Furthermore, 4335 commercial vessels
departed from different Peruvian ports to international waters (APN,
2022a). Due to the nature of the entrance of the different commercial
fishing fleets into the Peruvian EEZ, the origins and destinations of the
vessels were divided into East Asia and Oceania, Chile, rest of the world
(RoW), and Peru (i.e., domestic ports).
As shown in Table 7, total plastic emission within Peruvian waters
due to weathering, scraping of the merchant fleet's vessels in 2018
amounted to approximately 78 metric tons. Over 5 million NM were
sailed by merchant vessels in the Peruvian EEZ in 2018, for which RoW,
Chile, Peru, and East Asia and Oceania represented 50 %, 29 %, 14 %,
and 7 % of the total distance, respectively (APN, 2022a). For the RoW,
Chile, and East Asia and Oceania fleets, the distance traveled follows a
similar tendency as the emission patterns; however, this is not the case
for the Peruvian fleet. This can be explained by the fact that the average
dimensions of the merchant vessels performing domestic voyages are
smaller than the rest. More specifically, the average length and width of
the entire merchant fleet are approximately 178 and 28 m, respectively,
whereas the average length and width of the domestic merchant fleet are
157 and 26 m, respectively. This means that, on average, the vessels of
the Peruvian fleet need to apply approximately 320 kg less antifouling
painting per vessel (i.e., roughly 80 kg of plastic polymers). The vessels
with RoW and Chilean ports as destinations have a much higher emis­
sion rate per voyage because their average distance sailed is roughly 162
NM more than the average, resulting in more weathering due to a longer
voyage.

7
A. Deville et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785

3.3. Cruise ships and boating vessels Peruvian case. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of the
Peruvian fleet performs painting and maintenance activities in close
In 2018, Peru received (and dispatched) 32 cruise ships from abroad. proximities to the seashore, in many cases without protective measures
The most popular destinations (directly from international waters) were (Edwin Perez, TASA, personal communication, April 27, 2022); hence,
the ports of Callao and Salaverry, with 10 vessels each (APN, 2022a). plastic pollution indirectly leaked into the ocean due to both cleaning
Furthermore, there were 47 voyages made by cruises between Peruvian and painting may be underestimated.
ports, with Callao being the most popular option (APN, 2022b). Over According to Ita-Nagy et al. (2021), between 44,000 and 103,000
45,000 NM were sailed by cruise ships inside the Peruvian EEZ during metric tons of plastic waste leak into the Pacific Ocean yearly from
2018, with an average of 414 NM per voyage and a total of 66,523 terrestrial-based sources. Their study considered mismanaged municipal
passengers (APN, 2022b). The total plastic polymers emitted by cruises solid waste (MSW) generated within the Peruvian Pacific Basin and
in Peruvian waters amounted to roughly 79 kg in 2018. excluded other sources of plastic pollution, such as agricultural activity,
The official registry by the Peruvian Coast Guard, DICAPI, stated that tire and road wear, and wastewater treatment plants. Considering the
in 2018, there were 2257 nautical and boating vessels with Peruvian flag cumulative amounts of plastic waste estimated by Ita-Nagy et al. (2021)
(excluding jet skis and zodiac boats) (DICAPI, 2022a). The hulls of over and this study, the total amount of plastic that entered the Pacific Ocean
92 % of all the boating fleet were made from fiberglass, with an average from MSW and marine-based sources in 2018 ranged from 47,386 to
length and beam of 6.85 and 2.41 m, respectively. Considering only the 107,737 metric tons. Hence, the total weight of plastic from ocean-based
weathering of this fleet, it is estimated that approximately 705 kg of sources amounted to between 3 % and 8 % of all the plastic entering the
antifouling polymers entered the Peruvian ocean in 2018 with an Peruvian Pacific Ocean from both inland and marine sources in the best-
average of 313 g per vessel each year. It is worth mentioning that the and worst-case scenarios, respectively (Ita-Nagy et al., 2021).
amount of antifouling estimated was done considering a monohull Country-level studies estimating plastic emissions generated at sea
vessel for more conservative results. This is because the official vessels are scarce, and there are no modern global computations for ship- and
registry does not differentiate between the vessels' hull structure char­ ocean-generated waste (Fabres et al., 2016). Marine litter from marine
acteristics (e.g., monohull, catamaran), which notably affects the di­ activity was first studied by the US National Academy of Sciences, where
mensions and, thus, the total antifouling paint used. it was estimated that in the 1970s, approximately 45,000 metric tons of
plastic waste were emitted directly into the ocean in the US from marine-
3.4. Total estimated plastic pollution from marine activities in the based activity, considering a plastic content of 0.7 % (National Research
Peruvian EEZ Council, 1975). Recent efforts to quantify the contribution of marine
activities of plastic pollution have resulted in a much higher percentage
This study sought to quantify marine plastic pollution from ocean- from ocean-based activities than the range obtained in this study. Jang
based sources from the most relevant fleets operating in Peru. The et al. (2014) sampled 6 beaches in South Korea and found that
MFA identified that in 2018, between 3336 and 3888 metric tons of approximately 56 % (mainly from the fishing industry) of all the plastic
plastic waste entered Peruvian waters due to different marine-based
industries or activities. The fishing fleet was the most pollutant,
comprising over 97 % by weight of the total amount of plastic entering Table 8
Calculated emissions factors for plastic release to the ocean in the Peruvian fleet
the ocean. Moreover, GPW amounted to up to 20 % of the total plastic
in the year 2018.
waste entering Peruvian waters, for the most polluting scenario and 7 %
for the strong environmental awareness scenario. The merchant fleet Fleet type Emissions Emitted Unit Emission Total
particle size factors emissions
came in second place, with a share ranging from 2 % to 2.4 %, depending
(t)
on the scenario assumed. The final two fleets, with fewer contributions,
Artisanal ALDFG Macroplastic g ALDFG/ 777.8 602.7
were the boating and cruise ships, both accounting for <0.1 %.
and t catch
Concerning ocean-based sources related to marine plastic pollution, Small- APE Microplastic g APE/t 8.46 6.6
special attention should be given to the commercial fishing fleet and its scale catch
major contributions to plastic pollution due to ALDFG. A total of 3003 fisheries GPW Macroplastic g GPW/t 309.0 239.4
metric tons of ALDFG were estimated, constituting between 77 % and catch 540.6 418.8
1022 791.6
90 % of all ocean-sourced plastic waste. Furthermore, the fishing in­
Industrial ALDFG Macroplastic g ALDFG/ 373.1 2401
dustry has an estimated FG plastic stock of 41,773 metric tons, with fisheries t catch
approximately 7 % being lost. In 2018, the four biggest nets importing APE Microplastic mg APE/t 780.8 5.0
and fabricating companies in Peru imported a total of 19,292 metric tons catch
of nets and raw materials for the production of equipment for both Merchant APE Microplastic mg APE/t 733.7 78.3
fleet of
aquaculture and fishing (Veritrade Corp, 2022). In Peru, the average imported
lifespan of FG is approximately four years (Javier Alvarado, Copeinca, and
personal communication, January 12, 2022), and according to the stock, exported
every year roughly 10,500 metric tons of FG and raw materials should goods
APE Microplastic mg APE/ 154.4
enter the marine fishing industry. Hence, we hypothesize that the dif­
NM
ference between the imported weight encountered in the customs data traveleda
and the expected FG renovation rate could be explained by the amount Cruises APE Microplastic g APE/ 1.19 0.08
of nets and raw materials being used by (mainly freshwater) aquaculture passenger
and agriculture activities, and continental (i.e., lake and river) fisheries APE Microplastic g APE/ 1.78
NM
in the Amazon basin. traveleda
A total of 90.6 metric tons of antifouling paint plastic polymers were Recreative APE Microplastic g APE/ 312.5 0.7
emitted from vessels. The merchant fleet is the most pollutant source of fleet vessel
alkyd polymers amounting up to 78.3 metric tons. Permanent fleets in ALDFG: abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear.
the Peruvian EEZ emitted a total of 12.3 metric tons (of which 94 % APE: antifouling polymer emissions.
belongs to the fishing industry) of antifouling polymers. Although the GPW: general plastic waste generated on board.
permanent fleet amounts to only 14 % of the paint polymers directly NM: nautical miles.
emitted to the ocean, it has to be further analyzed specifically for the a
Nautical miles traveled inside the Peruvian Exclusive Economic Zone only.

8
A. Deville et al.
debris found on beaches were from ocean-based sources. Similarly, 28.1
% of all the plastic waste afloat on the surface of the Great Pacific
Garbage Patch (Northern Hemisphere) was found to be from marine
sources, with fishing (17.9 %), aquaculture (1.3 %), and shipping (8.9
%) activities representing the largest fractions (Lebreton et al., 2018).
The European Commission estimated that 12 % of all the debris found in
the North Sea was from the fishing industry; similarly, recreational
boating amounted up to 10 % in both the North and Black Sea, while
recreational fishing reached levels of 46 % in the Black Sea (European
Commission, 2010). However, this study analyzed all types of waste,
including wood, metal, glass, clothing, and paper as well. In the United
Kingdom, the largest source was found to be unknown items, while
fishing contributed 14 % of the total marine debris (OSPAR, 2009).
Moreover, between 1997 and 2007, it was found that ocean-based
sources represented 7.6 % of the total marine debris in the Mid-
Atlantic region of the United States (Ribic et al., 2010). A vast
geographical variability is appreciated as ocean-based plastic pollution
sources are highly dependent on regional activities and physical char­
acteristics (e.g., transport vectors and sinks). In the case of primary
microplastic emissions, our results are comparable with those reported
by Boucher and Friot (2017) as they obtained an average result of 2 %,
while our results for APE emissions ranged between 2.3 % and 2.7 % of
the total.
3.5. Plastic emission factors for life cycle studies
The results obtained allow reporting the emissions of plastic poly­
mers released to the ocean per reference unit beyond the vessel- and
fleet-oriented perspective presented. Hence, in the case of the fishing
fleet, emissions regarding ALDFG, antifouling polymer pollution, and
GPW are possible to be reported per metric ton of landed fish as the
reference unit. Therefore, considering that in 2018 more than 7 million
metric tons of fish were landed in Peru (INEI, 2022), Table 8 presents
plastic waste emission factors for the different fishing fleets in Peru. It
can be appreciated at first glance that the artisanal and small-scale
fisheries are the biggest pollutants per metric ton of landed catch,
over twice in the case of ALDFG and more than an order of magnitude for
APE. This is to be expected as the industrial fisheries have greater effi­
ciencies mainly due to economics of scale at play with the abundance of
Peruvian anchoveta and also due to the better technology, larger vessels,
Fig. 2. Total plastic flow toward the ocean, representing the combinations of all scenarios. Each point represents the sum of plastic flows for each combination of
scenarios, as described in Table 4. The different clusters of results are as follows: A < 3000 t/year; 3000 t/year < B < 3250 t/year; 3250 t/year < C < 3500 t/year;
3500 t/year < D < 4000 t/year; 4000 t/year < E < 4500 t/year; 4500 t/year < F < 5000 t/year; G > 5000 t/year.
9
Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785
and larger autonomy. Considering both APE and ALDFG, the total plastic
emission factors per metric ton of landed catch amounted to 786 and
374 g for small (artisanal and small-scale) and industrial (industrial and
Vikings) fleets, respectively. However, when considering GPW, the
emission factor for the smaller fleets increases notably. Artisanal and
small-scale fishermen emitted approximately 4.8–15.8 kg/fishermen/
year of GPW, incrementing the total plastic emission factors for these
fisheries to between 1095 and 1808 g of plastic waste per metric ton of
the landed catch.
In the case of the merchant fleet, emission factors were generated
according to the imported/exported goods and distance traveled inside
the EEZ. Consequently, for this computation, 106 million metric tons of
imported and exported goods that arrived and left to and from Peruvian
ports in 2018 (APN, 2018) were taken into consideration. In the case of
cruises, plastic emissions factors were generated both per passenger
arriving at the country and per NM traveled inside the EEZ. Finally, for
the boating fleet, the plastic emission factors were generated per vessel.
It can be noticed that the APE emission factor for cruises is over one
order of magnitude higher than the merchant fleet in terms of nautical
miles traveled. This is due to two main reasons. On the one hand, all
cruises enter the country through their northern- and southernmost
limits, meaning that they have to travel further distances (564 NM per
voyage) compared with the merchant vessels (467 NM per voyage). On
the other hand, on average, cruises are 20 m larger in length than
merchant vessels, with similar width.
3.6. Combination of scenarios
With the 28 scenarios described in Table 4, a total of 6912 different
combinations of plastic emissions were obtained. The maximum value
was 5584 metric tons per year, while the minimum was 2715 metric tons
per year as shown in Fig. 2. The initial analysis encompasses a consid­
erable proportion of the resulting combinations, approximately 22 %. It
can be seen that while in the initial calculation ADLFG is the only major
contributor of plastic emissions, there are other sources with an enor­
mous polluting potential according to the conditions considered. APE as
well as GPW have a vast potential capacity to become great ocean pol­
luters. While in most cases merchant APE ranges from 1 % to 5 %, in
some scenarios, it can reach shares of up to 26 %, and in over 11 % of all
the combinations, it reached 20 % of the total emissions. Similarly, GPW
A. Deville et al.
can represent up to 25 % only in 320 combinations and a maximum of
30 % (see Fig. S3 in the SM). In contrast, ALDFG reaches a maximum
contribution of 96 % of the total marine plastic pollution from ocean
sources, while the lower fraction obtained is 56 %. Additionally, only in
109 combinations ALDFG resulted in <60 % of the total share.
The combination resulting in the major emission is 44 % higher than
the upper value from the initial analysis, meaning that there is a vast
additional potential of plastic pollution from ocean-based sources that
needs to be further studied to reduce inaccuracies in the analysis.
4. Conclusions
Ocean-based macro- and microplastic emissions due to marine ac­
tivities in the Peruvian EEZ have been characterized and quantified in
this study using MFA. Results show that between 2715 and 5584 metric
tons of plastic entered the Peruvian EEZ in 2018, from which ALDFG
represents the most important activity. ALDFG contribution ranges be­
tween 56 % and 96 % of the total plastic release. Furthermore, it was
shown that the plastic packaging in food and beverages consumed on
board has the potential to become a great source of macroplastics to the
ocean as it can reach contributions of over 30 %, making the Peruvian
fishing industry the most pollutant industry in terms of marine plastics.
The different plastic waste flows and the analysis of several plastic
emission conditions brought light to the potential polluting capacities of
other sources. APE can become an important player not only in overall
plastic pollution but as a primary source of microplastics according to
the polymer content in antifouling paints and different emission patterns
due to weathering. APE can reach values of 919 metric tons per year and
a maximum contribution of 26 % of the total plastic waste emitted from
marine sources, with the merchant fleet having the greatest polluting
potential for this type of polymer. However, for most scenario combi­
nations APE emissions represent <5 % of total plastic emissions.
While several aspects are important for future mitigation strategies,
implementing actions to tackle the lack of solid waste management and
control systems in the Peruvian fishing industry, mainly for the artisanal
and small-scale fleets, is of great importance. Incentives for fishermen at
the fishing docks and ports to better manage and dispose of the general
waste generated on board and recovered (but damaged and unusable)
FG can greatly contribute to reducing plastic waste entering the ocean
and help fishermen learn more about how to protect the ocean and their
livelihoods.
Future research should focus on the reduction of uncertainties faced
during this assessment. For example, there is a great need to further
analyze vessel maintenance activities. Due to the lack of adequate
environmental controls and proximity to the ocean, there is a possibility
that a greater quantity of antifouling polymers reaches the ocean
compared with the results of this research. Moreover, a further
comprehensive and exhaustive survey and study regarding FG stock and
flows may prove of great value to more accurately calculate ALDFG.
Furthermore, an analysis of the time spent at sea by each vessel and crew
can be obtained by analyzing the AIS data, in case available, or other
technology which provides continuous information on a vessel's loca­
tion. This will help more accurately quantify and characterize the waste
generated while at sea. AIS data also have the capacity to influence the
analysis of the potential IUU fishing in the Peruvian EEZ, which is not
included in this study, but may have an impact on the study of ocean-
based sources of marine plastic contamination in a fixed EEZ.
Overall plastic pollution occurring in the Peruvian EEZ, as most
plastic flows worldwide, is linked to highly complex systems where
multiple stakeholders participate and different types of emissions occur
simultaneously. However, this ever-increasing ambiguity has to be dealt
with, and this study proposes MFA as a promising start for measuring
plastic waste from marine activity in Peru. In fact, this study constitutes
the first attempt to quantify the accumulation of marine plastic pollution
from ocean-based sources in Peru. These results will be useful for the
academic community and decision makers to establish pathways to
10
Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785
mitigate plastic release through a better understanding of their sources.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Alejandro Deville: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investiga­
tion, Methodology, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – orig­
inal draft. Ian Vazquez-Rowe: Conceptualization, Validation,
Resources, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. Diana Ita-
Nagy: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review &
editing. Ramzy Kahhat: Conceptualization, Validation, Formal anal­
ysis, Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Supervision,
Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) of the United Kingdom for financial support via the “Reducing
the impacts of plastic waste in the Eastern Pacific Ocean” project (NERC
reference: NE/V005448/1) and the Pontificia Universidad Católica del
Perú for financial support through Project ID 748. The authors also wish
to thank Javier Alvarado, who provided valuable information regarding
the Peruvian fishing industry.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The supplementary material provides data used to calculate the
generation of abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear
(ALDFG), and general plastic waste (GPW) in the Peruvian fishing in­
dustry, which were obtained from the main stakeholders. Data gathered
from official sources illustrating the contribution of the main Peruvian
ports is also shown. Finally, an additional figure displaying further re­
sults regarding the combination of scenarios is presented. Supplemen­
tary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2023.114785.
References
Aroni Sulca, E., 2018. Estimación de la captura ilegal de Dosidicus gigas por la flota que
opera fuera de la ZEE del Perú (2013-2016). [in Spanish].
Autoridad Portuaria Nacional – APN, 2018. Estadísticas 2018 APN: Tráfico de Carga.
Movimiento de carga en las instalaciones portuarias de uso público y privado - 2018
[online] Available at: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/apn/informes-publicacion
es/799941-estadisticas-2018-apn-trafico-de-carga. (Accessed 6 May 2022) [in
Spanish].
Autoridad Portuaria Nacional – APN, 2022. Puertos del Peru. https://eredenaves.apn.
gob.pe/apn/inforedenaves.jsp. (Accessed 6 January 2022) (January).
Autoridad Portuaria Nacional – APN, 2022. Naves crucero recibidas a nivel nacional –
2010 al 2021. Available at: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/apn/informes-publicaci
ones/799804-estadisticas-cifras-historicas-apn-operaciones. (Accessed 6 January
2022) [in Spanish].
Baeta, F., Costa, M.J., Cabral, H., 2009. Trammel nets’ ghost fishing off the portuguese
central coast. Fish. Res. 98 (1–3), 33–39.
Beneli, T.M., Pereira, P.H.C., Nunes, J.A.C.C., Barros, F., 2020. Ghost fishing impacts on
hydrocorals and associated reef fish assemblages. Mar. Environ. Res. 161, 105129.
Boucher, J., Friot, D., 2017. Primary Microplastics in the Oceans: A Global Evaluation of
Sources, Vol. 109.
Bray, S., 2019. In: Hull Scrapings and Marine Coatings as a Source of Microplastics, p. 33.
Brown, J., MacFadyen, G., 2007. Ghost fishing in european waters: impacts and
management responses. Mar. Policy 31 (4), 488–504.
Brunner, P.H., Rechberger, H., 2016. Handbook of Material Flow Analysis: For
Environmental, Resource, and Waste Engineers. CRC press.
A. Deville et al.
Butler, C.B., Matthews, T.R., 2015. Effects of ghost fishing lobster traps in the Florida
keys. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, i185–i198.
Chae, Doo Hyeon, Kim, In Sung, Kim, Seung Kyu, Song, Young Kyoung, Shim, Won Joon,
2015. Abundance and distribution characteristics of microplastics in surface
seawaters of the Incheon/Kyeonggi coastal region. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
69 (3).
Chen, Wei Qiang, Graedel, T.E., 2012. Anthropogenic cycles of the elements: a critical
review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (16), 8574–8586.
Chen, J., Bian, W., Wan, Z., Yang, Z., Zheng, H., Wang, P., 2019. Identifying factors
influencing total-loss marine accidents in the world: analysis and evaluation based
on ship types and sea regions. Ocean Eng. 191, 106495.
Christensen, V., De la Puente, S., Sueiro, J.C., Steenbeek, J., Majluf, P., 2014. Valuing
seafood: the peruvian fisheries sector. Mar. Policy 44, 302–311.
Ciacci, L., Passarini, F., Vassura, I., 2017. The European PVC cycle: in-use stock and
flows. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 123, 108–116.
COMEX, 2022. Empleo informal: 18 Departamentos en el país superan La Tasa Promedio
Nacional del 76.8%. COMEX (n.d.). Retrieved September 10, 2022, from:
https://www.comexperu.org.pe/articulo/empleo-informal-18-departamentos-en-
el-pais-superan-la-tasa-promedio-nacional-del-768#:~:text=No%20obstante%2C%
20debido%20a%20una,resultados%20de%202017%20(72.6%25) [in Spanish].
Consoli, Pierpaolo, Romeo, Teresa, Angiolillo, Michela, Canese, Simonepietro,
Esposito, Valentina, Salvati, Eva, Scotti, Gianfranco, Andaloro, Franco,
Tunesi, Leonardo, 2019. Marine litter from fishery activities in the Western
Mediterranean Sea: the impact of entanglement on marine animal forests. Environ.
Pollut. 249, 472–481.
Cózar, Andrés, Echevarría, Fidel, González-Gordillo, J.Ignacio, Irigoien, Xabier,
Úbeda, Bárbara, Hernández-León, Santiago, Palma, Álvaro T., Duarte, Carlos M.,
2014. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111 (28),
10239–10244.
Cristóbal, J., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Margallo, M., Ita-Nagy, D., Ziegler-Rodriguez, K.,
Laso, J., Ruiz-Salmón, I., Kahhat, R., Aldaco, R., 2022. Climate change mitigation
potential of transitioning from open dumpsters in Peru: evaluation of mitigation
strategies in critical dumpsites. Sci. Total Environ. 846, 157295.
Danopoulos, Evangelos, Jenner, Lauren C., Twiddy, Maureen, Rotchell, Jeanette M.,
2020. Microplastic contamination of seafood intended for human consumption: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Health Perspect. 128 (12), 126002-1-
126002–32.
Deshpande, P.C., Philis, G., Brattebø, H., Fet, A.M., 2020. Using material flow analysis
(MFA) to generate the evidence on plastic waste management from commercial
fishing gears in Norway. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 5, 100024.
DICAPI | Dirección General de Capitanías y Guardacostas, 2022. https://www.dicapi.
mil.pe/consultas/personal-matricula-5. (Accessed 6 February 2022).
DICAPI | Dirección General de Capitanías y Guardacostas, 2022. Consulta del Personal
Acuatico. https://www.dicapi.mil.pe/consultas/personal-matricula-5. (Accessed 26
May 2022), 127 p.
Donnelly-Greenan, Erica L., Nevins, Hannahrose M., Harvey, James T., 2019. Entangled
seabird and marine mammal reports from citizen science surveys from coastal
California (1997–2017). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149 (August), 110557.
ENAPREF, 2012. Perú: Consumo per cápita de los principales alimentos 2008-2009.
Encuesta Nacional de Presupuestos Familiares (ENAPREF). Dirección Técnica de
Demografía e Indicadores Sociales. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática
(INEI). May, 2012 [in Spanish] [online] Available at: [in Spanish].
Eriksen, Marcus, Lebreton, Laurent C.M., Carson, Henry S., Thiel, Martin, Moore, Charles
J., Borerro, Jose C., Galgani, Francois, Ryan, Peter G., Reisser, Julia, 2014. Plastic
pollution in the World’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over
250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS ONE 9 (12), 1–15.
Espinosa, N., 2019. Para comprender la Pesca artesanal en el Peru. Debate Agrario 49,
67–76 [in Spanish].
European Commission, 2010. Pilot Project ‘4 Seas’– Plastic Recycling Cycle and Marine
Environmental Impact: Case Studies on the Plastic Cycle and its Loopholes in the
Four European Regional Seas Areas. European Commission.
Fabres, J., Savelli, H., Schoolmeester, T., Rucevska, I., Baker, E., 2016. Marine Litter Vital
Graphics. UN-Environment, GRID-Arendal.
FAO, 2020. The State of World Fisheeries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in
Action. Rome.
Ferrigno, Federica, Appolloni, Luca, Russo, Giovanni Fulvio, Sandulli, Roberto, 2018.
Impact of fishing activities on different coralligenous assemblages of gulf of Naples
(Italy). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 98 (1), 41–50.
Ghani, S.A.A., El-Sayed, A.A., Ibrahim, M.I., Ghobashy, M., Shreadah, M.A., Shabaka, S.,
2022. Characterization and distribution of plastic particles along Alexandria
beaches, Mediterranean coast of Egypt, using microscopy and thermal analysis
techniques. Sci. Total Environ. 834, 155363.
Gilardi, K., Antonelis, K., Galgani, F., Grilly, E., He, P., Linden, O., Wang, L., 2020. Sea-
based sources of marine litter - a review of current knowledge and assessment of data
gaps (Second In- terim Report of Gesamp Working Group 43). Available at:. In: FAO,
Vol. 2021 [in Spanish]. http://www.fao.org/3/cb0724en/cb0724en.pdf.
Gilman, E., Chopin, F., Suuronen, P., Kuemlangan, B., 2016. Abandoned, lost and
discarded gillnets and trammel nets: methods to estimate ghost fishing mortality,
and the status of regional monitoring and management. In: FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper, (600), I.
Gottschalk, Fadri, Scholz, Roland W., Nowack, Bernd, 2010. Probabilistic material flow
modeling for assessing the environmental exposure to compounds: methodology and
an application to engineered Nano-TiO2 particles. Environ. Model. Softw. 25 (3),
320–332.
11
Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785
Grimaldo, E., Herrmann, B., Su, B., Føre, H.M., Vollstad, J., Olsen, L., Tatone, I., 2019.
Comparison of fishing efficiency between biodegradable gillnets and conventional
nylon gillnets. Fish. Res. 213, 67–74.
Hammer, Jort, Kraak, Michiel H.S., Parsons, John R., 2012. Plastics in the marine
environment: the dark side of a modern gift [online] Available at:. In: Whitacre, D.M.
(Ed.), Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 220. Springer
New York, New York, NY [in Spanish].
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica - INEI, 2022. Desembarque de productos
pesqueros por utilizacion, 2006-2020 [online] Available at: https://m.inei.gob.
pe/estadisticas/indice-tematico/fishing/. (Accessed 29 May 2022) [in Spanish].
INEI-PRODUCE, 2013. Censo Nacional de la Pesca Artesanal del Ámbito Marítimo –
Cenpar 2012. INEI. [in Spanish], Lima.
Ita-Nagy, D., Vazquez-Rowe, I., Kahhat, R., 2021. Quantifying the environmental impacts
of marine litter - A case for coastal Peru. In: CILCA IX International Conference on
Life Cycle Assessment in Latin America. Buenos Aires, 31st May – 4th June.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Law, K.L.,
2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science (January), 1655–1734.
Jang, Y.C., Lee, J., Hong, S., Lee, J.S., Shim, W.J., Song, Y.K., 2014. Sources of plastic
marine debris on beaches of Korea: more from the ocean than the land. Ocean Sci. J.
49 (2), 151–162.
Johansen, Mathilde Rosenberg, Christensen, Thomas Budde, Ramos, Tiffany Marilou,
Syberg, Kristian, 2022. A review of the plastic value chain from a circular economy
perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 302, 113975.
Kahhat, Ramzy, Williams, Eric, 2012. Materials flow analysis of E-waste: domestic flows
and exports of used computers from the United States. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 67,
67–74.
Kawecki, Delphine, Scheeder, Paul R.W., Nowack, Bernd, 2018. Probabilistic material
flow analysis of seven commodity plastics in Europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (17),
9874–9888.
Laner, David, Feketitsch, Julia, Rechberger, Helmut, Fellner, Johann, 2016. A novel
approach to characterize data uncertainty in material flow analysis and its
application to plastics flows in Austria. J. Ind. Ecol. 20 (5), 1050–1063.
Law, Kara Lavender, Starr, Natalie, Siegler, Theodore R., Jambeck, Jenna R.,
Mallos, Nicholas J., Leonard, George H., 2020. The United States’ contribution of
plastic waste to land and ocean. Sci. Adv. 6 (44), 1–8.
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., Reisser, J.,
2018. Evidence that the great Pacific garbage patch is rapidly accumulating plastic.
Sci. Rep. 8 (1), 1–15.
Li, W.C., Tse, H.F., Fok, L., 2016. Plastic waste in the marine environment: a review of
sources, occurrence and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 566, 333–349.
Liu, B., Chen, X., Chen, Y., Tian, S., Li, J., Fang, Z., Yang, M., 2013. Age, maturation, and
population structure of the Humboldt squid Dosidicus gigas off the peruvian
exclusive economic zones. Chin. J. Oceanol. Limnol. 31 (1), 81–91.
Loubet, P., Couturier, J., Arduin, R.H., Sonnemann, G., 2022. Life cycle inventory of
plastics losses from seafood supply chains: methodology and application to french
fish products. Sci. Total Environ. 804, 150117.
Lusher, Amy, Hollman, Peter, Mendozal, Jeremy, 2017. Microplastics in Fisheries and
Aquaculture: Status of Knowledge on Their Occurrence and Implications for Aquatic
Organisms and Food Safety.
Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappell, R., 2009. In: Abandoned Lost or Otherwise
Discarded Fishing Gear FAO Consultants Lymington. United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper,
p. 523.
Maglić, L., Maglić, L., Grbčić, A., Gulić, M., 2022. Composition of floating marine litter in
port areas of the island of Mallorca. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10 (8), 1079.
Maurizio, R., 2012. In: Labour Informality in Latin America: The Case of Argentina,
Chile, Brazil and Peru. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper, p. 165.
MercoPress, 2020. Argentina's EEZ “flooded” by Chinese jiggers catching tons of squid.
https://en.mercopress.com/2020/04/28/argentina-s-eez-flooded-by-chinese-jigge
rs-catching-tons-of-squid. (Accessed 20 May 2022).
National Research Council (U.S.), 1975. Study Panel on Assessing Potential Ocean
Pollutants, Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants: A Report of the Study Panel on
Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants to the Ocean Affairs Board, Commission on
Natural Resources, National Research Council. National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, DC.
OECD, 2009. OECD Series on Emission Scenario Documents. Number 22. Emission
Scenario Documents on Coating Industry (Paints, Laquers and Varnishes).
Oceana Peru, 2022. Las 5 millas. [online]. Available at: https://peru.oceana.org/campa
nas/las-5-millas/. (Accessed 13 February 2022) [in Spanish].
Ojo Público, 2020. El Estado no sabe con exactitud cuántos pescadores artesanales hay en
el Perú. https://ojo-publico.com/2253/el-estado-no-sabe-cuantos-pescadores-artes
anales-hay-en-el-peru. (Accessed 22 May 2022).
OSPAR, 2009. Marine Litter in the North-East Atlantic Region, Assessment and Priorities
for Response. London, United Kingdom, 127 p.
Ortiz-Alvarez, C., Alfaro-Cordova, E., Bielli, A., Mangel, J.C., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., 2022.
Solid waste assessment in a coastal fishing community in Peru. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
178, 113632.
Paulino, C., Aroni, E., Xu, H., Alburqueque, E., et al., 2017. Use of nighttime visible
images in the study of the spatial and temporal variability of fishing areas of jumbo
flying squid (Dosidicus gigas) outside Peruvian EEZ 2004–2015. Fish. Res. 191,
144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.03.009. Available from:
Pham, C.K., Ramirez-Llodra, E., Alt, C.H., Amaro, T., Bergmann, M., Canals, M.,
Company, J.B., Davies, J., Duineveld, G., Galgani, F., Howell, K.L., 2014. Marine
litter distribution and density in european seas, from the shelves to deep basins. PloS
one 9 (4), e95839.
A. Deville et al.
Pinturas Jet, 2022. Ocean jet antifouling [online] Available at: https://www.pinturasjet.
com/productos/antifoulings/ocean-jet-antifouling. (Accessed 7 June 2022) [in
Spanish].
PRODUCE, 2021. Consultas En Linea Embarcaciones [online] Available at: https://www.
produce.gob.pe/ConsultasEnLinea/consultas.web/embarcacion. (Accessed 21
November 2021) [In Spanish].
PRODUCE, 2022. Produce espera reducir en 30% la informalidad pesquera artesanal
hasta julio del 2021. https://www.gob.pe/institucion/produce/noticias/310696-
produce-espera-reduciren-30-la-informalidad-pesquera-artesanal-hasta-julio-del-
2021. (Accessed 17 February 2022).
Ribic, C.A., Sheavly, S.B., Rugg, D.J., Erdmann, E.S., 2010. Trends and drivers of marine
debris on the Atlantic coast of the United States 1997–2007. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60 (8),
1231–1242.
Richardson, Kelsey, Hardesty, Britta Denise, Wilcox, Chris, 2019. Estimates of fishing
gear loss rates at a global scale: a literature review and meta-analysis. Fish Fish. 20
(6), 1218–1231.
Roman, L., Schuyler, Q., Wilcox, C., Hardesty, B.D., 2021. Plastic pollution is killing
marine megafauna, but how do we prioritize policies to reduce mortality? Conserv.
Lett. 14 (2), e12781.
Sherrington, Chris, Darrah, Chiarina, Hann, Simon, Cole, George, Corbin, Mark, 2016. In:
Study to Support the Development of Measures to Combat a Range of Marine Litter
Sources. Report for European Commission DG Environment, p. 429 (January).
Sundt, P., Schulze, P., Syversen, F., 2015. Sources of Microplastic-pollution to the Marine
Environment, Norwegian Environment Agency. Plastics in Cosmetics (A Fact Sheet.
UNEP). UNEP Norway, North Sea, Norway.
Thompson Clarke Shipping Pty. Ltd, CTI Consultants Pty. Ltd, Lewis, J.A., 2007.
Antifouling Performance Standards for the Maritime Industry: Development of a
Framework for the Assessment, Approval and Relevance of Effective Products.
12
Marine Pollution Bulletin 189 (2023) 114785
Turconi, R., Boldrin, A., Astrup, T., 2013. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity
generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 28, 555–565.
Vázquez-Rowe, Ian, Larrea-Gallegos, Gustavo, Villanueva-Rey, Pedro,
Gilardino, Alessandro, 2017. Climate change mitigation opportunities based on
carbon footprint estimates of dietary patterns in Peru. PLoS ONE 12 (11), 1–25.
Vázquez-Rowe, Ian, Parodi, Eduardo, Echeverria, Mario, Kahhat, Ramzy, 2021. Huella
de Carbono Organizacional de Cencosud Retail Perú SA [in Spanish].
Veritrade Corp, 2022. Consulta data de importaciones y exportaciones [online] Available
at: https://www.veritradecorp.com/es/consultas. (Accessed 17 June 2022) [In
Spanish].
Verschoor, A., de Poorter, L., Dröge, R., Kuenen, J., de Valk, E., 2016. In: Emission of
Microplastics and Potential Mitigation Measures. REPORT - RIVM Report 2016-
0026, p. 76.
Vincent, S., 2018. Pensions, peasants, and the informal economy: family and livelihood
in contemporary Peru. Lat. Am. Perspect. 45 (1), 195–211.
Walkinshaw, Chris, Lindeque, Penelope K., Thompson, Richard, Tolhurst, Trevor,
Cole, Matthew, 2020. Microplastics and seafood: lower trophic organisms at highest
risk of contamination. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 190 (August 2019), 110066.
Wezenbeek, J.M., Moermond, C.T.A., Smit, C.E., 2018. Antifouling Systems for Pleasure
Boats: Overview of Current Systems and Exploration of Safer Alternatives.
Woods, J., Verones, F., Jolliet, O., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Boulay, A.M., 2021. A framework
for the assessment of marine litter impacts in life cycle impact assessment. Ecol.
Indic. 129, 107918.
World Shipping Council, 2021. Container & roro ships — World Shipping Council
[online] Available at: https://www.worldshipping.org/about-liner-shipping/cont
ainer-roro-ships. (Accessed 21 November 2021).
Zhang, S., Chen, J., Wan, Z., Yu, M., Shu, Y., Tan, Z., Liu, J., 2021. Challenges and
countermeasures for international ship waste management: IMO, China, United
States, and EU. Ocean Coast. Manag. 213, 105836.