ArticlePDF Available

Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean

June 2020

Authors:

Jenna Jambeck

University of Georgia

Brajesh Dubey

University of Guelph

Zainal Arifin

Indonesian Institute of Sciences

Show all 15 authorsHide

Content uploaded by To Thi Hien

Content may be subject to copyright.

oceanpanel.org

Leveraging Multi-Target

Strategies to Address

Plastic Pollution in the

Context of an Already

Stressed Ocean

LEAD AUTHORS

Jenna Jambeck, Ellie Moss and Brajesh Dubey

CONTRIBUTORS:

Zainal Arifin, Linda Godfrey, Britta Denise Hardesty, I. Gede Hendrawan, To

Thi Hien, Liu Junguo, Marty Matlock, Sabine Pahl, Karen Raubenheimer,

Martin Thiel, Richard Thompson and Lucy Woodall

Commissioned by

BLUE PAPER

ii | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

About this Paper

Established in September 2018, the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (HLP) is a unique

initiative of 14 serving heads of government committed to catalysing bold, pragmatic solutions for ocean

health and wealth that support the UN Sustainable Development Goals and build a better future for people

and the planet. By working with governments, experts and stakeholders from around the world, the High Level

Panel aims to develop a roadmap for rapidly transitioning to a sustainable ocean economy and to trigger,

amplify and accelerate responsive action worldwide.

The HLP consists of the presidents or prime ministers of Australia, Canada, Chile, Fiji, Ghana, Indonesia,

Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Palau and Portugal, and is supported by an Expert Group,

Advisory Network and Secretariat that assist with analytical work, communications and stakeholder

engagement. The Secretariat is based at World Resources Institute.

The HLP has commissioned a series of ‘Blue Papers’ to explore pressing challenges at the nexus of the ocean

and the economy. These papers summarise the latest science and state-of-the-art thinking about innovative

ocean solutions in the technology, policy, governance and finance realms that can help accelerate a move

into a more sustainable and prosperous relationship with the ocean. This paper is part of a series of 16 papers

to be published between November 2019 and October 2020. This paper examines the leakage of plastics and

other pollutants into the ocean and the resulting impacts on marine ecosystems, human health and the

economy. The paper comments on the kind of regenerative global industry that needs to be built, as well as

integrated solutions to reduce all pollutants to the ocean.

This Blue Paper is an independent input to the HLP process and does not represent the thinking of the HLP,

Sherpas or Secretariat.

Suggested Citation: Jambeck, J., E. Moss, B. Dubey et al. 2020. Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address

Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. Available

online at: https://oceanpanel.org/blue-papers/pollution-and-regenerative-economy-municipal-industrial-

agricultural-and-maritime-waste.

Table of Contents

Foreword ..................................................................................1

Key Messages ............................................................................2

1. Introduction ............................................................................3

2. Sources of Ocean Pollution ..........................................................5

3. Impacts of Ocean Pollution on Ecosystems, Marine Life,

Human Health and Economies .....................................................21

4. Human Dimensions ................................................................39

5. Opportunities for Action .............................................................41

References ..............................................................................51

Acknowledgments ....................................................................63

About the Authors .....................................................................63

1 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Foreword

The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (HLP) commissioned us, the co-chairs of the HLP Expert

Group (a global group of over 70 content experts), to organise and edit a series of ‘Blue Papers’ to explore pressing

challenges at the nexus of the ocean and the economy. The HLP identified 16 specific topics for which it sought

a synthesis of knowledge and opportunities for action. In response, we convened 16 teams of global content

experts. Each resulting Blue Paper was independently peer-reviewed and revised accordingly. The final Blue Papers

summarise the latest science and state-of-the-art thinking on how technology, policy, governance and finance can

be applied to help accelerate a more sustainable and prosperous relationship with the ocean, one that balances

production with protection to achieve prosperity for all, while mitigating climate change.

Each Blue Paper oers a robust scientific basis for the work of the HLP. Together, they provide the foundation for

an integrated report to be delivered to the HLP. In turn, the HLP plans to produce by the end of 2020 its own set of

politically endorsed statements and pledges or recommendations for action.

Historically, the ocean has been viewed as so vast and untouchable as to be capable of absorbing everything that

we discharge into it. It has become the ultimate sink for land-based pollution—the most recent and most visible

being solid plastic waste. Thankfully, we have seen a wave of action targeting plastic waste—with individuals shiing

their own behaviours and governments stepping up to put in place a variety of policy measures. This paper aims to

complete the picture on pollution in our ocean—by looking across four main sectors at the full extent of waste that is

currently being discharged into our ocean—and identifying a pathway to change the way we see our ocean and what

we put into it.

As co-chairs of the HLP Expert Group, we wish to warmly thank the authors, the reviewers and the Secretariat

at World Resources Institute for supporting this analysis. We thank the members of the HLP for their vision in

commissioning this analysis. We hope they and other parties act on the opportunities identified in this paper.

Hon. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.

Oregon State University

Professor Peter Haugan, Ph.D.

Institute of Marine Research, Norway

Hon. Mari Elka Pangestu, Ph.D.

University of Indonesia

2 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy



Key Messages

Plastic is the newest pollutant to be entering the

ocean in significant quantities. It joins nonplastic

solid waste; nutrients; antibiotics, parasiticides and

other pharmaceuticals; heavy metals; industrial

chemicals including persistent organic pollutants;

pesticides; and oil and gas, each of which has a longer

history of scholarship and greater body of existing

research as an ocean pollutant than does plastic.

There are four major sources that discharge

pollutants into the ocean: municipal, agricultural

(including aquaculture), industrial and maritime.

These pollutants have damaging impacts on

ecosystems and marine life, human health and the

economy.

The presence of plastic in the ocean in growing

quantities is symptomatic of many societal challenges

that are relevant to the other pollutants and pollution

pathways: the lack of access to sanitation and

wastewater and stormwater processing for millions

of people around the world, the need for safe use

and disposal of chemicals, the development and

degradation of coastal zones, the need for an eicient

use of natural resources, and the need for improved

access to safe food and water.

This paper proposes seven holistic approaches for

the reduction of pollutants in the ocean: improve

wastewater management; improve stormwater

management; adopt green chemistry practices

and new materials; implement coastal zone

improvements; practice radical resource eiciency;

recover and recycle the materials we use; and build

local systems for safe food and water.

These seven approaches address the major sources

of pollution entering the ocean and contribute to

multiple United Nations Sustainable Development

Goals.

Each of the approaches identified are cross-sectoral

and system-level in nature, making them perfect

candidates for delivery through public-private

partnerships, innovative financing arrangements and

leveraging capital from a range of sources.

To solve the pollution challenge we need to start

with the premise that there is no such thing as waste.

The Earth is a closed system and there is nowhere

for damaging pollution to go that won’t harm

ecosystems, plant and animal life and, ultimately,

human life.

Once we adopt a no-waste approach, our economy

will be very eective at finding the most eicient ways

to stop the problem of pollution

3 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

1. Introduction

Overview

The ocean is the ultimate sink for anthropogenic

pollution. According to the HydroSHED model, over

80 percent of the land mass on Earth is in a watershed

that drains directly to the ocean (Lehner and Grill 2013).

Until recently, the ocean seemed to be endlessly able to

absorb all the waste that human activity has discharged

into it. The Ocean Health Index (OHI) scores the health

of the ocean on a range of criteria, from how clean the

water is to the ability of the ocean to continue providing

services such as food provision, carbon storage, tourism

and recreation, and biodiversity (Halpern et al. 2012).

The 2019 combined global ocean score was 71 out of

100 (as it has been for the last five years), showing that

significant impairment has occurred, but that many

of the functions and services of the ocean remain and

must be better managed (OHI 2019). The Clean Water

section of the OHI includes details on the statuses and

pressures of chemical, nutrient, pathogen and trash

pollution. It also includes social pressure as a further

pressure. Indicators of resilience were based upon the

Convention on Biological Diversity (in particular for

marine ecosystems) and quality of governance (using

Worldwide Governance Indicators). The score for Clean

Water has tracked closely to the overall score, remaining

at 70 for the past five years (OHI 2019). With an estimated

91 percent of all temperate and tropical coasts predicted

to be heavily developed by 2050 (Nellemann et al. 2008),

this is a critical time to significantly reduce and prevent

anthropogenic pollution to the ocean.

Pollutants enter the ocean in four ways: They may be

discharged directly into the ocean, discharged into

rivers which flow to the ocean, washed from land by

stormwater into rivers or directly into the ocean or

deposited from the air onto land to be washed into

waterways or directly into the ocean.

There are many anthropogenic sources of pollution,

and this paper focuses on pollution inputs to the ocean

from four sectors: municipal, agricultural, industrial

and maritime. This paper focuses first on plastic, as

the newest and least well understood pollutant, and

puts plastic pollution in the context of an ocean already

receiving significant pollution from nutrients, heavy

metals, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), pesticides

and oil.

While successful implementation of all the United

Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

would help protect the ocean, SDG 14: Life Below Water

is the primary SDG directly related to the ocean. But

there are several other SDGs that are very relevant to

pollution reaching the ocean: SDG 2: Zero Hunger, SDG

3: Good Health and Well-Being, SDG 6: Clean Water and

Sanitation, SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth,

SDG 9: Industrial Innovation and Infrastructure, SDG

11: Sustainable Cities and Communities and SDG 12:

Responsible Consumption and Production.

Context

Plastic is the newest pollutant to be entering the

ocean in significant quantities. It joins nonplastic solid

waste; nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous); antibiotics,

parasiticides and other pharmaceuticals; heavy metals;

industrial chemicals including persistent organic

pollutants; pesticides; and oil and gas, each of which

has a longer history of scholarship and greater body of

existing research as an ocean pollutant than does plastic.

This paper seeks to put ocean pollution from plastic into

the context of total pollutant inputs to the ocean and

identify the interventions that can have the greatest total

impact on all pollution to the ocean, capitalising on the

current global attention on plastic pollution.

In this Blue Paper, four major sectors that create

pollutants are explored—municipal, agricultural

(including aquaculture), industrial and maritime—and

three types of impacts are characterised—ecosystems

and marine life, human health and economic. The

impacts on ecosystems include harm to marine life

from ingestion of and entanglement from plastic,

eutrophication and hypoxia, and biomagnification

of chemicals. The human health impacts from direct

or indirect exposure to these pollutants include

reproductive, developmental, behavioural, neurologic,

4 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

endocrine and immunologic adverse health eects;

acute or chronic toxicity; cancer; increased exposure

to pathogens and mosquito-borne diseases; and risk of

entanglement or entrapment. The economic impacts

come from impaired productivity of fisheries, loss of

seafood supply resulting from toxicity and reduced

tourism and recreation in coastal areas.

The presence of plastic in the ocean in growing

quantities is one symptom of a set of societal challenges

that are also relevant to the other pollutants and

pollution pathways: the lack of access to sanitation and

wastewater and stormwater processing for millions

of people around the world; the need for safe use and

disposal of chemicals; the development and degradation

of coastal zones; the need for an eicient use of natural

resources; and the need for improved access to safe food

and water.

At the heart of these challenges is recognising that the

notion that things can be thrown away is a myth—there

is no ‘away’ where pollutants can safely go.

This paper proposes seven intervention approaches

that lead with reducing plastic inputs to the ocean but

also seek to maximise the reduction of other pollutants

as co-benefits. Four types of actions were considered:

innovation, infrastructure, policy and mindset. Specific

actions of each type were identified across the sectors

and pollutants described in the report. These actions

were then bundled into the following seven holistic

opportunities for action (not in ranked order):

1. Improve wastewater management

2. Improve stormwater management

3. Adopt green chemistry practices and new materials

4. Implement coastal zone improvements

5. Practice radical resource eiciency

6. Recover and recycle the materials we use

7. Build local systems for safe food and water

These seven opportunities for action address the

major sources of pollution entering the ocean, and

contribute to achieving the United Nations Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs). They would directly

influence SDG targets 2.1, 2.3, 3.9, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.B, 8.3,

11.6, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5 and 14.1 and indirectly influence a

number of others, such as through expanded economic

opportunities, benefits to people’s livelihoods and

increased well-being. The cross-sector, system-level

nature of these challenges makes them perfect

candidates for public-private partnerships, innovative

financing arrangements and leveraging capital from a

range of sources.

Finally, while the body of research on plastic is growing

rapidly, there remain significant data gaps both on

inputs and impacts. More research is needed to better

understand and document the scope and scale of plastic

pollution, as well as its impacts on ecosystem and

human health. Given the global nature of the problem,

open data protocols that can facilitate the aggregation

and sharing of compatible data are critical.

5 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Figure 1. Sources of Ocean Pollution

Shipping

Oil Platforms &

Oil Spills Aquaculture Recreational

Boating

Disaster Debris

Atmospheric

Deposition

Cruises

Industrial &

Recreational

Fishing

Industry,

Pharmaceutical &

Power Stations

Sewage

Treatment Plants &

Wastewater

Crop & Animal

Agriculture

Vehicle Wear & Tear,

Road Runoff and

Air Emissions

Solid Waste

(Plastics, Dumping,

Leakage from Waste

Management)

Source: Graphic developed by K. Youngblood

2. Sources of Ocean Pollution

This paper includes pollution inputs from land and

sea, grouped into four sectors: municipal, agricultural,

industrial and maritime.

Municipal sources are residential and commercial solid

waste and wastewater as well as runo from roads and

landscaping activities. Additionally, debris entering the

ocean as a result of natural disasters is included here.

Land-based agricultural activities impacting the ocean

include plastic, pesticide and nutrient use as well as

waste management for animal agriculture. Ocean-based

aquaculture’s pollution impacts include the use of

antibiotics and parasiticides, antifoulants containing

heavy metals, loss of equipment and management of

fish waste.

The industrial sector includes manufacturing,

mining and energy production. Pollutants coming

from this sector include plastic pellets and waste,

other solid waste, dredge spoils, industrial chemicals

including POPs, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and

pharmaceutical waste products, and oil and gas.

Maritime pollution comes from the shipping, cruise

and fishing industries and from recreational boating.

Pollution from these sources includes litter, food waste,

sewage and accident debris.

Figure 1 shows the primary sources of pollution in

the marine environment from these sectors. Table 1

summarises the types of pollution entering the

ocean and the ways that each sector contributes

to ocean pollution.

6 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

MUNICIPAL (COASTAL

OR NEAR RIVERS) AGRICULTURAL AND

AQUACULTURAL INDUSTRIAL MARITIME

SUBCATEGORIES RESIDENTIAL,

COMMERCIAL CROPS,

ANIMAL LAND,

AQUACULTURE

MANUFACTURING,

ENERGY FISHING, CRUISE,

SHIPPING, RECREATION

Microplastics (<5

millimetres [mm])a

Microbeads, microfibres,

tire dust, fragments in

runo from land

Slow release fertiliser

pellets, plastic mulch

fragments

Industrial pellets Pellets lost at sea in shipping

accidents, dredged materials

and breakdown of other

wastes dumped at seab

Macroplastics

(>5 mm)a

Unmanaged plastic waste

within 50 kilometres (km)

of river or ocean1

Aquaculture infrastruc-

ture and equipment,

greenhouses, plastic

sheeting and associated

equipment

Unknown Fishing gear, lines and

lures; litter from ships and

boats; debris from shipping

accidents

Other solid waste Unmanaged solid waste

within 50 km of river or

ocean, disaster debris,

wood, food waste dumpingc

Lost/unmanaged aqua-

culture infrastructure

and equipment, manure

and biosolids land

application

Dredge spoils Fishing gear, litter from ships

and boats, debris from ship-

ping accidents, food waste

discharge from ships

Pesticides2Residential and commercial

landscaping and gardening

Crop-based agriculture Minimal Minimal

Nutrients (N, P) Untreated municipal

wastewater, residential and

commercial landscaping

and gardening, airborne

nitrogen from vehicle ex-

haust deposition into ocean

Crop-based agriculture,

lagoon leakage, aqua-

culture fish waste

Airborne nitrogen

from energy produc-

tion deposition into

ocean

Sewage discharges

into ocean

Antibiotics,

parasiticides, other

pharmaceuticals

Treated and untreated

wastewater

Aquaculture/mari-

culture, land-based

animal agricultural

runo

Pharmaceutical

production waste-

water

Treated and untreated

wastewater from ships

Heavy metals Urban runo: copper,

chromium, nickel;

mismanaged electronic

waste

Aquaculture/maricul-

ture: arsenic, mercury,

cadmium, lead

Mining manufacturing:

copper, zinc, lead,

cadmium, chromi-

um, nickel, arsenic,

mercury

Paints and pigments: zinc,

tributyltin, lead, cadmium

Industrial chemicals

and persistent

organic pollutantsc

Treated and untreated

wastewater, urban runo

Use of organochlorine

pesticides

Regulated and unreg-

ulated discharge from

manufacturing

Treated and untreated

wastewater from ships

Oil and gas Urban runo Accidental discharge

from agricultural

equipment use and

maintenance

Spills, water contami-

nation, and improper

disposal from oil

refineries and logistics

(pipelines, rail, trucks)

Drilling rigs, bilge water and

fuel release, tanker spills,

shipping

Notes: Table 1 notes shown on page 7.

Table 1. Sources of Pollutant Discharges into the Ocean

7 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Other than specific pollutants regulated by international

treaties in certain situations—e.g. International

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from

Ships (MARPOL) for plastic discharges; Stockholm

Convention for specific chemicals; Basel Convention

for waste exportation; London Convention and Protocol

for ocean dumping—and acts that have regulated

discharge nationally and locally—e.g. total maximum

daily loads under the Clean Water Act in the United

States—pollutants continue to enter the ocean without

consistent and global limits or regulation.

Past emissions of ocean pollution remain relevant today,

especially in the case of persistent pollutants such as

plastics, heavy metals and POPs, as they remain in

the ocean interacting with each other and the marine

environment. For example, while 28 POPs are banned

or restricted and have been for a number of years (12

since 2004, 16 since 2010), they are readily absorbed by

plastic in the ocean, which creates a new mechanism for

them to interact with the marine ecosystem (Rochman

et al. 2013; Rochman et al. 2014b; Rochman 2015). Heavy

metals have also been found to adhere to plastic in the

ocean as biofilms accumulate on its surface (Rochman et

al. 2014a; Richard et al. 2019).

It should be noted that the ocean is also subject to

other forms of pollution, including acidification (see

Blue Paper 2, Gaines et al. 2019) and other nonphysical

forms like thermal, noise and biological pollution.

Thermal pollution is a change in temperature in the

ocean water from discharges, oen warmer water from

powerplant cooling, that can change both physical

and chemical properties of the ocean, impacting, for

example, bivalves since they are stationary (Dong et

al. 2018). Noise pollution in the ocean from shipping,

oil and gas exploration and military activities can also

impact marine life (Francis and Barber 2013). The

International Whaling Commission and Convention

on Biological Diversity have groups working on noise

pollution. Biological pollution is the transfer of, for

example, invasive species, which has been exacerbated

by evolving habitats due to climate change and ocean

acidification (Miranda et al. 2019), topics covered in Blue

Paper 2 (Gaines et al. 2019). The transport of invasive

species by plastic is covered in this paper. While these

other pollution sources are out of scope for this paper,

it is worth noting them here as they underscore the high

number of stressors that ocean ecosystems are facing.

2.1 Plastic Pollution

Plastic is a material that has permanently changed our

world since its introduction into mainstream society (in

some countries) aer World War II; global annual plastic

production has increased from 1.7 million metric tons

per year (MMT/yr) in 1950 to 422 MMT/yr in 2018 (Geyer

et al. 2017; PlasticsEurope 2019). Along with a steep

increase in production, we have seen a resulting increase

in plastic in the waste stream from 0.4 percent in 1960

to 13.2 percent in 2017 (by mass) in the United States

(EPA 2014; EPA 2019). In 1966, two U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service employees, Karl W. Kenyon and Eugene Kridler,

were among the first scientists to document plastic and

wildlife interactions when they discovered plastic had

been consumed by seabird (albatross) chicks that died

in the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Kenyon

and Kridler 1969). Since then, analysing plastic material

Table includes both point source (e.g. specific discharge points) and nonpoint source (e.g. stormwater runo) forms of pollution.

a. Macroplastics are any plastics larger than 5 mm. Microplastics are small pieces or fragments of plastic smaller than 5 mm (Galgani et al. 2010;

SAPEA 2019).

b. Wastes allowed to be dumped at sea according to the London Convention and Protocol include dredged materials; sewage sludge; fish waste,

or material resulting from industrial fish processing operations; vessels and platforms or other man-made structures at sea; inert or inorganic

geological material; organic matter of natural origin; bulky items comprising primarily iron, steel, concrete or non-harmful materials; and carbon

dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration.

c. Jambeck et al. 2015.

d. Persistent organic pollutants are organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological and photolytic

processes. They include polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

and organochlorine (OC) pesticides.

Sources:

1. Jambeck et al. 2015.

2. Weibel et al. 1966.

8 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

in 2004 (Thompson et al. 2004) and the identification of

microplastics is a relatively new field (Shim et al. 2017),

with nanoscale plastics (not even yet formally defined)

especially challenging to identify because of limits to

the capabilities of the current instrumentation used for

environmental samples. As a consequence, quantifying

inputs has been challenging (Koelmans et al. 2015; Rist

and Hartmann 2017; SAPEA and Academies 2019).

As of 2017, 8 billion metric tons of plastic had been

produced for human use. Because a large quantity was

used for packaging (about 40 percent) and single-use

items, 6.4 billion metric tons had already become waste

by 2015 (Geyer et al. 2017). Many packaging and single-

use materials are composed of polyethylene

(high and low density, HDPE and LDPE), polypropylene

and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). These polymers

are oen the materials used in the most common

items found littering the environment, especially on

coastlines: cigarette butts, plastic bottles, plastic food

wrappers, straws, plastic bags and bottle caps (Ocean

Conservancy 2018).

The total quantity of plastic entering the ocean every

year is still unknown. While there have been estimates

of some sources (e.g. municipal waste), there are more

sources that do not have current estimates. While

many scientists would agree that a large portion of

mismanaged plastic comes from land, even the 80

percent from land is a questionable statistic since the

true total from all sources remains unknown. Some

of the sources have been quantified. Jambeck et al.

(2015) found that the annual input from mismanaged

solid waste on land (one of the major sources) in 2010

was between 4.8 and 12.7 MMT/yr. Other estimates

have come from riverine input and other geographic

information system (GIS) analyses, which have found

that from 0.41 to 4 MMT of plastic is entering the ocean

every year from rivers (a subset of the total quantity

entering the ocean) (Lebreton et al. 2017; Schmidt et

al. 2017). Up to 99 MMT of mismanaged plastic waste

has been estimated to be available to enter waterways

around the world (Lebreton and Andrady 2019). The

estimate of 8 MMT as a middle estimate for input to the

ocean (Jambeck et al. 2015) remains the most widely

used value for land-based input of plastic waste into the

ocean, although this is likely conservative. Forrest et al.

(2019) built on the existing research by incorporating

flows (especially the waste streams), contamination

in our environment and the economics of the material

has become a recognised scientific discipline, with

rapid increases in the science, especially in the last

five years (Beaumont et al. 2019). But as a relevantly

young scientific discipline, there are still many gaps in

knowledge and a lack of information for solutions to

plastic pollution (Bucci et al. 2019; Forrest et al. 2019).

Even with knowledge gaps, plastic pollution has quickly

become one of the most salient topics of late—people

around the world passionately

care about and want to address

this issue.

2.1.1 Municipal plastic

pollution

Plastic pollution is oen

subdivided into macroplastics

and microplastics (e.g. the

U.S. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

uses this division), and

although there is much

discussion internationally

about terminology (GESAMP

2015), these size categories

are currently used extensively

around the world. Macroplastics

are any plastics larger than

5 millimetres (mm) and can

include both short-use items (e.g.

food packaging and foodservice

disposables) and longer-use

items (e.g. flip flops, printer

cartridges, synthetic textiles).

Microplastics are small pieces

or fragments of plastic less

than 5 mm (Galgani et al. 2010;

SAPEA and Academies 2019)

that enter the environment as

a consequence of either the

direct release of small particles such as microbeads from

cosmetic products; the fragmentation of larger items

of litter in the environment; or the wear or abrasion of

products during use, such as the release of fibres from

textiles or particles from car tires (Law and Thompson

2014). The term microplastic was first used in this context

As of 2017,

8 billion metric

tons of plastic

had been

produced for

human use.

Because a

large quantity

was used for

packaging (about

40 percent) and

single-use items,

6.4 billion metric

tons had already

become waste

by 2015.

9 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

additional estimates of plastic waste flows to the ocean

arising from imported waste by developing countries

from wealthier consumer economies. This export/import

imbalance was initially outlined in (Brooks et al. 2018),

which describes the plastic import ban, more commonly

known as the National Sword policy, imposed by China

and its impacts on global plastic scrap trade. Forrest et

al. (2019) estimated current plastic flows to the ocean

from all sources to be at least 15 MMT/yr.

There are at least two more global baseline estimates

in the process of being calculated for plastic, one

by a working group through the National Socio-

Environmental Synthesis Center funded by the U.S.

National Science Foundation and one through The

Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ, which, while not

available before publishing this document, will make

it possible to measure the impacts of interventions at

the global and country levels, similar to the wedges

approach developed for climate change (Pacala and

Socolow 2004). Clearly topography and proximity

to the ocean are relevant for land-based or riverine

plastic, but some of the biggest data gaps in modelling

and measuring quantities entering the ocean exist for

these pathways. The most credible current estimates

nonetheless indicate that the quantities of plastic

entering the ocean are significant. The only regulatory

limits on plastic concentrations in the ocean are the total

maximum daily load limits in aquatic systems in the

United States (Smith 2000; DoE 2010), the Convention

on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of

Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (the ‘London Convention’

for short, and then later the ‘London Protocol’ upon its

revision in 1996) (International Maritime Organization

2019), and MARPOL Annex V, all of which have zero

tolerance for plastic pollution.

2.1.2 Agricultural plastic pollution

Land-based agricultural plastic use typically includes

greenhouse or hoop house sheeting, netting, plastic

mulch (film), irrigation tape and piping, agrochemical

containers, silage, fertiliser bags and slow release

fertiliser pellets. The best current estimate of agricultural

plastic usage extrapolates from the European Union’s

(EU’s) demand for agricultural plastics of 1.6 million

tons annually to place world demand at approximately

8–10 million tons in 2015 (Cassou et al. 2018). A separate

calculation projected that the global agricultural film

market would reach 7.4 million tons in 2019 (Sintim

and Flury 2017). At the end of the growing season,

plastic mulch should be recovered from fields but this

is diicult because it shreds easily, so it is common

practice to till plastic mulch into the soil (Steinmetz

et al. 2016). Depending on the proximity to the ocean

or ocean-bound waterways, this improper end-of-life

management of the mulch could contribute to inputs of

plastic, especially microplastic, into the ocean.

Aquaculture also contributes significantly to marine

plastic pollution. Several studies have reported

abandoned, lost and discarded aquaculture gear in

coastal waters or on shores (Heo et al. 2013; Liu et al.

2013; Hong et al. 2014). Near aquaculture centres,

beaches oen contain large amounts of lost or discarded

plastic materials (Fujieda and Sasaki 2005; Hinojosa and

Thiel 2009; Andréfouët et al. 2014; Jang et al. 2014b;

Bendell 2015). Lost aquaculture gear that is floating

at the sea surface can also be transported over long

distances, potentially bringing non-native species to

other ecoregions (Astudillo et al. 2009). One of the few

studies that has estimated the losses from aquaculture

activities and their contribution to marine plastic

debris has been conducted in South Korea (Jang et al.

2014b). The authors showed that lost aquaculture gear

contributes a significant amount of plastic litter (mostly

expanded polystyrene, or EPS) in the coastal waters of

South Korea.

2.1.3 Industrial plastic pollution

Plastic resin pellets, the raw material from which

plastic items are made, continue to leak into the ocean

despite voluntary industry campaigns like Operation

Clean Sweep that encourage secure handling of the

pellets. Pellet pollution in the ocean has been further

documented because they are used to study POPs

and bacteria as well (Heskett et al. 2012; Rodrigues

et al. 2019). While quantities of inputs have not been

published on a global scale, one case study quantified

inputs from a facility along the west coast of Sweden

(Karlsson et al. 2018). While most of the pellet pollution

was reported to be localised, 3 to 36 million pellets

(above 300 micrometres) were estimated to enter the

waterways surrounding the production facility annually.

Karlsson et al. (2018) also stated that while there are

regulatory frameworks that can be applied to reduce

10 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

this pollution, they are not being eectively applied

or enforced. Lechner and Ramler (2015) found that

the regulations in Austria still allowed a production

facility to legally discharge 200 grams of pellets per

day and up to 200 kilograms (kg) during a high rainfall

event. An important legal precedent was just set in the

United States with Formosa Plastics agreeing to pay

a US$50 million settlement for a lawsuit against them

for discharging resin pellets into Lavaca Bay and other

nearby waterways (Collier 2019). Besides paying the

settlement, it has to adhere to a ‘zero discharge’ policy

moving forward with fines that increase over time for any

future discharges (Collier 2019).

2.1.4 Maritime plastic pollution

Fisheries activities contribute to pollution through

the accidental or intentional discarding of nets, ropes,

buoys, lines and other equipment, also known as

‘abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear’

(ALDFG) (see Box 3 for a discussion of aquaculture).

Historic fishing nets were made from biodegradable,

locally sourced natural materials like cotton, flax or

hemp, but as materials like nylon and other polymers

were introduced, fishing practices (and eiciencies)

were increased, as early as 1951 in the United States and

Canada (Pycha 1962). United Nations General Assembly

and United Nations Environment Assembly resolutions

(2014, 2016, 2017) have addressed ALDFG, encouraging

the reduction of impacts from this marine debris that

is designed to capture and kill marine animals (Gilman

2015; Gilman et al. 2016). The Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations’ (FAO’s) Committee

on Fisheries, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible

Fisheries and the FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for the

Marking of Fishing Gear have also presented on marking

fishing gear and ALDFG reporting and recovery (Gilman

et al. 2016). Richardson et al. (2019) reviewed 68

publications from 1975 to 2017 that contain quantitative

information about fishing gear losses and found that

at an annual rate, all net studies reported gear loss

rates from 0 percent to 79.8 percent, all trap studies

reported loss rates from 0 percent to 88 percent, and all

line studies reported loss rates from 0.1 percent to 79.2

percent. Based upon this review, Richardson et al. (2019)

performed a meta-analysis estimating global fishing gear

losses for major gear types, finding that 5.7 percent of all

fishing nets, 8.6 percent of all traps, and 29 percent of all

lines are lost around the world each year. Abandoned,

lost or discarded fishing gear can ensnare or entangle

marine wildlife, have economic consequences due to

losses of commercially important food fish and can

smother sensitive coral reef ecosystems (Macfadyen et

al. 2009; Gunn et al. 2010; Wilcox et al. 2013; Richardson

et al. 2018). Commercial shipping and discharge from

ocean-going vessels result in plastic inputs through

accidental releases of cargo during ocean transit, which

may occur during rough weather or when containers are

insuiciently secured during transport (World Shipping

Council 2017).

11 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Box 1. Spotlight on

Africa’s Current and

Future Rapid Growth

Africa’s contribution to waste

generation is currently low by global

standards.a However, the continent

is set to undergo a major social and

economic transformation over the

coming century as its population

explodes, cities urbanise and

consumer purchasing habits change.b

These changes will lead to significant

growth in waste and wastewater

generation, including nutrient exports

to coastal waters,c with sub-Saharan

Africa forecast to become the

dominant region globally in terms of

municipal solid waste generation.d This

will put significant strain on already

constrained public and private sector

services and infrastructure.e

As noted by Yasin et al. (2010) and

UNEP (2018a), there are limited

reliable, geographically comprehensive

waste and water quality data for Africa.

This makes it extremely diicult to

assess the potential impacts of waste

and wastewater systems locally and

regionally. However, anthropogenic

sources of nutrients in rivers, including

agricultural sources and human

sewage (oen untreated) from urban

centres, will become more important

than natural sources in large parts of

Africa.f Furthermore, with growing

population comes increased waste

generation and changing waste

types.g As such, in the absence of

reliable waste and water quality data,

population growth and economic

development can provide signals of

potential ‘geographic areas of concern’

with regard to plastic, industrial,

agricultural and municipal wastes.

According to the United Nations’

Department of Economic and Social

Aairs, more than half of the world’s

projected population growth between

2017 and 2050 is expected to come

from only 10 countries, with 6 of these

in Africa—Nigeria, the Democratic

Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia,

Tanzania, Uganda and Egypt (ordered

by their expected contribution to

global growth).h

Where the impacts of plastic and

nutrients on coastal systems in Africa

have been modelled, the models

have forecasted significant growth

in waste generation and potential

impact.i Tonnages of mismanaged

plastic waste is expected to increase

significantly between 2010 and 2025,

particularly in coastal countries such

as Nigeria, Egypt, Algeria, South Africa,

Morocco and Senegal (ordered by their

forecasted 2025 mismanaged plastic).j

The nutrient risk for large marine

ecosystems forecast for 2050 shows

very high coastal eutrophication risk

o the coast of West Africa around the

Gulf of Guinea.k

While waste volumes produced in

Africa are currently low, waste is

impacting the environment due to a

number of factors, including limited

environmental regulation and oen

weak enforcement, inadequate waste

and wastewater systems and the

transport of waste into Africa, oen

from developed countries.l With

an average municipal solid waste

collection rate of only 55 percent for

Africa,m the potential for plastic to leak

into the environment is high. There

is growing citizen and government

concern around the leakage of

plastic waste into the environment,

resulting in many African countries

moving to ban single-use plastics

as a way of limiting their negative

impacts. According to UNEP (2018b),

29 countries in Africa, predominantly

coastal countries, have already

implemented some sort of regulation

against plastics. Currently, these

regulations vary from a ban on single-

use (thin) plastic bags, with associated

requirements for bag thickness, to

a complete ban on all plastic carrier

bags. However, the growing concern

around plastic waste is sparking

discussions in many African countries

on possible further bans on other

single-use plastic products, such as

PET beverage bottles and food service

industry products such as straws, cups,

containers and utensils.

There is, however, a growing response

from a number of brand owners,

retailers and convertors to address

the current waste problems in Africa.

South Africa, for example, has had

voluntary industry initiatives in place

for over a decade aimed at growing

the local plastic recycling industry.

Initiatives such as the South African

PET Recycling Company, which has

achieved a 65 percent post-consumer

PET bottle recycling rate in South

Africa,n are now being rolled out in

Kenya, with plans to launch in Ethiopia

and Uganda.o There are also a number

of social innovations emerging in Africa

to deal with the plastic waste problem.

These oen focus on innovative

community-driven collection systems

and associated financial rewards

for recyclables, such as Wecyclers

in Nigeria and Packa-ching in South

Africa.

Notes:

a. Kaza et al. 2018.

b. African Development Bank 2012; UNDESA

2015a; UNDESA2015b.

c. Yasin et al. 2010; UNEP 2015.

d. Hoornweg et al. 2015.

e. UNEP 2015.

f. Yasmin et al. 2010.

g. UNEP 2015.

h. UN 2017.

i. Jambeck et al. 2017; UNEP 2018a.

j. Jambeck et al. 2015.

k. Seitzinger and Mayorga 2016.

l. Brooks et al. 2018; UNEP 2018a.

m. UNEP 2018a.

n. PETCO 2018.

o. Coca Cola 2019.

12 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

2.2 Other Pollutants

Compounding Ocean Stress

Pollution in this category stems from anthropogenic

development (including in rural and urban areas).

Municipal sources of pollution can be especially

high where population densities are high. Lack of

infrastructure that can handle sanitation and waste

management in rapidly growing cities, especially near

the coasts, is a large source of ocean pollution. Sources

in this sector include residential and commercial solid

waste and wastewater as well as runo from roads and

landscaping activities. Additionally, debris entering the

ocean as a result of natural disasters is included here.

2.2.1 Other municipal solid waste

pollution

The World Bank estimates that 2 billion metric tons of

municipal waste are generated globally with 33 percent

(663.3 MMT) being managed by ‘open dumping’ (Kaza et

al. 2018). Approximately 50 percent or more of this waste

is organic waste (e.g. food waste) in many places except

for Europe and North America, which generate around

30 percent organic waste. In high-income countries

(as ranked by the World Bank), 51 percent of the waste

stream is plastic, paper, cardboard, metal and glass,

while in low-income countries, only 16 percent of the

waste stream is estimated to be dry waste and able to

be recycled (Kaza et al. 2018). These statistics do not

even include special waste materials like medical and

electronic waste (e-waste), which pose even further

management challenges beyond municipal waste. While

regulated by the Basel Convention in international trade,

e-waste continues to be processed in areas without

adequate infrastructure or protection for workers;

to access the metal, the plastic housing and coatings

on wires are oen burned, releasing toxic emissions

impacting ecosystems and human health (Asante et

al. 2019).

Box 2. Waste

Management in Indonesia

The Indonesian government, through

President Act No. 83 in 2018 regarding

marine debris management, has

committed to reducing plastic waste

up to 70 percent by 2025.a To support

this eort, the Coordinating Ministry of

Maritime and Investment Aairs plans

to build a protocol to collect marine

debris data from several big cities in

Indonesia, including Banjarmasin,

Balikpapan, Bogor and Denpasar, and

has taken action through the Mayor Act

(Peraturan Wali Kota) and Governor Act

(Peraturan Gubernur) to regulate the

reduction of single-use plastic. While

some regulations regarding waste

reduction, segregation, collection

and transport already existed, the

lack of enforcement has caused

them to be poorly implemented.

To amplify eorts to reduce plastic

waste, the national government has

also constructed a cross-government

collaboration approach through a

National Plan of Action (Rencana Aksi

Nasional) on marine plastic debris for

2018–2025, which includes five main

actions: change behaviour, reduce

land-based leakage, reduce sea-based

leakage, enhance law enforcement

and financial support, and increase

research and development.b

In addition to regulatory solutions,

some villages are setting up their own

waste management facilities. In 2018,

Muncar, a small village in East Java,

worked with a private organisation

named SYSTEMIQ on a pilot project

called Project STOP, which, if

successful, can be implemented in

other villages throughout Indonesia.

For this project, they built a waste

management system in the area

that focuses on waste segregation

in households and capacity building

through a sorting centre. The

plan has five strategies, including

optimised waste collection, behaviour

change, regulation setting, village

waste management, institutional

capacity building and optimised

waste processing for both inorganic

and organic waste. In December

2019, 47,500 people received waste

collection, mostly for the first time,

from two facilities established by the

project. These facilities have collected

3,000 tons of waste so far and employ

80 local people.c

Indonesia is also looking for

alternatives to landfills for plastic

waste that cannot be recycled. One

option being investigated is a plastic

road tar that uses plastic waste,

mainly LDPE and HDPE. The plastics

are shredded, melted and added into

road-tar mix. In 2017, this method

was piloted at Udayana University,

Bali, where they laid a 700-metre-long

plastic road. However, an evaluation

hasn’t yet been done assessing the

potential for contamination into the

environment.

Notes:

a. Purba et al. 2019.

b. Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Aairs

2018.

c. National Geographic 2020.

13 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Another contribution beyond municipal waste is disaster

debris. With climate change increasing both the intensity

and frequency of storms around the globe, this pollution

input may increase in the future. One quantified example

of disaster debris originated from the 2011 Japanese

tsunami that washed out 3.6 MMT of debris, with 0.91

MMT floating across the Pacific Ocean and portions

of it reaching the western shores of North America

(NOAA 2013).

2.2.2 Pesticide pollution

Municipal pesticide pollution has been recognised in

nonpoint source stormwater runo since the 1960s

(Weibel et al. 1966). It is sourced from use in commercial

and residential landscaping and wastewater (Sutton et

al. 2019). Pesticide use and pollution can be significant

in densely populated areas where use is common, but

it is oen on a smaller scale compared with agriculture

use. One study of the Marne River in France determined

that urban uses of pesticides were considerably lower

(47 tons/yr) than agricultural ones (4,300 tons/yr)

(Blanchoud et al. 2007), with similar trends observed

in eight urban streams in the United States (Homan

et al. 2000).

Agricultural pesticides represent a category of human-

made or human-appropriated chemicals that are used

to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest, or as a

plant regulator, defoliant or desiccant (U.S. Code 1947).

Pesticides are categorised based on the target class

of organisms they are designed to impact. The most

common categories include herbicides, insecticides,

fungicides, rodenticides, algaecides and antimicrobials.

The ocean is exposed to pesticides through air, water,

soil and biota. The air transports pesticides globally,

documented as early as 1968 (Risebrough et al. 1968;

Seba and Prospero 1971), and has resulted in detectable

levels of pesticides in every part of the biosphere,

including in arctic ice (Pućko et al. 2017; Rimondino

et al. 2018). Pesticide transport through surface runo

occurs in both the liquid phase, where the pesticide

is solubilised in the runo water, and the solid phase,

where the pesticide is bound with soil particles that

erode with surface runo. Both mechanisms transport

pesticides from their application sites to the ocean. More

areas are likely to face high pesticide pollution risk as

global population grows and the climate warms, likely

requiring even higher rates of pesticide use for increased

agricultural activity and crop pests (Ippolito et al. 2015).

2.2.3 Nutrient pollution

Untreated sewage carries a large volume of pollutants

to the ocean (Islam and Tanaka 2004) and wastewater

itself contains a number of pollutants: nutrients,

pathogens, plastics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals

and other suspended solids. On a volume basis, raw

sewage discharge is of most concern where sanitation

infrastructure is still developing. For example, in

Southeast Asia, more than 600,000 tons of nitrogen

are discharged annually from the major rivers. These

numbers may become further exacerbated as coastal

population densities are projected to increase from

77 people per square kilometre (people/km2) to 115

people/km2 in 2025 (Nellemann et al. 2008). The global

anthropogenic nitrogen (N) load to fresh water systems

from both diuse and point sources in the period

2002−2010 was 32.6 MMT/yr (Mekonnen and Hoekstra

2015), though only a portion of this might reach the

ocean.

The accumulated anthropogenic N loads related to gray

water footprints in the period 2002–2010 was 13 × 1012

cubic metres per year, with China contributing about

45 percent to the global total. Twenty-three percent

came from domestic point sources and 2 percent from

industrial point sources (Nellemann et al. 2008). From

2002 to 2010, the global total phosphorous (P) load to

freshwater systems from the sum of anthropogenic

diuse and point sources was estimated to be 1.47

MMT/yr, though only a portion of this might reach the

ocean. About 62 percent of this total load was from

point sources (domestic, industrial) while diuse

sources (agriculture) contributed the remainder. China

contributed most to the total global anthropogenic P

load, about 30 percent, followed by India (8 percent), the

United States (7 percent), and Spain and Brazil (6 percent

each) (Bouwman et al. 2011).

A global indicator of wastewater treatment to inform the

SDGs has been recently created: Wastewater treatment

was normalised by connections to wastewater systems

around the world. The regions with the greatest average

scores (i.e. the most comprehensive wastewater

treatment) are Europe (66.14 ± 4.97) and North America

(50.32 ± 17.42). The Middle East and North Africa (36.45

± 6.33), East Asia and the Pacific (27.06 ± 6.91), Eastern

Europe and Central Asia (18.34 ± 5.40), and Latin America

and the Caribbean (11.37 ± 2.51) had scores falling in the

14 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

middle, with some infrastructure lacking. Sub-Saharan

Africa (3.96 ± 1.50) and South Asia (2.33 ± 1.34) have

the lowest scores with extensive needs for wastewater

treatment improvements (Malik et al. 2015). Even where

treatment facilities exist, they may sometimes discharge

untreated sewage into waterways and the ocean due to

decayed infrastructure, facility malfunctions or heavy

rainfall events that overwhelm systems using combined

sewers and stormwater drains (known as combined

sewer overflows).

Nutrient pollution from agricultural sources comes from

using synthetic nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers and

from discharging animal waste into the ocean, either via

direct runo, rivers or disaster events (e.g. hurricanes).

Globally, humans increased the application of synthetic

nitrogen fertilisers by nine-fold and phosphorous

fertilisers by three-fold between the 1960s and the 2000s

(Sutton et al. 2013). The global agricultural system fixed

50–70 Teragrams (Tg) of N biologically, while nearly

double that, 120 Tg per year of N, was added as synthetic

fertilisers to support the production of crops and grasses

as well as feedstock for industrial animal agriculture

(Galloway et al. 2008; Herridge et al. 2008). A large share

of the human-applied N is lost, including some 40–66

Tg N/yr exported from rivers to the ocean from 2000 to

2010 (Seitzinger et al. 2005; Seitzinger et al. 2010; Voss et

al. 2011; Voss et al. 2013). Estimates show an increase in

the total N and P exports to coastal waters by almost 20

percent and over 10 percent, respectively, from 1970 to

2000 (Seitzinger et al. 2010). Diuse sources, including

agriculture, contributed about 28 percent of the global

total P load to freshwater systems, which eventually lead

to the ocean.

Global crop production is oen seen as the primary

accelerator of N and P cycles. However, the demand

for animal feed produced from dierent crops and

by-products of the food industry has rapidly increased

in the past century. At present, about 30 percent of

global arable land is used for producing animal feed,

probably also involving a similar fraction of fertiliser

use to produce crops for human consumption (Steinfeld

et al. 2006). In addition, total N and P in animal

manure generated by livestock production exceed the

global N and P fertiliser use (Mekonnen and Hoekstra

2018). Livestock production has increased rapidly in

the past century, with a gradual intensification that

has influenced the composition of livestock diets. In

general, intensification is accompanied by decreasing

dependence on open range feeding in ruminant systems

and increasing use of concentrate feeds, mainly feed

grains grown with fertiliser and fed to animals at feedlots

with concentrated manure to manage.

2.2.4 Antibiotics and other

pharmaceuticals

Antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals are present in

most wastewater both from improper disposal (flushing

down sinks or toilets) and from human waste. Where

wastewater treatment facilities exist, treatment primarily

removes solids and pathogens, but is not typically able

to remove pharmaceuticals without advanced treatment

(Keen et al. 2014). A rapid increase (up 65 percent in

defined daily doses) of antibiotic use between 2000

and 2015 was seen globally, with the largest increases

in lower-middle-income countries where wastewater

treatment may be less available (Klein et al. 2018).

Box 3. The Impacts

of Aquaculture

The four primary discharges to the

ocean from ocean-based aquaculture,

as identified and quantified by the

Global Aquaculture Performance

Index, are antibiotics, antifoulants

(primarily copper), parasiticides and

uneaten feed and faeces, the last of

which impacts the biochemical oxygen

demand of the water.a There are

two additional biological impacts—

escaped fish and pathogens—that are

considered out of scope for this paper.

Plastics discharged by aquaculture

are presented at the beginning of

this section. The relative volume and

impacts of these four discharges vary

by species, geography and type of

aquaculture, with impacts ranging

from relatively benign to quite

damaging for the marine environment

and marine life. The index identified

the worst-performing sector as marine

finfish in tropical and subtropical

water, such as groupers, red drum

and cobia, and the worst geography

as Asia, with Asian countries holding

the lowest 15 spots in the species-

country ranking. These countries

tended to score particularly poorly on

biochemical oxygen demand and use

of antibiotics and parasiticides.b

Notes:

a. Volpe et al. 2013.

b. Volpe et al. 2013

15 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

2.2.5 Heavy metals, persistent organic

pollutants and oil and gas

Urban runo, especially roadway runo, is the primary

source of heavy metals, POPs and oil and other

chemicals from municipal sources, although some

of these can also be contained in wastewater. One

recent example from China shows road runo contains

significant cadmium, chromium, copper, manganese,

nickel, lead and zinc when classifying with a pollution

load index, and that roadways have two to six times

greater metal concentrations than rooop runo (Shajib

et al. 2019).

Pollution from industry refers to any discharges of

hazardous substances, which may be a result of eluent

discharges from manufacturing operations and cleaning

equipment and any accidental spills. Industrial activities

may generate waste that contains heavy metals,

carcinogenic hydrocarbons, dioxins, pesticides, and

noxious organic and inorganic substances. Hazardous

substances are used to produce electrical equipment, oil

and petrochemicals, organic and inorganic chemicals,

pesticides and heavy metals (mercury, arsenic, lead,

cadmium), and are used by the wood/pulp processing

and electroplating industries. Additionally, by-products

of industrial processes include toxic dioxins (e.g. C4H4O2)

produced in the manufacture of certain herbicides and

chlorine from paper pulp bleaching. Hazardous materials

can be explosive, toxic or carcinogenic, and must be

treated and managed appropriately. Like other pollutant

pathways already discussed, industrial pollutants

can enter the ocean directly through point discharges

or by flowing in rivers (water or sediment transport)

to the ocean, but may also come from atmospheric

deposition as illustrated in a river and estuary source

and transport case study of organochlorine compounds

by Wu et al. (2016).

Industrial water consumption comprises 22 percent of

global water use (UN Water 2018). In 2009, industrial

water use in Europe and North America was 50 percent

of total water use compared with 4–12 percent in

developing countries, but it is expected to increase

by a factor of five in the next 10–20 years in rapidly

industrialising countries (UN Water 2018). As far back

as 2002, 160,000 factories were estimated to discharge

between 41,000 and 57,000 tons of toxic organic

chemicals and 68,000 tons of toxic metals into coastal

waters (UNDP 2002). Globally, 80 percent of wastewater,

including some industrial wastewater, is discharged into

the environment without treatment (UN Water 2018).

In the United States, around 60 percent of coastal rivers

and bays had already been degraded by 2006 (UNEP/

GPA 2006). The Mediterranean coastline has faced major

environmental pressures from industrial development,

with wastewater flows from the mineral, chemical and

energy sectors (GRID-Arendal 2013). Meanwhile, China

has discharged approximately 20–25 billion tons per

year of industrial wastewater since 2000 (Jiang et al.

2014). The real number may be even higher, due to

underreporting and a mismatch in both water quality

standards and wastewater standards. In 2018, only about

71 percent of the industrial wastewater was treated

in Vietnam—cra villages near Hanoi, for example,

were discharging 156,000 cubic metres of water a day

into the Red River Delta near the coast (World Bank

2019). The World Bank (2019) also states that treating

22 million cubic metres of wastewater from industrial

clusters along the Nhue-Day River could considerably

improve coastal water quality. The Ganga River, despite

being a sacred river, is heavily polluted by untreated

industrial activities. Seven hundred sixty-four units of

industry generate 501 million litres of wastewater from

tanneries, textile mills, paper, pulp and other sources

(India Ministry of Water Resources 2017). The Tiram River

in Malaysia had high levels of toxics due to the improper

treatment of industrial eluent in 2015 (Asri 2015). Only

one-third of Philippine river systems are considered

suitable for public water supply due to untreated

domestic and industrial wastewater (Asian Development

Bank 2009). These polluted rivers stream to the ocean

and threaten the coastal resources in the Philippines.

Monitoring of fish and macroinvertebrates in Manila

Bay, Philippines, showed the content of cadmium, lead

and chromium were considerable (Sia Su et al. 2009).

Heavy metal pollution for lead and hexavalent chromium

had accounted for 99.2 percent of disease burden from

toxic exposure among those in India, Indonesia and the

Philippines (Chatham-Stephens et al. 2013). Seawater

along the coast of the Korean Peninsula was analysed

for heavy metal concentrations three times from 2009 to

2013 and copper and zinc concentrations were found to

exceed acceptable standards all three times (Lee et al.

2017). Untreated industrial discharges threaten not only

ecosystem services, but potentially billions of people.

16 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

2.2.6 Maritime pollution

Pollution into the ocean does not arise only from land;

the ocean is also impacted by ocean-sourced pollution.

Pollution other than plastic (see section 2.1.4 for a

discussion of plastic pollution), results from fishing,

shipping and transportation, cruises, recreational

boating, ocean exploration and other maritime activities.

Similar to land-based sources, wastewater and grey

water contribute to nutrient and chemical loading in

the ocean, and unique to ocean-going vessels, improper

management of bilge water can also cause pollution.

Sewage and grey water are regulated under MARPOL

Annex IV and bilge water under Annex I. Beyond that,

oil spills are one of the most evident forms of ocean

pollution due to large areas that may be impacted and

the visible consequences for seabirds and other marine

wildlife (Palinkas et al. 1993). Most maritime oil spills

occur due to transportation mishaps or accidents on

oil rigs. Less frequently, a sunken vessel or discharge of

oil-containing bilge or ballast water may be released.

Because of policies by the International Maritime

Organization (IMO) and goals to improve safety and

reduce environmental risk, the overall trend of oil spills

from tankers (not including rigs and platforms) has

decreased over time (Kontovas et al. 2010). However,

in 2010 BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill resulted in 4.9

million barrels of oil entering the ocean, the largest oil

spill in the history of the petroleum industry; thousands

of scientific papers have assessed the impacts of this oil

spill since it occurred.

2.3 Compounding Effects of

Multiple Pollutants

More than one source and pollutant can cause a

complex mix of stressors on the ecosystem and marine

life, with sometimes synergistic eects (the impact of

the two together is greater than the sum of their

individual impacts).

Box 4. Jakarta Bay

Struggles with Industrial

Pollution

Jakarta Bay is on the northern coast of

Jakarta Metropolitan City, Indonesia.

Three large rivers, the Citarum,

Ciliwung and Cisadane, flow into

Jakarta Bay. These rivers are used

by inhabitants as well as industry in

the Jakarta, West Java and Banten

Provinces. There has been significant

anthropogenic impact on the Citarum

River dating back to the increase in use

of the area for industrial activities in

the early 1980s.a Septiono et al. (2016)

discovered heavy metals—namely

cadmium, chromium hexavalent, zinc,

mercury, lead and copper—exceeding

the national concentration standards

in the river. The concentrations of lead

and copper in the sediment of Jakarta

Bay increased five and nine times,

respectively, between 1982 and 2002

(Arifin 2004). In 2006–07, sampling

found that sediment distribution in

the estuary of Jakarta Bay consisted

mostly of black clay, which is indicative

of anthropogenic influences from the

Jakarta River Basin.b Sampling done

from June 2015 to June 2016 showed

that around 97,000 debris items

entered the bay daily through nine

rivers, and about 59 percent of it was

macroplastic,c a further stressor on

Jakarta Bay.

Thousands of people, such as fishers

in North Jakarta and those along

the Thousand Islands, depend on

the ecosystem goods and services

provided by the river. However, the

extreme pollution of toxic chemicals,

eutrophication and sediment load in

the area, as well as overexploitation

of marine resources, are threatening

coastal communities. Production of

the capture fishery sector decreased

in the last five years. Fish production

continuously declined from about

35,000 tons in 1999 to almost 18,000

tons in 2002.d Jakarta Bay is under

stress from both intensive fishing

and degraded water quality due to

pollution from both land and marine

sources. Mercury content in green

mussels and arsenic concentrations

in green mussels and tuna samples

in Jakarta Bay are above the national

standard concentrations (1.0 milligram

per kilogram),e yet the polluted green

mussels can be found in local markets.

Despite being highly used for food and

to support livelihoods, Jakarta Bay is a

sea of wastewater and solid waste.

Notes:

a. Bukit 1995; Parikesit et al. 2005; Dsikowitzky

et al. 2017.

b. Tejakusuma et al. 2009.

c. Cordova and Nurhati 2019.

d. Arifin 2004.

e. Koesmawati and Arifin 2015.

17 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Distinct pollutants may also enter the ocean through

similar pathways. The municipal sector, for example, is a

source of both plastic waste and wastewater. In general,

wastewater also carries all the contaminants of urban

stormwater runo in addition to pollutants in sewage.

When municipal infrastructure for handling solid and

liquid wastes is lacking, rapid economic development

exacerbates pollution. In some cases, open sewage

canals are sometimes used to ‘manage’ wastewater in

urban systems, yet solid waste on land washes into these

canals and drains into waterways that can lead to the

ocean. In other cases, aging infrastructure incapable of

handling stormwater leaks both sewage and plastic into

waterways from combined sewer overflow events. Just

as negative synergies exist, so do positive ones: Waste

management of the residual solids from wastewater

treatment are oen managed within the solid waste

management sector, and development of infrastructure

to manage biosolids can help properly manage other

solid waste, including plastic waste.

The agriculture sector has the highest input of nutrients

to the ocean. In one of the largest river basins, the

Mississippi River, fertiliser use delivered 64 percent

and 41 percent of the N and P, respectively, to the Gulf

of Mexico. Pasture use delivered another 5 percent

and 38 percent of the contribution, for a total N and

P from agriculture of 70 to 80 percent of the total (by

comparison, urban use is 9 to 11 percent) (Alexander et

al. 2008). The research also found that source reductions

on land near large rivers (nearly 1:1) or quickly flowing

streams (2:1) had the greatest reduction of overall

nutrient loading to the Gulf (Alexander et al. 2008). This

means that in large river basins, it is possible to get a

nearly kg per kg reduction to the ocean by decreasing

fertiliser use and adjusting management of grazelands.

Figure 2 shows use of N and P on land, as well as all the

major watersheds that drain to the ocean.

18 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Figure 2. Global Nitrogen and Phosphorous Applications (minus endorheic basins)

Global Phosphorus

Application (kg/ha

of P fertiliser applied

per grid cell)

<.25

2.5–10

10–25

>25

Endorheic Riverbasins

Global Nitrogen

Application (kg/ha

of N fertiliser applied

per grid cell)

<.25

2.5–10

10–25

>25

Endorheic Riverbasins

Notes: These applications could impact the ocean based upon runo and drainage. Kg/ha stands for kilogram per hectare. N stands for nitrogen, and P for

phosphorous. As used here, an endorheic basin is a body of water that has no outflow to other bodies of water, such as rivers or the ocean.

Sources: Potter et al. 2010; Potter et al. 2011a; Potter et al. 2011b. Map created by A. Brooks.

19 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Box 5. Spotlight on

Vietnam

Vietnam has a coastline of 3,260

kilometres with over 3,000 islands and

114 river mouths and estuaries. Due to

the rapid rate of population increase,

urbanisation and industrialisation, a

large amount of pollution has been

introduced into the coastal zone in

recent decades. The major sources of

pollution discharges into the ocean

include untreated or incompletely

treated eluents from the municipal

and industrial sectors, as well as waste

from agriculture activities and seaport

and tourism activities.

The total amount of domestic

wastewater in both urban and rural

areas in Vietnam is estimated to be

8.7 million cubic metres per day

(million m3/day).a Major pollutants are

nutrients, organic matter, suspended

solids and nitrogen-containing organic

substances. According to the Vietnam

Ministry of Construction, the total

designed capacity of 39 domestic

wastewater treatment plants over the

country is approximately 907,950 m3/

day, which covers only 11 percent

of domestic wastewater.b In Ha Noi

capital and Ho Chi Minh City, the

two largest cities in the country, the

percentage of all domestic wastewater

processed by centralised wastewater

treatment plants is 20.6 percent and

13 percent of the total wastewater,

respectively.c By the end of 2016, 344

industrial zones had been established

with the amount of industrial

wastewater varying in the regions, and

220 industrial zones were in operation

of which 86 percent had a centralised

wastewater treatment plant. Only 98 of

620 industrial clusters, or 16 percent,

were designed with a wastewater

treatment system—and those

treatment systems have been shown

to have a number of limitations. In

addition, wastewater from handicra

villages also contributes to marine

pollution.d

Waste from agricultural activities

also contributes to marine pollution,

especially from the livestock,

aquaculture and crop sectors. The

estimated livestock solid waste—

including nutrients, suspended

solids, organic matter, pathogens and

pharmaceuticals—was reported to

be 47 million tons in 2016, of which

40–70 percent was treated and the

rest discharged into lakes, streams

and rivers.e For instance, 70–90

percent of the wastewater from one

pig farm, comprised of nutrients

(nitrogen), minerals, heavy metals

and pharmaceuticals, was reported

to be excreted into the environment.

Aquaculture activities also release

a large amount of untreated waste

directly into the ocean with high levels

of nitrogen and phosphorus. In 2014,

more than 10 billion cubic metres of

wastewater containing 51,336 metric

tons of nitrogen and 16,070 metric tons

of phosphorus in a pangasius fish farm

were estimated to be discharged to

local canals to eventually end up in the

Mekong Delta River.f

The use of pesticides and chemical

fertilisers in agricultural production

is another major source of surface

water pollution. Fertilizer use is

increasing in Vietnam. From 1983 to

2013, fertiliser consumption increased

nearly seven-fold to 26 MMT in 2013,

and about 80,000–100,000 tons of

pesticides, herbicides and fungicides

were used from 2012 to 2014.g On

average, 20–30 percent of pesticides

and chemical fertilisers applied will

not be retained by plants and will be

washed by rainwater and irrigation

water into surface water resources

as well as accumulate in the soil

and groundwater in the form of

residues. In summary, the pollutants

released by these activities include,

among others, nutrients, organic

chemicals, sediments and pesticides,

which ultimately end up in the sea

of Vietnam. In addition, wastewater

is also discharged from ocean-going

ships, other maritime facilities, ship

building and repair plants, seaports

and freight yards and stores.

The two major river basins in Vietnam,

the Mekong and the Red River,

annually discharge approximately 500

million and 137 billion cubic metres

of water into the ocean, respectively.h

Sediment is discharged from the

Mekong alone at a rate of 36 MMT/

yr, although this is a decrease from

previous estimates since dams are

now reducing that transport.i However,

both of these water and sediment

flows can transport pollutants from the

anthropogenic activities in the river

catchment and coastal areas to the

ocean.j About 13 MMT of solid waste

is mismanaged in Vietnam each year,

with 1.8 MMT of that plastic, and an

estimated 0.28–0.73 MMT entering the

ocean from Vietnam each year.k

In Vietnam, not many studies on

plastics, including microplastics, have

been conducted, although Vietnam is

one of the top countries in the world

in terms of plastic waste.k The plastic

industry during 2010–2015 was the

third-largest industry in terms of

continued on page 20

20 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Box 5. Spotlight on Vietnam,

continued

growth, with an annual increase

of 16–18 percent (following the

telecommunications and textile

industries). The amount of plastic used

per capita increased from 3.8 kg/year

in 1990 to over 41 kg/year in 2015.l

Although there are no oicial statistics

on the amount and varieties of plastic

in the Vietnamese sea, plastic waste,

originating from wastewater and solid

waste from the mainland, can enter

the ocean through 114 river mouths

and estuaries.

Fishing, aquaculture and on-sea

activities are also major sources of

plastic in the Vietnamese sea. Every

day, about 80 tons of plastic waste and

bags are thrown away in Ho Chi Minh

and Ha Noi combined.m In Ho Chi Minh,

microplastics were found in urban

canals with 172,000 to 519,000 items/

m3,n and in the surface water in Can Gio

Sea at a rate of 0.176 ± 0.0 items/m3.o

Vietnam is addressing the plastic

issue on both the national and

regional scales. The government has

released a national action plan for

marine litter (Government of Vietnam

2020). Regionally, the Lower Mekong

Initiative, a multinational partnership

among Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar,

Thailand, Vietnam and the United

States to create integrated subregional

cooperation among the five Lower

Mekong countries, launched in 2009,

is now also working to address plastic

contamination upstream before it gets

to the ocean.

To more eectively address plastic

waste, more research is needed. In

particular, research that provides

a more complete characterisation

of macro and microplastics at

sea is needed, as well as further

study on eective strategies for

managing plastic waste—particularly

microplastics (including microbeads).

Notes:

a. MONRE 2016.

b. Nam 2016.

c. MONRE 2017.

d. MONRE 2017.

e. MONRE 2016; World Bank Group 2017.

f. World Bank Group 2017.

g. MONRE 2014; World Bank Group 2017.

h. World Bank 2019.

i. Thi Ha et al. 2018.

j. World Bank 2019.

k. Jambeck et al. 2015.

l. VPAS 2019.

m. Vietnam News 2019.

n. Lahens et al. 2018.

o. Hien et al. 2019.

21 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

There are a multitude of potential impacts pollutants

can have on the ocean, which we have categorised

into four types: ecosystem, marine life, human health

and economic. See Table 2 for a brief outline of these

impacts.

3. Impacts of Ocean

Pollution on Ecosystems,

Marine Life, Human Health

and Economies

POLLUTANT ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS MARINE LIFE

IMPACTS HUMAN HEALTH

IMPACTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Microplastics Potential to alter the

distribution of sediment

dwelling organisms in

assemblages

Can provide surface

vectors that facilitate the

transport of potentially

harmful microorganisms

Negative eects on

food consumption,

growth, reproduction

and survival across a

wide range of organ-

isms at the individual

level

Starvation (due to

ingestion)

Potential of exposure

to toxic substances

(in or absorbed by

plastics)

Trophic transfer

Unknown impact of

ingestion through

consumption of

marine animals

with microplastics

in their tissues

Unknown exposure

to toxic chemicals

due to ingestion

Unknown exposure

to pathogens

Reduction in global

marine ecosystem services

has been estimated at

US$0.5–2.5 trillion1

Table 2. Potential Ecosystem, Marine Life, Human Health and Economic Impacts from Ocean Pollution

22 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Table 2. Potential Ecosystem, Marine Life, Human Health and Economic Impacts from Ocean Pollution

POLLUTANT ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS MARINE LIFE

IMPACTS HUMAN HEALTH

IMPACTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Macroplastics Smothering and impact

on coral reefs

Transport of invasive

species

At the individual level:

Starvation (due to

ingestion)

Entanglement

Chemical exposure

Increase in mosqui-

to-borne diseases

Potential for expo-

sure to pathogens

Estimated $40 billion in

negative externalities

annually2

Global damage to marine

environments from plastic

pollution estimated at a

minimum $13 billion per

year3

Aggregated estimates

across the plastics life cy-

cle concluded that annual

damages from plastic pro-

duction and the current

stock of plastic waste in

the ocean amount to $2.2

trillion4

Fishermen lose time and

eiciency from catching

trash in nets

Damage to maritime

industries in the APECa

region was estimated at

$1.26 billion per year5

Loss of revenue from tour-

ism, e.g. reducing marine

debris by 100 percent was

estimated to improve the

savings and welfare of

local residents by $148

million over the three-

month summer period6

Other solid waste Additive nutrients to

the ocean as source of

hypoxia (from organic

waste)

Source of heavy metals

(e-waste)

Ingestion, entrapment

or entanglement

causing impairment

or death

Transport of invasive

species

15 million people

worldwide work

informally in waste

management in

poor, unhealthy

conditions7

Risk of entrapment/

bodily injury

Heavy metal

contamination and

exposure (e-waste)

Pathogen exposure

(medical waste)

Fishermen lose time and

eiciency from catching

trash in nets

Debris in water can dam-

age fishing gear and nets

Loss of revenue from

tourism

23 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

POLLUTANT ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS MARINE LIFE

IMPACTS HUMAN HEALTH

IMPACTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Pesticides Reduced photosyn-

thetic eiciency of sea

grass, corals and algae

(herbicides), resulting in

chronic stress

Measurable impacts on

seagrass productivity, es-

pecially when combined

with light attenuation

from high sediment loads

from agricultural runo

Can restrict or fully

inhibit coral settlement

and metamorphosis at

concentrations as low as

one part per billion, and

at higher concentrations

can cause coral branch

death

Death, cancers,

tumours and lesions

on fish and animals,

reproductive inhibi-

tion or failure, sup-

pression of immune

system, disruption of

endocrine system, cel-

lular and molecular

damage, teratogenic

eects, poor fish

health marked by low

red to white blood cell

ratio, excessive slime

on fish scales and

gills, intergeneration-

al eects, and other

physiological eects

such as egg shell

thinningb

Toxicity via con-

sumption of marine

species who have

bioaccumulated or

biomagnified pesti-

cides in their tissue.

Most at risk are vul-

nerable populations

(children, elderly) in

communities with

high levels of sea-

food consumption

Loss of productivity and

resiliency of seagrass beds

and coral reefs due to pes-

ticide pollution impacts

global economic security

by reducing provision of

ecosystem services that

are essential for human

society. While exact level

of damage is not known,

if we assume a reduction

in productivity of these

ecosystems by 25%, the

annual economic impact

of those pesticides in

the ocean would be $200

billion per year8

Nutrients (N, P) Eutrophication and

hypoxia

Biodiversity losses

Ecosystem losses

Fish kills, red tides

Decreases in popu-

lation and species

diversity with benthic

and fish communities

Release of ammonia

and hydrogen sulfide,

which can be toxic to

marine life

Respiratory irrita-

tion from harmful

algal blooms

(HABs), e.g red tides

Illness from con-

suming seafood

exposed to HABs

Black Sea fishery value

was reduced by 90%

(from roughly $2 billion).

Other economic impacts

included an estimated loss

of $500 million in tourism

revenue9

A major and extensive red

tide outbreak occurred

along the coast of Hong

Kong and south China,

covering an area of more

than 100 km2. Over 80%

(3,400 tons) of mariculture

fish were killed, and the

total loss was over $40

million10

Major economic impacts

on fisheries, aquaculture

and tourism

Table 2. Potential Ecosystem, Marine Life, Human Health and Economic Impacts from Ocean Pollution

24 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

POLLUTANT ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS MARINE LIFE

IMPACTS HUMAN HEALTH

IMPACTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Antibiotics,

parasiticides, other

pharmaceuticals

The occurrence of

subtherapeutic doses of

antibiotics on bacteria

over a prolonged period

leads to resistance,

which is a threat to the

environment

The occurrence

of subtherapeutic

doses of antibiotics

on bacteria over a

prolonged period

leads to resistance,

which is a threat to

the environment

Carcinogenic,

mutagenic and re-

productive toxicity

potential

Endocrine system

impacts

Unknown

Heavy metals Toxicity to some micro-

organisms and animals,

cancer in animals, uptake

by plants

Increase in the

permeability of the

cell membrane in

phytoplankton and

other marine algae,

leading to the loss of

intracellular constit-

uents and, therefore,

cellular integrity

These include lym-

phocytic infiltration,

lesions and fatty

degeneration

In addition, cadmium,

lead and mercury are

potential immuno-

suppressants; of

concern is the buildup

of mercury, which

marine mammals

tend to accumulate in

the liver

Acute toxicity at

high doses, chronic

toxicity, cancer,

impacts to the

nervous system and

behaviour (espe-

cially lead)

Unknown

Industrial chemicals

and persistent

organic pollutantsc

Food chain interactions,

birth defects, cancer,

accumulation and

transformations in the

environment

Abnormal behaviour,

birth defects in fish,

birds, mammals

Biomagnification in

the food chain

Reproductive,

developmental,

behavioural, neu-

rologic, endocrine,

and immunologic

adverse health

eects

Unknown

Table 2. Potential Ecosystem, Marine Life, Human Health and Economic Impacts from Ocean Pollution

25 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Table 2. Potential Ecosystem, Marine Life, Human Health and Economic Impacts from Ocean Pollution

POLLUTANT ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS MARINE LIFE

IMPACTS HUMAN HEALTH

IMPACTS ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Oil and gas Coat and smother ben-

thic areas

Death

Negative impacts on

reproductive health

Carcinomas and pap-

illomas on the lips of

bottom-feeding fish,

as well as changes in

the cell membrane

Severe eye irritation

with subsequent

blindness in seals

Individual birds be-

come unable to swim

or fly and nervous

system abnormalities

can occur

Population-level

eects of oil toxicity

on aquatic birds occur

through the loss of

egg viability

Localised health

impacts from

immediate expo-

sure, potential for

longer-term impacts

from exposure,

e.g. cancer, mental

health issues if

fisheries and liveli-

hoods are impacted

BP’s Deepwater Horizon

spill in the Gulf of Mexico

is estimated to have cost

the company $61.6 billion

in penalties and fines;

cleanup and remediation;

and payments to aected

companies, communities

and individuals11

The ‘true’ cost of the

2010 Deepwater Horizon

oil spill including loss of

tourism, cost of cleanup,

and loss of fisheries is

estimated to be $144.89

billion12

Notes: Pathogens present in human and animal waste discharged to the ocean can infect marine animals, but this is considered out of scope for this analysis.

a. APEC stands for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation.

b. These eects are not necessarily caused solely by exposure to pesticides or other organic contaminants, but may be associated with a combination of

environmental stresses such as eutrophication and pathogens.

Sources:

1. Beaumont et al. 2019.

2. World Economic Forum et al. 2016.

3. UNEP 2014.

4. Forrest et al. 2019.

5. McIlgorm et al. 2008.

6. Leggett et al. 2014.

7. Medina 2008.

8. Cesar et al. 2003.

9. World Bank 2009.

10. Yang and Hodgkiss 2004.

11. Mufson 2016.

12 Islam and Tanaka 2004.

26 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

3.1 Impacts of Plastic

3.1.1 Impacts on ecosystems and

marine life

MICROPLASTICS

Microplastics have accumulated across a wide range

of environmental compartments including marine,

terrestrial and freshwater habitats as well as in the air

(SAPEA and Academies 2019; Eerkes-Medrano et al.

2015). These areas also include remote locations far from

population centres such as in the deep sea (Woodall

et al. 2015) and the Arctic (Obbard et al. 2014). There is

clear evidence that microplastics are ingested by a wide

range of species including marine mammals, birds, fish

and small invertebrates at the base of the food chain

(Law and Thompson 2014; Lusher 2015). While it has

been shown that particles can pass through the digestive

system and be excreted, it has also been established that

some particles can be retained in the body for several

weeks (Browne et al. 2008; Ory et al. 2018). Microplastics

can also transfer between prey and predator species

within food webs (Watts et al. 2015; Chagnon et al.

2018). Many of the species that have been shown to

be contaminated with microplastics are commercially

important for human consumption (Lusher et al. 2013).

Laboratory experiments indicate that at high doses

ingesting microplastics can induce physical and

chemical toxicity (SAPEA and Academies 2019). The

physical presence of microplastic particles has been

shown to have negative eects on food consumption,

growth, reproduction and survival across a wide range

of organisms, and there is evidence that zooplankton,

non-mollusc invertebrates and juvenile fish are

particularly sensitive (Cole et al. 2015). For example, a

reduction in feeding eiciency has been demonstrated

for zooplankton, lugworms and fish. In addition, when

ingested, microplastics can transfer potentially harmful

chemicals to biota; this can occur as a consequence

of the transfer of hydrophobic chemicals from the

surrounding water or the release of additive chemicals

incorporated at the time of manufacture (Teuten et

al. 2007; Tanaka et al. 2013). While the transfer of

chemicals by plastics to biota has been demonstrated,

it is the dose that determines the poison. In a recent

bird feeding experiment, Roman et al. (2019) found that

plastic ingestion caused higher frequencies of male

reproductive cysts and minor delays in chick growth

and sexual maturity, but did not aect ultimate survival

or reproductive output. With regard to the transfer of

chemicals by plastics from seawater, recent work has

shown that other pathways including direct uptake from

water and natural foods are likely to be more important

pathways than microplastics (Bakir et al. 2016; Koelmans

et al. 2016). Less is known about the risks associated

with the release of additive chemicals from plastic.

Determining the release of additives is particularly

challenging since chemical formulations are not typically

in the public domain (SAPEA and Academies 2019).

Most experimental work on eects has focused on

those on individuals, but there is some evidence of

wider ecological eects including the potential to

alter the distribution of sediment-dwelling organisms

in assemblages (Green 2016) and to influence the

sinking rates of faecal material to the seabed (Cole et

al. 2013). Microplastics also provide a surface that can

readily become colonised by microorganisms including

pathogens and there are concerns that microplastic

particles may therefore provide vectors facilitating the

transport of potentially harmful microorganisms (Zettler

et al. 2013; Kirstein et al. 2016).

Plastic is rapidly colonised by microorganisms

in a marine environment (Harrison et al. 2014).

Plastic surface habitat has even been defined as the

’plastisphere’ in recognition of the unique communities

it harbours (Zettler et al. 2013). In fact, litter items made

with many materials appear to have unique biofilm

communities (Woodall et al. 2018). These communities

include potentially harmful pathogens such as Vibrio spp.

(Kirstein et al. 2016) and E. coli (Rodrigues et al. 2019)

and are known to colonise the surfaces of submerged

plastic surfaces, similar to how they colonise other hard

submerged surfaces (Shikuma and Hadfield 2010). A

submerged plastic cup laid on a seagrass meadow can

serve as a home for more than 500 individual meiofauna,

which potentially aects meiofauna community

structure (Susetiono 2019). These communities might

also impact biogeochemical cycles (Cornejo-D’Ottone et

al. 2020).

It is important to recognise that most studies of physical

and particle toxicity have been conducted using

concentrations and/or particle sizes that are not typical

of those currently recorded in the environment (Lenz

27 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

rays, sawfish, turtles, seabirds, crocodiles, dugongs,

whales, dolphins and numerous other marine taxa.

Ghost nets can also damage fragile habitats (such as

by smothering or breaking coral reefs (Sheavly and

hazards to other vessels (Gunn et al. 2010; Hong et al.

2017) and transport invasive species (Macfadyen et al.

2009). Impacts can be substantial—it has been estimated

that in the Gulf of Carpentaria in northern Australia

alone, derelict nets have likely

entangled more than 10,000 sea

turtles (Wilcox et al. 2013).

Ingestion of plastic debris

There are numerous

demonstrated eects of plastic

ingestion by marine fauna. These

may include not only death (van

Franeker 1985; Schuyler et al.

2012; Wilcox et al. 2015) but also

reduction in body mass (Schuyler

et al. 2012), starvation that may

result from the physical blockage

of the gut (van Franeker 1985;

Laist 1987; Acampora et al. 2014;

Hardesty et al. 2015), ulceration

or perforation of the digestive

tract (van Franeker 1985; Laist

1987; Schuyler et al. 2012) and

potential toxicity due to sorption

of chemicals contained within

and sorbed to the plastic (Teuten

et al. 2009). In some studies,

incidence of plastic ingestion

was as high as 60–80 percent

or more of individuals sampled

(crustaceans as reported by

(Murray and Cowie 2011); green

turtles in Brazil as reported by

(Bugoni et al. 2001) and deep sea

species as reported by (Jamieson

et al. 2019).

Chemical contamination from plastic debris

At present, far less is known and understood about

the eects of chemical contamination (which takes

place through ingesting plastic) than impacts from

et al. 2016). There are challenges since environmental

concentrations are not known with confidence,

especially for particles smaller than 300 micrometres,

which are less likely to be collected from water using

conventional net sampling. Plastics can fragment

because of environmental exposure and so the

abundance of very small particles in the nano-size range

could be considerable. These particles are currently too

small to detect in environmental samples, but laboratory

studies show the potential for these particles to transfer

from the gut to the circulatory system with the potential

to rapidly become widely distributed in organisms

(Brandelli 2020). More work is needed to understand

the potential toxicological impacts of this. Despite the

uncertainties about environmental concentrations in

relation to evidence of harm, there is some consensus

based on risk assessment approaches that if microplastic

emissions to the environment remain the same or

increase the ecological risk may become widespread

within a century (SAPEA and Academies 2019).

MACROPLASTICS

To date, around 700 species of marine life have

been demonstrated to interact with plastic (Gall and

Thompson 2015), with the main impacts occurring

through entanglement, ingestion and chemical

contamination (Wilcox et al. 2015). Far more is known

about harm to individuals through interaction with

plastic than is known about harm to populations,

species and ecosystems within the marine environment

(Rochman 2015).

Entanglement in plastic debris

Impacts on marine systems from entanglement are

most commonly associated with abandoned, lost, or

derelict fishing gear. Called ‘ghost fishing’, derelict

fishing nets can continue to indiscriminately catch fish

(and other marine organisms) for weeks, months or

decades, which, in addition to impacting ecosystems

and marine life, results in food security issues through

lost resources to feed the world’s population (and the

associated economic consequences of lost revenue).

With an estimated 640,000 tons of gear lost to the ocean

each year per a census taken a decade ago (Macfadyen

et al. 2009), some areas have reported up to three tons

of derelict nets per kilometre of coastline in a given year

(Wilcox et al. 2013). Derelict nets have been reported to

ensnare or entangle invertebrates, crabs, fish, sharks,

Plastics can

fragment

because of

environmental

exposure and so

the abundance

of very small

paticles in

the nano-size

range could be

considerable.

More work

is needed to

understand

the potential

toxicological

impacts of this.

28 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

entanglement. In laboratory experiments, it has

been demonstrated that ingested plastic can induce

hepatic stress in fish (Rochman et al. 2013). Plasticisers

(soening and other chemical agents such as dibutyl

phthalate and diethylhexyl phthalate that are oen

added to plastics) have been detected in the preen

gland oil of wild-caught seabirds, with higher levels of

plasticisers found in birds that had eaten more plastic

pieces (Hardesty et al. 2015). Polystyrene, heavily used in

fisheries and aquaculture, is also of particular concern,

as styrenes have been shown to leach into marine

systems (Kwon et al. 2015). Jamieson et al. (2019) found

plastics in animals in some of the deepest parts of the

ocean. Endocrine-disrupting compounds leaching into

tissues from plastics are of increasing concern, not only

for wildlife (Olivares-Rubio et al. 2015), but also for

humans (Meeker et al. 2009; Halden 2010).

3.1.2 Human health impacts

The risk of marine plastic debris to human health

can be measured by the likely exposure of humans to

marine plastic multiplied by the potential for harm by

the plastic. This is not a simple equation, as plastics

comprise many and diverse chemical additives in

addition to their primary polymer component. The

limitless combinations of polymers and additives mean

that each plastic product has a dierent combination

of chemicals, uses and disposal pathways with varying

levels of risk to humans. As a result, plastics should not

be treated as a single product, and need to be addressed

separately (Lithner et al. 2011). To understand the risk,

potential exposure should be identified and quantified,

and the potential for harm, including from factors such

as the concentration of chemical additives, size fraction

(Smith et al. 2018) and ageing (Kedzierski et al. 2018),

should also be determined. Because there are so many

confounding variables and ethical issues, and a lack of

a control group, studying human exposure to various

plastic materials and forms is challenging. This section

outlines exposure pathways, but without reliable

measures for all exposure pathways (pre and post waste)

it is not possible to calculate the relative risk of plastic

waste on human health.

Humans have been exposed to plastics and their

constituent components since they were first mass

produced in the 1940s and 1950s. The growing use

of plastics in primary food packaging has resulted in

increased exposure to them over recent years, and the

increased waste has resulted in more plastic entering

the environment (Jambeck et al. 2015). Consequently, a

host of recent studies have reported microplastics found

in nonmarine foodstus—e.g. honey (Liebezeit and

Liebezeit 2013), beer (Liebezeit and Liebezeit 2014) and

seafood (Rochman et al. 2015)—and the air (Dris et al.

2016). However, realistic measures of humans’ exposure

to plastics have neither been taken nor modelled

(Koelmans et al. 2017).

POTENTIAL PATHWAYS OF HARM

Ingestion

A recent review (Wright and Kelly 2017) concluded

that toxicity from chemical constituents could occur

via leaching from plastics ingested by eating seafood,

and this also could result in the chronic exposure of

some chemicals due to the bioaccumulation of toxins

in tissues. It is known that additives such as plasticisers

(e.g. phthalates) and bisphenol (BPA) can cause harm

directly or from their breakdown products. For example,

BPA, which has received the most interest to date, can

migrate out of polycarbonate to contaminate food and

drink products (Guart et al. 2013). Once internalised, this

chemical interacts with hormone receptors, resulting

in a complex bodily response (Koch and Calafat 2009).

Plastics are also known to adsorb persistent organic

pollutants and heavy metals once they have become

waste in the natural environment. With a larger surface

area–to–volume ratio, microplastics can act as a

conduit and/or sink for these chemicals, and hence can

transport them into humans through ingestion. Physical

interactions between internal tissues and microplastics

may also be problematic. Smaller particles have been

flagged as the most concerning (reviewed in Galloway

2015), but, again, knowledge gaps mean the potential for

harm is unknown.

Inhalation

Inhaling fibrous material is known to be hazardous to

human health at high concentrations; consequently,

this type of exposure has been monitored by industry

for many years. These studies have shown that fibres

(natural and synthetic), once inhaled, can cause chronic

irritation and inflammation (reviewed by Prata 2018).

29 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

The harm caused at the exposure level generally found in

the environment is unknown.

Littering and human health

The connection between human well-being and

ocean proximity has only recently been investigated,

and studies have revealed that coastal proximity and

blue spaces positively aect well-being (Wheeler et

al. 2012; White et al. 2010). However, beach litter and

microplastics are considered a risk to well-being (Gollan

et al. 2019), and are one of the biggest threats to the

benefits local communities receive from the marine

estate. Litter can undermine the positive eects of a

coastal estate and inhibit beach use (Wyles et al. 2016;

Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018), potentially reducing

enjoyment outdoors and exercise, both of which are

known to positively aect mental and physical health

(Gladwell et al. 2013). As society begins to better

recognise mental health challenges, this is an area that

requires more research as it could be the most important

influence marine plastic has on human health.

3.1.3 Economic impacts

Plastic pollution in the ocean also has broad economic

consequences. All sectors of the economy use plastic,

and, across sectors, plastic waste is generated in near

proportion to the level of use (Lin and Nakamura 2019).

The full life cycle cost of plastics is not reflected in the

pricing of plastic products (Oosterhuis et al. 2014).

Plastic production is therefore not a fully costed system.

Instead, the economic costs of plastic pollution are

predominantly borne by the environment and by society

(United Nations Environment Assembly of the United

Nations Environment Programme 2017; Forrest et

al. 2019).

The costs of plastic pollution can be broadly divided

into two categories: direct and indirect. The direct

costs of plastic pollution include prevention (e.g.

environmentally sound waste management, awareness-

raising, behaviour change campaigns), remediation (e.g.

beach grading, fishing-for-litter programmes) and direct

damage (e.g. lost productivity from fish mortality or

reduced ecosystem services, repairs to equipment). The

indirect costs of plastic pollution have proven diicult to

quantify, partly due to dierences in the values held by

individuals (such as the importance of a clean beach),

but also due to the challenges in placing an economic

value on a healthy environment. Irrespective of the

categorisation and estimation methodologies, the above

direct and indirect costs are ‘avoidable costs’ (McIlgorm

et al. 2008).

Direct and indirect costs of plastic pollution

The impact of plastic not being a fully costed system

is highlighted by the particularly problematic plastic

packaging sector. It produces a conservatively estimated

$40 billion annually in negative externalities, such as

degradation of natural systems and greenhouse gas

emissions, outstripping the profits of the sector (World

Economic Forum et al. 2016). Including plastic products,

the total environmental cost in 2015 to society from

plastics was estimated to be over $139 billion, which

equated to nearly 20 percent of revenues in the plastic

manufacturing sector (TruCost 2016).

The UN Environment Programme has estimated the

global damage to marine environments from plastic

pollution to be a minimum of $13 billion per year

(UNEP 2014). Moving beyond damage costs to the

environment, the reduction in global marine ecosystem

services has been estimated at $0.5–2.5 trillion, based

on 2011 stocks of marine plastic pollution (Beaumont

et al. 2019). Forrest et al. (2019) aggregated estimates

across the plastics life cycle to conclude that annual

damages from plastic production and the current stock

of plastic waste in the ocean amount to $2.2 trillion.

The European Parliament’s new measures to regulate

single-use plastics cite benefits including avoiding the

emission of 3.4 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

and environmental damages equivalent to €22 billion by

2030, as well as an estimated savings to consumers of

€6.5 billion (EU Comission 2019).

Marine litter and plastics in particular both originate

mainly from sea-based and coastal activities (fishing,

aquaculture, tourism, shipping) and can, in turn,

significantly impact these economic sectors (Newman

et al. 2015; Krelling et al. 2017). For example, fishermen

report nets fouled with plastic litter (Wiber et al. 2012;

Brennan and Portman 2017) sometimes even reaching

levels that cause them to move to areas less polluted

with plastic litter (Nash 1992). Litter accumulating

in the net may also aect the eiciency of the nets

30 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

(Eryaşar et al. 2014). Fishermen lose time cleaning

litter out of nets but surprisingly then dump the same

litter overboard (Neves et al. 2015). Similar to cultured

species, commercially caught fish may have ingested

microplastics (see, for example, Rochman et al. 2015),

which could aect the health of the fisheries and,

eventually, the economic value of the catches.

Aquaculture may suer from

marine litter through fouled

holding cages and health risks

to the cultured species, which

may ingest small microplastics.

There is special concern

regarding cultured bivalves,

which have been shown to

contain microplastics in their

tissues in several independent

studies (De Witte et al. 2014; Van

Cauwenberghe and Janssen

2014; Davidson and Dudas 2016;

Li et al. 2016; Li et al. 2018; Li et

al. 2018; Naji et al. 2018; Phuong

et al. 2018; Cho et al. 2019;

Teng et al. 2019). While this is of

concern for consumers, there

are other sources of microplastic

ingestion (e.g. from air on food)

that might far exceed those taken

up by bivalves (Catarino et al.

2018). Interestingly, ingesting

small microplastics (between

1 and 10 micrometres) by

oyster larvae had no eect on

the survival or growth of those

larvae (Cole et al. 2015), but a

similar study on mussel larvae

showed detrimental eects of

microplastic ingestion (Rist et al.

2018).

There is also concern of trophic

transfer of microplastics (Nelms

et al. 2018), but a recent study

suggested that large predators

rapidly egest microplastics taken up with their small

prey organisms (Chagnon et al. 2018). Commercially

important crustaceans can contain large numbers of

microplastics, but it is suggested that they significantly

reduce their accumulated microplastic load during

moulting (Welden and Cowie 2016). In addition, the risk

of ingesting microplastics is reduced when the gut is

removed (such as those of fish, crustaceans and most

other species) prior to consumption by humans (Lusher

et al. 2017).

Shipping can be severely impacted as vessels can

get entangled with marine litter, causing high risk of

damage to the ships and injury to mariners and travellers

(Newman et al. 2015; Hong et al. 2017). These risks

might be exacerbated in harbour waters where the same

structures that protect the harbour from wave exposure

accumulate large quantities of marine litter (Aguilera et

al. 2016), including fishing lines (Farias et al. 2018), which

ships can become entangled in.

McIlgorm et al. (2008) estimated damage to maritime

industries in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

(APEC) region to be $1.26 billion per year in 2008 terms.

For comparison, the gross domestic product for this

same region of 21 member countries was $29 billion in

2008 (McIlgorm et al. 2008). McIlgorm et al. (2020) have

updated these numbers, now estimating $10.8 billion in

damage per year to industries in the marine economy

attributable to marine debris. This is eight times greater

than the previous estimate due to improved data, growth

in the marine economy and an increase in the amount of

plastic in the ocean over that time. By 2050, this damage

is projected to be $216 billion (McIlgorm et al. 2020).

Beach litter may cause annoyance among beach visitors

(Schuhmann et al. 2016; Brouwer et al. 2017; Shen et al.

2019) or even induce people to abandon a heavily littered

beach (Krelling et al. 2017) and travel to more distant,

cleaner beaches (Leggett et al. 2014). A study in South

Korea showed that following a litter event (rains flushing

inland litter onto coastal beaches) visitor numbers

decreased dramatically; the authors estimated income

losses of millions of dollars (Jang et al. 2014a). On tourist

beaches, large amounts of litter are removed daily

(Williams et al. 2016), incurring substantial costs for local

municipalities (de Araújo and Costa 2006). Interestingly,

several studies show that people would be willing to pay

to visit beaches if they were cleaned (Brouwer et al. 2017;

Shen et al. 2019). Besides the impact on the aesthetic

value of beaches (Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2018), litter can

also pose a health risk to visitors (Campbell et al. 2016),

especially to young children (Campbell et al. 2019).

Fishermen lose

time cleaning

litter out of nets

but surprisingly

then dump

the same litter

overboard.

Similar to

cultured species,

commercially

caught fish may

have ingested

microplastics,

which could

affect the health

of the fisheries

and, eventually,

the economic

value of the

catches.

31 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

In California, modelling indicated that a 25 percent

reduction in marine debris on all 31 of its beaches would

improve the welfare of local residents by $32 million over

three summer months by improving the welfare value

of beach visits by residents and increasing the number

of visits made. Improving marine debris reduction to

100 percent raised the savings to $148 million for the

same period (Leggett et al. 2014). The chemical burden

and disease cost of endocrine-disrupting chemicals

within the European Union has been estimated at

€119 billion (Trasande et al. 2015), of which some daily

contact is likely via plastics (Feldman 1997; Magliano

and Lyons 2013). The environmental costs of marine

plastic pollution are not fully understood. The concern,

however, is of such gravity that the issue is now being

considered within the realm of a planetary boundary

threat (Villarrubia-Gómez et al. 2018).

3.2 Impacts of Other Solid Waste

Inadequate waste collection and uncontrolled dumping

or burning of solid waste still occurs around the world,

but primarily where waste infrastructure is lacking,

oen in low- and middle-income countries (Kaza et al.

2018). This other waste includes all other municipal

waste, medical waste, e-waste and disaster debris, and

mismanagement of it has a range of impacts. Inadequate

sanitation and mismanagement of organic waste and

medical waste can cause exposure to pathogens and

disease, and e-waste mismanagement results in the

release of heavy metals into the environment. For

example, the plastic used to house wires and cases is

oen open burned where informal processing takes

place, releasing dioxin, particulate matter and heavy

metals into the air (Asante et al. 2019).

3.2.1 Impacts on ecosystems and

marine life

Leachate (liquid that accumulates from waste containing

organic compounds as well as heavy metals and POPs)

can drain directly into the ocean (depending on the

proximity of the waste) or into rivers, groundwater

and the soil (Yadav et al. 2019), further contributing to

ocean pollution. Organic waste from garbage can also

contribute to nutrient loading in waterways and the

ocean, and the open burning of solid waste gives o

particulate matter and emissions (Wiedinmyer et al.

2014) that can contribute to atmospheric deposition into

the marine ecosystem. According to the International

Solid Waste Association, greenhouse gas emissions

across the economy—which indirectly impact the ocean

through climate change eects—can be reduced by

15–20 percent with improved global waste management

(UNEP 2015).

3.2.2 Human health impacts

Inadequate waste management, especially open burning

and dumping, around the world produces pollution

(Vasanthi et al. 2008; Wiedinmyer et al. 2014) that

can impact people living near management facilities

and those working directly with solid waste. About

15 million people globally, oen called waste pickers

(who include men, women, children, migrants and the

underemployed), work informally in the waste sector

(Medina 2008). In China alone, it is estimated that 3.3

to 5.6 million people work informally in the recycling of

solid waste (Linzner and Salhofer 2014), and Forrest et

al. (2019) acknowledge the millions of people working

in poor conditions for little money in jobs that would

not qualify as decent work by the International Labour

Organization. While these issues must be addressed,

it is also important to recognise that waste and plastic

management constitute the livelihoods of millions of

people. Any interventions used to address plastic and

other waste must incorporate the views and participation

of informal workers, and especially waste pickers, so

that millions of people aren’t negatively impacted

through the unintended consequences of ‘traditional’

infrastructure, such as eliminating a crucial source of

income (Dias 2016). Women can be disproportionately

harmed by the formalisation of waste management, as

they are typically excluded from formal employment in

the formalized sector. But they can be helped through

inclusive improved recycling operations, capacity

building, provision of equipment, formal training and

awareness building, financial assistance and health

insurance since they have high levels of participation in

the informal sector but oen have less access to these

kinds of benefits (Krishnan and Backer 2019).

3.2.3 Economic impacts

While there are global data on the cost of plastic

pollution (see section 3.1, Impacts of Plastic), there is not

a global number for the cost of mismanaged waste. The

World Bank estimates that proper waste management

32 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

infrastructure would cost $50–100 per metric ton (Kaza

et al. 2018), which is in the same range as tipping fees

charged for municipal solid waste disposal in the United

States. In Palau, where the ocean is extremely important

to the economy, the cost of waste-related pollution, or

mismanaged waste (not the cost of waste management

which is estimated at $87 per ton), was estimated at be

$1.9 million per year, which is 1.6 percent of the country’s

gross domestic product and equates to an annual cost of

$510 per household (Hajkowicz SA et al. 2005).

3.3 Impacts of Pesticides

Pesticide mixtures include active and inert ingredients;

both are important, as the active ingredient is the

toxicant for the target organism, and the inert ingredient

oen amplifies the exposure mechanism. For example,

an herbicide with an active ingredient might be

mixed with an inert ingredient that is water soluble to

more eectively penetrate soil, while the same active

ingredient can be mixed with a non-water-soluble oil

to more eectively penetrate the leaf. The same active

ingredient can have dierent toxic eects on the target

organisms, and potential environmental eects, based

on the carrier or inert ingredient. In the United States,

only the active ingredients must be disclosed in pesticide

labelling, making impact assessments very diicult

to conduct.

Pesticides are very eective at improving the eiciency

of agricultural production by reducing crop and animal

losses. However, there are risks associated with pesticide

applications to nontarget organisms. Nontarget

organisms include the people who apply the pesticides,

process the products and consume the products. There

are also risks to nontarget organisms in the fields and

paddocks where these pesticides are applied. Broad

spectrum insecticides kill desirable insects such as

pollinators and the biological predators of undesirable

insects. Some pesticides persist in the environment and

move through the food chain, resulting in toxic impacts

on nontarget organisms including song birds, raptors,

rodents, reptiles and fish (UNEP 2019).

3.3.1 Impacts on ecosystems and

marine life

Pesticides that reach the ocean can impact nontarget

organisms in several ways, depending on the active

ingredient pesticide category, inert ingredient mediator,

transport mechanism and depositional environment.

The toxic impact of pesticides is generally proportional

to the concentration, so very low concentrations

oen have very low impacts. However, pesticides can

be bioconcentrated and biomagnified through the

food chain to result in cumulatively higher impacts

on predators and scavengers (including humans).

Bioconcentration is the process of uptake of a chemical

by an organism from the abiotic environment, resulting

in higher concentrations in that organism than in the

environment (LeBlanc 1995). Bioconcentration of

pesticides occurs when the active ingredient persists

in the environment long enough to be ingested by an

organism such as krill, where it is either metabolised,

excreted or stored in fatty tissues (Cincinelli et al.

2009). The pesticides that are stored in fatty tissues

can persist through many cycles of ingestion, and

thus accumulate in the organism. Biomagnification

is the process whereby the amount of the pesticide

is amplified up the food chain, and the active

ingredient can be concentrated in the fatty tissues

of top predators such as swordfish, sharks and tuna.

These concentrations can be amplified over 1,000-fold

through this process. Most modern pesticides have

been designed to not persist in the environment, and

thus are less prone to bioconcentration. However, early

20th-century pesticides, which are banned in Europe

and the United States but are still manufactured and

used in many countries, can last over 100 years in the

environment and are very prone to bioconcentration

and biomagnification (Dromard et al. 2018). In general,

organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), which were developed

in the early-to-mid 20th century, are the world’s

most persistent legacy pollutants in the ocean. These

include dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethanes (DDTs),

hexachlorocyclohexanes, heptachlor, aldrin, alpha and

beta-endosulfans, dieldrin, endrin, endrin aldehyde,

endrin ketone, methoxychlor, endosulfan sulfate and

heptachlor epoxide (Guo et al. 2007).

Pesticides have been documented to reduce the

photosynthetic eiciency of sea grass, corals and algae

(herbicides), resulting in chronic stress (Brodie et al.

2017). Certain herbicides in common use, including

Diuron, Atrazine, Hexazinone and Tebuthiuron, have

been shown to have measurable impacts on seagrass

productivity, especially when combined with light

attenuation from high sediment loads from agricultural

33 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

runo (Flores et al. 2013). Seagrass beds are critical

habitats for many marine species and support global

fisheries. Insecticides, including organophosphates,

organochlorines, carbamates and pyrethroids, as well

as fungicides, have been shown to restrict to fully inhibit

coral settlement and metamorphosis at concentrations

as low as one part per billion (Markey et al. 2007).

Concentrations just 10 times that amount have caused

coral branch death. These concentrations are at or

below detection levels for conventional laboratory

analyses, rendering these pesticides virtually invisible to

investigators.

3.3.2 Human health impacts

The primary exposure mechanism to humans from

ocean-borne pesticides is through ingestion of species

that biomagnify those pollutants. The most common

pesticides found in seafood at concentrations above

background levels are OCPs. Communities whose diets

are seafood-based are most at risk given their higher

rates of fish consumption. Consuming fatty piscivores

such as hairtail, mackerel and tuna in South Korea was

shown to increase exposure of vulnerable populations

(children and elderly) to increased OCPs (Moon et al.

2009). In general, these pesticide concentrations are

below chronic toxicity levels for most people (Smith

and Gangolli 2002). Toxicants of concern in fish from

biomagnification include heavy metals (mercury,

cadmium and lead—see section 3.7 on heavy metals),

and legacy organochlorines from industry such as

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Storelli 2008).

3.3.3 Economic impacts

The economic impacts of pesticides in the ocean are

largely through decreased productivity rather than

human toxicity. The loss of productivity and resiliency

of seagrass beds and coral reefs is having a significant

impact on global economic security. These critical

ecosystems provide a portfolio of ecosystem services

that are essential for human society, including the

provision of food, water, energy and other resources,

and tourism. The estimated net present value for 2050

of Earth’s coral reefs was almost $800 billion (Cesar et

al. 2003). If pesticides are reducing the productivity

of these ecosystems by only 25 percent, the annual

economic impact of those pesticides in the ocean would

still be $200 billion per year. These critical ecosystems

are also stressed by other pollutants, sediment and

climate change. Some estimates suggest that under a

high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, more than 90

percent of coral reef communities would be lost by 2100

(Speers et al. 2016). Cumulatively, these pose imminent

threats to Earth’s ocean ecosystems.

3.4 Impacts of Nutrient Pollution

3.4.1 Impacts on ecosystems and

marine life

Nutrient pollution, which occurs when anthropogenic

sources of primarily N and P are discharged into marine

systems, leads to eutrophication, algal blooms, dead

zones and fish kills in freshwater and coastal waters.

Scientists have estimated that about 80 percent of large

marine ecosystems in the world already suer from

serious eutrophication, hypoxia and anoxia in coastal

waters (Selman et al. 2008; Diaz et al. 2011; STAP 2011).

In addition, related incidences of toxic algal blooms

such as ‘red tides’ have become more frequent (Rabalais

2002). Eutrophication also leads to habitat changes and

the loss of species of high value (Heisler et al. 2008).

Many species can be impacted directly or indirectly by

nutrients in marine ecosystems as nutrient inputs have

altered the abundances and distributions of marine

species (e.g. through algal blooms). Eutrophication and

oxygen depletion (oen referred to as ‘dead zones’ when

aecting a large area) have direct adverse eects on

coral reefs, seagrass beds, fish and shellfish (Bouwman

et al. 2011). Diaz et al. (2011) identified more than 770

eutrophic and hypoxic coastal systems worldwide, where

70 percent of the areas had documented hypoxia and

almost 30 percent were developing hypoxia. The dead

zone in the Gulf of Mexico resulting from agricultural

runo into the Mississippi River has been studied

extensively, but there is less data on these zones in

developing countries, so these estimates are likely

conservative.

One example of the direct impact of increased nutrients

in the ocean is the world’s largest macroalgal bloom,

which was recorded from 2011 to 2018 (the most recent

data available). Using satellite images, (Wang et al. 2019)

showed that since 2011, the free-floating mats of brown

macroalgae called Sargassum spp. have increased both

in density and size, generating a long belt of 8,880 km

34 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

extending from West Africa to the Caribbean Sea and Gulf

of Mexico. Sargassum is a naturally occurring seaweed

that provides a critical habitat to a diverse array of

species in this ecosystem. However, when the Sargassum

mats overcrowd the coasts, it can impact the movement

of some marine species. When the excess Sargassum

dies and sinks to the ocean bottom in large quantities,

corals and seagrasses can be smothered. On the beach,

rotten Sargassum releases a strong smell, potentially

imposing health challenges for people who have

asthma. Sargassum blooms and their adverse eects

could reduce the number of tourists during a bloom. For

example, in 2018, Barbados had to declare a national

emergency because of a bloom.

The ocean is becoming more stratified, and while there

is still some discussion over coastal marine ecosystems

being N- or P-limited, (Elser et al. 2007) found that,

for coastal systems, N and P limitations play a similar

role, implying that reducing the discharges of both N

and P is important for alleviating pollution in coastal

areas. This is exactly what was shown by (Beman et al.

2005), who found that areas that are nitrogen deficient

were especially vulnerable to nitrogen pollution. They

also found that agricultural runo had a strong and

consistent influence on biological processes, stimulating

algal blooms 80 percent of the time within days of

fertilisation in the Gulf of California. They then projected

that by 2050, 27–59 percent of all nitrogen fertiliser

would be applied in developing regions upstream of

nitrogen-deficient marine ecosystems. These ecosystems

are especially vulnerable to agricultural runo and

nitrogen pollution impacts (Beman et al. 2005).

3.4.2 Human health impacts

Some important drinking water sources (e.g. Lake Erie)

cannot be used during algal blooms, as the toxins either

increase the cost of treatment or make it impossible to

treat. Other human health impacts come from direct

or indirect exposure to toxins resulting from algal

blooms—for example, a red tide can cause ciguatera

poisoning, paralytic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic

shellfish poisoning (NSP), amnesic shellfish poisoning

and diarrhetic shellfish poisoning, which are the five

most commonly recognised illnesses related to harmful

algal blooms (HABs). Exposure to the toxins from HABs

is mediated through the consumption of contaminated

fish and shellfish, or through exposure to aerosolised

NSP toxins near water bodies where a bloom is occurring

(Grattan et al. 2016).

3.4.3 Economic impacts

Attempts to evaluate the monetary impacts of

eutrophication have been made over the last two

decades. Studies indicate a variety of impacts and costs

that are quantifiable fairly directly, for instance, when

cities of hundreds of thousands of people are deprived of

drinking water for several days. One example is the toxic

algal bloom that occurred in the western Lake Erie basin

in 2011, which led to a disruption of water supplies for

400,000 people (Watson et al. 2016). In another example,

a major and extensive red tide outbreak occurred along

the coast of Hong Kong and south China, covering an

area of more than 100 km2. Over 80 percent (3,400 tons)

of mariculture fish were killed, and the total loss was

over $40 million (Yang and Hodgkiss 2004). On the other

hand, integrating all the environmental, health and

socioeconomic impacts in the calculations of indirect

eects poses more of a challenge.

3.5 Impacts of Antibiotics,

Parasiticides and Other

Pharmaceuticals

3.5.1 Impacts on ecosystems and

marine life

Our understanding of the impacts of emerging

contaminants is limited to what has been learned

by studying specific instances where they have been

found and identified; impacts on the overall marine

environment are not well-understood. Pharmaceutical

substances have been examined worldwide in surface

water, groundwater, tap/drinking water, manure, soil and

other environmental matrices. (aus der Beek et al. 2016)

reviewed 1,016 articles and found that pharmaceuticals

or their transformation products have been detected in

the environment of 71 countries covering all continents.

Six hundred thirty-one pharmaceutical substances

were found at levels above the detection limit of the

respective analytical methods employed. Residues of

16 pharmaceutical substances were detected in each

of the five UN regions, and the antibiotic tetracycline

was detected in wastewater treatment plant eluents

in all UN regions. Regional patterns of pharmaceutical

35 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

leakage to the environment emerged as well: Antibiotics

were most prevalent in Asia, analgesics edged out other

pharmaceuticals as most prevalent in Eastern Europe,

lipid-lowering drugs were highest in Europe and Latin

America, oestrogens were found most in Africa, and the

‘other pharmaceutical’ category was predominant in

Western Europe (aus der Beek et al. 2016).

Research presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

found that of the sites monitored, 65 percent of them

contained at least one of the 14 most commonly used

antibiotics. These sites were located in rivers in 72

countries across six continents. The concentration of

one antibiotic, metronidazole, found by the researchers

at a site in Bangladesh was 300 times the ‘safe’ level.

(The AMR Industry Alliance recently established ‘safe’

levels of antibiotics in the environment, ranging from

20 to 32,000 nanograms per litre depending on the

antibiotic.) Ciprofloxacin, a general antibiotic used

to treat various bacterial infections, most frequently

exceeded safe levels, surpassing the safety threshold

in 51 places. Geographically, ‘safe’ limits were most

frequently exceeded in Asia and Africa (to the greatest

degree in Bangladesh, Kenya, Ghana, Pakistan and

Nigeria), but sites in Europe, North America and South

America also had levels of concern, showing that

antibiotic contamination is a global problem. Sites with

the highest risk of contamination were typically adjacent

to wastewater treatment systems and waste or sewage

dumps and in areas of political turmoil, including the

Israeli and Palestinian border (University of York 2019).

Benzophenone-2 (BP-2) is an additive to personal-care

products and commercial solutions that protects against

the damaging eects of ultraviolet (UV) light. BP-2 is an

‘emerging contaminant of concern’ that is also oen

released as a pollutant through municipal and boat/

ship wastewater discharges and landfill leachates, as

well as through residential septic fields and unmanaged

cesspits. Although BP-2 may be a contaminant on coral

reefs, its environmental toxicity to reefs is unknown.

This poses a potential management issue, since BP-2

is a known endocrine disruptor as well as a weak

genotoxicant (Downs et al. 2014).

There is concern over the impacts of commonly

used organic UV filters, including oxybenzone

(benzophenone-3), 4-methylbenzylidene

camphor, octocrylene and octinoxate (ethylhexyl

methoxycinnamate), on the marine environment.

Oxybenzone, octocrylene, octinoxate and ethylhexyl

salicylate have been identified in water sources around

the world, and are not easily removed by wastewater

treatment plant techniques (Schneider and Lim

2019). Oxybenzone has been

specifically linked to coral

reef bleaching. In addition,

4-methylbenzylidene camphor,

oxybenzone, octocrylene and

octinoxate have been identified

in various species of fish

worldwide, which has possible

consequences for the food

chain (Schneider and Lim 2019).

Danovaro et al. (2008) found

that even low concentrations of

sunscreens caused bleaching

of corals. The organic UV filter

induces the lytic viral cycle in

symbiotic zooxanthellae with

latent infections. Therefore,

sunscreens may be playing an

important role in coral bleaching

by promoting viral infections

in areas with high recreational

use by humans (Danovaro et al.

2008).

3.5.2 Human health

impacts

Wastewater treatment plants

are a main source of antibiotics

released into the environment.

An overabundance of antibiotics in wastewater may

generate antibiotic resistance genes and antibiotic

resistant bacteria. Some scientists are concerned that

wastewater treatment plants are becoming hot spots for

resistant genes and bacteria, which has implications for

human health should people get infections that are then

resistant to typical antibiotics (Rizzo et al. 2013).

Antibiotic

contamination is

a global problem.

Sites with the

highest risk of

contamination

were typically

adjacent to

wastewater

treatment

systems and

waste or sewage

dumps and in

areas of political

turmoil.

36 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

3.6 Impacts of Industrial

Chemicals Including Persistent

Organic Pollutants

3.6.1 Impacts on ecosystems and

marine life

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and POPs are

toxic, are not easily degradable in the environment,

bioaccumulate in the food chain and undergo long-

range transport (European Environment Agency 2019).

Many industrial chemicals and POPs are known to be

poisonous and to damage the environment and the

organisms living in the aected ecosystems. These

pollutants have become distributed throughout the

ocean and have been found in seemingly pristine

environments. These pollutants also bioaccumulate

in marine organisms such as fish and invertebrates

such as corals, which can lead to various physiological

impairments, varying from subcellular changes such

as direct eects on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) to

metabolic stress (Logan 2007; van Dam et al. 2011).

3.6.2 Human health impacts

POPs and PBDEs can cause cancer and toxicity in the

liver, kidneys and reproductive system (Qing Li et al.

2006). The main impacts of industrial pollution to human

health are derived from making direct contact with

contaminated water. The direct contact with polluted

water puts people at risk when the toxins are heavy

metals. The chemical content in the water, whether

carcinogenic or not, may nevertheless play a role in

contributing to cancer mortality risk (Hendryx et al.

2012). Bathing in contaminated water increases the risk

of respiratory disease and skin problems.

Human consumption of marine organisms that have

been contaminated with polluted water is one major

impact of industrial pollution on humans. Many of the

fish that are a primary food source for the indigenous

people in the Canadian Arctic are heavily contaminated

by POPs (Dewailly 2006). While some persistent organic

pollutants have started to decrease in humans and food

in monitored Arctic locations because of international

restrictions, levels of oxychlordane, hexachlorobenzene,

polybrominated diphenyl ether and perfluorinated

compounds are not decreasing (Abass et al. 2018).

Greenland has some of the highest concentrations of

POPs in humans in the Arctic—with the exception of

PBDEs, Greenland populations had the highest measured

levels of POPs than any other Arctic country (Gibson et

al. 2016).

3.6.3 Economic impacts

Studies indicate a variety of economic impacts from

industrial pollution. The tangible economic impacts

include those that occur during pollution incidents as

well as from activities undertaken to prevent, mitigate,

manage, clean up or remedy pollution incidents. The

global economic cost related to the pollution of coastal

waters is $16 billion annually, largely due to human

health impacts (UNEP 2006). An additional source of

cost is the loss of earnings caused by damage to natural

resources. The intangible costs are the loss of marine

biodiversity and the provision of other environmental

services caused by industrial pollution.

3.7 Impacts of Heavy Metals

3.7.1 Impacts on ecosystems and

marine life

Exposure to heavy metals can increase the permeability

of the cell membrane in phytoplankton and other marine

algae, leading to the loss of intracellular constituents

and cellular integrity, and inhibiting metabolism (Sunda

1989; González-Dávila 1995; Hindarti and Larasati 2019).

High trace element burdens in marine mammals have

been associated with lymphocytic infiltration, lesions

and fatty degeneration in bottlenose dolphins, and

decreasing nutritional states and lung pathologies

in other marine mammals (Siebert et al. 1999). In

addition, cadmium, lead and mercury are potential

immunosuppressants; of particular concern is the

buildup of mercury, which marine mammals tend to

accumulate in the liver.

3.7.2 Human health impacts

Mercury and Arsenic: Methylmercury is a neurotoxic

compound responsible for microtubule destruction,

mitochondrial damage, lipid peroxidation and

accumulation of neurotoxic molecules such as serotonin,

aspartate and glutamate (Patrick 2002). Consumption

of contaminated aquatic animals is the major route

of human exposure to methylmercury (Trasande et

37 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

al. 2015). Seafood contaminated by heavy metals or

metalloids such as mercury and arsenic can contribute

to human health risk (Harris et al. 2014; Gao et al. 2018).

One unforgettable case was the mass poisoning of

people in Minamata, Japan, in the 1950s, when 2,252

people were impacted by the contamination and 1,043

died (Harada 1995).

Cadmium and Lead: Consuming fish containing to

cadmium and lead can cause major diseases in humans

such as renal failure, liver damage and symptoms of

chronic toxicity in the kidney (Bosch et al. 2016; Gao et

al. 2016).

Chromium: Because of its mutagenic properties,

hexavalent chromium is a carcinogen that humans can

get exposed to through soils, sediment and surface

waters, as well as some fish (Copat et al. 2018; Tseng et

al. 2019).

3.7.3 Economic impacts

Heavy metal pollution results in substantial economic

impacts to the fishing sector. Bioaccumulation of metals

in fish limits the species that can be safely eaten and the

frequency that those fish can be eaten, and as a result

can limit imports and exports. For example, in 2006,

European Commission Regulation 1881/2006 established

the maximum levels for cadmium, lead and mercury in

food products. High quantities of heavy metals in fish

are one of the principal reasons why fish are detained at

EU borders and the main problem that importers from

non-EU countries must address. The economic losses

deriving from EU border detentions amount to hundreds

of millions of euros each year (FAO n.d.).

3.8 Impacts of Oil and Gas

3.8.1 Impacts on ecosystems and

marine life

Oil spills tend to disproportionately impact sea birds,

which can be harmed and killed by exposure to oil.

Individual birds become unable to swim or fly and

nervous system abnormalities can occur. Population-

level eects of oil toxicity on aquatic birds occur

through the loss of egg viability. Because it is inherently

poisonous, oil in the marine environment has the

potential to harm any creature that comes in contact

with it. This includes larger animals such as sea turtles,

which are sensitive to chemical exposure at all stages

of life and lack an avoidance behaviour, and seals,

which can become blind, as well as smaller organisms,

such as zooplankton and larval fish. Oil spills, and their

associated responses, can be particularly damaging

to fragile but vital marine ecosystems such as coral

reefs and mangroves, but are believed to damage life

throughout the water column. Heavier oils settle and

can coat and smother benthic areas. In areas impacted

by oil spills, bottom-feeding fish have developed

carcinomas and papillomas on their lips, as well as

changes in their cell membranes. Spilled oil can persist

in the environment, continuing to injure and kill marine

life. More research is needed to fully understand the less

obvious impacts of oil spills on the marine environment

(NOAA OR&R 2019).

3.8.2 Human health impacts

A 2016 review article on the human health impacts of

oil spills looked at mental health eects; physical and

physiological eects; and genotoxicity, immunotoxicity

and endocrine toxicity. While there exist a number of

obstacles to calculating human health impacts—such

as challenges to determining exposure levels and the

level of eectiveness of personal protective gear as well

as a reliance on self-reported health symptoms and

variations in genetic sensitivities to chemical exposure—

the authors concluded that there is suicient evidence

to establish a relationship between exposure to oil

spills and the development of adverse health eects in

exposed individuals (Laon et al. 2016).

3.8.3 Economic impacts

Oil spills can be very costly to the responsible companies

as well as to the fishing and tourism industries aected

by the spill. For example, BP’s Deepwater Horizon

spill in the Gulf of Mexico is estimated to have cost the

company $61.6 billion in penalties and fines; cleanup

and remediation; and payments to aected companies,

communities and individuals (Mufson 2016). The sinking

of the Prestige oil tanker in November 2002 o the

coast of Galicia, Spain, resulted in estimated losses to

the Galician fishing sector of €76 million by December

2003 (Surís-Regueiro et al. 2007). Kontovas et al. (2010)

38 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

calculated a per metric ton cost for oil spills based upon

a regression of 38 years of oil spill and cost data—the

average value being $4,118 per metric ton in 2009.

3.9 Impacts Summary

Inputs lead to impacts

Based upon the literature reviewed for this Blue Paper,

it is evident that all pollutants discussed in this report

are concerning to our ocean, though some may be more

urgent or easier to address than others. In addition,

multiple pollutants can act synergistically, creating

a greater eect on the ocean than the sum of their

individual impacts. Exploring the present and future

impacts, as was done in this section, is one way to start

to prioritise which pollutants to tackle first. At this

moment, the plastic pollution crisis is very salient—the

issue is tangible and understandable, and countries

around the world are working on solutions because

of marine ecosystem and economic impacts. It is also

evident from this work that nutrient pollution is of great

concern to the ocean. Nutrients contribute to harmful

algal blooms and create low-oxygen hypoxic zones and

stratification, ultimately impacting the health of marine

life and humans. Without changes to either of these two

pollutant input systems in a business-as-usual trajectory,

the impacts from them will get only worse as populations

grow and economies continue to develop. Figure 3

provides a global map showing nitrogen use, along with

the drainage basins and the impact of this drainage

by showing hypoxic areas in the ocean. Urgent action

is needed to protect the ocean from further impacts

from pollution.

Figure 3. Global Nitrogen Use and Hypoxic Areas in the Ocean

Global Nitrogen

Application (kg/ha

of N fertiliser applied

per grid cell)

ImpactedCL

Eutrophic

Hypoxic

Improved

<.25

2.5–10

10–25

>25

Endorheic Riverbasins

Note: Mismanaged nitrogen use on land and incidences of eutrophication and hypoxia.

Sources: Data compiled from Potter et al. 2011a; World Resources Institute 2013. Map created by A. Brooks.

39 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

The issue of pollutants leaking into the ocean is entirely

a consequence of human decisions and behaviours. It

is determined by individuals, communities, companies

and politicians, to name but a few of the actors within

the social-environmental system (Pahl and Wyles 2017;

SAPEA and Academies 2019). These actors have varying

perceptions, goals and values that motivate existing

practices (and can also be harnessed for change). For

example, a farmer might decide to employ a pesticide to

increase yield and be willing to accept adverse eects on

wildlife. A cosmetics company might decide to replace

natural ingredients with plastic microbeads to save

money and reduce allergens in their products.

Within the social and behavioural sciences’ research

on environmental pollution, the focus has been on

principles of risk perception and determinants of

behaviour (Pahl and Wyles 2017). In other words, how

does a person or community decide that a pollutant

poses a risk, and what factors motivate behaviour

change (including not just individual actions but also

demand for legislation and policy change)?

Researchers have found that how experts assess risk is

dierent from how non-experts assess risk (see (Böhm

and Tanner 2013). Experts apply scientific methods of

risk assessment that focus on specific thresholds or

outcomes such as fatalities or concentrations, whereas

non-experts judge risk levels using a wide range of

factors such as moral evaluation of the issue, perceived

fairness, perceived control and positive and negative

emotions such as dread and pride. These discrepancies

can contribute to conflict between stakeholders.

Mental model approaches are useful in this context

because they can illustrate dierent expectations

about the sources, pathways and impacts of pollution,

which can provide triggers for change. However, it has

also been noted that perception of risk in itself is not

strongly linked to action, and if too strong, could even

undermine action (Peters et al. 2013). However, when

the risk is associated with an emergency event such as

a natural disaster, this may encourage people to take

action, depending on personal agency, community

capacity and resilience (Brown and Westaway 2011). It

is important to understand risk perception dierences

among stakeholder groups because they can influence

how media reporting is interpreted, and should be taken

into consideration when policies and interventions are

developed.

Behavioural practices can contribute to pollution but are

rarely quantified. For example, the dosage of fertilisers

and timing of applications might vary according to

practices and knowledge available to farmers, and fine-

tuning practices could greatly reduce environmental

(and health) impacts. Behaviour is determined by a range

of factors beyond mere knowledge. To illustrate, most

people understand healthy lifestyles but few eat very

healthily and regularly exercise. This is similar in the

environmental domain, where knowledge is one factor

that can motivate behaviour change, but other factors

are more powerful, including perceived control, social

approval and moral norms, among others. In addition,

contextual factors, such as the accessibility and design of

the waste disposal system and availability of materials,

are important. For example, if there is no recycling bin

nearby, a person needs to have a strong motivation to

recycle to put in the extra eort to find one (Pahl and

Wyles 2017; SAPEA and Academies 2019).

To change perceptions and behaviours, a multipronged

approach can target actors individually. Laws, bans

and restrictions are powerful tools that can signal a

social norm of undesirable behaviour. While outlawing

a particular substance can be the most powerful tool,

some materials, such as plastics, are so widespread

that a simple ban would fall short or could be applied

only to certain products. Education and public outreach

campaigns are necessary to accompany policy change

and are powerful instruments in their own right. Good

campaigns build on behavioural science insights

and integrate key elements that have been shown to

work, e.g. empowering individuals, making specific

suggestions for behavioural solutions that are eective

and socially acceptable. It is important not to crowd

out intrinsic motivation but rather to build on personal

4. Human Dimensions

40 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

norms and values and develop a pro-environmental

identity as this could spill over into other domains

and behaviours. Eective interventions link to the

target group’s understanding of the issue and to their

motivations and concerns, and build on existing social

networks and channels. Oen, there is initial reluctance

to change (e.g. introduction of seat belts, smoking bans),

but early adopters may forge the path. Trusted members

of a community can trigger wider change and could be

empowered as change agents. Change can happen top

down and bottom up; to target plastic pollution, for

example, there are many examples of community-led

actions, voluntary eorts in the retail sector (e.g. bans on

plastic bags) and nonprofit initiatives.

41 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Over the last several years, marine plastic pollution has

captured the world’s attention and inspired hundreds

of commitments from governments, businesses and

nongovernmental organisations (NGOs); dozens of

innovation challenges; hundreds of start-up companies

seeking to create solutions; and millions of citizens taking

action, whether as citizen scientists, as part of a beach

clean-up or by changing their own consumption choices.

It is extremely challenging, at least with available data,

to weigh the damage done by marine plastic pollution

against the harmful impacts of nonplastic pollution from

municipal, agricultural, industrial and maritime sources,

though the latter group has been more exhaustively

studied. A more helpful question to ask, however, might

be this: How can action to address plastic pollution

be leveraged to maximise the benefits across as many

other ocean pollutants as possible? If plastic pollution is

uniquely able to catalyse action on solutions, how can

we prioritise and design solutions to also stop the flow of

other pollutants into the ocean?

The seven approaches developed from this research and

presented below begin to address these questions. Each

approach includes recommendations for interventions

and actions to address ocean pollution through four

levers: infrastructure, policy, mindset and innovation.

These levers consider actions that may be taken by

companies large and small, by elected oicials and

policymaking sta, by citizens and by innovators. There

is likely a role for some form of voluntary collective

action from the biggest producers and users of

plastics. In fact, hundreds of companies have signed

on to frameworks such as the New Plastics Economy,

facilitated by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and/

or have set goals regarding how they will address

the problem of plastic pollution. This paper does not

speculate about the precise paths companies will take,

but rather focuses on the specific actions most likely to

move the needle on plastic and other types of pollution

reaching our ocean. Aer the details of the approaches

are introduced, they are then summarised and compared

based on their breadth of mitigation across pollutants

and sectors.

In this section, the list of key interventions and actions

are mapped to the following:

Sectors: Municipal (M), agricultural (A), industrial (I),

maritime (Mar)

Types: Infrastructure, Policy, Mindset and Innovation

Pollutants: Sourced from Table 1. Given below each

corresponding intervention table

Relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

5. Opportunities for Action

IMPROVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY MINDSET INNOVATION

i. Create or expand wastewater treatment

capacity (M)

ii. Add tertiary treatment for nutrients and

microplastics (M)

iii. Install toilets (wet or dry) where needed

to prevent open defecation (M)

iv. Install septic tanks where access to muni-

cipal wastewater systems is limited (M)

v. Ensure industrial wastewater is appropri-

ately treated, whether through municipal

or other infrastructure (I)

i. Ensure supporting policies for

wastewater improvements and

sustainability of infrastructure

over time are in place (M)

i. See wastewater as

a natural resource,

especially in water-

constrained regions (M)

i. Develop washing

machine filters for

microplastic fibres (M)

ii. Innovate ways to

remove pharmaceuti-

cals and antibiotics from

wastewater

eectively and aord-

ably (M)

Sectors: Municipal (M), industrial (I)

Pollutants: Macroplastics; microplastics; other solid waste; nutrients; antibiotics, parasiticides and other pharmaceuticals; heavy metals; and industrial chemicals

and POPs

SDGs: 6.2, 6.3

42 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

IMPROVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY MINDSET INNOVATION

i. Use natural filters such as berms and clay

to minimise runo into the ocean (A, M)

ii. Implement stormwater and storm drain

filtration and river mouth trash collection

(M)

i. Set total maximum daily loads

(TMDLs) for trash (M)

ii. Impose regulatory limits,

TMDLs for discharge (I)

iii. Employ stormwater permit-

ting (M)

iv. Regulate animal waste la-

goons that have the potential

to discharge into the ocean

(A)

v. Regulate use of pesticides,

herbicides and nutrients for

residential and commercial

use (M)

vi. Require nutrient manage-

ment plans and pesticide

management plans (A)

vii. Require reporting of and/or

limit usage of nutrients and

pesticides (A)

i. Change cultural norms

around having mani-

cured lawns to reduce

the use of pesticides,

herbicides and fertilisers

used for residential and

commercial landscaping

(M)

ii. Create a culture of

responsibility regarding

picking up dog feces (M)

iii. Change habit of wash-

ing with excessive soap,

shampoo and products

that contain high levels

of nitrogen and phos-

phorus (M)

i. Conduct research and

development in storm-

water and other treat-

ment systems (M, A, I)

ii. Change crops, seeds

and farming practices

to minimise nutrient

application prone to

leakage (A)

Sectors: Municipal (M), agricultural (A), industrial (I)

Pollutants: Macroplastics; microplastics; other solid waste; pesticides; nutrients; antibiotics, parasiticides and other pharmaceuticals; heavy metals; industrial

chemicals and POPs; oil and gas

SDGs: None

43 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

ADOPT GREEN CHEMISTRY PRACTICES AND NEW MATERIALS

INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY MINDSET INNOVATION

i. Construct treatment facilities

with ‘green engineering’ prin-

ciples (M)

ii. Develop infrastructure for the

production of new or alterna-

tive materials

i. Ban or limit the use of

chemicals of concern and

hazardous materials (I)

ii. Ban hard-to-manage

materials (M)

iii. Require tracking/ manifest of

chemicals of concern (I)

i. Adopt green chemistry

principles as a practice for

companies (I)

ii. Change cultural norms around

having manicured lawns to

reduce the use of pesticides,

herbicides and fertilisers

used for residential and

commercial landscaping (M)

i. Develop new materials that

maintain the desirable

performance characteristics

of plastics but not the

problematic ones, e.g. true

biodegradables (M, A)

ii. Develop alternative cleaning

products, e.g. phosphate-free

soap and detergents (M)

iii. Use fish waste or seaweed to

make biopolymers for fishing

gear (A)

iv. Support research and

development in green

chemistry and alternative

chemicals (I)

v. Reduce and prevent tire wear

and tire dust by using new

materials or other

mechanisms

vi. Use new materials for fishing

gear, e.g. biodegradable

components (Mar)

vii. Support the development of

products and services that

do not use any chemicals of

concern (I)

Sectors: Municipal (M), agricultural (A), industrial (I), maritime (Mar)

Pollutants: Macroplastics; microplastics; other solid waste; pesticides; heavy metals; industrial chemicals and POPs

SDGs: 3.9, 12.4

44 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

PRACTICE RADICAL RESOURCE EFFICIENCY

INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY MINDSET INNOVATION

i. Enable the development of circular

business models through shared infra-

structure, for example, reverse logistics or

commercial washing services for reusable

foodservice items (M)

i. Impose fees on single-use or

other high leakage items (M)

ii. Encourage industry volun-

tary contributions to reduce

fossil-fuel-based plastics (M,

A, I, Mar)

iii. Support policies that allow

personal container use in

shopping and dining (M)

iv. Enable treatment and use

of food and human waste

in appropriate applications

(M, A)

i. Change cultural

norms around waste

generation/consumption

and reuse, in particular

to reduce the use of

single-use plastic

items (M)

i. Design zero-packaging

grocery stores or include

‘packaging free’ or

‘plastic free’ aisles in

regular grocery stores (M)

ii. Develop new purchasing

models that end

reliance on single-use

plastics (e.g. packaging

as a service, reuse

models) (M)

iii. Pricing structure/busi-

ness model for

nutrients and pesticides

to optimise outcomes

and minimise waste (A)

iv. Require fishing gear

tracking (Mar)

Sectors: Municipal (M), agricultural (A), industrial (I), maritime (Mar)

Pollutants: Macroplastics; microplastics; other solid waste; pesticides; nutrients

SDGs: 8.4, 12.2, 12.5

RECOVER AND RECYCLE THE MATERIALS WE USE (FORMAL AND INFORMAL SECTORS)

INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY MINDSET INNOVATION

i. Implement systems for compliance with

bale contamination standards in exported/

imported waste (M)

ii. Deploy technology for advanced waste

drop-o facilities (M)

iii. Use materials that are recyclable and

retain value (M)

iv. Improve technology used at recycling

facilities (M)

v. Use equipment and processes to recover

and recycle chemicals and materials (I)

i. Implement extended producer

responsibility laws (M)

ii. Provide incentives for waste

segregation and recycling (M)

iii. Strengthen markets for recy-

cled plastics (e.g. mandate

use, secure demand, create

price premiums) (M)

iv. Implement Fishing for Litter

programmes (Mar)

i. Change cultural norms

around proper sorting

and recycling (M)

ii. Expand home

composting (M)

iii. Promote and

expand commercial

composting infra-

structure (M)

i. Invest in tracking tech-

nology to combat illegal

dumping (M)

ii. Develop and scale

on-demand waste

collection (M)

Sectors: Municipal (M), agricultural (A), industrial (I)

Pollutants: Macroplastics; microplastics; other solid waste; nutrients; industrial chemicals and POPs

SDGs: 8.3, 8.8, 11.6, 12.2, 12.5

45 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

IMPLEMENT COASTAL ZONE IMPROVEMENTS

INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY MINDSET INNOVATION

i. Provide for sediment/dredge material

removal and treatment (I, Mar)

ii. Conduct sediment remediation with in

situ mats (Mar)

iii. Improve wastewater and solid waste

management on ships (Mar)

iv. Build ships and rigs to prevent and mini-

mise oil spills (Mar)

v. Improve infrastructure at ports to manage

waste generated from ships, including

making waste management aordable (M,

I, Mar)

vi. Land solid waste where infrastructure is

available (Mar)

i. Enforce international dumping

agreements (M, Mar)

ii. Strengthen oil spill prevention

policies (M)

iii. Restrict locations and types

of coastal and open-ocean

aquaculture (A)

i. Engage people to adhere

to MARPOL to reduce ille-

gal discharge (Mar)

ii. Ensure that shipping/

maritime developments

prioritise marine protec-

tion (M, Mar)

iii. Operate and manage

oil rigs and ships to

minimise oil spills (I)

iv. Encourage participa-

tion in beach clean-

ups, Adopt-a-Beach

programmes and clean

beach certifications

such as Blue Flag and

Project Aware (M)

v. Use citizen science apps

such as the Debris Track-

er to engage citizens on

pollution issues (M)

i. Innovate equipment and

methods for managing

wastewater and solid

waste on ships (Mar)

ii. Develop new oil spill

prevention technology

(Mar)

iii. Conduct research and

development in individ-

ual pollutant cleanup

systems (I, Mar)

iv. Shi to land-based

aquaculture systems (A)

Sectors: Municipal (M), agricultural (A), industrial (I), maritime (Mar)

Pollutants: Macroplastics; microplastics; other solid waste; pesticides; nutrients; antibiotics, parasiticides and other pharmaceuticals; heavy metals; industrial

chemicals and POPs; oil and gas

SDGs: None

46 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY MINDSET INNOVATION

i. Expand drinking water infrastructure (M)

ii. Develop municipal composting systems to

support local food production (M, A)

i. Ensure adequate drinking

water standards (M)

i. Use technology to raise

awareness and provide

practical solutions, e.g.

Fill it Forward and apps

to locate water fountains

(M)

ii. Encourage local sourc-

ing of food (e.g. people,

restaurants, govern-

ment) (M)

iii. Encourage people to

bring their own pack-

aging to purchase local

food (M)

iv. Use sustainable meth-

ods of food production

(both on land and aqua-

culture) and minimise

pesticide and nutrient

use (A)

i. Use multitrophic

aquaculture produc-

tion—‘waste’ from one

aquatic species becomes

food for another (A)

ii. Farm mussels, sea grass

or other nutrient-ab-

sorbing species for

nutrient equilibrium (A)

Sectors: Municipal (M), agricultural (A)

Pollutants: Macroplastics; microplastics; other solid waste; pesticides; nutrients; antibiotics, parasiticides and other pharmaceuticals; heavy metals; industrial

chemicals and POPs; oil and gas

SDGs: 6.1, 6.B. 2.1, 2.3

7. Build Local Systems for Safe Food and Water

For comparison purposes, the scope of each intervention

approach is presented in Table 3. As the data do not

exist today to quantitatively compare the value of one

approach versus another, this table focuses on showing

the reach of each intervention by sector for each

pollutant and those directly related SDGs.

47 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Table 3. Summary of Interventions and Pollutants Addressed across Sectors and SDGs

(1) IMPROVE

WASTEWATER

MANAGEMENT

(2) IMPROVE

STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT

(3) ADOPT

GREEN

CHEMISTRY

PRACTICES

AND NEW

MATERIALS

(4)

PRACTICE

RADICAL

RESOURCE

EFFICIENCY

(5)

RECOVER

AND

RECYCLE

(6)

IMPROVE

COASTAL

ZONES

(7) BUILD

LOCAL

SYSTEMS

FOR SAFE

FOOD AND

WATER

SDGS 6.2, 6.3 NONE 3.9, 12.4 8.3, 8.8,

11.6, 12.2,

12.5

8.3, 8.8,

11.6, 12.2,

12.5

NONE 6.1, 6.B,

2.1, 2.3

Microplastics M M M, A M, A, I, Mar M, A, I,

Mar

M, Mar M, A

Macroplastics M M M, A, Mar M, A, I, Mar M, A, Mar M, Mar M, A

Other solid

waste

M M M M, A, Mar M, Mar M, A

Pesticides AM, A M, A A

Nutrients (N, P) M, A AM, AM, A A M, A

Antibiotics,

parasiticides,

other pharma-

ceuticals

M, I AA A

Heavy metals M, I M, A, I M, A, I, Mar A, I, Mar A

Industrial

chemicals and

POPs

M, I M, A M, A, I, Mar II

Oil and gas M, A, I I, Mar IM, I, Mar

Notes: Sectors are municipal (M), agricultural (A), industrial (I), maritime (Mar)

Bold sectors are the primary scope of influence, non-bold are secondary; cells are shaded progressively darker as more sectors are impacted.

Source: Authors.

Figure 4 presents spider graphs of each intervention to

visually compare their eects on each class of pollutants

across the sectors. These graphs do not illustrate a score

for each intervention, but show the extent to which

they impact pollutants across single or multiple sectors

(depicted by how far the shape spreads outward). In

general, the overall impact increases as more pollutants

and sectors are impacted, but the metrics of mass

quantities, discrete counts and values, as well as risk

and impact, are not able to be taken into account in

these illustrations. However, synergies in addressing

other pollutants while addressing plastic pollution are

illustrated.

48 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Figure 4. Spider Graph Illustrations of Approaches 1–7 by Pollutant and Sector

Maritime

Agricultural

Municipal

Sectors

Industrial

Microplastics

Macroplastics

Other solid waste

Pesticides

Nutrients (N, P)

Oil and gas

Industrial

chemicals

and POPs

Heavy metals

Antibiotics,

parasticides,

and other

pharmaceuticals

How to read these graphs

Pollutants

Shape = intervention

scope and coverage

Microplastics

Macroplastics

Other solid waste

Pesticides

Nutrients (N, P)

Oil and gas

Industrial

chemicals

and POPs

Heavy metals

Antibiotics,

parasticides,

and other

pharmaceuticals

Improve waste water infrastructure

Microplastics

Macroplastics

Other solid waste

Pesticides

Nutrients (N, P)

Oil and gas

Industrial

chemicals

and POPs

Heavy metals

Antibiotics,

parasticides,

and other

pharmaceuticals

Improve storm water infrastructure

Microplastics

Macroplastics

Other solid waste

Pesticides

Nutrients (N, P)

Oil and gas

Industrial

chemicals

and POPs

Heavy metals

Antibiotics,

parasticides,

and other

pharmaceuticals

Adopt green chemistry practices and new materials

Microplastics

Macroplastics

Other solid waste

Pesticides

Nutrients (N, P)

Oil and gas

Industrial

chemicals

and POPs

Heavy metals

Antibiotics,

parasticides,

and other

pharmaceuticals

Practice radical resource efficiency

Microplastics

Macroplastics

Other solid waste

Pesticides

Nutrients (N, P)

Oil and gas

Industrial

chemicals

and POPs

Heavy metals

Antibiotics,

parasticides,

and other

pharmaceuticals

Recover and recycle the materials we use

49 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

Figure 4. Spider Graph Illustrations of Approaches 1–7 by Pollutant and Sector

Microplastics

Macroplastics

Other solid waste

Pesticides

Nutrients (N, P)

Oil and gas

Industrial

chemicals

and POPs

Heavy metals

Antibiotics,

parasticides,

and other

pharmaceuticals

Implement coastal zone improvements

Microplastics

Macroplastics

Other solid waste

Pesticides

Nutrients (N, P)

Oil and gas

Industrial

chemicals

and POPs

Heavy metals

Antibiotics,

parasticides,

and other

pharmaceuticals

Build local systems for safe food and water

Source: Authors.

Governments, together with businesses, investors,

individuals, communities and NGOs, can have a

major impact on changing the trajectory of pollution

discharges into the ocean—with the opportunity to

address other intersectional social and environmental

challenges in the process. Solutions will come from

innovative policies, support for research and innovation,

investment in wastewater and solid waste infrastructure

and shiing mindsets and behavioural practices. Many

companies that are facing increased costs—or are

taking responsibility for costs that they have historically

imposed on others—will inevitably claim that these

actions will only result in a loss of jobs, profits and

economic prosperity.

It is important that we don’t confuse the minimisation

of harmful pollution with a reduction in quality of life,

livelihood opportunities or economic success. In fact, the

reality can be quite the opposite. Pollution in the ocean

is already negatively impacting human health, economic

prosperity for ocean-based businesses and marine

ecosystems on which humans depend for essential

ecosystem services. Solutions to ocean pollution can

create jobs, reduce costs to many businesses and

governments and improve the health and prosperity of

millions of people.

Pollution is an externality of a linear economy. In creating

an economic system where product costs nearly always

exclude the environmental impacts for those products

(whether during their creation, useful life or end of life),

we have eectively designed our economies to maximise

pollution, in service of maximising profits. We have

invented the idea of ‘throwing things away’—and the

vastness of the ocean has enabled this fiction to persist

for a very long time.

Alternative economic systems, such as the circular

economy or regenerative economy, begin with the

premise that there is no such thing as waste; that in a

closed system like that of Earth, there is nowhere for

damaging pollution to go that won’t end up harming

ecosystems, plant and animal life and, ultimately,

human life. The branding of an economic model is less

important than this fundamental premise: There is

no ‘away,’ so we must design our economic system to

recognise complete life cycle costs. Once the boundaries

of the economic system are fixed, the machinery of the

economy itself will be very eective at finding the most

eicient ways to stop the problem of pollution.

50 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

How one place can make a

difference

While no single community or country can solve the

problem of ocean pollution alone, a single country

can be a first mover in adopting innovative policies

and solutions that show the way for others to follow.

One barrier innovators face is helping to bridge the

imagination gap between today’s and tomorrow’s

realities. A community, country or region can bring the

vision of a pollution-free future to life and make it easier

for others to begin to adopt the same solutions.

Regional strategies

Smaller communities and countries can consider

adopting regional strategies to help achieve critical

mass for certain types of innovations, investments

and infrastructure. For example, regions that align

their requirements for companies to innovate around

packaging, end-of-life responsibility and other issues

can make it more compelling and less complex for

multinational companies to comply.

Global collaboration

The ocean is a global resource impacted by all actions

everywhere. Given this, it would be appropriate and

eective to organise a global compact or commitment

to improving the health of the ocean so the ocean can

better support all life. International treaties have had

success in the past at reducing some impacts on the

ocean (e.g. Montreal Protocol, Stockholm Convention).

As communications and technologies make the

world feel like a smaller place and emphasise the

interconnectedness of humanity and our environment,

there may be openings to build global support for such

an agreement. At a minimum, current declarations from

the G7 and G20, as well as United Nations Environment

Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme

and other UN initiatives, can be built upon.

Further research

While much has been learned about the scope, scale

and impacts of marine plastic pollution in recent years,

there remain significant gaps that could help inform

and prioritise solutions. There are multiple significant

research eorts underway that were not published in

time to be referenced in this paper. It is the authors’

hope that these studies will be completed and released

as soon as possible as they are expected to contribute

significantly to the state of knowledge on this topic.

Ongoing research on ocean plastic is also needed, and

would be greatly facilitated by the creation of open

data protocols to aggregate and share data globally for

scientific scholarship.

Finally, just as we see synergies in the solutions to ocean

plastic and other pollutants in the ocean, more research

is needed to understand their other interactions in the

ocean as well as their implications.

51 Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean |

References

Abass, K., A. Emelyanova and A. Rautio. 2018. "Temporal Trends

of Contaminants in Arctic Human Populations." Environmental

Science and Pollution Research 25 (29): 28834–50.

Acampora, H., Q.A. Schuyler, K.A. Townsend and B.D. Hardesty.

2014. “Comparing Plastic Ingestion in Juvenile and Adult

Stranded Short-Tailed Shearwaters (Puinus tenuirostris) in

Eastern Australia.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 78 (1–2): 63–68.

ADB (African Development Bank). 2012. Urbanization in Africa.

Aguilera, M.A., B.R. Broitman and M. Thiel. 2016. "Artificial

Breakwaters as Garbage Bins: Structural Complexity Enhances

Anthropogenic Litter Accumulation in Marine Intertidal

Habitats." Environmental Pollution 214: 737–47.

Alexander, R.B., R.A. Smith, G.E. Schwarz, E.W. Boyer, J.V. Nolan

and J.W. Brakebill. 2008. “Dierences in Phosphorus and

Nitrogen Delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River

Basin.” Environmental Science & Technology 42 (3): 822–30.

Andréfouët, S., Y. Thomas and C. Lo. 2014. "Amount and Type of

Derelict Gear from the Declining Black Pearl Oyster Aquaculture

in Ahe Atoll Lagoon, French Polynesia." Marine Pollution Bulletin

83 (1): 224–30.

Arifin, Z. 2004. Local Millennium Assessment: Condition and

Trend of the Greater Jakarta Bay Ecosystem. Report submitted to

Assistant Deputy for Coastal and Marine Ecosystem, Ministry of

Environment, Republic of Indonesia.

Asante, K.A., Y. Amoyaw-Osei and T. Agusa. 2019. "E-waste

Recycling in Africa: Risks and Opportunities." Current Opinion in

Green and Sustainable Chemistry 18: 109–17.

Asian Development Bank. 2009. Country Environmental Analysis

2008—Philippines. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian

Development Bank.

Asri, N.H.B.M. 2015. Impact of Industrial Eluents on Water

Quality at the Tiram River, Kuantan Malaysia. Gambang,

Malaysia: Universiti Malaysia Pahang.

Astudillo, J.C., M. Bravo, C.P. Dumont and M. Thiel. 2009.

"Detached Aquaculture Buoys in the SE Pacific: Potential

Dispersal Vehicles for Associated Organisms." Aquatic Biology 5

(3): 219–31.

aus der Beek, T., F.-A. Weber, A. Bergmann, S. Hickmann,

I. Ebert, A. Hein and A. Küster. 2016. "Pharmaceuticals in

the Environment—Global Occurrences and Perspectives."

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35 (4): 823–35.

Bakir, A., I.A. O'Connor, S.J. Rowland, A.J. Hendriks and R.C.

Thompson. 2016. "Relative Importance of Microplastics as a

Pathway for the Transfer of Hydrophobic Organic Chemicals to

Marine Life." Environmental Pollution 219: 56–65.

Beaumont, N.J., M. Aanesen, M.C. Austen, T. Börger, J.R. Clark,

M. Cole, T. Hooper, et al. 2019. "Global Ecological, Social and

Economic Impacts of Marine Plastic." Marine Pollution Bulletin

142: 189–95.

Beman, M.J., K.R. Arrigo and P.A. Matson. 2005. "Agricultural

Runo Fuels Large Phytoplankton Blooms in Vulnerable Areas of

the Ocean." Nature 434 (7030): 211–14.

Bendell, L. 2015. "Favored Use of Anti-predator Netting (APN)

Applied for the Farming of Clams Leads to Little Benefits to

Industry while Increasing Nearshore Impacts and Plastics

Pollution." Marine Pollution Bulletin 91 (1): 22–28.

Blanchoud, H., E. Moreau-Guigon, F. Farrugia, M. Chevreuil

and J. Mouchel. 2007. "Contribution by Urban and Agricultural

Pesticide Uses to Water Contamination at the Scale of the Marne

Watershed." Science of the Total Environment 375 (1–3): 168–79.

Böhm, G., and C. Tanner. 2013. "Environmental Risk Perception."

In Steg, L., and J.I.M. de Groot, eds. Environmental Psychology:

An Introduction. BPS Blackwell: 15-25.

Bosch, A.C., B. O'Neill, G.O. Sigge, S.E. Kerwath and L.C.

Homan. 2016. "Heavy Metals in Marine Fish Meat and

Consumer Health: A Review." Journal of the Science of Food and

Agriculture 96 (1): 32–48.

Bouwman, A.F., M. Pawłowski, C. Liu, A.H. Beusen, S.E.

Shumway, P. Glibert and C. Overbeek. 2011. "Global Hindcasts

and Future Projections of Coastal Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Loads Due to Shellfish and Seaweed Aquaculture." Reviews in

Fisheries Science 19 (4): 331–57.

Brandelli, A. 2020. "The Interaction of Nanostructured

Antimicrobials with Biological Systems: Cellular Uptake,

Traicking and Potential Toxicity." Food Science and Human

Wellness 9 (1): 8–20.

Brennan, R.E., and M.E. Portman. 2017. "Situating Arab-Israeli

Artisanal Fishermen's Perceptions of Marine Litter in a Socio-

institutional and Socio-cultural Context." Marine Pollution

Bulletin 115 (1): 240–51.

Brodie, J.E., S.E. Lewis, C.J. Collier, S. Wooldridge, Z.T.

Bainbridge, J. Waterhouse, M.A. Rasheed, et al. 2017. "Setting

Ecologically Relevant Targets for River Pollutant Loads to Meet

Marine Water Quality Requirements for the Great Barrier Reef,

Australia: A Preliminary Methodology and Analysis." Ocean &

Coastal Management 143: 136–47.

Brooks, A.L., S. Wang and J.R. Jambeck. 2018. "The Chinese

Import Ban and Its Impact on Global Plastic Waste Trade."

Science Advances 4 (6).

Brouwer, R., D. Hadzhiyska, C. Ioakeimidis and H. Ouderdorp.

2017. "The Social Costs of Marine Litter along European Coasts."

Ocean & Coastal Management 138: 38–49.

Brown, K. and E. Westaway. 2011. "Agency, Capacity, and

Resilience to Environmental Change: Lessons from Human

Development, Well-Being, and Disasters." Annual Review of

Environment and Resources 36 (1): 321–42.

52 | High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy

Browne, M.A., A. Dissanayake, T.S. Galloway, D.M. Lowe and R.C.

Thompson. 2008. "Ingested Microscopic Plastic Translocates

to the Circulatory System of the Mussel, Mytilus edulis (L)."

Environmental Science & Technology 42.

Bucci, K., M. Tulio and C.M. Rochman. 2019. "What Is Known and

Unknown about the Eects of Plastic Pollution: A Meta-Analysis

and Systematic Review." Ecological Applications 30 (2): e02044.

Bugoni, L., L.G. Krause and M.V.N. Petry. 2001. "Marine Debris

and Human Impacts on Sea Turtles in Southern Brazil." Marine

Pollution Bulletin 42 (12): 1330–34.

Bukit, N.T. 1995. "Water Quality Conservation for the Citarum

River in West Java." Water Science and Technology 31 (9): 1–10.

Campbell, M.L., C. Slavin, A. Grage and A. Kinslow. 2016.

"Human Health Impacts from Litter on Beaches and Associated

Perceptions: A Case Study of ‘Clean’ Tasmanian Beaches." Ocean

& Coastal Management 126: 22–30.

Campbell, M.L., L. Peters, C. McMains, M.C.R. de Campos, R.J.

Sargisson, B. Blackwell and C.L. Hewitt. 2019. "Are Our Beaches

Safe? Quantifying the Human Health Impact of Anthropogenic

Beach Litter on People in New Zealand." Science of the Total

Environment 651: 2400–09.

Cassou, E., S. M. Jaee and J. Ru. 2018. "The challenge of

agricultural pollution : evidence from China, Vietnam, and

the Philippines : Main report." Directions in development;

environment and sustainable development. World Bank Group.

Washington, DC.

Catarino, A.I., V. Macchia, W.G. Sanderson, R.C. Thompson and

T.B. Henry. 2018. "Low Levels of Microplastics (MP) in Wild

Mussels Indicate that MP Ingestion by Humans Is Minimal

Compared to Exposure via Household Fibres Fallout During a

Meal." Environmental Pollution 237: 675–84.

Cesar, H., L. Burke and L. Pet-Soede. 2003. The Economics of

Worldwide Coral Reef Degradation. Arnhem, Netherlands: World

Wildlife Fund.

Chagnon, C., M. Thiel, J. Antunes, J.L. Ferreira, P. Sobral and

N.C. Ory. 2018. "Plastic Ingestion and Trophic Transfer between

Easter Island Flying Fish (Cheilopogon rapanouiensis) and

Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) from Rapa Nui (Easter

Island)." Environmental Pollution 243: 127–33.

Chatham-Stephens, K., J. Caravanos, B. Ericson, J. Sunga-

Amparo, B. Susilorini, P. Sharma, P.J. Landrigan, et al. 2013.

"Burden of Disease from Toxic Waste Sites in India, Indonesia,

and the Philippines in 2010." Environmental Health Perspectives

121 (7): 791–96.

Cho, Y., W.J. Shim, M. Jang, G.M. Han and S.H. Hong. 2019.

"Abundance and Characteristics of Microplastics in Market

Bivalves from South Korea." Environmental Pollution 245:

1107–16.

Cincinelli, A., T. Martellini, M. Del Bubba, L. Lepri, S. Corsolini, N.

Borghesi, M. D. King, et al. 2009. "Organochlorine Pesticide Air–

Water Exchange and Bioconcentration in Krill in the Ross Sea."

Environmental Pollution 157 (7): 2153–58.

Coca Cola. 2019. "Coca-Cola Fast-Tracks Collection and

Recycling of PET Plastic Bottles across Africa." Coca Cola

Journey. https://www.coca-colaafrica.com/stories/coca-cola-

fast-tracks-collection-and-recycling-of-pet-plastic-bottles#.

Cole, M., P. Lindeque, E. Fileman, C. Halsband and T.S. Galloway.

2015. "The Impact of Polystyrene Microplastics on Feeding,

Function and Fecundity in the Marine Copepod Calanus

helgolandicus." Environmental Science & Technology 49 (2):

1130–37.

Cole, M., P. Lindeque, E. Fileman, C. Halsband, R. Goodhead

and J. Moger. 2013. "Microplastic Ingestion by Zooplankton."

Environmental Science & Technology 47 (12).

Collier, K. 2019. "Retired Texas Shrimper Wins Record-Breaking

$50 Million Settlement from Plastics Manufacturing Giant."

The Texas Tribune, December 3. https://www.texastribune.

org/2019/12/03/texas-judge-approves-settlement-agreement-

water-pollution-formosa/.

Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Aairs. 2018. National Plan of

Action on Marine Plastic Debris. President Act No. 83. Indonesia.

Copat, C., A. Grasso, M. Fiore, A. Cristaldi, P. Zuccarello, S.S.

Signorelli, G.O. Conti, et al. 2018. "Trace Elements in Seafood

from the Mediterranean Sea: An Exposure Risk Assessment."

Food and Chemical Toxicology 115: 13–19.

Cordova, M.R., and I.S. Nurhati. 2019. "Major Sources and

Monthly Variations in the Release of Land-Derived Marine Debris

from the Greater Jakarta Area, Indonesia." Scientific Reports 9

(1): 18730.

Cornejo-D’Ottone, M., V. Molina, J. Pavez and N. Silva. 2020.

"Greenhouse Gas Cycling by the Plastisphere: The Sleeper Issue

of Plastic Pollution." Chemosphere 246: 125709.

Danovaro, R., L. Bongiorni, C. Corinaldesi, D. Giovannelli, E.

Damiani, P. Astolfi, L. Greci, et al. 2008. "Sunscreens Cause Coral

Bleaching by Promoting Viral Infections." Environmental Health

Perspectives 116 (4): 441–47.

Davidson, K., and S.E. Dudas. 2016. "Microplastic Ingestion by

Wild and Cultured Manila Clams (Venerupis philippinarum) from

Baynes Sound, British Columbia." Archives of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology 71 (2): 147–56.

de Araújo, M.C.B., and M.F. Costa. 2006. "Municipal Services on

Tourist Beaches: Costs and Benefits of Solid Waste Collection."

Journal of Coastal Research: 1070.

De Witte, B., L. Devriese, K. Bekaert, S. Homan, G.

Vandermeersch, K. Cooreman and J. Robbens. 2014. "Quality

Assessment of the Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis): Comparison

between Commercial and Wild Types." Marine Pollution Bulletin

85 (1): 146–55.