kom (2018) 0340 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Reducing Marine Litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment

Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0340
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 28.5.2018

SWD(2018) 254 final

PART 2/3

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Reducing Marine Litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction

of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment

{COM(2018) 340 final} - {SEC(2018) 253 final} - {SWD(2018) 255 final} -

{SWD(2018) 256 final} - {SWD(2018) 257 final}

kom (2018) 0340 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Reducing Marine Litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment

NNEX

1: P

ROCEDURAL INFORMATION

.................................................................................... 3

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

1.1

1.2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

Organisation and timing ............................................................................................... 3

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board ........................................................... 3

Evidence used in the impact assessment ...................................................................... 8

List of acronyms, abbreviations and glossary ............................................................ 10

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 13

Stakeholder groups covered by consultation.............................................................. 13

Consultation activities ................................................................................................ 13

Results of stakeholder consultations on Single-Use Plastics ..................................... 14

Stakeholder workshops and conferences ................................................................... 14

Inception Impact Assessment feedback ..................................................................... 15

Interviews/ad hoc consultation ................................................................................... 16

Eurobarometer consultations ...................................................................................... 16

Open Public Consultation .......................................................................................... 17

SUP conclusions......................................................................................................... 18

Mitigation of Stakeholder concerns ........................................................................... 19

Results of stakeholder consultations on fishing gear ................................................. 21

Inception Impact Assessment feedback ..................................................................... 21

Interviews/ad hoc consultation ................................................................................... 21

Open Public Consultation .......................................................................................... 22

Fishing gear conclusions ............................................................................................ 25

Mitigation of Stakeholder concerns ........................................................................... 26

Marine litter as a global issue..................................................................................... 27

Litter volumes entering the oceans ............................................................................ 27

Accumulation of plastics in the environment............................................................. 28

Marine litter from Europe .......................................................................................... 29

Marine litter measurement ......................................................................................... 29

Methodological note on beach litter as a proxy for sea litter ..................................... 41

Evolution of marine litter over time ........................................................................... 41

Categorisation of marine litter ................................................................................... 42

Travelling of marine litter .......................................................................................... 43

Marine litter aggregation

– creating a ‘top 10’

.......................................................... 44

Pathways for marine litter .......................................................................................... 52

NNEX

2: S

TAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

–

YNOPSIS REPORT

............................................ 13

NNEX

3: C

URRENT SITUATION

: F

ACTS AND

IGURES

.......................................................... 27

2.8

2.9

2.10

2.11

2.12

2.13

2.14

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

4.1

4.2

Sea and land based split of marine litter .................................................................... 54

Riverine and soil litter ................................................................................................ 55

Plastics overview ........................................................................................................ 56

Plastic litter estimates ................................................................................................. 59

Waste from fishing gear ............................................................................................. 59

Impacts on the environment, health and economy ..................................................... 61

Economic impacts from environmental externalities ................................................. 65

Reducing marine litter ................................................................................................ 66

Single-use plastics: issues, definition and insights from existing measures .............. 67

Plastic waste from sea-based sources: sources and existing EU measures ................ 69

Microplastics .............................................................................................................. 73

Existing measures: EPR and Deposit Return Systems ............................................... 74

Examples of good practice ......................................................................................... 78

Global action .............................................................................................................. 94

Existing actions involving EU ................................................................................... 94

Actions to be taken ................................................................................................... 102

NNEX

1: P

ROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Lead DG: Directorate Generals Environment (ENV) and Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

(MARE)

Agenda Planning

Reference AP N°

PLAN/2017/2170

Short title

Reducing marine litter: action on single-use

plastics and fishing gear

Foreseen

adoption

Spring 2018

(Commission

Proposal)

RGANISATION AND TIMING

Work has been ongoing for a number of years on marine litter, reflected for example in the in

the

‘Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ (MSFD) adopted in 2008 with the aim to achieve

‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) for the European seas

by 2020

‘ or the ‘aspirational

marine litter reduction target 30% by 2030 with 2015 baseline' set out in the Circular

Economy Package.

On 15 December 2017, the Inception Impact assessment Roadmap "Reducing marine litter:

action on single-use plastics and fishing gear" was published. At its closure, on 12 January, 28

reactions were received, which are being analysed now. ENV leads the work on single-use

plastics (SUP), MARE on fishing gear, in close collaboration with each other.

The Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG) for the Impact Assessment was set up by the SG in

January 2018 and includes the following additional DGs and Services: SJ, GROW, TRADE,

ENER, JUST, EMPL, MOVE, SANTE, CNECT, ECFIN, TAXUD, RTD, AGRI, EAC,

REGIO, CLIMA, COMP.

Meetings were organised between January 2018 and May 2018. Further consultations with the

ISSG were carried out by e-mail.

The ISSG discussed the Inception Impact Assessment and the main milestones in the process,

in particular the consultation strategy and main stakeholder consultation activities, key

deliverables from the support study, and the draft Impact Assessment report before the

submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.

ONSULTATION OF THE

EGULATORY

CRUTINY

OARD

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board ("RSB") received the draft version of the present Impact

Assessment report on 5 March 2018. The RSB had previously given some indications of what

was required through an upstream support meeting. Further to the meeting with the RSB on

21 March 2018, the RSB gave a negative opinion on 23 March 2018. The opinion included

GES is assessed against 11 descriptors, one of the descriptor relates to marine litter levels.

recommendations, which have been addressed in the revised IA report as explained in the

table below and were discussed in an Inter Service Steering Group meeting.

Comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

Main considerations

1. The report does not

state clearly whether

focussing on 10 single

use plastic items and

fishing gear is meant to

reduce

significantly

marine litter or to

address

its

most hazardous part. It

does not demonstrate

how newly emerging

problematic plastic items

would be addressed.

Further considerations

what problem the initiative wants to

tackle: the mass of marine litter in

the ocean, or the number of plastic

items on the beach or in the ocean..

The report should. The report

should in the main report and the

annexes.

How these issues have been addressed in

the IA Report

Section 1 has been redrafted to explain this

is a complementary initiative to other efforts

(to circular economy and microplastics

initiatives). It targets the main sources of

macro plastics.

This is further elaborated in redrafting

throughout Section 2.1, where discussion of

the Top 10 SUP has been included and

explained for the first time.

Section 2.1.2 addresses weights or counts

issue directly

demonstrate and motivate why the

scope of the initiative has to be

limited to the top 10 single use

plastic items and lost or abandoned

fishing gear

Section 1 and 2 redrafted to explain the

focus

macroplastics

and

not

microplastics. Section 2 explains better how

the initiative addresses 84% of plastic

marine litter by count

Section 5.1 further elaborates.

demonstrate the relevance of the list

of 10 items and that it is future

proof, in particular in comparison to

national and international initiatives

Section 2.1 redrafted to make clear that the

Top 10 covers 86% of SUP, and so is a wide

list for now. The additional items are

explained in more detail in Annex 3. Section

8 better explains how changes in the

occurrence of plastic items on beaches and

in the seas could be dealt with in the future.

Text has been clarified throughout Section 2

(and Annex 3) and new headline figures

added to make relevance clearer

Section 6 redrafted to better link with

section 2

Section 2.4 redrafted to clarify why this is

not an enforcement issue. Detailed

clarifications and gaps of the current

legislation are included in Section 5.2.1.

The issue of better implementation is

discussed in Section 2.4 and 5.2.1

check the consistency and qualify

the robustness of the various figures

on marine litter and plastic marine

litter

The analysis of impacts and

comparison of options should

reflect the revised problem analysis

2. The report does not

analyse shortcomings of

existing environmental,

fisheries and maritime

legislation in preventing

the named items from

ending up in the sea

Analysis of why existing legislation

does not succeed to prevent the

identified items from becoming

marine litter.

consider measures to improve

implementation

instead

introducing an additional layer of

legislation

the facts that the Commission has

an abundance of data and that

Member States have decided (not)

3. The report does not

argue convincingly that

this is a cross-border

Sections 3 and 4 redrafted to make clearer

that this is a transboundary issue, make

clearer the secondary / additional arguments

Main considerations

problem that is best

addressed at EU-level. It

also does not consider

the role and impact of

existing

legislation,

especially for fishing

gear

The construction, the

description

and

the

comparison

the

options does not make

clear that the final

package combines the

most

cost-effective

solutions for the different

product

Further considerations

to take different measures resulting

in a patchwork approach are

insufficient evidence that EU-level

legislation is justified

How these issues have been addressed in

the IA Report

on subsidiairity and the link to existing

legislation

How the proposed actions address

the

problem

drivers

and

complement existing legislation.

Explain the logic behind the

grouping of measures for each

plastic item into the different option

packages. This makes it difficult to

understand the effectiveness of the

individual measures and packages,

so that the choice for the preferred

options

not

sufficiently

substantiated.

The options for fishing gear need to

be complemented and developed

from types of measures into well-

defined interventions. The report

also needs to discuss how this

initiative would tackle marine litter

in the long-term.

describe the numerical models and

assumptions used for the analysis

Section 5.2.3 redrafted to better explain how

the sub-options address the drivers and

pathways

and

complement

existing

legislation

Section 5.2.3 now explains the grouping and

that the underlying analysis per measure is

found in Annex 6. Section 6.2 includes

further analysis of the different sub-options,

their make-up and the trade-offs and

comparison between them.

Section 6 includes additional information on

the underlying assumptions and further

information is added into the underpinning

Annexes

Stakeholder discussion included where

relevant in main text and in particular in

Section 5

The report misses the

views of the stakeholders

throughout the document

discussion should illustrate whether

the preferred option varies among

stakeholders and which mitigation

measures are being considered to

address stakeholder concerns

The RSB gave consequently a positive opinion with reservations on 16 April 2018. The

recommendations included in this opinion have been addressed in the revised IA report as

explained in the table below.

Comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

Main considerations

(1) The revised

report still fails

make

compelling case

for

additional

measures

fishing

gear,

beyond

the

recent revisions

of legislations.

Further considerations

For fishing gear, it remains

problematic that this initiative

intends to add new layers of

legislation, while parts of the

existing or proposed legislation

appear to have already addressed

the issue. The revised report states

that the main shortcoming of the

existing

legislation

the

insufficient

incentives

for

fishermen to bring back their gear

to shore. However, the legislation

in the pipeline not only makes it

illegal to dump garbage into the

ocean, it requires the mandatory

marking of fishing gear, its

retrieval in the event of loss, the

notification of the loss in case

retrieval is not possible, and the

inclusion of this information in the

electronic reporting obligations.

Furthermore, the proposal for the

revision of the Port Reception

Facilities Directive introduces

clear incentives for delivery of

waste. It foresees the removal of

financial disincentives to return

waste to the port and has increased

reporting

and

inspection

obligations for fishing vessels.

This proposal also foresees that a

reduced waste fee would be

applied for ships that can

demonstrate

sustainable

and

environmentally

sound

waste

management on board. Finally, the

European Maritime and Fisheries

Fund can also provide financial

support for the recovery of lost

gear and for the waste handling on

ships. In the current state, the

report does not make the case for

actions on fishing gears and

proposes initiatives which are

unnecessary and burdensome.

How these issues have been addressed

in the IA Report

Section 2.2.2 "underlying drivers" and

section 2.4 "current policy framework"

and section 6.3.1.4 "Revision of Port

Reception Facilities Directive" point out

that whilst individual fishermen will not

be penalised for bringing waste ashore,

port fees will increase if more waste is

brought ashore and waste handling

facilities need to be upgraded,

especially in the small fishing ports that

many vessels use.

The text has also been modified to

strengthen the argument concerning

economies of scale if the sorting,

transport and disposal of waste is

carried out at a regional or national

scale.

A number of options address This comment related to fishing gear.

recycling of macro plastics, which The report already indicates that there

does not directly tackle the main are no direct benefits in terms of litter

Main considerations

Further considerations

problem of plastics in the seas.

While recycling improves the use

of natural resources, it does not in

itself reduce littering or increase

the percentage of waste returned to

ports. The report should re-assess

the appropriateness of including

such options.

The report discusses the harmful

effects of the 10 most frequently

found single-use plastics as a

group, while it foresees measures

for each of the items individually.

It should therefore show that each

of these items is sufficiently

harmful to warrant the proposed

measures. This is particularly

relevant for those items that are

found less frequently, as they

represent only a small proportion

of the macro plastics in the seas.

How these issues have been addressed

in the IA Report

input in the sea. Nevertheless the setting

of targets was identified as an essential

component of the successful Icelandic

system that helped the fishermen

develop ownership of the scheme

Furthermore, since monitoring the final

destiny of waste is an integral part of

the EPR option, the marginal cost is

almost zero.

Section 2.1.4.2 has been redrafted to

state that, there is some evidence

(although with little scientific literature

available yet) that differentiates the

impacts of the different items. The

global impact is however high and the

chosen option (2c) would, according to

the modelling referred in table 27 of

Annex 6 (and based on the underlying

assumptions), reduce 464 million items

in marine litter, compared to the

baseline scenario. Even for the smallest

group in relation to littered items,

cutlery, this option would reduce the

inflow into the marine environment with

18 million items.

Section 2.4. has been redrafted to

reinforce the fact that the waste

legislation will have effects mainly on

increasing recycling by using plastics

that are now either incinerated,

landfilled or exported, with marginal

impact on littering. Upstream measures

are also more efficient.

(2) Although the

report makes it

clearer that the 10

most

frequently

found

single-use

plastics

are

harmful

group, this is not

shown for each

individual

item,

especially for those

that

are

least

frequently found.

3) The report does

not analyse why it

better

introduce

new

legislation

for

single-use plastics.

It does not explain

why

improving

implementation of

existing legislation,

in particular on

waste management

is not the way

forward.

For single-use plastics, the analysis

of the current policy framework

(section 2.4) should clarify to what

extent plastics end up in the oceans

as a result of a lack of ambition of

current legislation or because of

weak implementation. It should

also demonstrate that introducing

measures to reduce the occurrence

of each of the 10 most found

single-use plastics is more

effective and/or efficient than

strengthening

the

existing

legislation or its implementation.

The case for taking action at EU-

level on marine litter has been

reinforced in the revised report.

However, some of the arguments

could be further strengthened.

Besides cross-border protection of

the environment, the revised report

cites market fragmentation as the

legitimation to introduce Europe-

Section 4.2 has been redrafted to

reinforce that some MS are already

taking action on acting and others are

planning to do so in line with new

scientific findings and public pressure.

The diverse regulatory approaches will

increase the risk of uneven ambition and

different rules for economic operators

with consequent negative impact on the

Main considerations

Further considerations

How these issues have been addressed

in the IA Report

wide measures. However, it does market.

not prove that fragmentation

indeed poses a problem either for

the market or for addressing

marine litter.

The revised report has clarified the

use of statistics on plastics in the

seas. However, there remain

inconsistencies in the data that are

not highlighted in the presentation.

In particular, different parts of the

report state that single-use plastics

represent half of all items (plastics

and non-plastics) on the beach, but

also that they represent half of the

count of plastic items, which

cannot both be correct. More

generally, the report should avoid

imprecise

and/or

unfounded

assumptions

and

statements.

Additionally, the report should

explicitly mention the large

uncertainties of the modelling and

its assumptions regarding the

effectiveness of the proposed

measures.

We agree: SUP represent about 50% of

all marine litter in counts. As plastics is

around 85% of all marine litter, this

means the SUP represent about 60% of

all

plastic

marine litter. The text was

changed to clarify this difference. The

text was also improved in general, and

uncertainties of the modelling be added.

VIDENCE USED IN THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The IA report and the options considered in the IA report were developed based on the

following documents, sources and evidence:



Main studies

The Commission sought external expertise through a contract for a support study with

Eunomia (for SUP) and Deloitte (for fishing gear). From the deliverables of these

contracts, the IA report used in particular the analysis and modelling of the different

policy options. In addition, JRC Technical Reports provide a significant underpinning:

Cambridge Econometrics

and Denkstatt “Links between production and the

environment”, ongoing

ICF and Eunomia “Plastics, reuserecycling and marine litter”, ongoing

Deloitte “Study to support impact assessment for options to reduce the level and

detrimental impact of plastic

from fishing gear”, ongoing

Joint Research Centre (JRC), Anna Maria Addamo, Perrine Laroche, Georg

Hanke, JRC Technical Reports, “Top Marine Beach Litter Items in Europe”, 2017

Joint Research Centre (JRC), Georg Hanke, JRC Technical Reports, “Marine

Beach Litter in Europe

– Top Items”, 2016

Joint Research Centre (JRC), Joana Mira Veiga, David Fleet, Susan Kinsey et al.,

JRC Technical Reports, “Identifying Source of Marine Litter”, 2016

Joint Research Centre (JRC), Stephanie Werner, Ania Budziak, Jan van Franeker

et al., JRC Technical Reports, “Harm caused by Marine Litter”, 2016

Joint Research Centre (JRC), Daniel González, Georg Hanke, Gijsbert

Tweehuysen et al., JRC Technical Reports, “Riverine Litter Monitoring –

Options

and Recommendations”, 2016

Joint Research Centre (JRC), MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter, JRC

Scientific and Policy Reports, “Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in

European Seas”, 2013



Additional external expertise (non-exhaustive list)

Target review project, DG ENV support contract for the preparation of the impact

assessment, Eunomia with Argus, Öko Institute and Copenhagen Resource

Institute and Satsuma Media, final report in approbation process,

http://www.wastetargetsreview.eu/

Past and future climate benefits from better municipal waste management in

Europe, EEA 2011,

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/waste-opportunities-

84-past-and

Technological, Socio-Economic and Cost-Benefit Assessments Related to the

Implementation and Further Development of EU Waste Legislation, Eunomia with

Argus, Öko Institute and Copenhagen Resource Institute and Satsuma Media, final

report in approbation process,

http://www.wastemodel.eu/

Use of economic instruments and waste management performances, Bio

Intelligence Service with IEEP, Eunomia, Ecologic, Arcadis and

Umweltbundesamt, April 2012,

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_report_10042012.pdf

Application of the ‘producer responsibility’ principle in the context of waste

management, Bio Intelligence Service with IEEP, Eunomia, Ecologic, Arcadis and

Umweltbundesamt, December 2013,

http://epr.eu-smr.eu/

Support to Member States in improving waste management based on assessment

of Member States' performances, Final report, May 2013, BiPro with Arcadis and

Enviroplan,

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/support_implementation.htm

Managing municipal solid waste

–

a review of achievements in 32 European

countries, EEA report N° 2/2013, EEA 2013,

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste

Treating waste as a Resource for the EU Industry. Analysis of Various Waste

Streams and the Competitiveness of their Client Industries - Final report, ECSIP

Consortium for the European Commission, DG ENTR, August 2013

Study of the largest loopholes within the flow of packaging material, Bipro Final

Report (ENV.D.2/ETU/2011/0043)

Implementing EU Waste Legislation for Green Growth

–

Final report, Bio

Intelligence Service for the European Commission DG ENV, November 2011

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/study%2012%20FINAL%20RE

PORT.pdf

EEA report 8/2011, "Earnings, jobs and innovation

–

the role of recycling in a

green economy", EEA 2011

Resource saving and CO2 reduction potentials in waste management in Europe

and the possible contribution to the 2020 CO2 reduction target in 2020,

PROGNOS and IFEU, October 2008

http://www.prognos.com/CO2-

study.609.0.html

Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure

projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives?

European Court Auditor special report N° 20, 2012

http://www.eca.europa.eu/

Municipal Solid Waste Management Capacities in Europe (Draft), EEA-ETC/SCP,

January 2014

Investment potential for the treatment of bio and recyclable municipal waste in the

EU, final report, EIB with the support of Prognos and Lameyer KW consult,

November 2013

How to improve EU legislation to tackle marine litter, IEEP for Seas at Risk, July

2013

Diverting waste from landfill - Effectiveness of waste-management policies in the

European Union. EEA Report No 7/2009,

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/diverting-waste-from-landfill-

effectiveness-of-waste-management-policies-in-the-european-union

Danish Government (2013) Denmark Without Waste: Recycle More - Incinerate

Less, November 2013,

http://www.mst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/EBE9E5D4-B765-4D4E-

9954-9B713846E4CF/162130/Ressourcestrategi_UK_web.pdf

Jakus P. M., et al. (1996) Generation of Recyclables by Rural Households, Journal

of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol 21 (1), pp 96-108; and Tiller K. H.,

et al. (1997) Household Willingness to Pay for Dropoff Recycling, Journal of

Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol 22 (2), pp 310-320). A. Bruvoll, B.

Halvorsen and K. Nyborg (2002), Households' Recycling Efforts, Resources,

Conservation and Recycling, 36: 337-354

Bipro Final Report (ENV.D.2/ETU/2011/0043): Study of the largest loopholes

within the flow of packaging material, p. 22

Analysis of the key contribution to resource efficiency, BIO Intelligence Service

for DG ENV, April 2012

EIMPack (2011)

Economic Impact of the Packaging and Packaging Waste

Directive

–

literature review,

http://eimpack.ist.utl.pt/docs/Literature%20Review_final.pdf.

IST OF ACRONYMS

ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY



ALDFG

–

Abandoned lost and otherwise discarded fishung gear



BAU

–

Business as usual



BAT

–

Best Available Technique



BEP

–

Best Environmental Practice



C&D waste

–

Construction and demolition waste, which includes concrete, bricks,

gypsum, wood, glass, metals, plastic, solvents, asbestos and excavated soil arising from

activities such as the construction of buildings and civil infrastructure, total or partial

demolition of buildings and civil infrastructure, road planning and maintenance



CFP

–

Common Fisheries Policy



–

Control Regulation



CIR

–

Control Implementing Regulation



EEA -

The European Environment Agency



ETC/SCP -

European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production



EMFF

–

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. One of the five structural and investment

funds of the funding period 2014-2020. Successor to the European Fisheries Fund

(EFF).



Energy recovery

–

The use of waste as fuel or other means to generate energy. Directive

2008/98/EC introduced specific new criteria to determine the efficiency level at which

incineration in municipal waste incinerators can be deemed an energy recovery rather

than disposal activity



EPR -

Extended Producer Responsibility

–

these systems makes those placing goods on

the market

–

producers, importers - responsible for the waste collection and treatment of

the waste generated



FADs

–

Fish Aggregating Devices, used especially in tuna fishing in uinternational waters



GDP -

Gross Domestic Product



IA -

Impact Assessment



IASG -

Impact Assessment Steering Group



Industrial waste

–

Industrial waste is waste generated in industrial and manufacturing

processes such as basic metals, food, beverage and tobacco products, wood and wood

products and paper and paper products



LCA

–

Life cycle assessment (or analysis)

–

the investigation and evaluation of the

environmental impacts of a given product or service caused or necessitated by its

existence



MBT

–

Mechanical Biological Treatment facilities

–

facilities combining different

mechanical and biological treatment usually aiming at treating residual waste (after

separate collection)



–

Member State



MSW

–

Municipal solid waste

–

Article 2 of Directive 1999/31/EC defines municipal

waste as waste from households, as well as other waste which, because of its nature or

composition, is similar to waste from households



MSFD

–

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)



NPP

–

National prevention programmes

–

Article 29 of the WFD requires MS to prepare

waste prevention programmes by end 2013



Preparing for re-use

–

Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC defines preparing for re-use as

‘checking, cleaning or repairing recovery operations, by which products or components

of products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used without any

other pre-processing’



PAYT

–

'Pay as you throw' systems. These systems also called variable rate pricing are

systems in which residents are charged according to the waste they actually produced.

There are different ways of metering the waste produced either sophisticated systems

where waste is weighted or more simple systems where a tax is applied per waste bag

according to its volume



PPWD

–

Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive



PRO

–

Producer Responsibility Organisation

–

collective organisation aiming at ensuring

that the obligations of financing/meeting waste management targets (reuse/recycling)

laying on producers/importers when they place goods on the EU market are fulfilled



Recovery

– Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC defines recovery as ‘any operation the

principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials

which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being

prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy’



Recycling

–

Article

3 of Directive 2008/98/EC defines recycling as ‘any recovery

operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or

substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of

organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into

materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations’. There are some

differences in the definition of the concepts of ‘recycling’, ‘recovery’, ‘reuse’ and

municipal waste between the WFD, the Landfill and the PPWD



Re-use

–

Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC defines re-use

as ‘any operation by which

products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for

which they were conceived’



Waste Hierarchy

–

Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC makes the waste hierarchy a

‘priority order’ in waste prevention and management legislation and policy, and defines

it as, in order of preference: (a) prevention; (b) preparing for re-use; (c) recycling; (d)

other recovery, e.g. energy recovery; and (e) disposal



Waste prevention

– Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC defines prevention as ‘measures

taken before a substance, material or product has become waste, that reduce: (a) the

quantity of waste, including through the re-use of products or the extension of the life

span of products; (b) the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and

human health; or (c) the content of harmful substances in materials and products’



WFD

–

Waste Framework Directive originally adopted in 1975 and revised in 2008 as

Directive 2008/98/EC

NNEX

2: S

TAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

–

YNOPSIS REPORT

NTRODUCTION

The consultation objectives were to gather views, concerns and ideas from a wide variety of

interested stakeholders on the best means to achieve a reduction in marine litter, particularly

originating from Single-Use Plastics (SUPs) and from fishing gear. The results of the

consultation activities described in this document have fed into the Commission's Plastics

Strategy

and the Impact Assessment on SUPs and fishing gear.

TAKEHOLDER GROUPS COVERED BY CONSULTATION

The combination of a number of consultation activities (described in the next section)

employed as part of this project captured the opinions of a broad range of stakeholder groups

and interests. Consultations engaged with members of the public, EU and Member State

representatives, academics, representatives of business and industry associations

(manufacturers, plastics converters, retailers and Research and Development companies),

NGOs, government bodies and public authorities and consumer associations.

ONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

The consultation approach involved a range of tools made available through a range of the

Commission's ongoing work on plastics and the marine environment. This document draws

on the following consultation activities:



Two stakeholder workshops, carried out on 16 June and 14 September 2017, exploring the

root causes and potential measures to deal with single-use plastics.

The Reinventing Plastics Stakeholder Conference

held on 26 September 2017, which

included a specific session on marine litter and single-use plastics.

The 2018 Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform Conference on 20 February, which

included a high-level session on plastics covering SUPs and fishing gear.

Responses received to the Inception Impact Assessment open consultation/feedback.

Interviews/ad hoc consultation with stakeholders.

The recent Special Eurobarometer 468 (EC, 2017)

and Flash Eurobarometer 388 (EC,

2014)

The Online Public Consultation (OPC) on

'Reducing marine litter: action on single-use

plastics and fishing gear'

launched from 15 December 2017 to 12 February 2018.

The results of each of the above engagement activities were separately analysed and are

summarised in this document under respective sections. Synthesis and further analysis of the

results was undertaken focusing on themes and cutting across consultation activities on issues

around Single-Use Plastics and Fishing gear. These are reported across stakeholder categories

A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy; COM(2018) 28 final, 18.1.2018.

http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1516265440535&uri=COM:2018:28:FIN

https://ec.europa.eu/info/plastics-conference_en

http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/su

rveyKy/2156

http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_388_en.pdf

drawing out key messages on stakeholder views around issues, actions and responsibilities in

dealing with plastics in the marine environment and highlighting any differences in opinions

by a particular sector or stakeholder, where these existed.

4.1

ESULTS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS ON

INGLE

-U

LASTICS

Stakeholder workshops and conferences

Two stakeholder workshops on SUPs took place on 16 June and 14 September 2017, each

attended by 12-13 stakeholders representing producers, industry associations, NGOs, local

authorities and Member States. The workshops focussed on gathering stakeholder views on

the problems and root causes of single-use plastics and identifying measures to address

‘single-use’ plastic items.

In an attempt to define SUPs, workshop participants generally agreed that items classifying as

SUPs, should fulfil the following criteria: Prevalence in marine environment; Short use phase;

Consumed predominantly away from home and; Reusable or non-plastic alternatives exist,

though some exceptions to the above will exist.

The root causes of the leakage of SUPs into the environment were discussed, and the

overarching problems identified included low levels of re-use and low levels of recycling. In

this context various causes were also discussed, such as item design of products and materials

and consumer behaviour, with several participants arguing that a lack of regulatory measures

to address these issues could also be seen as a root cause (though not as the only mechanism

to address these).

A range of measures, of both regulatory and voluntary nature, was discussed including (but

not limited to): incentives for producers and consumers (financial and behavioural),

improvements in plastic waste collection, introduction of standards and bans and obligations

introduced in product design and waste reporting. The respondents favoured an EU-wide

waste prevention target and argued for cooperation between stakeholders to develop a holistic

approach to address SUPs. With respect to regulatory measures, such as bans, the importance

of public support was highlighted through examples. Discussions around the limitations of

potential measures highlighted in particular that:



There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of awareness raising campaigns, whilst

there was general agreement that these are not sufficient as a standalone measure.

Bans were considered a good way of enforcing the redesign of specific low-value items.

However, if applied only at a national level such measures can interfere with the operation

of the single market.

Caution is advisable in the timeframe of implementation to ensure that substitution

materials meet the standards and consumers are prepared.

Charges were seen as a preventive measure, which can effectively influence consumer

behaviour, while at the same time generating a new stream of revenue. Industry

representatives highlighted, and others agreed, that a legislative approach was needed to

ensure broad application and a level playing field.

Setting targets for reduction in consumption of specific items was generally seen as an

appropriate measure for EU-level action.





There was the alternative option of ensuring that SUPs are not given away free at the point

of sale.

Other potential measures identified included amending the Waste Framework Directive, better

respect the waste hierarchy, the use of green public procurement to leverage sustainable

materials and voluntary agreements to complement regulatory measures.

A stakeholder conference on

Rethinking plastics

took place on 26 September 2017 in

Brussels. On the subject of SUPs, stakeholders suggested that in order to achieve the 50%

marine litter reduction target voted by the European Parliament, an ambitious EU-wide

strategy was required putting in place specific policy measures. It was further proposed that

different measures might be appropriate for different SUPs.

Recognising the relationship between consumption and littering, and the priorities according

to the waste hierarchy, binding consumption reduction targets linked to achievable time

frames, were proposed. Consumer incentives, deposit-return schemes and provision of

infrastructure for recycling were identified as potentially appropriate measures. As well as

targeting the items, it was suggested that sources and pathways of marine litter should also be

addressed. In this context, the effectiveness of public awareness initiatives was discussed with

stakeholders noting a lack of demonstrable results, linked in particular to under-resourced

campaigns. A mandate on green procurement was thought to be a good way of increasing

demand in the market for alternatives to SUPs. There was consent that a holistic, balanced

solution could be achieved by recognising shared responsibility amongst all stakeholders and

employing a combination of measures that cut across reduction, reuse and recyclability. The

omission of enforcement in the discussion was noted, with stakeholders arguing that revisions

requested to the Waste Framework Directive would require littering to be made a criminal

offence in all Member States.

The 2018 Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform Conference

also took place on 20-21

February 2018 and contributed to the existing consultations with further insights on actions

and good practices for addressing plastics in the marine environment.

4.2

Inception Impact Assessment feedback

Feedback on the Inception Impact Assessment was received from 28 respondents across

stakeholder categories. Representatives from the private sector emphasised on the importance

of economic viability of recycling, poor implementation of existing rules and regulatory gaps.

Across stakeholders, there was strong support for intervention at an EU level, with retailers

and producers expressing a preference for voluntary approaches over regulatory measures. A

number of respondents highlighted the need for a circular or life-cycle approach that supports

prevention, and called for incentives on innovation and the removal of regulatory barriers at a

national level. An extended scope was suggested by a number of respondents that would

include an assessment of the impacts of primary and secondary microplastics and

nanoplastics.

In discussions around potential measures, the diversity of SUPs gave rise to a differentiated

approach depending on whether plastic marine litter is the result of items that are being

recycled, items for which more sustainable alternatives exist, or finally items for which there

is no readily available alternative. For items already captured, strong interest was expressed in

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Schemes, which were seen by many as highly

http://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/circular-economy-stakeholder-conference-

programme_v20180212-2.pdf

effective. However, some did warn that such schemes are unable to address the leakage of

plastics resulting from poor consumer behaviour towards recycling. Several respondents also

referred to the success of deposit-return schemes (e.g. for bottles), although some recognised

there are negative, and potentially disproportionate, economic implications for retailers.

Factors that were identified as crucial to the success of such schemes included the efficiency

of existing waste management systems, consumer behaviour, local infrastructure, the item's

reuse potential, enforcement by Member States, as well as, EPR fees that are EU harmonised,

consistent, scientifically reliable and allow for innovation. For items that could be replaced by

more sustainable alternatives, retailers argued that this would be best achieved at a consumer

level through awareness-raising and positive incentives. In decisions around substitute

materials, priority should be given to materials that are readily recyclable. There was some

caution towards the use of biodegradable plastics with several calling for clarity in the

information provided and labelling for consumers. A number of respondents argued that the

replacement of SUPs should be a priority, where no sustainable alternatives exist. Business

representatives highlighted that any restrictions must take account of single market

requirements and administrative burdens.

4.3

Interviews/ad hoc consultation

During the course of the study a range of ad-hoc, consultations were carried out in order to

help develop the problem and impact analyses. These included a range of formal and informal

interviews with stakeholders from public institutions, NGOs, industry associations and

businesses. The number of stakeholders consulted in this way was in excess of 30. These

interviews typically sought to shape and test potential intervention measures, to see what was

technically feasible and the likely primary effects. Interviews were also used to gather specific

data related to performance and costs and how these may change as a result of potential

intervention measures.

A range of formal and informal interviews with relevant stakeholders from public institutions,

NGOs, industry associations and businesses were also carried out, alongside the stakeholder

workshops mentioned above, in order to help develop the impact analysis. The number of

stakeholders consulted was around 30. The views of the stakeholder helped shape the

measures, in relation to what was technically feasible, and provided data related to

performance and costs.

Stakeholders across groups highlighted the importance of understanding the availability and

function of the single-use non-plastic or multi-use alternatives, and the potential cost to

manufacturers to switch materials in the production processes. In addition, consulting with the

operators of multi-use refill schemes and water companies helped develop a better

understanding of the operation of such schemes and the challenges they face.

4.4

Eurobarometer consultations

In their responses to the Special Eurobarometer 468 (EC, 2017)

, around a third (33%) of

Europeans identified marine pollution as the most important environmental issue. In response

to questions on plastic waste and littering, around three-quarters of Europeans (72%) stated

they have reduced their use of single-use plastic carrier bags, while a large percentage of

those (38%) said they have cut down their use in the last 12 months.

27,881 EU citizens from 28 Member States were interviewed between 23 September and 2 October 2017.

The majority of respondents (between 89% and 94%) considered the following measures as

important in reducing plastic waste and littering:



products should be designed in a way that facilitates the recycling of plastic;

industry and retailers should make an effort to reduce plastic packaging;

people should be educated on how to reduce their plastic waste; and

local authorities should provide more and better collection facilities for plastic waste.

With regard to consumers' responsibility in reducing plastic waste, 61% of respondents

considered important that

consumers pay an extra charge for single-use plastic goods.

Across the EU, there has been an increase in the numbers of Europeans who believe that

decision-making on environmental protection should be taken jointly within the EU as

opposed to the decision being taken by the national government alone.

A similar Eurobarometer consultation with European citizens in 2014 (Flash Eurobarometer

388) revealed Europeans' support

towards an EU-level target to reduce marine litter.

4.5

Open Public Consultation

The Online Public Consultation (OPC) on

'Reducing marine litter: action on single-use

plastics and fishing gear'

launched from 15 December 2017 to 12 February 2018. This

consultation complemented previous exercises conducted by the Commission, such as an

OPC (October to December 2013) focussing on possible actions, by different stakeholder

groups, to address the issue of marine litter

. The consultation received a total of 1,807

responses across Member States.

Across respondents, harm to animal welfare, human health risks and the impact on ecosystem

services, ranked as the three most important issues linked to marine litter and SUPs. The vast

majority of respondents (95%) across all stakeholder categories agreed that action to address

the impacts of SUPs is both necessary and urgent. Most stakeholders were of the opinion that

the EU should support mandatory instruments at a global or at least at European level.

Government and public authority stakeholders diverged from this view noting that certain

measures should be delivered at the European level whilst some may be best addressed at the

local or national level.

A strong case was also made for reducing the presence of SUPs in the environment, with

caps, lids and drinking bottles on the list of priorities. With reference to specific measures,

respondents were in favour of beach cleaning, active 'fishing for litter' and the regular

quantification of marine and beach litter. Industry and trade associations were the only

stakeholder category that did not support active 'fishing for litter'. Recovery of marine litter

found in fishing nets and recovery of fishing gear also generated support across most

stakeholders.

In response to questions on their own use of SUP a large number of respondents noted a

decrease in their use of light weight shopping bags, drink bottles and caps and lids. The

consumption of crisps packets and sweet wrappers was the one that had changed the least. For

those respondents that reported reductions in their use of SUP, the overwhelming majority

attributed this change to increasing awareness of the environmental impacts of SUP.

Respondents appeared most keen to reduce their use of plastic bottles above all items, with

more than half of them reported that they had already done so. 77% of respondents stated that

26,595 EU citizens from 28 Member States were interviewed between the 3

and 7

of December 2013.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/marine_litter.pdf

they would be willing to pay a small additional amount as part of a deposit refund scheme on

plastic bottles. Extensive support (93%) was also expressed for policies, which would phase

out disposable non-biodegradable plastic tableware in favour of those made with

biodegradable materials or reusable alternatives, even when they involved a small price

increase. Industry and trade association representatives were split in their willingness to pay

because of such policies though they were still in favour of phasing out SUPs.

Considerable support (91%) was expressed for the introduction of rules that require cigarette

companies to contribute financially to the costs of clearing up cigarette butts. Industry and

trade associations were more reluctant to support this measure. Amongst the 5% of

respondents to spoke against this measure were plastics converters and manufacturers though

they only represented part of their sectors' responses. A similar suggestion for producers of

sanitary items was also supported by the majority of respondents (79%), with the exception of

representatives from the arts and entertainment sector and some of the manufacturers.

Members of the public also shared their opinions on diverse measures and approaches that

could effectively reduce the environmental impacts of different SUPs. With reference to drink

bottles, Deposit Return Schemes (DRS) were considered the most appropriate response (47%)

followed by the option to set targets for use reduction (33%). Minimum design requirements

found less support (20%) amongst respondents and were not favoured by business

representatives. A different course of action was suggested for lightweight shopping bags with

stakeholders across categories being in favour of a use reduction target (62%). For SUP,

which could be replaced by more sustainable alternatives, such as cotton buds and cutlery,

respondents supported legislative action (to better design or more sustainably produce these

items) and use reduction targets. Similar legislative measures were thought to be appropriate

even for items for which no obvious and proportionate alternative existed, such as cigarette

butts and sanitary towels. For items falling under this SUP category, extended producer

responsibility schemes were viewed as equally suitable.

Around 100 respondents provided links and 36 respondents provided attachments. Most of the

links referred to NGO websites, petitions and initiatives as well as news and social media

articles revolving around marine litter. Many of the uploaded attachments were explanatory

statements from stakeholders providing further details on their response to the OPC. Other

attachments contained policy statements from stakeholders and NGOs, such as EUROPEN,

Suez, FoodDrinkEurope, Plastics Europe, Friends of the Earth, Starbucks and Veolia, as well

as documents providing facts and figures on marine litter and beach clean-ups in various

locations around the EU and the world. The last category varied between peer-reviewed

academic papers and NGO fact-sheets. These documents helped corroborate the list of items

covered in the analysis, however provided no data that could be used in the analysis.

4.6

SUP conclusions

Distinct measures were deemed appropriate for different SUP items. Diverse measures were

discussed depending on existing legislation, the availability of separate waste collection and

the availability of sustainable alternatives. Extended producer responsibility measures were

viewed favourably by respondents across most categories. Implied costs associated to some of

the measures and the importance of understanding these prior to any action were highlighted

by industry and business representatives.

Extended producer responsibility was suggested as an important measure by workshop

participants and OPC respondents alike. Stakeholders participating in these consultation

activities also found merit in legislative approaches. The workshops provide a greater degree

of granularity discussing the appropriateness of specific options, such as bans and charges, for

different levels or action. Reduction targets were popular across stakeholders although

discussions around their effectiveness included caveats depending on the conditions of their

implementation (e.g. time-bound targets).

Setting reduction targets for the consumption of specific SUPs was a popular choice in the

OPC while it also emerged in stakeholder discussions during the workshops and conferences.

However further individual measures and policies were broadly thought to be necessary in

order to achieve overarching EU targets.

Across Eurobarometer and OPC consultations, stakeholders have indicated their willingness

to pay for more sustainable alternatives to SUPs or their willingness to accept an extra charge

acting as penalty for the use of SUPs.

Awareness campaigns were seen, by workshop and conference participants, as

complementary measures to be employed in conjunction with other regulatory and voluntary

measures.

4.7

Mitigation of Stakeholder concerns

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Schemes

EPR schemes were seen by many as highly effective, but some producers argued that they are

not suitable to address leakage into the oceans, which is caused by bad consumer behaviour,

and indeed producers should not shoulder the cost for this misbehaviour, which is not related

to their own economic activities and their treatment of waste.

EPR schemes under the preferred option would involve obligations to cover clean-up

costs for certain products, which is in line with the principle of producer responsibility

for post consumption, but contributions would be spread across the sectors concerned

and under established rules of financial and operational transparency.

Deposit Return Schemes

Take-back schemes deliver up to 90% return rates and make high quality feedstock available

to manufacturing businesses, but retailers (including Eurocommerce) stated that they can have

major economic and operational impacts for their businesses; these respondents advised that

schemes should be tailor made and implemented at national level. Small retailers feared

facing disproportionate burdens for example in storing and managing waste.

Take-back schemes are one possible approach that may be taken, and may be

considered as a form of EPR scheme. Member State and sectors concerned can decide

if such schemes would be effective and viable. Existing schemes in MS and other

countries have demonstrated that costs for retailers are generally covered by the

scheme, and for smaller retailers exemptions are often possible or use of manual rather

than automated deposit-return.

Charges at Point of Sale

Some retailers argued that charges at the point of sale could mislead and reduce

environmental benefits; they therefore called for upstream solutions (obligations on

manufactures and importers).

The preferred approach of the impact assessment would enable charges at the point of

sale should MS decide that such a measure would be effective for a particular product

in reaching reduction targets. This approach has been highly effective in the case of

single-use lightweight plastic carrier bags, with significant benefits at little or no cost

(or indeed negative cost). Such an approach may be effective also for other products,

with costs to economic operators depending on how it is designed. SUP products are

often given away free by (for example) food outlets but imply a cost, therefore a

reduction in their use through a charge would in most cases imply a reduction in costs.

Other measures (such as market restrictions or design requirements) would imply

adaptations for upstream operators (producers and importers) rather than at point of

sale.

Demand for secondary plastic

Some companies noted that a strong market for recycled materials is needed to ensure high

recycling rates. This needs good quality recyclates, and competitive price for recycled

materials. A chemical industry representative advised that measures should not create

uncertainty along the value chain about certain established SUP applications, as this could

impede investments in the transition to a circular economy.

The wider Plastics Strategy, of which this proposal forms a part, includes initiatives

aimed specifically at boosting the use of recyclates and incentivizing investment in

recycling capacity in Europe. The relative market prices of virgin and recycled plastic

will depend mainly on factors that are outside the competence of the Commission and

MS.

Food contact materials

Food and drink producers noted that not all plastic materials are suitable for food contact and

safety (according to EU legislation), quality and avoiding food waste should be priorities. For

food packaging biodegradable plastics fulfil the requirements of food contact approval (e.g.

toxicity testing) and eco-toxicity tests.

Food contact legislation and hygiene standards would continue to apply.

Single Market

Business representatives reminded that any restrictions must take account of single market

requirements.

The legislative basis of the proposal would ensure that any requirements relating to

placing products on the market would be applied at the EU level, whilst other

initiatives for reduction, such as those concerning consumer behaviour could be taken

at the more appropriate level in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.

Inclusion of Microplastics

Some citizens and NGOs noted that the approach ignores the non-visual aspects of plastics

pollution. It implies that clean-up and recycling alone will be sufficient to solve this problem.

Microplastics should be considered, even if not in the scope of this proposal.

Most microplastics result from the decomposition of the plastic litter that finds its way

into the marine environment. The proposal therefore tackles this pathway.

Intentionally added microplastics are dealt with through the referral of these to the

Chemicals Agency as another initiative under the Plastics Strategy. Microplastics

released in the environment as a result of the use of products are also tackled under

this Strategy by focused actions.

5.1

ESULTS OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ON FISHING GEAR

Inception Impact Assessment feedback

DG Mare received feedback on the Inception Impact Assessment from several stakeholders

on 6 February 2018. The feedback centred around three main areas: (1) the baseline and its

assumptions; (2) the policy options and (3) the interview questionnaire.

The main assumption of the baseline is the loss rate of plastic fishing and aquaculture gear for

European seas. Initially, a loss rate of 30% was used, which was highlighted several times as

too high. The feedback has been addressed by lowering the loss rate to 15% in the final report

after revisiting the original sources, including interview results, adding additional sources and

discussing the representativeness of these sources in Annex 5 of the main report.

Further, baseline feedback was received on the percentage weight distribution between

aquaculture and fishing. Initially, the weight distribution was 77% plastic waste from

aquaculture and 23% plastic waste from fishing. However, the distribution was based on

Norwegian data, which is not representative for the EU-28. In the final report, the feedback

has been addressed by changing the weight distribution for EU-28 to 60% plastic waste from

aquaculture and 40% plastic waste from fishing by accounting for the differences of total fish

catch and aquaculture production for Norway versus EU-28.

Lastly, feedback for the baseline was provided to include the effects of the revised PRF,

revised Control Regulation and Waste Framework Directive in the baseline. These

legislations and directives have now been taken into account, under the assumption that full

implementation have taken place.

In regards to the policy options, the initial selection of four policy options to be evaluated

remained. Therefore, the policy options outlined in the report are:

Extended producer responsibility (without deposit scheme);

Extended producer responsibility and deposit scheme;

Target setting (recycling target);

Alternative materials and product design.

The feedback provided on the policy options pointed out the importance of the impact

quantification. Therefore, quantitative indicators for economic impact, administrative burden,

environmental impact and social impact were identified and quantified to the best extent

possible. Effects on stakeholders of the different policy options have been compared in a

relative way using “+”, “0” and “-“.

Lastly, feedback was provided on the interview questionnaire, the third major area. The

feedback has been incorporated in a revised questionnaire used for all interviews increasing

the richness and depth of questions.

5.2

Interviews/ad hoc consultation

A total of 16 interviews and 2 follow-up calls with relevant stakeholders have been

conducted. The stakeholders interviewed comprise of different Directorate Generals of the

EC, national ministries, advisory councils, fisheries organizations, fishers, recycling

companies and funds, NGOs and producer organizations.

Additionally, more than 15 other stakeholders including advisory councils, NGOs and ports

have been contacted via email and telephone. Due to the short timelines, some stakeholders

had difficulties to provide coordinated and quantified inputs.

The purpose of the interviews was to receive qualitative and quantitative input for the

description, quantification and evaluation of the four policy options. The stakeholders had

been selected based on their relevance to achieve the purpose of the interviews. The

interviews conducted were guided by the interview questionnaire, but remained open for

additional input and further discussion.

Stakeholders provided valuable insights and quantified data, which enriched and sharpened

the policy options presented in the final report. The stakeholders agreed that it is necessary to

reduce plastic marine litter from fishing and aquaculture. However, none of them was able to

quantify the extent of plastic marine litter from fishing and aquaculture for European seas.

Further, they agreed that political action is required, also on a European level to address the

loss of plastic fishing and aquaculture gear in European seas. The majority of stakeholders

view the proposed four policy options as the right choice, while pointing out the general

challenge to implement, enforce and monitor policies and measures at a European scale.

Among the policy options discussed, extended producer responsibility (EPR) with and

without deposit scheme has been viewed as the most beneficial policy options for the purpose

of reducing plastic fishing gear entering European seas. Extended producer responsibility has

been viewed favourably because it can on the one hand cover costs for sorting, dismantling

and transporting as well as on the other hand pay for retrieval operations. A deposit scheme

has also been mentioned as favourable, as this would create a financial incentive for returning

end-of-life gear to ports. However, concerns have been presented that such a scheme, would

punish fishers for non-retrievable lost gear and create incentive for fishing for the intact set

gear of others. Successful examples from Iceland, Norway and Denmark were repeatedly

mentioned as reference cases. Recycling targets have been discussed as beneficial to divert

end-of-life gear from landfill or incineration to recycling facilities. However, stakeholders

described that better market uptake for recycled materials from fishing and aquaculture gear is

required and that it was necessary to allocate parts of an EPR funding or government

subsidies to create a competitive position for recycled materials from the packaging industry.

Alternative materials were mentioned favourably, while at the same time it was said that

research and development was lacking or the they were currently too expensive. Additionally,

biodegradable plastics were deemed to be too expensive. It was also said that biodegradable

plastics are currently not widely available, especially not plastics that would be biodegradable

in salt water and large depths. Further, some stakeholders pointed out that biodegradable

material would set the wrong incentive and would lead to disposing plastic fishing gear in the

sea rather than returning it to port.

Overall, the conducted interviews enriched the report with first-hand knowledge and reflected

the views of major stakeholders. The interview results have been incorporated in the final

report.

5.3

Open Public Consultation

The Online Public Consultation (OPC) on

'Reducing marine litter: action on single-use

plastics and fishing gear'

launched from 15 December 2017 to 12 February 2018

complemented previous exercises conducted by the Commission, such as an OPC (October to

December 2013) focussing on possible actions, by different stakeholder groups, to address the

issue of marine litter

. Each question has been analysed by excluding all respondents not

answering the question at hand. To get the complete picture, respondents were allowed to

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/pdf/marine_litter.pdf

choose “Do not know” for answers, which always comprise a certain percentage. For

questions with the possibility to select multiple options responses have been evaluated by

amount of stakeholder responding and not by total of options mentioned. The details and

highlights of the analysis are elaborated on in the following paragraph, including an overview

of the responses to open questions.

Some 340 people responded to the fisheries specific part of the OPC. Of those, 24% come

from academia, 21% from NGO’s, 16% from government or public authorities, 7% from

fisheries organizations, 7% from business, 6% from industry and trade associations and 16%

indicating “Other” as category while the remainder with less

than 1% per category comes

from trade unions, regional sea conventions, international bodies, intergovernmental

organisations, consumer associations or European institutions.

According to the open stakeholder consultation, 95% of respondents replied positively to the

statement that action to

address the amount of marine litter

(including fishing gear) in the

seas and on beaches is necessary and urgent (Question 2b - General). Focusing specifically on

the amount of fishing gear in the seas and on beaches, 79% of the respondents think that it is

necessary and urgent to act (Question 2 - Specific). The issue of impacts of marine litter on

fisheries and aquaculture are considered by 100% of respondents of fisheries organizations as

quite or very important (Question 1

–

General). Of the total respondents, 53% consider it very

important or quite important. Additionally, clean-up costs of litter are considered by 84% of

respondents as very important or important (Question 1 - General).

Assessing the role of

stakeholders playing an important role for taking any further action

the EU, Member States, Local and regional authorities, fishers and fisheries organization are

considered important (Question 3 - Specific). Only other international bodies, NGOs and the

private sector seem to not play such an important role for reducing leakage of fishing gear

into the marine environment. Especially, the latter one is surprising as the private sector could

establish extended producer responsibility schemes to reduce marine litter or redesigning

fishing gear. The most important role play the fishers, as they are the direct users of the gear

(80% indicate fishers as very important stakeholders in this issue).

The stakeholder consultation also asked for the

assessment of the proportion of gear lost

and discarded at sea per year.

For all gear lost (Question A - Specific), only 1% of

respondents indicate that all gear is lost on an annual basis. There is larger variation per type

of fishing gear among the stakeholders indicating that most gear is lost ranging from 3% for

seine nets to 23% for lines and cords. The majority of responses is that some gear is lost

ranging from 28% for seine nets to 54% for gillnets. Between 6% and 28% indicate that

hardly any gear is lost and between 1% and 4% none. The remainder of the respondents

(between 22% and 36%) indicated that they do not know.

For all gear discarded (Question B - Specific), only between 1% and 2% indicate that all gear

is discarded per year and 3-13% indicate that most gear is discarded. The majority indicate

that some gear is discarded. The indication of some fishing gear discarded varies per type of

fishing gear ranging between 22% for seine nets and 43% for lines and cords. Between 7%

and 22% indicate that hardly any fishing gear is discarded and between 4% and 11% indicate

none. Looking as reference specifically at responses from fisheries organizations about

discarded gill nets, 40% claim that some are discarded, 25% hardly any and 25% none.

Analysing the open fields in the stakeholder consultation it becomes apparent that there is no

widely accepted estimate for lost and discarded fishing gear out there and there is a lack of

data related to this topic. Therefore the open comments varied widely from 50% loss

(reference to SPEKVIS project Belgium for dolly rope) and only 0.8% for demersal gillnets

(reference to Ayaz et al., 2010), with other respondents citing 10% (reference to Gilman,

2015) or 20% (anecdotal evidence). In absolute terms comments vary from 5,500-10,000 net

fragments lost per year (reference to Baltic Seas 2020) to 640,000 tons lost annually

worldwide (reference to Macfadyen et al., 2009).

The response of the stakeholders to the question about the

selection of measures to help

reduce lost and discarded gear

(Question 5 - Specific, multi-option) the most selected

options are:

Incentive to bring fished up litter and end-of-life gear ashore (88%)

Better collection and sorting facilities on vessels and at ports (70%)

Incentives/Funding of retrieval action (68%), and

Better enforcement of existing rules (67%)

The open field comments expanded on the list above. First, stakeholders went one step ahead

by proposing EPRs as measure to reduce ALDFG. Other comments were made by

stakeholders requesting higher penalties for the fishing and aquaculture industry punishing its

role in the pollution. Further, several respondents elaborated on the risk and inefficiency of

retrieval actions, which have to be carefully evaluated before undertaken. Other comments

underpinned the importance of education and awareness raising of fishers to reduce plastic

fishing and aquaculture gear ending in the seas. The introduction and enforcement of gear

marking was mentioned repeatedly. Additionally, respondents highlighted that high harbour

costs lead to more discarding of gear at sea, even though suitable port reception facilities

exist. Lastly, several respondents agreed that the lack of suitable port facilities are a

disincentive for fishers to return gear to port entering formal waste management.

One further issue revealed is

reporting and retrieving of lost gear

(Question 6 and 7 -

Specific). 56% respond that hardly any lost gear is reported and 52% state that hardly any is

retrieved. Only 3% of the respondents state that most or all is reported and only 5% state that

most or all lost gear is retrieved. Gear retrieval is considered most successful if better retrieval

equipment is available and more incentives to bring fished up litter and end-of-life gear

ashore as well as incentives/funding of retrieval actions. In the open comments, specifically a

stakeholder pointed out that often gear cannot be retrieved due to either safety limitations or

simply traceability of lost gear in sea. Further, a relevant comment is that in certain countries

legislation has to be changed to make gear retrieval possible as for example in Italy retrieved

gear are classified as special waste and thus their disposal has to be paid by fishers.

According to the stakeholder consultation (Question 9

–

Specific, multi-option),

public funds

should be used mainly for the recovery of marine litter found in fishing nets during normal

fishing activities ("passive fishing for litter") and recovery of fishing gear and marine litter

washed up on beaches. However, here stakeholders highlighted specifically that rather than

public funds fishers and producers should be charged and that focus should be placed on

prevention rather than retrieval. Lastly, a strong comment has been made that subsidizing the

fishing gear recycling industry would be useful to help it grow and encourage better end of

life treatment of fishing gear.

Further, the open stakeholder consultation addresses which additional targeted

measures

would support the bringing back of gear ashore

(Question 10 - Specific, multi-option).

Respondents favour with 59% deposit return schemes levied on fishers and with 53%

extended producer responsibility scheme including a levy on gear. More than one third of the

stakeholders consulted see public support as a suitable additional measure, whereas, 13% do

not know and another 13% see additional other measures as useful. In the open field

addressing other measures as well as additional comments, stakeholders raise doubts about

deposit schemes as they might punish fishermen , who migh not get their deposit back, for

unintentionally lost or not recoverably gear. Additionally, stakeholders remark that deposit

schemes for gears with long lifespans render return scheme inefficient. Further, they highlight

that disposal at port should not be more expensive than illegal loss at sea, wherefore an EU-

wide registration of nets as well as sample controls are proposed. Lastly, a stakeholder

highlighted that an exclusive focus on collection is not sufficient, therefore the focus has to be

shifted to the recycling of fishing gear. However, the stakeholder points out that support is

required for gear recycling companies as they face challenges selling their recycles proposing

therefore an incentive for market uptake and (mandatory) use of a % recycled content in

various products

Reviewing the sorting of waste at the port in line with EU waste legislation and as envisaged

in the PRF proposal (Question 11 -

Specific), of the 50% providing another answer than “do

not know” 60% agree that there is any sorting

of waste. However, the remaining 40% point

out that there is no sorting of waste at ports, which are normally mandated by the Port

Reception Facility Directive.

Additionally, the open stakeholder consultation sheds light on the

recycling

focusing on

current recycling of gear and potentially recycling of gear (Question 12 - Specific). Only 6%

indicate that more than 25% is recycled, however 42% of the respondents indicate that

potentially more than 25% could be recycled. Further, the stakeholder consultation assesses

which measures could potentially increase recycling rates (Question 13 - Specific, multi-

option), which 28% indicate investment in recycling facilities and another 28% preferring the

introduction of EPR or bring back schemes. Also, 26% believe that the preferred measure to

increase recycling rates is to improve the transport of gear from ports to waste

management/recycling facilities. 54% indicate not knowing whether re-use is undertaken in

their country or sea are, 18% indicate that no re-use is happening, 21% state occasionally and

only 7% say routinely (Question 14 - Specific). Lastly, an open field in the stakeholder

consultation also allowed to indicate additionally which gear or material is currently recycled,

which revealed an interesting fact that an Italian recycling company can only reach breakeven

capacity, if used fishing nets are imported from China because they do not receive enough

from Italian fisheries and ports. On the one hand repair of recycling can be also seen as a sort

of recycling then leading to a 100% recycling rate, whereas on the other hand also

incineration sometimes accounts for recycling rates.

Lastly, in the light of

alternative product design and materials,

it is assessed which gear

has the best potential for substitution of plastics with other materials (Question 15 - Specific,

multi-option). The answers are very equal, however among the four options cords/lines, fish

aggregating devices, buoys and dolly ropes, dolly ropes is selected with the least potential

despite the dolly rope free project being the only project for fishing gear attempting to replace

plastics and innovate with materials.

5.4

Fishing gear conclusions

The picture arising from the different sources consulted is that stakeholders highlight where

action is necessary and urgent to reduce the detrimental effects of plastics from ALDFG. The

policy options of extended producer responsibility and deposit scheme were favoured in

addition to better port reception facilities. Analysis of the options favoured by respondents

also shows that EPR combined with a deposit scheme is deemed to have positive cost-benefit

effects and to contribute to the target of the plastics strategy to reduce the level of plastics in

European seas.

5.5

Mitigation of Stakeholder concerns

That non-EU vessels will not be covered

Fishy Filaments Ltd, a plastic recycler wrote

Increased attention to sources of nets from fishers operating in international waters,

especially from fleets outside the EU (Russia, China, etc). Satellite monitoring of IUU fisheries

should include assessment of net disposal actions.

At the moment, satellite technology does not allow such actions to be monitored. However,

introduction of a successful system for the EU will encourage other authorities to follow suit.

That we have not adequately considered biodegradable fishing nets as a solution

Novamont SpA, manufacturers wrote

The European Commission is funding research for biodegradable applications used in the

marine environment. Open-bio , follow-up project of a previous one funded under the FP7,

has developed new methodologies for the analysis of marine biodegradation. Through these

test methods it was possible to show that some MATER-BI materials achieved biodegradation

of 90 % in less than a year. These results have been verified within the EC Environmental

Technology Verification (ETV) pilot project. MATER-BI is therefore a suitable material for the

production of plastic objects with high risk of dispersion in the sea (fishing gears or fish-

farming gears).

http://www.life-ghost.eu/index.php/en/project/objectives/8-news/109-

mater-bi-of-new-generation-an-italian-biodegradable-plastic-material-to-be-used-for-fishing-

gears

An NGO wrote

Prohibition of storm loss grants provided to buy new plastic pots when old ones are lost. If

grants are given then only for natural materials. Jobs and revival of traditional willow and

hazel pot making would benefit the industry and the target species.

Research is still at an early stage. The Commission is looking into new ways of bringing

innovative ideas to market through the use of financial instruments that reduce investor risk.

That port authorities are not motivated to treat waste adequately.

A.M.A. - Associazione Mediterranea Acquacoltori wrote

Nel caso delle reti da molluschicoltura sarebbe opportuno che fossero gli allevatori a

occuparsi, anche in maniera consorziate, di conferirle alle società di raccolta e smaltimento.

Ora, in base alla normativa italiana, quando applicata, spetta all'autorità portuale.

The proposed Extended Producer Responsibility for fishing gear would remove responsibility

from the ports. It will be up to Member States to set up an appropriate system but one would

expect the producers to have a say in how it is implemented.

NNEX

3: C

URRENT SITUATION

: F

ACTS AND

IGURES

1 M

ARINE LITTER AS A GLOBAL ISSUE

Major land based sources of plastic marine litter are: storm water discharges, sewer

overflows, tourism-related litter, wastes released from dumpsites near the coast or river banks,

illegal dumping, industrial activities, improper transport, consumer cosmetic products,

synthetic sandblasting media or polyester and acrylic fibers from washing clothes. Sea-based

sources include: shipping, fishing, aquaculture and offshore.

1.1 Litter volumes entering the oceans

It is estimated

that 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes of plastic waste enter our oceans per year.

These figures need to be treated with caution but they do give an idea of magnitude of the

problem.

Figure 1. Plastic waste available to enter the oceans (million tonnes) (2010)

According to Jambeck

et al.

(2015)

, over 50% of the global leakage into the marine

environment currently comes from five emerging markets in Asia.

River networks facilitate the transport of plastics, thus connecting most of the global land

surface to the ocean

. According to Schmidt

et al.

(2017), rivers from the 10 top-ranked

catchments contribute between 88% and 94% of the total plastic debris (again, figures to be

treated with caution).

Jenna R. Jambeck et al. (2015), Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science, 347 (6223), 768-771

(DOI: 10.1126/science.1260352), http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768

Global map with each country shaded according to the estimated mass of mismanaged waste (million tonnes)

generated in 2010. Countries not included in the study are shaded in white (Jambeck et al., 2015, p. 769).

Jenna R. Jambeck et al. (2015), Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science, 347 (6223), 768-771

(DOI: 10.1126/science.1260352)

Christian Schmidt, Tobias Krauth, Stephan Wagner. Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea.

Environmental Science & Technology, 2017; DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02368

1.2 Accumulation of plastics in the environment

Since 1980, over 150 million tonnes of plastic marine litter are estimated to have

accumulated, out of which between 1.4 and 3.7 million tonnes in the EU. Deep-sea sediments

accumulate microplastics and retention of macro and microplastics in particular sea-bed

locations is increased by topographic features. Research

suggests that Europeans currently

consume up to 11,000 pieces of plastic in their food each year as a result of consumption of

seafood.

Waste patches in the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans are estimated to be around 100 Mt, about

80% of which is plastic. Plastic is accumulating in the Mediterranean Sea at a similar scale to

that in oceanic gyres (the rotating ocean currents in the Indian Ocean, North Atlantic, North

Pacific, South Atlantic and South Pacific)

. Plastic debris found in the Mediterranean surface

waters are composed by millimetre-sized fragments, together with a proportion of large

plastic objects, larger than the one present in oceanic gyres.

Figure 2. Size distribution and aspect of the floating plastic debris collected in the

Mediterranean Sea

The accumulation of plastic in the Mediterranean Sea is likely to be the result of a significant

regional plastic input combined with a limited export to the Atlantic Ocean. In addition to

this, the Mediterranean Sea acts as a convective basin, absorbing floating plastic originating

from the Atlantic and many other terrestrial and maritime sources (e.g. the inputs from the

Nile River). The figure below shows the concentrations of plastic debris in surface waters of

the Mediterranean Sea compared to the plastic concentrations reported for the global ocean.

Unpublished study cited in http://news.sky.com/story/micro-plastics-in-seafood-could-be-a-health-risk-

experts-fear-10739835

PLOS, A Cozar, Plastic Accumulation in the Mediterranean Sea, 2015

Ibidem

Figure 3. Concentrations of plastic debris in surface waters of the Mediterranean Sea compared

to the plastic concentrations reported for the global ocean

2 M

ARINE LITTER FROM

UROPE

2.1 Marine litter measurement

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requirement to ensure that properties and

quantities of litter do not cause harm to the environment implies that baselines and threshold

values have to be set at EU level. This work is being coordinated at EU level and a related

JRC report

on the most frequently found litter items on beaches provides a good assessment

of marine litter. This work is ongoing with a view to facilitate reaching the aspirational target

of the Circular Economy Package to reduce by 30% the amount of beach litter and fishing

gear lost at sea by 2020.

The European Marine Observation and Data Network EMODnet partnership in collaboration

with regional sea conventions are assembling and harmonising the data in order to provide a

better overall picture of the concentrations in European seas and sea-beds that will help assess

progress in meeting targets and support remedial action. Additional data will be made

publicly available during 2018.

The European Environmental Agency EEA has developed Marine Litter Watch

, a citizen

science based tool that can help fill data gaps relevant for policy, while raising awareness

about the problem of litter and the policy response to it; it is already being used in European-

wide campaigns and complements many private initiative tools.

Ibidem. Note that this study sampled only microplastic, with a net of 1 m opening. Macro plastic (for which a

much larger sampling area is needed in order to derive representative results) was not considered.

Top Marine Beach Litter Items in Europe. JRC108181, Authors A.M.Addamo, P.Laroche and G.Hanke

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/europes-seas-and-coasts/marine-litterwatch#tab-news-and-articles

EU funding is being deployed to understand marine litter

, supporting global, national and

regional action.

For the purpose of this Impact Assessment, the best information comes from beach counts.

The table below shows information about marine litter items found on European Beaches

from the JRC’s Technical Group of Marine Litter Activities (monitoring programmes, clean-

up campaigns and research projects), collected from 276 beaches of 17 EU Member States

and 4 Regional Seas during the year 2016. A total of 355,671 items observed during 679

surveys are ranked by abundance, mainly according to the MSFD Master List Categories of

Beach Litter Items.

Table 1: Marine litter items found on European beaches, share (%) by item-count, top 80%, 2016

The following table shows the same information but along with a longer list covering the top

125 along with the code and number of items found.

For instance, in the Arctic Region, the Circular Ocean INTERREG project is testing new opportunities for

reusing old fishing nets, including a material to remove pollutants from water (http://www.circularocean.eu/). In

the Baltic Sea Region, the BLASTIC project maps potential litter sources in urban areas and monitors litter

levels in the aquatic environment (https://www.blastic.eu/). Both projects are supported by the European

Regional Development Fund.

Table 2: Marine litter items found on European beaches, share (%) by item-count, 2016

Ranking

Material

Plastic

Chemicals

Plastic

unidentified

Plastic

Glass/Ceramics

Plastic

Rubber

Plastic

Processed/worked

wood

Paper/Cardboard

Rubber

Plastic

Metal

Plastic

Metal

Paper/Cardboard

Plastic

Glass/Ceramics

Plastic

Metal

Plastic

Cloth/Textile

Plastic

General Name Litter Item

Plastic/polystyrene pieces 2,5cm > < 50cm

String and cord (diameter less than 1cm)

Plastic/polystyrene pieces 0-2,5cm

Cigarette butts and filters

Plastic caps and lids (drinks, chemicals, detergents (non-

food), unidentified)/plastic rings from bottle caps/lids

Cotton bud sticks

Paraffin/Wax

Crisps packets/sweets wrappers

Other plastic/polystyrene items (identifiable)

Other medical items (swabs, bandaging, adhesive plaster

etc.)

Other (e.g. diapers, toilet paper, tissue paper, shaving

razors)

Foam sponge

Plastic/polystyrene pieces > 50cm

Bottles incl. pieces

Beverage Bottles Plastic

Knives, forks, spoons, straws, stirrers, (cutlery)

Nets and pieces of net > 50cm

Plastic pieces 2,5cm > < 50cm

Sanitary towels/panty liners/backing strips

Rope (diameter more than 1cm)

Plastic caps/lids drinks

Balloons and balloon sticks

Shopping bags

Plastic pieces 0-2,5cm

Other wood < 50cm

Other paper items

Other rubber pieces

Polystyrene pieces 0-2,5cm

Cans (beverage)

Food containers incl. fast food containers

Shotgun cartridges

Strapping bands

Small plastic bags, e.g. freezer bags

Tangled nets/cord

Cups and cup lids

Bottle caps, lids and pull tabs

Cigarette packets

Nets and pieces of net < 50cm

Other glass items

Construction material (brick, cement, pipes)

Sheets, industrial packaging, plastic sheeting

Foil wrappers, aluminium foil

Fishing line/monofilament (angling)

Clothing/rags (clothing, hats, towels)

Toys & party poppers

Drink bottles ≤ 0,5l

Caps/lids

Master List

Code

G76

G50

G75

G27

G20-G24

G95

G213

G30

G124

G211

GX1

G73

G77

G200

G6-G8

G34-G35

G54

G79

G96

G49

G21

G125

G78

G171

G158

G134

G81

G175

G10

G70

G66

G56

G33

G178

G152

G53

G210

G204

G67

G177

G59

G137

G32

G21-G23

Number of

Items

49082

48919

44309

21854

14064

13579

10305

10267

10142

5841

5077

4156

4103

3818

3776

3666

3499

2878

2877

2792

2605

2542

2520

2504

2468

2402

2385

2373

2330

2263

2239

2131

2108

1995

1982

1948

1865

1710

1626

1441

1414

1351

1250

1234

1188

1160

13,80%

13,75%

12,46%

6,14%

3,95%

3,82%

2,90%

2,89%

2,85%

1,64%

1,43%

1,17%

1,15%

1,07%

1,06%

1,03%

0,98%

0,81%

0,78%

0,73%

0,71%

0,70%

0,69%

0,68%

0,67%

0,66%

0,64%

0,63%

0,60%

0,59%

0,56%

0,55%

0,52%

0,48%

0,46%

0,41%

0,40%

0,38%

0,35%

0,33%

Plastic

Metal

Plastic

Cloth/Textile

Paper/Cardboard

Processed/worked

wood

Plastic

Cloth/Textile

Plastic

Processed/worked

wood

Glass/Ceramics

Paper & cardboard

Plastic

Paper/Cardboard

Plastic

Metal

Rubber

Plastic

Metal

Plastic

Paper/Cardboard

Plastic

Metal

Plastic

Processed/worked

wood

Paper/Cardboard

Wood

Plastic

Metal

Glass/Ceramics

Cloth/Textile

Rubber

Cloth/Textile

Processed/worked

Cleaner bottles & containers

Mussel nets, Oyster nets

Household batteries

Drink bottles > 0,5l

Plastic bags (opaque and clear)

Polystyrene pieces 2,5cm > < 50cm

Other textiles (incl. rags)

Cups, food trays, food wrappers, drink containers

Ice-cream sticks, chip forks, chopsticks, toothpicks

Cigarette lighters

Tampons and tampon applicators

Foam packaging/insulation/polyurethane

Other wood > 50cm

Glass or ceramic fragments > 2,5cm

Paper (including newspapers and magazines)

Pens and pen lids

Rope, string, cord

Shoes/sandals

Other bottles & containers (drums)

Crisp/sweet packets and lolly sticks

Plastic caps/lids unidentified

Straws and stirrers

Cardboard (boxes and fragments)

Plastic Pieces

Cutlery and trays

Medical/pharmaceuticals containers/tubes

Other metal pieces > 50cm

Condoms (incl. packaging)

Floats/buoys

Light sticks (tubes with fluid) incl. packaging

Wire, wire mesh, barbed wire

Mesh vegetable bags

Gloves (industrial/professional rubber gloves)

Cartons/tetrapak (others)

Beach use related cosmetic bottles and containers, e.g.

sunblockers

Plastic bag collective role; what remains from rip-off

plastic bags

4/6-pack yokes, six-pack rings

Aerosol/spray cans (industry)

Food containers, cups and cup lids

Corks

Newspapers and magazines

Processed timber and pallet

Bottles & jars

Gas bottles, drums and buckets (> 4L)

Light bulbs

Shoes and sandals (e.g. leather, cloth)

Tyres and belts

Rope, string and nets

Paint brushes

G45

G195

G2-G4

G82

G145

G153

G165

G26

G144

G74

G172

G208

G154-G157

G28

G49-G50

G71

G13

G30-G31

G23

G35

G148

G74-

G83/G103-

G106/G122

G34

G100

G199

G133

G62-G63

G60

G191

G37

G41

G151

G11

G174

G10/G33

G159

G154

G160-G161

G189

G202

G138

G128

G142

G166

1148

1142

1132

1131

1093

1039

1022

956

850

795

789

752

717

714

694

642

629

623

617

593

576

566

557

545

537

495

482

480

478

458

455

452

445

434

422

420

369

362

348

337

327

322

320

294

275

259

243

234

0,32%

0,31%

0,29%

0,27%

0,24%

0,22%

0,21%

0,20%

0,18%

0,17%

0,16%

0,15%

0,14%

0,13%

0,12%

0,10%

0,09%

0,08%

0,07%

wood

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

Cloth/Textile

Metal

Plastic

Cloth/Textile

Plastic

Paper/Cardboard

Organic

Plastic

Rubber

Plastic

Pollutants

Plastic

Paper/Cardboard

Plastic

Carpet and furnishing

Industrial scrap

Cans (food)

Other metal pieces < 50cm

Lolly sticks

Sacking (hessian)

Crates and containers/baskets

Other cosmetic bottles & containers

Plastic rings from bottle caps/lids

Buckets

Dog faeces bag

Paper bags

Fruit, food, pastry, candy and ice cream

Tags (fishing and industry)

Jerry cans (square plastic containers with handle)

Injection gun containers

Balloons, balls and toys

Combs/hair brushes/sunglasses

Syringes/needles

Wax small

Food containers, candy wrappers, cups and cup lids

Tobacco pouches/plastic cigarette box packaging

Cartons/tetrapak milk

Engine oil bottles & containers < 50 cm

Car parts

Gloves (washing up)

Crab/lobster pots and tops

Plastic sheeting from mussel culture (Tahitians)

Fibre glass/fragments

G141

G186

G176

G198

G31

G140

G18

G12

G24

G65

G101

G147

GX21

G43

G16

G17

G125-G126

G29

G99

GX2

G10/G30/G33

G25

G150

G14

G19

G40

G42

G47

G68

232

210

208

204

203

199

190

185

179

178

176

174

170

168

164

161

160

153

147

145

140

135

132

120

119

113

0,07%

0,06%

0,05%

0,04%

0,03%

Two items in the original long list merit some further explanation. “Other medical items” is

rather a group that would need to be disaggregated into several items, each of which will then

have a much smaller part in marine litter. Only parts of these are plastics. Foam sponge is

coming from several products, mostly from different kind of matrasses, which are multi use.

Such a product would call for a completely different policy approach.

A significant type - making up around half of marine litter -

is ‘single-use plastics’. Marine

litter from sea-based sources is also significant: plastic waste generated on boats and ships,

fishing gear, and plastics used in aquaculture are more likely to end up in the marine

environment (abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG)).

The analysis of the beach litter reveals that 49% of all identifiable marine litter items, are

single-use plastic items, while 33% are other plastic items such as those associated with

fishing or items not considered to be single-use; and 18% are non-plastic items.

Figure 4: Composition of marine litter

Figure 2. Composition of items found in nets in western Atlantic and Baltic (2011-2017)

Source: ICES DATRAS database

and analysed by EMODnet

Harmonisation of records of marine litter composition on seafloor is also underway. Figure 2

shows what has been brought up in the nets of fishing vessels 2011-2017

. It covers an

analysis of nearly 3,000 hauls throughout the western Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea.

http://www.ices.dk/marine-data/data-portals/Pages/DATRAS.aspx

http://www.emodnet.eu/

EU's European Marine Observation and Data Network, EMODnet, stored in the ICES DATRAS database:

http://www.emodnet.eu/

Figure 3. Composition of Marine Litter

100%

90%

Items Found on EU Beaches

(by item count)

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Plastic / Non-plastic

Plastic

Other General Plastics

Split of Plastic, General /

Fishing

Split of General, SUP /

other

General Plastics

Fishing-related

Single-use General Plastics

Non-plastic

Source: Eunomia, based on JRC data

The following table provides another perspective, viewing the data from the question of

whether they are packaging or not and SUP or not.

Table 3: Marine litter items

–

splits by single-use categories

Supercategories, item type

PLASTIC

Cigarette butts, Paper/plastic

Caps and lids - drinks, Plastic

Cotton bud sticks, Sanitary

Crisps packets / sweets wrappers, Plastic

Other, identifiable, non-packaging, non SUP <100 items,

Plastic, Polystyrene, Rubber

Drinks bottles, Plastic

Other, Sanitary

Sanpro - Towels / panty liners / backing strips;

Tampon applicators / tampons, Sanitary

Amount

% Amount

Amount as % of

supercategory

27416

18417

13928

11366

10841

7716

5840

3704

1.0%

19%

13%

10%

Supercategories, item type

Shopping bags, Plastic

Other bottles, Plastic

Other bags, Plastic

Straws and stirrers, Plastic

Balloons and balloon sticks

Food containers inc fast food packaging, Plastic, Polystyrene

Cup and cup lids, Plastic, Polystyrene, Paper/plastic

Cutlery, Plastic

Strapping bands, Plastic

Shotgun cartridges, Plastic

Sheets, industrial packaging, plastic sheeting

Toys & party poppers, Plastic

On-the-go food, drinks use, Paper/Plastic

Pens and pen lids, Plastic

Caps and lids - other, Plastic

Cigarette lighters, Plastic

Other, unidentifiable packaging, Plastic

Shoes / sandals, Plastic, Rubber

Gloves, Plastic, Rubber

Mesh bags, sacks, Plastic

Medical / pharmaceuticals containers / tubes, Sanitary

Cartons / tetrapak (others), Paper/Plastic

4/6-pack yokes, six-pack rings, Plastic

Lolly sticks, Plastic

Wheels, tyres, belts, Plastic, Rubber

Tobacco pouches / plastic cigarette box packaging, Plastic

Crates and containers / baskets, Plastic

Combs/hair brushes/sunglasses, Plastic

Cartons / tetrapak milk, Paper/Plastic

Car parts, Plastic

Injection gun containers, Plastic

Other, packaging <100 items, Plastic

Plastic construction waste

Nappies, Sanitary

Other, SUP, non-packaging <100 items, Plastic

Subtotal

NON-PLASTIC

Bottles, Glass, Ceramic

Bottle caps, Metal

Amount

3700

3460

3280

3040

2723

2715

2618

2597

2321

2279

1493

1492

1218

951

943

905

774

761

618

550

497

474

398

368

287

233

217

214

203

185

172

163

141

141277

% Amount

1.0%

0.9%

0.8%

0.7%

0.6%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

37%

Amount as % of

supercategory

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

100%

4497

2968

10%

Supercategories, item type

Drinks cans, Metal

On-the-go food, drinks use, Wood

Bags, Paper

Other packaging, Non-plastic

Other, identifiable, Non-plastic

Subtotal

Fishing, PLASTIC

Line, Rope, Chord, Plastic, Textiles

Fishing net & pieces, Plastic

Octopus/Lobster/Crab pots & tops, Plastic

Other fishing related, non-packaging,

Plastic, Polystyrene, Rubber, Textiles

Other fishing related, packaging, Plastic, Polystyrene

Subtotal

Fishing, NON-PLASTIC

Fishing items, non-packaging, Non-plastic

Fishing items, packaging, Non-plastic

Subtotal

UNIDENTIFIED

Non-identifiable, Plastic, Polystyrene, Rubber

Non-identifiable, Non-plastic

Subtotal

Grand total

Amount

2760

969

195

6456

29014

46859

% Amount

0.3%

0.1%

12%

Amount as % of

supercategory

0.4%

14%

62%

100%

56333

5659

177

2310

780

65259

15%

0.0%

0.2%

17%

86%

0.3%

100%

106

115281

9047

124328

377829

0.03%

0.00%

0.03%

31%

33%

100%

90%

10%

100%

93%

100%

Finally, the contribution of fisheries and aquaculture related activities to marine litter is

significant as around 17% of beach litter items found on beaches are likely to come from

these activities. This is mostly as pieces of gear, boxes and bags for packaging fish and feeds,

and personal protection equipment such as gloves and boots (the third of our above 3

categories to which both aquaculture and fishing contribute), when ALDFG (the other two

categories to which only fishing is likely to contribute) are more likely to be found on the sea

floor. However, fishing gear litter at beaches is a more ambivalent approximation for its total

abundance than for SUP, seen that e.g. abandoned nets due to their density or entanglements

are more likely to be prevalent on sea floors.

Table 4: Marine litter items

–

splits by fishing categories

Rank

General name

String and cord (diameter less than 1cm)

Nets and pieces of net > 50cm

Tangled nets / cord

Nets and pieces of net < 50cm

Fishing line / monofilament (angling)

Items

48919

3499

2108

1865

1351

% of all ML

13,75%

0,98%

0,59%

0,52%

0,38%

Rank

General name

Mussel nets, Oyster nets

Floats/Buoys

Rope, string and nets

Tags (fishing and industry)

Crab / lobster pots and tops

Fish boxes

Fish boxes - expanded polystyrene

Fishing related (weights, sinkers, lures, hooks)

Octopus pots

Fishing line (entangled)

Oyster trays (round from oyster cultures)

Other fishing related

Fish boxes - plastic

Buoys

Fish boxes

Fishing net

Foam buoys

Fishing gear (lures, traps and pots)

Lobster / crab pots

Mesh bags (vegetable, oyster nets and mussel bags)

Nets and pieces of net

Fishing related (sinkers, lures, hooks, traps and pots)

Crab / lobster pots

Fishing Net Pieces

Fish hook remains

Octopus pots

Fishing Buoys Pots Traps

Items

1142

478

243

174

120

104

% of all ML

0,32%

0,13%

0,07%

0,05%

0,03%

0,02%

0,01%

0,00%

Around one third of the marine litter found cannot be identified in terms of its source, but it

can be assumed that its source is broadly the same as the identified items.

2.2 Methodological note on beach litter as a proxy for sea litter

Beach litter can arrive to the shore by: Transport from the sea, by tidal action, waves,

currents; Dropping, loss on the beach; Transportation from land by run-off, rivers, wind or

As always, whilst this is broadly reasonable there will be some items disproportionately unidentifiable. For

example, wet wipes are moistened with some liquid and packaged so that they can be used to clean without

availability of water. A reasonable assumption is that these are relatively quickly unidentifiable, as they will

appear as pieces of paper (the basic material appears to be plain cellulose (paper)) if dried when flat lying, which

is unlikely after use or in small clumps. So, whilst included under sanitary items, they may well be reported in

other categories.

other relocation. Beach litter is therefore used not only as a proxy for what comes from the

sea, but also for what can potential enter the sea (or affect marine species on the beach, also

including the socioeconomic harm on tourism caused by littered beaches). The proportion of

the three pathways (the third one presumably being of less importance) will depend much on

the local situation including frequentation by visitors/tourists (littering locally) and the beach

morphology (sand, gravel, slope, exposition). Note that most touristic beaches with regular

(even daily) cleaning are not considered by the monitoring schemes.

A general comment about beach litter data quality is that most of the data have been derived

from observations and from clean-up events. There is now longstanding experience and the

use and harmonisation of monitoring protocols has improved the situation. Still beach litter

monitoring is not as precise as e.g. chemical contaminant measurements. The fate (and thus

concentration) of litter items on the beaches depends on multiple factors, on top of the

observer induced variability. This concerns e.g. wind (sweet wrappers can easily be blown

away (and be blown back)), and visitor number (plastic items can be mixed under soft sand),

etc., thus changing the observed items, while they can still affect the environment. Therefore

this type of data can only be interpreted in a statistical distribution way and being aware of the

variability

For the sea surface harmonised methodologies are still being set-up. For seafloor litter data

from International Bottom Trawling Surveys are available. The MSFD Technical Group on

Marine Litter is working on the updating of the MSFD Guidance on litter monitoring

2.3 Evolution of marine litter over time

Time series data from marine litter monitoring programmes (OSPAR, 2012) do not indicate a

reduction of the amount of marine litter in European seas.

Figure 5: Marine litter found on European shores (number of items per 100m of coastline)

Source: OSPAR (in Panteia, 2015)

2.4 Categorisation of marine litter

Marine litter is usually categorised using the MSFD Master List Categories of Beach Litter

Items that is the approach to provide a consistent identification of litter categories across

JRC, 2016, Marine Beach Litter in Europe JRC 103929

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC83985/lb-na-26113-en-n.pdf

Europe. There are still different lists in use, some of them not easily comparable across all

categories. The MSFD Technical Group is tackling that issue in its 2018 work programme.

This sets out a number of types and their most prominent sources.

Table 5: Marine Conservation Society full list of litter items and attributed sources (MCS, 2013)

Public Litter:

4/6 pack yokes, plastic bags (including supermarket), plastic drinks bottles, plastic food containers,

plastic toiletries bottles, plastic caps / lids, cigarette lighters / tobacco pouches, combs / hair

brushes / sunglasses, crisp / sweet / lolly / sandwich wrappers, cutlery / trays / straws / cups, pens,

plastic shoes / sandals, shotgun cartridges, toys / party poppers / fireworks / dummies, polystyrene

fast food containers / cups, balloons / balloon string, clothing / shoes / beach towels, disposable

barbecues, metal bottle caps, metal drink cans, foil wrappers, household batteries, animal faeces in

bags, animal faeces not in bags, paper bags, cartons / tetrapak (e.g. fruit juice), cigarette packets,

cigarette stubs, paper cups, newspapers / magazines, corks, ice lolly sticks / chip forks, glass

bottles, glass pieces.

Fish boxes, fishing line, fishing net and net pieces <50cm, fishing net and net pieces >50cm, floats

(fishing buoys) / reels, plastic lobster / crab pots and tops, string and cord diameter <1cm,

polystyrene buoys, polystyrene fish boxes, rubber boots, heavy duty gloves, tyres with holes,

fishing weights / hooks / lures, metal lobster / crab pots and tops, wood lobster / crab pots and tops.

Condoms, cotton bud sticks, nappies, tampon applicators / tampons, toilet fresheners, towels /

panty liners / plastic backing strips, wet wipes, other sanitary items.

Plastic cleaner bottles, foreign plastic bottles, plastic oil bottles, industrial packaging / crates /

sheeting, mesh bags (e.g. vegetable), Rope diameter >1 cm, strapping bands, aerosol cans, metal

food cans, oil drums, cartons / purepak (e.g. milk), pallets / crates, light bulbs / tubes.

Traffic cones, tyres without holes / wheels, cloth furnishings, car parts / car batteries, scrap metal /

appliances / paint tins, pottery / ceramic.

Inhalers, plasters, syringes, other medical items.

Plastic pieces <2.5cm, plastic pieces >2.5cm, other plastics, fibreglass, foam / sponge / insulation,

polystyrene packaging, polystyrene pieces <50cm, other polystyrene items, light weight gloves,

rubber pieces <50cm, other rubber items, cloth pieces, sacking, other cloth items, wire / wire mesh

/ metal pieces, other metal items, cardboard, other paper items, paint brushes, wood pieces (not

twigs), other wood items.

Fishing:

Sewage-Related

Debris:

Shipping:

Fly Tipped:

Medical:

Non-Sourced:

2.5 Travelling of marine litter

It is common to ask where the litter found on a particular beach has come from. This can be

estimated using labels and bar-codes on litter, which provides information on the country of

production, the manufacturer, the product type and the age of litter items. However, labels can

be lost or become illegible and only items with a label or bar-code (not items like cigarette

butts or cotton-bud-sticks) can be included in the analysis and sometimes the bar code could

be misleading (bought in one country, discarded in another). Therefore, this type of

information should be analysed with caution.

Van Franeker (2005) categorised items found on a beach clean in Texel in the Netherlands to

a country of origin. The majority of items originated from the Netherlands or neighbouring

regions, indicating that this method can be used to provide information on the likelihood of

litter items originating form given sources as well as on their geographical origin (see below).

Figure 6: Proportions of countries of origin as derived from barcodes or label information on

litter items found on Texel, April 2005 (translated from van Franeker, 2005)

ly %

Italy 2

i 2

in 2

S a

Spa

t ia

str

Taiwan

USA-Canada

Lituania

ina

Belg

France

Germany

12 %

NETHERLANDS

42%

United

Kingdom

14%

2.6 Marine litter aggregation

– creating a ‘top 10’

2.6.1 General data

The MSFD Master List Categories of Beach Litter Items is highly detailed. This makes sense

for identifying what is on beaches, but it makes less sense from a policy perspective. For this

reason, categories that are very similar have been grouped together (aggregated).

The JRC Technical Report: Top Marine Beach Litter Items in Europe lists marine litter items

collected in 2016. The JRC list identifies 251 different types of litter and a total of 355,744

items. First, as the list does not identify plastics specifically, or single-use items, the list was

divided into plastic, non-plastic and fishing items. Plastic items were then assessed as single-

use or non-SUP.

As countries and regions have adopted different methods, there is significant over-lap

between some

categories (such as “4/6-pack

yokes, six-pack

rings” and “4/6-pack

yokes, six-

pack rings/bags/shopping bags including pieces/small plastic bags, e.g. freezer bags including

pieces”) and some items could potentially be listed in a number of categories.

The JRC list was then used to compile a shorter list of discrete classifications that provide the

relative contributions of items that are alike in terms of source, use or material and are

generally under the domain of a defined policy area. From the JRC list, 31 SUP categories

were disaggregated so that the items could be re-allocated to different groups. For example,

“Food containers, sweet wrappers, cups” was divided into: “Food containers including fast

food packaging”; “Cups and cup lids”; and “Crisps packets/ sweet wrappers”, as illustrated

below.

Figure 7:

The disaggregation of Food containers, sweet wrappers, cups

Food Containers,

sweet wrappers, cups

(14,592 items)

Sweet wrappers

103.4 items

(70.36%)

Food containers

23.5 items (15.97%)

Cups

20.1 items

(13.67%)

Crisps packets/

sweet wrappers

(10,267 items)

Cups and cup lids

(1,995 items)

Food containers,

including fast

food packaging

(2,330 items)

The process for apportioning the items affects the final rankings and there is no completely

objective way to do this. The method adopted ensures that the top ten items reflect an accurate

assessment of the data collected from the disparate studies, without misrepresenting the

prevalence of any given item.

The items were disaggregated proportionally, based on the compositions of other categories

with similar items. For example, food containers were known to account for 16% of the total

number of original items in the three categories “Food containers, sweet wrappers and cups”,

therefore were disaggregated (2,330 out of 14,592). It was assumed that 16% of those 147

items were food containers and 23.5% were re-allocated

to “food containers, including fast

food packaging”.

Once the broader groupings had been disaggregated into the most relevant specific category,

they were aggregated into similar categories and those where, for the purpose of this analysis,

it was not important to distinguish between relatively similar items. Considering material

composition, manufacturing, usage and policy approach, for instance, it was not considered

necessary to distinguish between crisp packets and sweet wrappers. Conversely, sweet

wrappers and food containers are qualitatively different, so are split. Similarly, beverage

bottles were disaggregated from other types of plastic bottle.

This process generated 17 classifications of SUP, representing 141,277 units;

Figure 8

illustrates the composition of one of these 17 classifications.

Figure 8: The aggregation

of Crisps packets/ sweet wrappers

Crisps packets/

sweet wrappers

(10,267 items)

100%

Crisp/ sweet

packets and lolly

sticks (593

items)

+98% of…

Crisps packets/

sweet wrappers

(10,952)

+70% of …

Food containers,

sweet wrappers

and cups (147)

The table below lists the top ten items following the disaggregation and aggregation process.

The complete list, including a full breakdown of the categories contributing to the top ten and

the proportions allocated, is included in Annex 1 (Eunomia report).

The table demonstrates that by focussing on these items, potentially 77% of the general plastic

items found on beaches can be addressed by the measures proposed; while a full 86% of the

single-use plastic items that are found on beaches could be addressed.

Table 6: Top ten SUP Items

Ranking

Item

Total Number

on sample of

beaches

monitored in

2016

Drinks bottles,

caps and lids

Cigarette butts

Cotton buds

sticks

Crisp packets/

sweet

wrappers

24,541

21,854

13,616

10,952

as proportion of

general plastic

items

Cumulative %

of items in

scope as a

proportion of

general plastic

items

19%

36%

46%

55%

proportion

of single-

use plastic

items

21%

19%

12%

Cumulative %

of items in

scope as a

proportion of

single-use

plastic items

21%

39%

51%

61%

19%

17%

11%

Ranking

Item

Total Number

on sample of

beaches

monitored in

2016

as proportion of

general plastic

items

Cumulative %

of items in

scope as a

proportion of

general plastic

items

62%

67%

71%

73%

75%

proportion

of single-

use plastic

items

Cumulative %

of items in

scope as a

proportion of

single-use

plastic items

69%

74%

79%

81%

84%

Sanitary

applications

Plastic bags

(CBD & non-

CBD)

Cutlery, straws

and stirrers

Drinks cups

and cup lids

Balloons and

balloon sticks

Food

containers

incl. fast food

packaging

9,493

6,410

4,769

3,232

2,706

2,602

77%

86%

”General plastic items” –

is the group of items excluding non-identifiable items such as fragments, non-plastic

items, and items associated with fishing and aquaculture.

”Single-use

plastic items -– is the group of items excluding non-identifiable items such as fragments, non-

plastic items, items associated with fishing and aquaculture, and non-single-use plastics.

Some understanding of the aggregation groups is needed. For example, Sanitary applications

are a fairly aggregated category, and comprise a number of different items:



Wet wipes

Sanitary towels/ panty liners/ backing strips;

Sanitary (nappies, cotton buds, tampon applicators, toothbrushes);

Tampons and tampon applicators;

Other (e.g. diapers, toilet paper, tissue paper, shaving razors);

Toilet fresheners;

Syringes/ needles; and

Condoms (including packaging).

This list is based on the MSFD or OSPAR category codes, where wet wipes is not a separate

category. The UK and the Republic of Ireland are the only locations where the frequency of

wet-wipes is recorded as a specific category. The data comes from parallel monitoring efforts

–

the Great British Beach Clean (run by the Marine Conservation Society

–

MCS) in the UK

and the Clean Coasts Big Beach Clean in the Republic of Ireland. These produced the

following statistics:



–

wet wipes are 45% of sanitary items. When cotton buds are separated out (as our

analysis for the top ten does), they constitute 80% of sanitary items; and



Republic of Ireland

–

wet wipes are 51% of sanitary items. Excluding cotton buds, they are

72% of sanitary items.

None of the other nations collect litter data on wet wipes as a distinct category. However, they

may well be a dominant part of this category.

Table 7: Additional ranked SUP items

Ranking

Item

Total Number

on sample of

beaches

monitored in

2016

Shotgun

cartridges, Plastic

Strapping bands,

Plastic

Cigarette lighters,

Plastic

4/6-pack yokes,

six-pack rings,

Plastic

Lolly sticks,

Plastic

Tobacco pouches

/ plastic cigarette

box packaging,

Plastic

Nappies, Sanitary

2263

2239

795

372

216

as proportion

of general

plastic items

Cumulative %

of items in

scope as a

proportion of

general plastic

items

79%

81%

82%

proportion

of single-

use plastic

items

Cumulative %

of items in

scope as a

proportion of

single-use

plastic items

88%

90%

91%

148

82%

91%

82%

91%

”General plastic items” –

is the group of items excluding non-identifiable items such as fragments, non-plastic

items, and items associated with fishing and aquaculture.

”Single-use

plastic items -– is the group of items excluding non-identifiable items such as fragments, non-

plastic items, items associated with fishing and aquaculture, and non-single-use plastics.

2.6.2 Regional seas data

Findings vary to some extent across Europe depending on region (and indeed vary by beach

within a given region):



North-East Atlantic: Maritime activities

–

fishing, commercial shipping, ferries and cruise

shipping, leisure boat traffic, offshore installations and aquaculture facilities

–

and land-

based tourism and recreational activities account for about 80 per cent of waste input.

Other sources include discharges from municipal waste through rivers and canals, and

solid waste from industrial facilities, dumpsites or sewage systems near the coast.

Baltic Sea: The majority of the finds can be traced to consumer waste, with a relatively

high share of household goods and equipment associated with tourism (including

toiletries). Its input path is rivers and coastlines. The greatest sea-based source of input is

the fishing industry.

Mediterranean Sea: Land-based sources account for the majority: about 40-50 per cent of

litter input owes to tourism, with volumes rising significantly during the holiday season.

An estimated additional 40 per cent consists of household items (including toiletries). In



addition to inputs from the fishing industry, cigarette butts are also present on a substantial

scale along the Mediterranean.



Black Sea: Relatively little data is available, and the results of investigations differ both

regionally and locally. Some data points to municipal waste which is discharged in

sewage, e.g. from poorly managed dumpsites, as a dominant factor. Next are inputs from

maritime transport, ports and coastal tourism. Investigations at beaches near Constanta in

Romania, however, indicate that the main local source of input is tourism (inland and

coastal), followed by part-time fisheries. Many household items (including toiletries) are

also found. Illegal fishing activities are also identified repeatedly as a major source.

Analysis of top 10 by regional sea

The regional data was analysed to understand whether the problem appeared to be constrained

to certain areas of the EU or whether it was wide spread. The total counts vary significantly

by sea, related to the length of coastline and number of surveys. It is clear that the Black and

Mediterranean Seas have higher incidences of SUP items in the beach counts.

Figure 9: Proportion of top 10 items in total beach litter counts

Secondly, the relative shares of the key items vary by sea but all items are present in all seas.

The supposed lack of straws in the NE Atlantic is a factor of the categorisations, rather than

an absence of the items.

Whilst distributions vary, the top 10 categories account for a large proportion of SUPs in each

sea, but with variation in the rankings (so what is first somewhere, may be 5

elsewhere but

there is no evidence that as a grouping the top 10 does not seem reasonable prioritisation in

each sea). The regional seas analysis, therefore, suggests that the top ten list above is suitable

for analysis in this Impact Assessment.

Figure 10: Relative shares of key items by sea

2.7 Pathways for marine litter

In general terms, the key pathways for the SUP items to reach the marine environment, are:



Consumers drop litter on the ground in the urban or rural environments. This is to some

extent due to the lack of convenience of the alternative, i.e. responsible management, but

also the lack on incentives, economic or otherwise, to do the right thing. Many consumers

will do the right thing, but a section of society is either unaware or uncaring of the

consequences of dropping litter; and

Consumers flush items down the toilet or drains (e.g. cotton buds, wet-wipes and sanitary

towels). The driver in this instance is somewhat convenience but potentially more

weighted towards perceived health risks from dealing with soiled sanitary items, or from

the assumption that they will be properly treated in the sewerage system (ie few people

understand that a flushed cotton bud stick may end up in the sea).



Figure 11: SUP pathways

The following table looks at this more closely for specific items, and elaborates the transport

mechanism and sources.

Table 8: Examples of sources, means of release, geographic origin, pathways and transport

mechanism for a few marine litter items found on the Northern coast of Germany

Source

COTTON

BUD

STICKS

PLASTIC

BAGS

Consumers /

General Public

Coastal tourism

& recreation

Means of release

Improper disposal

down the toilet

Littering (e.g. on

beach)

Geographic

origin

Households

Pathway

Sewage

systems and/or

rivers

Direct entry

(beach) or e.g.

windblown (if

town nearby)

Distant -

Wind (blown)

and/or rivers

Direct input

Transport

mechanism

Sewage, rivers,

ocean currents

and tides

Wind and tides

Local (e.g.

coastal town or

beach nearby)

e.g. Distant

(inland town)

Beach

Consumers /

General Public

Waste

management at

Littering (e.g. on

street, from car, in

natural area)

Overflowing open

bin

Wind, rivers,

ocean current

and tides

Wind, tides and

currents

Source: JRC Technical Report, Identifying Sources of Marine Litter, 2016

beach

NETS AND

PIECES OF

NETS

Fisheries

Discard or

unintentional loss

over board during

net repair work at

sea

Loss of nets and

pieces of net

during fishing

(snagging)

E.g. Local

fisheries,

regional

fisheries or

distant fisheries

E.g. Local

fisheries,

regional

fisheries or

distant fisheries

Direct entry -

nets get

washed or

thrown

overboard

Direct entry -

nets get

snagged on

wrecks, rocks

etc. ripped off

pieces of net

remain

attached to

objects

underwater or

are released

into the water

column (ghost

nets)

Direct entry -

nets washed,

blown or

thrown

(swept) into

harbour basins

and washed

out to sea

Direct entry

from ships at

sea

Winds(drift),

currents and

tides

Fisheries

Winds (drift),

currents and

tides

Fisheries and/or

harbours

Discard or

unintentional loss

during net repair

work on land

or/and runoff from

harbours

E.g. local fishing

harbours

Winds (blow-

off), tides and

currents

INJECTION

GUN

CARTRIDG

E (Grease)

TAHITIAN

S (Plastic

sheeting to

protect

mussel

cultures)

Shipping

including

fisheries

Discard or

unintentional loss

overboard at sea

Local (cartridges

recorded on

beaches are not

fouled, not

battered)

Distant

–

International -

Northwest

France/Atlantic

coast of France

Winds (drift),

currents and

tides

Aquaculture

Unintentional loss

or discard after

use

Direct input

Winds, currents

and tides

2.8 Sea and land based split of marine litter

Attributing marine litter to different land and sea based sources is a challenge. Litter on the

beach is the easiest to count and use for monitoring, but in many cases could be attributed

either to land or sea based sources with different degrees of probability. Also, beach litter as

discussed above, is an imperfect indicator and it is acknowledged that some items will be

disproportionately found on beaches.

For example, a study by Sá et al (2015) finds evidence that significant higher concentrations

of waste float near dense shipping routes (operational waste and packaging material),

compared to the areas with little shipping traffic, indicating the contribution of the (merchant)

shipping sector to waste at sea.

For the fisheries sector, more specific estimates exist in relation to fisheries equipment,

including so-called abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), ranging up

to 220,000 tons per year for the EU as a whole (calculations based on Eunomia, 2016). Data

from fishing for litter programmes initiated over the past decade suggest that the amount of

ALDFG is gradually decreasing,

but still a lot of ‘old’ ALDFG is in Europe’s seas. ALDFG is

to be passively fished and delivered to port, which is supported by fishing for litter

programmes or independently.

Plastics are the most abundant debris found in the marine environment and comprise more

than half of marine litter in European Regional Seas. Figures estimated point at 54,000 to

145,000 tonnes of plastic per year entering the marine environment from land-based sources

(Eunomia, 2016). Visual surveys and surface trawls indicate a stock of plastics floating near

the surface to be in the order of 268,000 tons, to which European seas are accounting at least

30% (Five Gyres Institute, 2014 as reported in Eunomia, 2016). These figures do not take into

account plastics that sink or to microplastics that cannot be visually observed, indicating that

the overall stock of plastics in the marine environment is significantly larger.

Analyses of the

origins of marine litter

found in European seas and on shore indicate that a

substantial part originates from ships, but various sources use different estimates, caused by

different measurement methods.

Table 9: Share of marine litter from sea based sources

Source

Ocean Conservancy

(2012)

–

waste count

Idem, weight corrected

(Eunomia, 2016)

Arcadis (2012)

Of which fishing sector

Of which other shipping

18%

51%

49%

48%

88%

12%

16%

58%

42%

50%

48%

52%

Baltic Sea

North East Atlantic

20%

Mediterranean

Black Sea

EU average

12%

32%

34%

65%

35%

Eunomia (2016) discusses the limitations of data and methods applied by Ocean Conservancy

and Arcadis, and, also referring to other sources (Van Franeker et al., 2010 and Ioakeimidis et

al., 2014), assumes a general split of 20-40% of marine litter being derived from sea-based

sources.

2.9 Riverine and soil litter

There are clearly close links between marine and riverine litter, with the latter usually ending

up in the former. Efforts to reduce marine litter through prevention will generally lead to a

reduction of litter found on land (in soil) or in rivers. JRC analysis of litter found in rivers

provides evidence of this link, with similarities between the incidence of different types of

litter in rivers and found on marine beaches. Analysis of floating macro litter from 52 rivers

found 8,599 items with following frequency distribution.

Table 10: Types of litter found in rivers

Ranking

Items

Plastic pieces

Plastic bottle

Cover / packaging

Bag

Polystyrene pieces

Other paper

Paper packaging

Sheets

Foam

Cans

Other plastic/polystyrene items

Plastic container

Other metal

Newspapers & magazines

Beams / Dunnage

Other rubber

Wood boards

Synthetic rope

Other textiles

Pallets

Balls

Fish boxes - polystyrene

Clothing

Rubber boots

Rope / string and nets

Fish boxes - plastic

Buoys

Gloves

Sails / canvas

Fishing net

Barrels

Balloons

Carpet & Furnishing

Wire

Tyres and belts

Crates

Fishing related

Other litter

% of total items

38.59%

9.55%

8.42%

7.77%

6.35%

4.01%

3.61%

2.93%

2.70%

2.05%

1.98%

1.81%

1.48%

1.19%

0.99%

0.95%

0.72%

0.71%

0.57%

0.48%

0.47%

0.40%

0.24%

0.22%

0.21%

0.17%

0.13%

0.12%

0.10%

0.08%

0.06%

0.02%

0.01%

2.10

Plastics overview

A plastic material is an organic solid, essentially a polymer, i.e. chain of several thousand of

repeating molecular units of monomers, or combination of polymers. The monomers of

plastic are either natural or synthetic organic compounds. The term resin is sometimes used as

synonym of a commercial polymer

See JRC Technical Report “Riverine Litter Monitoring

Options and Recommendations”, 2016 for an

overview discussion.

Source: Plastics Europe

Within Europe, plastics are primarily used in packaging (40%), while the building sector is

the second user (20%). Automotive, electrical & electronic and agriculture are the three other

sectors with significant plastic use, as explained in the following figure.

Figure 12: Distribution of European (EU-28+NO/CH) plastics demand by segment in 2015

Plastics are traditionally derived from fossil sources, mainly oil and gas. Plastics can also be

made of alternative feedstock such as renewable resources currently mainly derived from

different types of agriculture (biomass), organic waste and residues, gaseous effluents (e.g.

). And finally, plastics can also be made from secondary materials obtained through the

chemical or mechanical recycling of collected plastic waste.

In Europe 57 million tonnes of primary plastics were produced in 2016, the share of bio-based

plastics being 0.5 and 1% of EU annual plastic consumption. The European plastics industry

is a big part of the chemicals industry and plays a vital role in the EU economy. It employs

about 1.45 million people and has a turnover of 350 billion (including plastic converters and

technology providers).

Plastic often follows a "take-make-consume-dispose" pattern of lifecycle. It is commonly

agreed that this type of model does not correspond to a sustainable growth principles in a

sense that it is based on the assumption that resources are abundant, available, easy to source

and cheap to dispose of. Strained natural resources and climate change are however becoming

an ever more tangible reality. Therefore, a model that is circular has become necessary in

order to keep the added value in products for as long as possible and eliminate as much as

possible waste generation. The circular economy model acknowledges that resources are

limited and should be used in an efficient way.

In 2014, the EU generated about 25 million tonnes of post-consumer plastic waste of which

only 30 % was recycled. The performance as regards recycling of plastics wastes, although in

progress, shows there is ample room for improvement. For example, the current target for

recycling of plastic packaging waste is 22.5%. The average recycling rate of plastic packaging

waste being 39.8% in 2015

clearly demonstrates that this target is obsolete. A more

ambitious target was needed to provide incentives for increasing recycling; hence the recently

proposed amendment to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (55% of plastic

packaging waste to be recycled by 2025).

http://www.plasticseurope.org/documents/document/20161014113313-

plastics_the_facts_2016_final_version.pdf

Source: Plastics Europe (2016). Plastics - the Facts 2016

Source: Eurostat: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Packaging_waste_statistics

Figure 13: Waste treatment evolution 2006-2014

Once plastic wastes are considered as a resource to be kept as long as possible in the value

chain the lifecycle should be modified accordingly.

In terms of the management of plastic wastes, it is estimated that around 32% are currently

recycled, with this projected to increase to 43% in 2030 as a result of the baseline policies

taking effect: the baseline includes the European Commission’s proposed revisions to the

Waste Framework Directive and waste stream Directives, which, at the time of writing, have

been agreed between the co-legislators.

Figure 14: Overall EU-28 Plastic Waste Flows

Littering rates appear small in relative terms, but this still amounts to more than 200 thousand

tonnes of plastic entering the environment, including the marine environment, each year by

35 Source: Plastics Europe (2016). Plastics - the Facts 2016

Source: Eunomia waste flows model, data sources by sector

2030. Once again, the basis for this estimate is such that limited confidence can be attached to

the estimate.

2.11

Plastic litter estimates

It is estimated that a total of 139 thousand tonnes of plastic packaging litter are generated in

the EU-28 each year, of which 41 thousand tonnes are beverage bottles. The arising of plastic

packaging litter in each Member State (normalised by total population) are shown below.

Figure 15: Arising of Plastic Packaging Litter by Member State in 2014, kg per capita

2.12

Waste from fishing gear

Plastic products are common in the fishing and aquaculture sectors. Aquaculture is

distinguished from the fishing sector by the fact that fishing involves actively or passively

catching wild fish and shellfish species; while in aquaculture, the species are farmed in

enclosures or on structures that are tethered. These industries are reliant on plastic material to

provide affordable, lightweight and durable equipment. Various types of plastic are utilised

for different types of gear and equipment; an overview is given below.

Table 11: Overview of plastic types utilized in fishing and aquaculture gear

Material

Nylon (Polyamide)

Polypropylene

Polyethylene

HDPE

Polystyrene, Polyurethane

PVC

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS),

Polyvinyl difluoride (PVDF)

Use

Nets (mostly gillnet and seine nets), lobster and crab pots

Nets (mostly gillnet and trawl net), rope, mesh

Nets (mostly trawl net, purse seine net); longlines;

Aquaculture: rope, cage, floats, tubes, disks

Trawl doors, dredges, small parts and cladding

Insulation, floats and buoys, including in fish aggregation

devices (FADs)

Aquaculture: cages, tubing and piping

Aquaculture: valves

Aramids, Ultra High MW Polyethylene,

Aromatic polyester

GFRP (glass fibre reinforced plastic)

Rope, net (newer technology)

Aquaculture (newer technology)

There are few estimates of plastic waste generation in the fishing and aquaculture sector and

only partial data on the annual consumption of plastics by the sector. The amount of fishing

gear that is abandoned, lost, or discarded at sea is only roughly estimated. An analysis based

on the PRODCOM database and reports of what is found at sea is presented in annex 7.

Recycling rates are based on data from NoFir’s EU-wide

recycling programme, EUFir.

This

is the only recycling programme to the Commission’s knowledge that operates in the EU.

Countries, which are not currently involved in the scheme, have been given a nominal

recycling rate of zero. This yields an EU-wide recycling rate of around 1.5%. Residual

treatment destinations were based on information from a Norwegian study

, which indicated

that little netting ends up in incinerators, as they are not usually equipped with net handling

gear or adjusted for such high-calorific feedstock. Therefore the majority of gear has been

allocated to landfill (76%), with a smaller proportion (8%) to incineration.

Future waste generation projections were based on historic trends in fishing and aquaculture

production. Overall waste growth across the EU-28 is projected to increase by 298 tonnes per

year from 2015 onwards, equivalent to 1.6% of total waste arising in 2015. The recycling rate

is envisaged to remain relatively static, with little growth over time, in the absence of a more

co-ordinated effort to fund and increase recycling in the sector EU-wide. The littering rate is

held to be likely to remain constant, if no action is taken; and landfill and incineration rates

also to remain relatively unchanged.

Figure 16: Summary of baseline waste flows for fishing gear plastics

https://nofir.no/

p57, Table 11 Mepex (2013) Økt utnyttelse av ressursene i plastavfall (Increased utilization of resources in

plastic waste), Report for Klima - og forurensningsdirektoratet (Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency),

March 2013

2.13

Impacts on the environment, health and economy

Once in the environment - particularly in the marine environment - plastic waste can persist

for hundreds of years. The 10 million tonnes of litter, mostly plastic, which ends up in the

world's oceans and seas annually, turning them into the world's biggest plastic dump

, harm

the coastal and marine environment as well as aquatic life.

Marine litter causes enormous harm to ecosystems : impacts include mortality or sub-lethal

effects on plants and animals through entanglement

(e.g. from ghost nets

) physical

damage, smothering, ingestion of plastic by animals such as turtles or birds, including

microplastics; these microplastics have the potential to accelerate accumulation of chemicals

throughout the food chain, with potential negative impacts on human health. Furthermore,

marine litter facilitates the invasion of alien species, altering benthic community structure

Most plastic debris eventually comes to rest on the seabed

The number of species known to be affected by the marine litter are now almost 800, the

proportion of cetacean and seabird species has risen to 40% and 44% respectively, while some

surveys show that 100% of turtles are affected by ingestion of litter. A recent technical report

from JRC provides insight about the major negative impacts from marine litter by describing

the mechanisms of harm

Microplastics are ubiquitous and reach even the most remote areas

with a concentration in

water sometimes higher than that of plankton. These micro plastics, and the chemical

additives they contain, if ingested in large quantities by marine fauna may have a high

potential for contaminating the food chain through predator-prey interaction.

Plastic is not inert. Conventional plastic contains chemical additives which can be endocrine

disruptors, carcinogenic or provoke other toxic reactions and can, in principle, migrate into

the environment, though in small quantities

46,47

. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as

pesticides like DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

since 1970s have been

progressively banned but, as they are very persistent in the environment and sometimes still

present in some materials or products in use, their presence can still be detected. They can

attach themselves from the surrounding water to plastic fragments which can be harmful

and

Wurpel G.,Van den Akker J.,Pors J., Ten Wolde, Plastics do not belong in the ocean. Towards a roadmap for a

clean North Sea. IMSA Amsterdam (2011), p. 13.

UNEP, 2009, Marine Litter: A global challenge, http://www.unep.org/pdf/unep_marine_litter-

a_global_challenge.pdf

A phenomenon by which large lumps of derelict fishing nets float in water, unintentionally catching large

amounts of fish.

Deudero S., Alomar C. (2015) "Mediterranean marine biodiversity under threat: Reviewing influence of

marine litter on species" in Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 98, Issues 1–2: 58-68

Near large cities and offshore canyons, the density could extend to 100,000 pieces per square kilometre. See

further: Wurpel, G. loc.cit., p. 32, 35.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/harm-caused-marine-litter

BIOIS, Plastic waste in the Environment, loc.cit, p. 114

Most additives are fillers and reinforcements, plasticizers, colorants, stabilizers, processing aids, flame

retardants, peroxides and antistats, each representing a whole family of chemicals.

COM(2013) 123, GREEN PAPER on a European Strategy on Plastic Waste in the Environment

Mato Y., Isobe T., Takada H., Kanehiro H., Ohtake C. and Kaminuma T. (2001) “Plastic

resin pellets as a

transport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment” in Environmental Science and Technology

35(2): 318-324

Rios, L.M., Moore, C. and P.R. Jones (2007) “Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic polymers in

the

ocean environment” in Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 1230-1237

enter the food chain via marine fauna which ingest the plastics (Trojan horse effect)

. These

POPs do not break down naturally very easily but accumulate in body tissue, potentially

having carcinogenic, mutagenic and other health effects

Given the high leakage worldwide of plastics in the natural environment with harmful effects

for a very long period of time, solutions have been sought to design plastics in a way that they

can biodegrade in different environmental compartments. These solutions will however only

make sense as a complement to a paramount effort to reduce plastic leakages. Complete

biodegradation of plastics, a process involving microbial action, occurs when none of the

original polymer remains

. Most currently available biodegradable plastics generally degrade

under specific conditions, which may not always be easy to find in the natural environment,

and can thus still cause harm to ecosystems. Biodegradation in the marine environment is

particularly challenging even though recent research projects

have shown some progresses

made regarding this issue.

Marine litter not only affects economic activities such as tourism and fisheries and entails

substantial cleaning costs, fighting against it also creates economic opportunities. Innovation

in product design to avoid plastic litter and microplastics, but also investments for marine

litter prevention (e.g. in waste and waste-water treatment, in port reception facilities or

recycling of fishing nets) can create jobs and strengthen technical and scientific skills and

industry competitiveness in areas of growing global interest.

The impacts of plastic marine debris on the environment and human health can also be

structured according to the size of the plastic litter



Impacts of macroplastics (i.e. pieces of plastics larger than 5mm)

Plastic ingestion

is increasing (identified in 27% of species in 1997 and 44% in 2014),

and can cause mortality directly or can affect animals through slower sub-lethal

physical and chemical effects reducing the growth rate or the reproductive ability of

the affected animals. According to one estimate, “99 per cent of all seabirds

will have

ingested plastic by mid-century

”. This may also affect fish population thus reducing

marine fisheries productivity and profitability. There is an abundance of case studies

displaying the magnitude of the issue. Between January and February 2016 more than

30 sperm whales beached along the North Sea coast. From the 22 carcasses

investigated, 9 had netting, ropes, foil, packaging material and even a part of a car in

their gastrointestinal tracts. In the Mediterranean Sea, a deceased sperm whale was

found with 7.6 kg of ingested plastic debris, leading to a rupture of its stomach.

Entanglement incidents

(for example with cords, plastic wrappings, netting) with

marine life also appear to be increasing and affect many species; including 100 % of

Rios, L.M., Jones, P.R., Moore, C. and U. Narayan (2010) “Quantification of persistent organic pollutants

adsorbed on plastic debris from the Northern Pacific Gyres’ “Eastern Garbage Patch””,

accepted in Journal of

Environment Monitoring

BIOIS (2010) Plastic waste in the Environment, final report, European Commission, p. 117

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/plastics.pdf

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7468/-

Biodegradable_Plastics_and_Marine_Litter_Misconceptions,_concerns_and_impacts_on_marine_environments-

2015BiodegradablePlasticsAndMarineLitter.pdf.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

Bio-based biodegradable PHA/PHB EU FP7 Open-Bio project

–

Marine biodegradation work package

Eunomia, 2016 …

Petter Malvik, UN Environment Programme’s Communications Officer

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=56638#.Wmm8Ymd5bcI

marine turtles (7 of 7 species), 67 % of seals (22 of 33 species), 31 % of whales (25 of

80 species) and 25 % of seabirds (103 of 406).

Entanglement causes serious harm:

for example, entangled organisms may no longer be able to acquire food and avoid

predators, or become so exhausted that they starve or drown. This may pose a serious

risk for threatened populations of marine mammals, reptiles and birds with a special

protection status.

"Ghost" fishing:

While around one-third of beach litter has the potential to entangle

animals, lost or abandoned fishing gear poses a particular risk as it may continue to

fish for years or even decades) to various degrees. This depends on such factors as the

type of fishing gear, the place where it has been lost and prevailing oceanographic

conditions, with the fishing capacity of ghost nets estimated at 6-20% of their initial

fishing capacity over their remaining life time. According to Sancho et al. (2003), lost

tangle nets in northern Spain catch about 5% of the total commercial catch of

monkfish. An analysis of data collected by ghost-gear retrieval initiatives in the USA

estimated that annually more than 3.5 million animals were entangled in 5000 removed

nets, including 1300 marine mammals, 25 000 birds, 100 000 fish and over 3 million

invertebrates.

Decreased biodiversity:

By colonising floating plastic and using it to travel longer

distances than otherwise possible, the extension of the range of certain species or the

introduction of new ones can occur. This may cause significant changes in population

structure. One study predicted that global marine species diversity might decrease by

as much as 58% if worldwide biotic mixing occurs.

The increase of human structures

and litter in the ocean may be contributing to the increase in jellyfish blooms

Sea floor pollution:

debris can smother the sea floor and reduce coral cover or

decrease the oxygen content in the benthos that could alter the composition of life on

the sea floor.

This is particularly the case when large quantities of plastic material are

illegally thrown overboard rather than brought back to port. A recent study

found that

the likelihood of disease increases from 4% to 89% when corals are in contact with

plastic. This study also estimates that 11.1 billion plastic items are entangled on coral

reefs across the Asia-Pacific and projects this number to increase 40% by 2025.



Impacts of microplastics (i.e. pieces of plastics smaller than 5mm)

Ingestion or absorption:

The small size of microplastics enables them to interact with

a particularly wide range of marine organisms where they can affect the marine food

chain via ingestion or absorption. Recent samples taken in the context of deep-sea

research found that in the bottom of the Mariana Trench, every single invertebrate

Kühn, S., Rebolledo, E.L.B., and Van Franeker, J.A. (2015) Deleterious Effects of Litter on Marine Life, in

Melanie Bergmann, Lars Gutow, and Michael Klages, (eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter (2015) Springer

International Publishing

Mckinney, M.L. (1998) On predicting biotic homogenization: species-area patterns in marine biota, Global

Ecology & Biogeography Letters, Vol.7, No.3, pp.297–301

See p.89 of http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-

10/pdf/Marine_plastic_debris_and_microplastic_technical_report_advance_copy.pdf

Goldberg, E.D. (1997) Plasticizing the Seafloor: An Overview, Environmental Technology, Vol.18, No.2,

pp.195–201

Lamb, JB et al (2018) Plastic waste associated with disease on coral reefs, Science, January 2018,, pp 460-462

collected had ingested at least one piece of microplastics. A recent study

confirmed

the evidence for a potential risk to environmental organisms from the toxic and

physical effects to be exhibited on exposure to microplastics. The study concluded that

a potential risk to the environment may arise from the presence of microplastic

particles used in the production of various products for consumer and professional use

that get into the aquatic environment, and that these risks need to be addressed on a

EU-wide basis.

Impact nanoparticles:

The impacts of microplastics are also likely to hold true for

particles of nanosize, especially regarding migration to animal or human body tissue,

but more data is needed.



Impacts of toxic substances associated with plastic debris

Chemical toxicity:

Plastics contain a variety of potentially toxic chemicals

incorporated during manufacture, which could be released to the environment.

Research has identified that many of these chemicals can have toxicological effects on

fish, mammals and molluscs, hence a risk could exist if plastic fragments containing

these chemical are ingested by marine organisms.

Microplastics ingested by marine

animals can contain chemicals that can pass through to human body tissue if ingested,

for example, plastic found in the fish's guts (processed to make fish food) or in the

fatty tissues of wild caught or farmed fish. There is though no clear conclusion as to

whether the chemicals pose additional harm over and above those already ingested

through water and the like.

Persistent organic pollutants:

Furthermore, plastic debris can absorb persistent

organic pollutants (POPs) like PCBs, DDE, and nonylphenols (NP) that are present in

the oceans from other sources.

Overall, a global assessment of the number of marine species affected by marine litter (CBD,

2016) found that 154 more species were affected since the previous review in 2012 (CBD,

2012). The total in 2016 of impacted species was 817, a 23 per cent increase. Restricting the

assessment to ingestion and entanglement records for marine and coastal species revealed that

a further 136 species are known to be affected, bringing the total number of affected species

to 519. The main bulk of new species records were for the ingestion of plastics, including

microplastics, and entanglement in lost or abandoned fishing gear (predominantly line, nets or

pots). Many of the affected species are protected. For example of the 120 marine mammals

species listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2014), 54 (45 %) were

reported to have interacted (ingestion and/or entanglement) with marine litter. About 15% of

the marine mammal species affected through entanglement and ingestion are on the IUCN

Red List. Cross-referencing only the 154 new records of affected species with the IUCN Red

List indicated that approximately 10 per cent are threatened, vulnerable, endangered or

critically endangered, including large baleen whales and geographically restricted sea bird

Risk Assessment and socio economic analyses: 'Intentionally added microplastics in products' -

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/pdf/39168%20Intentionally%20added%20microplastics%20-

%20Final%20report%2020171020.pdf

Lithner, D., Larsson, Å., and Dave, G. (2011) Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of

plastic polymers based on chemical composition, Science of The Total Environment, Vol.409, No.18, pp.3309–

3324

Oehlmann, J., Schulte-Oehlmann, U., Kloas, W., et al. (2009) A critical analysis of the biological impacts of

plasticizers on wildlife, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol.364,

No.1526, pp.2047–2062

species. In addition, a further nine species of affected cetacean were identified as either not

assessed by the Red List to date or were data deficient, including five species of toothed

whales. It is highly likely that there are substantially more marine species affected by marine

litter, either directly or indirectly, given the ubiquitous presence of litter items, such as

persistent microplastics in the marine environment (CBD, 2016).

2.14

Economic impacts from environmental externalities

The economic activities directly affected by marine plastic litter and microplastics include

shipping, fishing, aquaculture, tourism and recreation. The cost associated could be estimated

to be at least $8bn per year (UNEP, 2016). For the EU, costs to the tourism and recreation

sector (extrapolated from beach cleaning costs) have been estimated up to €30 million per

year; costs to the fishing industry up to €57 million. The "best estimate" within

this range is a

total of almost €470 million. Economic damage from litter on marine industry users was

estimated to be $1.26bn per annum to marine industries in the Asia Pacific region. UN

Environment estimates the damage to marine environments globally to be at least $8bn per

annum.

Sources for economic impacts

Firstly, the costs to the fishing industry up to €57 million are taken from UNEP (2016),

Marine plastic debris and microplastics

–

Global lessons and research to inspire action and

guide policy change, United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi, and based on Mouat et

al. 2010 in Arcadis 2014:

Table 12: Fishing and aquaculture gear material flow, 2015

Cost per

vessel (€)

2,340

Estimated

cost for the

EU (M€)

28.64

Type of cost

Reduced catch revenues

(contamination forces

fishermen to use more time for

the selection of their catches

and to discard part of them)

Calculation method

The cost estimated by Mouat et al. (2010)

for Scottish vessels (€2,200 per vessel per

year), actualised in 2013 prices, was

multiplied by the number of EU trawlers

(EU vessels that use seafloor fishing gear),

i.e. 12,238

Removing litter from fishing

gear

959

11.74

The time needed to remove litter from

fishing gear, as estimated by Mouat et al

(2010) for Scottish vessels (41 hours per

vessel per year), was multiplied by the

average EU27 labour cost (€23.4 per hour)

and then by the number of EU trawlers (EU

vessels that use seafloor fishing gear), i.e.

12,238.

The cost related to broken fear and fouled

propellers, as estimated by Mouat et al.

(2010) for Scottish vessels (€180 per vessel

per year), actualised in 2013 prices was

multiplied by the total number of fishing

vessels in the EU (87,667 according to

Eurostat).

Broken gear, fouled propellers

191

16.79

Costs to the tourism and recreation sector are taken from Arcadis, 2014, “Marine Litter study

to support the establishment of an initial quantitative headline reduction target”. The total

quantified cost of degradation is estimated to be 259

M€ to 694.7 M€. These however

represent a small portion of actual costs as it has not been possible to quantify impacts to all

economic sectors. The monetised costs are attributed to tourism and recreation (up to 630 M€)

and fisheries (up to 62 M€) as the ‘main affected sectors’. It has not been possible to monetise

the costs of all the affected groups and sectors, such as shipping and voluntary beach cleaning,

or cleaning of harbours and marinas.

In turn, this study used the JRC Report “Harm caused by Marine Litter” 2016, which reported

on the basis of a comparatively small sample size, wide fluctuation in the clean-up costs

between bathing and non-bathing beaches, as well as between countries. The JRC report then

quoted an estimate of the costs of marine litter clean-up at the European level for the more

than 50,000 kilometres of EU coastline of between approximately 194 and 630 M€, assuming

that all beaches would be cleaned.

3 R

EDUCING MARINE LITTER

A detailed analysis of marine litter was included in SWD (2018) 16 accompanying the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on “A European Strategy

for Plastics in a Circular Economy”, COM(2018) 28. This SWD covered many of the issues

above from a plastics perspective, and also measures to curb plastic waste and littering. The

following chapter summarises this analysis.

3.1 Single-use plastics: issues, definition and insights from existing measures

3.1.1 Issues at stake

In a recent UNEP report, States are encouraged to "develop

and implement laws to ban or

diminish the production of single-use trash items and other waste that is commonly found in

marine litter"

Whether an item is a single-use item or reusable, once it is littered in the environment, it has

the same negative environmental impact. Plastic degradation in open environment can take

hundreds of years. During this period plastics fragment into smaller pieces. Plastic debris

causes sea species to suffer from entanglement or ingestion. Microplastics causing harm to

fauna and flora are generated and are potentially harmful for human health. This represents

both a common and a transboundary challenge.

A single-use plastic item reaches its end-of-life in a very short time, which shows that

resources are not efficiently used. Indeed, if this item were designed for reuse and effectively

reused, this would save the resources and energy that were used in their production.

Moreover, such items once disposed of, becomes waste that needs to be collected and sorted

thereby implying costs for public authorities. Although such items could be recycled, most of

the time they are not. Causes are multiple and often interlinked: insufficient public waste

management infrastructure, food and organic material contamination once put in the right bin,

etc. Therefore, this leads to consider that not only resources are wasted in their production

phase but the value of materials is not kept in the loop which is the contrary of a circular

UNEP : "Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers"

economy concept and can also be seen as contrary to the waste hierarchy enshrined in the

Waste Framework Directive which states that policy should also aim at reducing the use of

resources, and favour the practical application of the waste hierarchy in accordance to which

prevention should be considered in priority to other waste management options such as

recycling for instance.

Several Member States are already taking action regarding single-use items by implementing

the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

. France for example plans to restrict the use of

several of these SUP by 2020, unless they are home-compostable and at least 50% bio-based

(pushing thus for a substitution by paper, cardboard, wood and others)

. United Kingdom and

Ireland area also considering actions. Regional and more local actions have been taken, such

as:



In Navarra the sale of single-use plastic cutlery, trays and cups is to be banned by

2020, the provision of tap water in public spaces and in restaurants will be made

obligatory, and the sale of bottled water prohibited in all public buildings except

hospitals.

In Bristol, consumers can refill their reusable water bottles for free in many cafes,

restaurants and others. An app locates the closest refill station. The project is expanded

to five other cities.

In Vienna and Munich, portable washing stations provide a specific service to wash

reusable containers in food markets.

Vienna introduced an obligation to use reusable items at big events.

Hamburg bans disposable packaging in public buildings, which includes bottled water

and beer, plastic plates and cutlery.



3.1.2 Definition of single-use plastics

Currently a legal definition nor official statistics exist for single-use plastic production.

Given that plastic packaging is almost exclusively single-use, especially in business-to-

consumer applications, such items could be defined in the Packaging and Packaging Waste

Directive (PPWD). In the latter, a distinction is made between packaging, i.e. all products

made of any material of any nature to be used for the containment, protection, handling,

delivery and presentation of goods, from raw materials to processed goods, from the producer

to the user or the consumer, and "non-returnable items" used for the same purposes. One

could consider therefore that "non-returnable items" are equivalent to single-use items.

Acknowledging that single-use items are currently not defined from a legal perspective, the

Commission worked with stakeholders establishing criteria for what should be targeted as

relevant single-use items:



Prone to littering and prevalently ending in the marine environment;

Short use phase;

Consumed predominantly away from home;

Reusable or non-plastic alternatives exist.

Member States have to monitor marine litter and draft/implement programmes of measures notably to reduce

marine litter in their marine waters.

Loi de Transition Energétique pour la Croissance Verte (LTECV) du 18/08/ 2015

3.1.3 Insights from the Plastic Bags Directive

Plastic bags is a specific case of Single-Use Plastics. The EU has already taken steps by

setting requirements for Member States to adopt measures to cut the consumption of plastic

bags.

In 2010, an estimated 98.6 billion plastic carrier bags were placed on the EU market, which

amounts to every EU citizen using 198 plastic carrier bags per year. Out of these almost 100

billion bags, the vast majority are lightweight bags, which are less frequently re-used than

thicker ones. Consumption figures vary greatly between Member States, with annual use per

capita of lightweight plastic carrier bags ranging between an estimated 4 bags in some

Member States and 466 bags in other Member States.

Lightweight plastic carrier bags are considered to be packaging within the meaning of

Directive 94/62/EC

on packaging and packaging waste (PPWD). Member States may take a

wide range of actions, which shall include at least one of the following measures:



a national maximum consumption level of plastic carrier bags of maximum 90 bags

per person per year by 31 December 2019 and maximum 40 bags per person per year

by 31 December 2025;

instruments ensuring that, by 31 December 2018, lightweight plastic carrier bags are

not provided free of charge to customers at a point of sale.

Very lightweight plastic carrier bags (i.e. with wall thickness below 15 microns) are mainly

used for the packaging of loose fruits and vegetables may be excluded from the above 2

measures.

It is not yet possible to provide EU-wide statistical data on reduction of consumption of these

bags. By mid-October 2017, six Member States had not notified implementing measures, but

informed that measures would be adopted still in 2017. Nevertheless, some Member States

currently apply measures ahead of the deadlines and these Member States find considerable

reduction in the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags.

The implementing measures to reduce use of plastic bags have met little resistance from

consumers, and are rather welcome and seen as an effective measure. They are also very

efficient in reducing littering in coasts and seas. The tax on plastic shopping bags in Ireland,

in 2002, resulted not only in a 90% reduction of plastic bags provided in retail outlets

(Convey et al., 2007) but also in a marked decline in bags found on beaches, according to

Coastwatch beach monitoring data

3.2 Plastic waste from sea-based sources: sources and existing EU measures

Plastic products are common in the fishing, aquaculture, shipping (cruise ships, merchant

vessels, fishing and recreational craft) and other offshore activities

. These industries have

become reliant on plastic material to provide affordable, lightweight and durable equipment.

Very few estimates of plastic waste generation in the fishing and aquaculture sector exist

though.

Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste; OJ 1994 L.365 of 31.12.1994, p. 10

From an average of 18 plastic bags/500m in 1999 to 5 in 2003. See p.32 of JRC report on sources of litter:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-

10/pdf/MSFD_identifying_sources_of_marine_litter.pdf

Eunomia (2016), Van Franeker (2010), UNEP (2009), GESAMP (2007)

Whilst on average the overall quantities of plastic waste discarded at sea are small compared

to waste not dealt with properly on land, the impact is significant because the pathway to the

sea is direct, and in some sea regions, such as the North East Atlantic and the North Sea, is

significant. Of these sources, the loss of fishing gear is easiest to identify and quantify

because it is instantly recognisable. Video inspection of seafloors

and surveys of northern

beaches

indicate that fishing gear makes up a high proportion of distinguishable objects.

This plastic creates the same problems as that from land based-sources as it breaks down into

smaller pieces but causes an additional and well-documented harm to marine life through

entanglement in nets.

Several causes of discharging litter at sea were identified during stakeholder interviews

well as collating information on reviews on the causes of abandoned, lost or otherwise

discarded fishing gear:



Accidental and sometimes irretrievable loss of material, limited life-span of some

items and nature of fishing method;

Mismanagement of waste, including plastic waste e.g. dumping on land or sea, due to

high cost of waste handling, inadequate facilities and/or handling on board or lack of

adequate reception facilities in ports for waste storage and consignment, lack of

operators willing to handle gear or waste;

Lack of incentives to handle waste from ships, including recycling, reuse, retrieval of

lost gear or consign end-of-life gear;

Lack of end markets for re-use and recycling outputs and lack of operators willing to

handle gear.



3.2.1 Shipping and other offshore installations

The shipping sector includes all seagoing vessels, from large cruise ships to small fishing

vessels and pleasure craft. There are no indications from recent studies and assessments that

the amount of garbage from ships (marine litter) has decreased in recent years. On the

contrary, time series of marine litter on European shores indicate that the problem has

persisted since the implementation of the PRF Directive (Directive 2000/59/EC). Although

garbage delivered in ports has increased since the introduction of the Directive, a significant

delivery gap remains, estimated between 60,000 and 300,000 tonnes, i.e. 7% to 34% of the

total garbage waste to be delivered annually

A revision of the PRF Directive was recently adopted, and will reduce further this source of

marine litter.

3.2.2 Abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG)

Commercial fishing gear lost, abandoned or discarded annually at sea or in the world’s

oceans

may continue to fish for years or even decades, a process referred to as “ghost fishing”. In an

EU context, the extent and consequences have been subject to a number of EU funded

Pham et al. Marine Litter Distribution and Density in European Seas, from the Shelves to Deep Basins PLOS

ONE, 1 April 2014, Volume 9, Issue 4

Marine Pollution Bulletin Volume 107, Issue 1, 15 June 2016, Pages 52–58

In the context of the impact assessment for the revision of the PRF Directive, which included a specific survey

for the fishing sector and also built on the outcome of the 2016 Eunomia study on sea-based sources of marine

litter.

Eunomia study 2016; and DG MOVE Impact Assessment for the revision of the PRF Directive, to be

published in January 2018 together with the proposal for a new Directive

studies

74,75 ,76

. In general terms, it appears likely that substantial lengths of netting are lost

each year. Each nation's fleet may be losing several hundred kilometres. Most nets are lost as

a result of events like storms or being towed away by trawlers. Indications are that a majority

of nets lost in such circumstances are either disabled or have a low residual catch efficiency.

The FAO report concludes

"that ghost fishing from ‘active’ fishing gears such as trawl nets

and from ‘static’ pot fishing is not significant in European Union (EU) waters".

According to

scientific research the remaining fishing capacity of ghost nets varies from 6-20% of their

initial fishing capacity

In relation to the total number of nets used in EU waters, the rates of permanent net loss

appear to be below one per cent of nets deployed. Most nets are deployed in shallow waters,

and a significant proportion of lost nets are recovered through the use of global positioning

systems (GPS); fishers typically go to considerable lengths to recover nets given their cost.

During the evaluation of the Control Regulation, only one Member State authority reported

that it routinely collect notifications of lost gear

A number of Member States undertake retrieval surveys based on reported losses and other

evidence. Many Producer Organisations report the position of static gears on a daily basis to

minimise conflict between static and mobile fishing gears. Such initiatives can reduce the

levels of gear loss and can benefit from the support of the European Maritime and Fisheries

Fund (EMFF). In response to the studies on ghost fishing, the EU Control Regulation

and

the associated implementing regulation

introduced mandatory requirements to report lost

nets, and improvements and specifications for the marking of fishing gear in order to mitigate

such losses.

3.2.3 Aquaculture

Aquaculture contributes to marine litter also, though to a minor extent, with the main sources

associated with sea-based farms, such as cages, longlines, poles and other floating and fixed

structures used for the culture of marine animals and plants. There are no reliable estimates of

the contribution of aquaculture to marine litter to date.

The types of material lost would depend on the type of culture systems, construction quality,

vulnerability to damage, and management practices and could be nets and cage structures (for

Project Nº 94/095: Incidental impact of gill-nets (FANTARED)

A study to identify, quantify and ameliorate the impacts of static gear lost at sea (FANTARED 2). EU Study

Contract FAIR CT98-4338

FISH/2006/15/Lot No.5”, SI2.466030 “Recuperation of fishing nets lost or abandoned at sea” (DEEPCLEAN)

Werner, S., Budziak, A., van Franeker, J., Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T., Matiddi, M., Nilsson, P.,

Oosterbaan, L., Priestland, E., Thompson, R., Veiga, J. and Vlachogianni, T.; 2016; Harm caused by Marine

Litter. MSFD GES TG Marine Litter - Thematic Report; JRC Technical report; EUR 28317 EN;

doi:10.2788/690366.

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC104308/lbna28317enn.pdf.

Year

number of reports of lost gear (Portugal)

number of reports of lost gear (other Member States)

2010

2011

2012

2013

180

2014

Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for

ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the

implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for

ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy

marine fish cages), lines or floating raft structures (for seaweed systems) or poles, bags, lines,

and plastic sheeting (for mollusc farming). Because many of these items are expensive, one

might expect farmers to take considerable care to avoid losses.

A Canadian study

showed that greater concentrations of micro plastics were measured in

farmed mussels than in wild mussels, which may be a result of farming practices that use

polypropylene lines to anchor the mussels, or it may be due to differences in micro plastic

concentrations in the different locations from which the farmed mussels and wild mussels

originated.

Another study

found that mussel nets are among the most common items found in areas of

the Adriatic and Ionian seas with intensive and extensive aquaculture activities. Shellfish

farming techniques and any potential litter generated differ according to local conditions in

the sea basin.

However, given that global aquaculture production accounts for more than 50% and marine

aquaculture of fish and molluscs for nearly 15% of global seafood production, the

contribution of the sector to marine litter may be rising in importance

3.2.4 End-of-life recreational boats

End-of-life recreational boats could become a significant source for marine litter. Yachts'

average lifespan has been estimated at 30 years, although in some instances this may stretch

to 40-45 years. This lifespan has further increased over time due to the use of stronger

materials, such as fibre reinforced polymer (FRP). It is thought that between 1% and 2% of

the 6 million boats kept in Europe, in other words at least 80,000 boats, reach their 'end of use'

each year. However, only around 2,000 of those are dismantled. A significant number of the

remaining boats are left abandoned, potentially ending up in the ocean and becoming marine

litter

3.2.5 Tourism

While tourism is a major source of littering on beaches, the proportion of this litter finding its

way into the sea is unknown.

3.2.6 Existing EU measures for sea-based sources of marine litter

The Commission has been tackling sea-based sources of marine litter with a variety of policy

instruments.

Mathalon A., P. Hill Microplastic fibers in the intertidal ecosystem surrounding Halifax Harbour, Nova Scotia

Mar. Pollut. Bull., 81 (2014), pp. 69-79

On beaches located along the coastline of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas mussel nets were the seventh most

frequent items found (Vlachogianni et al., 2016). Furthermore, in surveys carried out along the Italian coastline,

mussel and oyster nets were among the top three items recorded on beaches, while the results obtained from the

seafloor surveys show that litter from aquaculture accounts for 15% of total items recorder (Pasquini et al.,

2016). Indicatively some preliminary results from Fishing for Litter activities in the area show that mussel and

oyster nets account for almost 30% of the total weight of the items collected. (JRS report: Sources of marine

litter).

Elaboration from FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016; Total global aquaculture production

(including freshwater fish, aquatic plants, and marine fish and molluscs) accounts for more than 50% of world

seafood production. Marine fish and mollusc aquaculture accounts for 26% of global aquaculture production or

nearly 15% of total global seafood production.

Commission Staff Working Document on Nautical Tourism, SWD(2017) 126 final

Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo residues

aims at reducing discharges of waste from ships at sea. It requires the provision of adequate

waste reception facilities in ports, and ensures the use of those facilities through a mandatory

delivery requirement for ships before departure from any EU port. The Directive also requires

the establishment of cost recovery systems which are based on the application on an indirect

fee, to be paid irrespective of delivery, in order to provide no incentive for ships to discharge

their waste into the sea. Since the adoption of the PRF Directive, volumes of ship-generated

waste and cargo residues delivered to EU ports have increased significantly

. However,

waste continues to be discharged at sea. Other waste streams, such as oily waste and sewage,

also continue to be discharged at sea in contravention with existing discharge

norms/prohibitions

. Important underlying drivers of these problems were found to be: the

unavailability of adequate reception facilities in ports, the lack of enforcement of the

mandatory delivery obligation for ships, and the lack of economic incentives for delivery

Of particular relevance to the fishing and aquaculture sectors are instruments preventing or

prohibiting the voluntary discarding of plastic waste, in particular derelict gear, on the one

hand, and instruments mitigating or promoting the recovery of lost gear which may generate

ghost fishing. While the former can be addressed through environmental protection measures,

the latter has led the Commission to undertaking studies on estimating the magnitude and

impact of ghost fishing

and on the recovery of ALDFG

The Control Regulation

requires the mandatory marking of gear as well as the notification

and retrieval of lost gear. A more detailed assessment of the implementation of the

requirements of the Control Regulation will provide important information on its impacts and

potential improvements.

The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) allows for finances a variety of activities

combating litter from sea-based activities and especially so-called passive fishing for litter,

whereby fishers bring litter fished up in nets while fishing back ashore. Other potential

activities are retrieving lost gear, the provision of litter bags for collection at sea, investments

in facilities for waste and marine litter collection and processing, recovery and recycling of

nets.

Over the seven year period 2014-2020, 14 Member States envisage a total of 108 fishing for

litter operations that are supported with around €22M from EU funds, equalling 2% of the

EMFF. While the allocation is still rather modest, the increase in comparison to the previous

funding period is significant with the planned EU financial contribution having more than

tripled and the number of Member States funding marine litter activities with the EMFF as

well as the number of projects having at least doubled. . A recent call for proposals will be

complementing these activities with a number of transnational projects on the reduction,

monitoring, removal and recycling of marine litter being supported 2019-2020 focussing on

long term sustainability and buy in from stakeholders.

Ex-post evaluation of the PRF Directive, Panteia, 2015

Ecorys (2017). Op. cit.

The REFIT Evaluation that was undertaken for the PRF Directive 2000/59/EC in 2015

Ghost fishing by lost fishing gear (August 2005) DG FISH/2004/20 institute for European environmental

policy, Poseidon aquatic resource management

Recuperation of fishing nets lost or abandoned at sea (September 2009) Graham, N. 1*, Hareide, N-R.2,

Large, P.A.3, MacMullen, P.4, Mulligan, M .5, Randall, P.J.3, Rihan, D.5, and Peach, D

Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for

ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy

3.3 Microplastics

Microplastics are

plastic particles of a size below 5 mm.

Some of these microplastics are

produced to be intentionally added to products (e.g. scrubbing agents in cosmetics, detergents,

paints) or to serve as input for further processing (e.g. plastic resin pellets). Others originate

from the abrasion of large plastic objects during manufacturing or use (e.g. tyre dust, textile

fibres), or after these objects have leaked into the environment.

The potential impacts of microplastics on the environment, associated with their intentional or

incidental use in products, have generated a lot of concerns worldwide. The Council has

invited the Commission to take measures on microplastics, in particular from cosmetics and

detergents under the Strategy on Plastics.

During the preparation of the EU Strategy on Plastics an Open Public Consultation on

microplastics was organised with almost 500 responses (roughly 50% from individuals vs

companies). Citizens are most concerned about harm to marine life, there’s high awareness of

cosmetics and textiles microplastics, and with the highest concern for textiles, legislative

measures are generally favoured at the European level with the cost burden put on the

manufacturers and bans are favoured for all of the intentionally added ingredients.

A recent study

estimated that the total number of floating macro- and microplastics in the

open oceans is 5,25 trillion pieces, weighing 269,000 tonnes. Microplastics were calculated in

the order of 200 thousand tonnes in the EU

Table 13: Annual microplastics emissions to surface waters from the EU (+Norway and

Switzerland)

Source

Automotive Tyres

Pellets

Washing of Clothing

Road Markings

Building Paint

Fishing Gear

Automotive Brakes

Artificial Turf

Marine Paint

Leave on PCP

Fertilisers

Rinse off PCP

Building Paint

Detergents

Total

Upper (tonnes)

136,000

91,000

23,000

21,000

8,000

9,000

5,000

3,000

400

526

400

373

141

300,000

Midpoint

94,000

47,000

13,000

15,000

5,000

2,000

400

Lower (tonnes)

52,000

3,000

4,000

10,000

2,000

1,000

100

300

400

114

0.40

72,500

Source Data

Year

2012

2015

2016

2015

2013

2015

2012

2013

Eriksen et al.2014

EU microplastics. Ongoing study for the Commission: http://www.eumicro-plastics.com/eumpwp/wp-

content/uploads/investigating-options-eunomia-draft-report-v4-main-report-public.pdf

Note: Data for the calculation of emissions comes from different years for each emission source. The results

are normalised to 2017 for the baseline calculations using the midpoint. All Figures except for those from

‘intentionally added’ products (highlighted in red) are rounded, therefore totals may not add up.

Note: Data for the calculation of emissions comes from different years for each emission source. The results

are normalised to 2017 for the baseline calculations using the midpoint.

Figures are rounded therefore totals may not add up

Some companies have already taken measures to phase out progressively the use of certain

microbeads in some of their products.

3.4 Existing measures: EPR and Deposit Return Systems

3.4.1 EPR fee modulation and more transparency

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is defined as “an environmental policy approach in

which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer

stage of a

product’s life cycle”

. There are a variety of EPR policy measures and instruments that aim

to shift the negative environmental externalities of products from taxpayers to producers and

to incentivise producers to take environmental considerations into account at the product

design phase.

Such measures can also take the form of EPR schemes whereby producers are made

responsible for the financing and organisation of the waste management of their end-of-life

products. The objectives of such EPR schemes are to



relieve public authorities (partially) of the cost of managing a specific waste stream,

transferring the financial burden from taxpayers to consumers;

internalise the cost of end-of-life management of a product in the price of new

products, thus providing an incentive for ecodesign approach; and

ensure effective and environmentally sound collection and treatment of that waste

stream.

By internalising costs and establishing a well-designed fee system, EPR can encourage a

change in behaviour of relevant actors involved in the product value chain from plastic

manufacturers to consumers and recyclers. Design for reuse and for recycling and more

sustainable products are awarded.

It is to be noted that the existing EPR schemes, including for packaging, already provide for

some fee modulation based on simple criteria such as type, material or weight of packaging.

3.4.2 Deposit return schemes (DRS)

DRS are based on additional fees on some products, which have to be paid by the consumer at

the sales point of a given item in the form of a deposit. The deposit fee is returned to the

consumer when bringing back the item. Most deposit schemes have been set up for packaging

waste, especially for drinking bottles, but also for transport packaging (boxes and pallets).

They are usually established at national level, although there are some deposit systems with a

regional or local scope. In the case of packaging, the fee is usually determined by the

packaging material and the container size and is indicated via a label on the packaging.

Deposit schemes provide an economic incentive to waste holders to bring their waste back to

return points. This ensures usually high return rates (above 95% or more in Germany and the

Netherlands) and are thus an effective means to combat littering. In addition, the items that

Source: RELOOP http://www.cmconsultinginc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Fact-Sheet-Economic-

Impacts-to-Municis-New.pdf

are returned are clean sorted fractions with very little contamination, and are therefore

perfectly suitable for their reuse or recycling. The best documented case is the introduction of

DRS for beverage containers, where the littering reduction potential usually exceeds 80% and

the recycling levels for the beverage containers covered by the scheme attain 90-98%

Table 14: Total return rate of deposit schemes in the EU

Country

Croatia

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Lithuania

Netherlands

Sweden

Data year

2015

2014

2016

2014

Total return rate

up to 90%

89%

78,6%

92,6%

97%

74%

95%

88,25%

DRS can be applied to a number of waste streams. They usually are effective in achieving a

massive reduction of littering and in increasing recycling to very high levels. In addition,

DRS provide an excellent basis for reuse of these materials (as is the case e.g. for refillable

bottles in Germany), which generally constitutes a better option from an environmental point

of view than recycling, as in line with the waste hierarchy.

DRS schemes can be part of EPR schemes or complement them. DRS can increase the

quantity and quality of plastic waste collected and reduce litter. Therefore, the Commission

recommends Member States to introduce DRS for waste types that have either a high

polluting potential (e.g. fishing gear and agricultural plastics) or are managed in a sub-optimal

way (low separate collection rates), which does not allow exploiting the recycling potential of

that waste (e.g. plastic packaging in some Member States).

The level and the structure of the costs will depend on a number of social and geographical

factors. DRS are mostly financed by unclaimed deposits (i.e. bottles that consumers do not

return) and result in net savings for municipalities. Several studies

reported significant net

cost savings from the municipalities that implemented DRS resulting from the reduced or

avoided costs of collection, treatment, and disposal by the municipal waste management

systems. However, DRS may result in additional costs to producers

as the level of the fees

usually exceeds the level of the fees in the previously existing EPR scheme.

Technical, environmental and economic viability study of the implementation of a deposit refund scheme

(DRS) for single-use beverage in Catalonia, 2017

Source: RELOOP http://www.cmconsultinginc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fact-Sheet-Performance-

New2.pdf ; Waste Framework Directive, Article 8.1

Technical, environmental and economic viability study of the implementation of a deposit refund scheme

(DRS) for single-use beverage in Catalonia, 2017

In the case of the planned DRS for Catalonia, the net savings for municipalities are projected to amount to

€14.9 million (approx. €2 per inhabitant). This is expected to result in additional costs to producers worth €8.3

million (or €1.1 per inhabitant). Additional costs appear to be very low and justifiable in view of the achievable

environmental and resource efficiency benefits. Source: RELOOP http://www.cmconsultinginc.com/wp-

content/uploads/2017/09/Fact-Sheet-Performance-New2.pdf

3.4.3 The Commission proposal to introduce minimum requirements and providing a

possibility for fee modulation for EPR schemes

Mandatory EPR schemes are established in EU legislation for end-of life vehicles (Directive

2000/53/EC), for waste electrical and electronic equipment (Directive 2012/19/EU) and

batteries and waste batteries (Directive 2006/66/EC). Most Member States have established

EPR schemes for packaging in support of the implementation of the packaging and packaging

waste Directive (Directive 94/62/EC), even if this is not required by the Directive. In the EU,

Member States have set up more than 200 schemes covering these and other products, such as

expired medicines, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, tyres, chemicals, agricultural foil etc.

The Waste Framework Directive (Art. 8) lays down some general principles for the

implementation of EPR. This directive is currently under review with the objective to

introduce minimum requirements for EPR schemes to improve their governance,

transparency, cost-efficiency and a level playing among the different schemes across the EU.

One of the minimum requirements proposed by the Commission is to introduce an obligation

on the Member States to ensure that the fees paid by the producers fulfilling their EPR

obligation are modulated based on the product’s environmental impact. Such 'modulated fees'

hence take into account the actual end-of-life costs of individual products or groups of

products, in particular, by taking into account their recyclability and re-usability. These

minimum requirements on fee modulation would also apply to WEEE, ELV and batteries

where EPR is obligatory under EU legislation, and some MS have already applied it even if

not required specifically (e.g. France on electronics, packaging and printed paper). Also,

existing EPR schemes, including for packaging, already provide for some fee modulation

based on simple criteria such as type, material or weight of packaging.

Targeted and meaningful fee differentiation allows rewarding or penalizing the producers

regarding design-related factors that have an impact on the end-of-life performance

(reusability, dismantlability, recyclability…). For products containing plastic or made of

plastic, fees have therefore a potential to be an effective instrument in promoting better

product design, labelling, improved collection and treatment of waste in line with the waste

hierarchy and more resource efficient use of plastic. Differentiated product fees with a notable

economic impact have been identified as being capable of bringing a real change in practices

and product design although it is too early to establish a generalised appreciation of such an

impact. There are some limitations to the scope of this principle. Fee modulation may not be

feasible or possible for all materials or design practices for numerous reasons such as the

availability of waste management infrastructure and the technical feasibility of an alternative

design fit for purpose or substitution of certain materials.

It is to be noted that the existing EPR schemes, including for packaging, already provide for

some fee modulation based on simple criteria such as type, material or weight of packaging.

By internalising costs and establishing a well-designed fee system, EPR can encourage a

change in behaviour of relevant actors involved in the product value chain from plastic

manufacturers to consumers and recyclers. Design for reuse and for recycling and more

sustainable products are awarded.

A variety of practices on fee modulation are already available in the EU and the Commission

can assist Member States by facilitating the exchange of best practices and by developing

guidelines. For instance, feedback from 'eco-modulation of fees' as applied in France in the

implementation of EPR under the WEEE Directive

has also pointed to factors of success.

Amongst these factors the setting of eco-modulated criteria in a process that involves public

authorities, producers as well as non-governmental consumer and environment organisations.

The necessity for the approach and criteria to apply it at the EU level to become fully

effective was also identified as a key element. Moreover, in the case of electronics, modulated

fees also have the potential to support design changes for products for a global market.

In addition, In its proposed waste review, the Commission has emphasised the use of

economic instruments to prioritise waste prevention and recycling at national level. For

instance, high or gradually rising fees or taxes on landfilling and incineration could improve

the economics of plastic recycling by clearly internalising the environmental costs of

alternatives.

3.5 Examples of good practice

3.5.1 Examples of good practice related to SUP

General Commitments From Public Authorities Against Single-Use Plastics

United Kingdom:

Commitment to eliminate avoidable plastic waste within 25 years. The UK

is considering the implementation of a tax on single-use plastics.

Medway Council,

on a local level, is planning to phase out plastic bottles, cutlery, cup,

drinking straw in all Council buildings at Council events by June 2018.

Scotland:

adopted a national litter strategy and a marine litter strategy in 2014

(communications toolkit, marketing campaign and adapted legislation to increase the fixed

penalties for litter- £80 for anyone who drops litter.) Scottish Landfill Tax was introduced in

April 2015. 70% set recycling rates target by 2025. Grants will be given to private companies

to set up plastics recycling centres. Plans to ban single-use plastics by 2030;

The Netherlands:

Dutch marine litter policy:

- Cooperation with stakeholders

- reduce solid waste by regulating products and improving waste management

- undertake cleanup projects;

- increase communication and awareness

- Targets for 2020 to reduce visible litter on the beach, and decrease the amount of litter found

in marine organisms.

Spain

Officials in Majorca, Menorca and Ibiza plan to end the sale of all single-use

consumer plastics by 2020. Coffee capsules, disposable tableware, plastic cups and ear sticks,

non-rechargeable lighters, disposable razors and non-reusable printer toners.

Wet wipes will not be banned as it would be problematic in terms of competition/markets

legislation.

Costa Rica:

Announced in 2017 a ban on single-use plastics by 2021

The French Eco-modulation on electric equipment was updated in July 2015; now comprising 17 product

types: fridge, freezer, washing machine, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner, coffee machine, kettle, tea machine,

computer, notebooks, tablet, printer, phone, drilling machine, screwer, games console, lamps).

Haiti:

bans

the production, import, commercialization, and use in any form of plastic bags

and objects made of styrofoam for food purposes, such as trays, bottles, bags, cups, and

plates.

City Of Vancouver:

developing since 2016 a Single-Use Item Reduction Strategy to explore

how they can reduce waste from:

- Disposable hot and cold drink cups

- Plastic and paper shopping bags

- Polystyrene foam and other take-out containers

Currently launching a second consultation with all stakeholders groups.

Cigarette butts

RAISING AWARENESS

Clean Up Australia (NGO):

Education

on cigarette butts littering and clean-up campaigns

British American Tobacco Australia (Tobacco industry):

has established an independent

Butt Littering Trust (BATA 2002) with funds of up to $1 million in the first two years for

actions to reduce the impact of cigarette butt litter.



Publishes reports, distributes

information materials to Australian Council on butt littering issues, and undertakes awareness

projects about butt littering (but biased position on danger to smoke).

MITIGATION FEE

San Francisco:

implemented a

cigarette litter abatement fee

in 2011 by increasing the per

pack price of all cigarettes by $0.20. By increasing the price of cigarettes, it discourages

smoking and corresponding litter, and the proceeds from the abatement fee are used to finance

street cleaning and environmental remediation directly related to cigarette waste.

DEPOSIT RETURN SYSTEM

New York:

in 2015, developed a

cigarette butts recycling program:

A. Establishing a State

wide System and redemption facilities for the collection of used cigarette butts via automated

or non-automated recycling equipment. B. Establishing a deposit and refund value for

individual cigarette butts returned to collection facilities of not less than 1 cent per cigarette

returned. Fiscal plan created to allocate funds to education campaigns about the harm

cigarette butts cause to the environment and labelling projects for cigarette packs.

EPR SCHEME

Australia:

public consultation

has been conducted regarding cigarette butts and a variety of

public and private stakeholder have pledged for the efficiency of an EPR scheme for cigarette

butts.

SMOKE FREE AREAS

Canada:

banned smoking on its freshwater beaches in 2013.

R&D

Terracycle:

any customer can buy a special cardboard box and then ship it back to

TerraCycle

for recycling. The collected waste will be shredded and separated. The plastic

(such as the cigarette filters) will undergo pelletization and extrusion to be molded into

various recycled plastic products. The paper will be recycled and the tobacco and other

organics will be composted.

Receptacles are also proposed for distributing standardizing cigarette recycling in small or

large-scale outdoor environments like in

Davos since 2017

or in

Vancouver,

for instance.

Greenbutts:

Start-up

launching in 2018 “greenbutts”, that are a biodegradable

cigarette filter

made from natural materials using no chemicals or artificial binders.

Green Bins:

eco-friendly

bins

for cigarette butts with an integrated process for

biodegradation and detoxification.

Plastic bottles, caps and lids

PUBLIC POLICIES

Green Public Procurement: Plan to ban plastic bottles + plastic straws from Royal

Estates.

Copenhagen:

The city has put up more than 60 drinking fountains all over Copenhagen,

where citizens and guests can enjoy tap water for free.

Map

created, showing the drinking

fountains available all year and the ones only available in summer.

London:

Twenty new

drinking fountains

will be installed across London within a Plastic Free

City initiative pilot scheme starting this summer. Collaboration with civil society:

#OneLess

campaign,

led by the Zoological Society of London, who is supplying the fountains and will

analyze whether the initiatives reduce the levels of plastic ending up in the environment.

Balearic Islands:

Government officials are considering forcing bars and restaurants to offer

free tap water to customers in a bid to reduce the amount of plastic bottles discarded on the

islands.

California:

California Assembly Bill 319

- From January 1, 2020, a retailer shall not sell or

offer for sale, in the state, a single-use beverage container with a cap, unless the container

meets one of the following conditions: (a) The cap is tethered to the container in a manner that

prevents the separation of the cap from the container when the cap is removed from the

container. (b) The cap includes an opening from which the beverage can be consumed while

the cap is screwed onto or otherwise contiguously affixed to the container.

Melbourne:

60 water fountains now installed across the city through a joint initiative

between VicHealth and the City of Melbourne. The City of Melbourne website features a

map

of the drinking fountains.

Barbados (Antilles):

Barbados’s beverage

law

provides that: “no distributor or dealer shall

sell or offer for sale, at wholesale or retail in Barbados, any beverage that is contained in a

beverage container without

government permission.” Distributors and dealers who have “an

adequate system for the recycling of beverage container” may be exempted. The law imposes

a fine of up to $500 and three months imprisonment for violations.

DEPOSIT RETURN SCHEME

Table 15. Countries in the EU with Deposit Return Schemes (source RELOOP0

Scotland:

The Scottish Government is already planning to introduce

a deposit return scheme

which would see customers pay a surcharge on plastic bottles which will be refunded when

they return them to a shop.

Zero Waste Scotland

is commissioned to design the system. A

public consultation is to be expected in spring 2018.

ECONOMIC INCENTIVES

Ganamos Reciclando

(Recycling we all win):

Spanish company

providing, on a franchisee-

agreement basis, reverse vending machines (RVMs) to be placed at food retailers, schools,

sport centres and all kind of businesses. The customer returns the empty beverage packaging,

the machine identifies the type of container by its barcode and provides on return either coins

or a discount ticket for a small amount of money to be used in the shop or businesses adhering

to the scheme during a certain period. It works similarly to a deposit-refund system, but it is

fully private, independent from policy processes. There is no deposit; price of the product

does not increase.

R&D

Ecover:

Launch of the

Ocean Plastic bottle.

Made out of bioplastics (Plantplastic that is plant-

based polyethelene), recycled and recyclable plastic. Can be produced by any company and be

a mean to communicate awareness messages.

Ooho:

spherical flexible package

that can contain water and liquids like soft drinks, spirits

and cosmetics. Biodegradable and edible, it is created from calcium chloride and sodium

alginate, a seaweed derivative.

Onya

(Australia): company that creates reusable products such as reusable shopping bags,

produce bags, backpacks & coffee cups, stainless steel drink bottle.

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT/COMMITMENT

Coca-Cola:

Commitment

to collecting and recycling the equivalent of 100% of its bottles,

cans, and other packaging by 2030 + it aims to make bottles with an average of 50% recycled

material. Planned investment in promoting understanding of recycling, working with local

communities to improve recycling infrastructures as well as other nonprofit and corporate

partners.

Danone:

announced

that it will produce all its plastic bottles from 100 percent recycled

plastic by 2025.

English Businesses:

Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points

in every

major city and town in England by 2021. The new scheme has been set up on the back of a

previous initiative, the Refill campaign, which currently has more than 1,600 refill stations

across the UK and operates in 13 towns and cities in England.

- Bristol:

In 2015, the city adopted the campaign and the city now has more than 200 points.

- London:

this bottle-refill initiative, in which businesses make tap water available to the

public, will be set up across five areas of the capital over February and March 2018. If

successful, it will be rolled out to the rest of the city in the summer. Plastic cups, bottles and

cutlery will also no longer be available at City Hall under the plans.

- Businesses offering free tap water to the public will display signs in their windows.

Whitbread

(owning Costa Coffee and Premier Inn) is the first to sign up to the initiative and

will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.

Cotton bud sticks

PUBLIC POLICIES

France:

Ban on cotton bud sticks with plastic stems from

1st January 2020

as part of the 'LOI

n° 2016-1087 du 8 août 2016 pour la reconquête de la biodiversité, de la nature et des

paysages'

Scotland:

Announced in January 2018 a

plan to ban plastic cotton buds.

The Scottish

Government plans on carrying out a public consultation about it.

Italy

Plans to ban non-biodegradable plastic cotton bud sticks from 01/01/2019.

RAISING AWARENESS & ALTERNATIVES

Bag It And Bin It

–

Don't Flush It:

In 2007 and 2008, the MCS and Surfers Against Sewage

encouraged manufacturers and retailers to improve labelling of cotton buds and to replace the

plastic cotton bud stick with a paper one. The

campaign

received support from leading

retailers (Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Safeway, Morrison’s, Somerfield, ASDA, Co-op,

Superdrug,

and Boots) and key manufacturers (e.g. Johnson & Johnson and Smith & Nephew), who

included the campaign logo and/or the correct disposal messages on products that consumers

might flush. Results from the 2007 MCS Beachwatch event marked a decrease in the number

of cotton bud sticks observed on UK beaches, from 172 items/km in 2006 to 97.5 items/km in

2007.

The Cotton Buds Project or “Switch the Stick”:

have called upon industry and retailers to

replace plastic cotton bud stems with biodegradable alternatives. The

two projects

have

slightly different approaches. The first engages with producers and retailers directly, asking

companies to phase out the use of plastic, and provides consumers with information on which

companies are offering alternatives to plastic. The second asks consumers to sign a petition

asking UK retailers to stop making plastic cotton buds by the end of 2017.

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT/COMMITMENT

Johnson & Johnson (Pharmaceutical Company):

no longer sells cotton buds made with

plastic handles since 2017, in favor of paper handles ones to prevent toxic waste reaching

waterways and seas.

Sainsbury, Tesco, Co-Operative, John Lewis, The Body Shop, etc.:

phased out plastic

handles cotton buds from their own-brand products.

Northlink (Ferry Operator):

removed

plastic cotton buds

from its board shops

Crisps packets/sweets wrappers

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT/COMMITMENT

Marks & Spencer:

in 2017, launched the ‘Project

Thin Air’



more than 140 of its best-

selling products have been redesigned and repackaged in smaller, less bulky packets

containing the same amount of food as before. The biggest reductions have been achieved in

the retailer’s popular popcorn range, with a 37% slimming down in pack size. Across its

hand-cooked crisp rang, M&S is now using 20% less plastic. The changes have led to 75

tonnes of packaging being saved each year.

R&D

Terracycle:

has created a

zero waste solution for snack wrappers.

It proposes to customers to

buy a special cardboard box and then to ship it back to TerraCycle for recycling. It recycles:

Individual, multipack and family-size snack bags and wrappers, including chip, candy and

granola wrappers.

Polyflow:

company that boasts an

innovative technology

that allows the mixing of “dirty

plastic” and rubber waste: ability

to turn candy wrappers and potato chip bags, into products

like gasoline and diesel fuel, adhesives, household and industrial cleaners and paint.

Wet wipes

LABELLING

Balearic Islands

require clear labelling of wet wipes by 2020;

Sanitary applications

RAISING AWARENESS

Ireland:

In a study of over 1000 people in Ireland, 3 in 10 admitted to flushing such items

down the toilet. Of these, 58% admitted to flushing baby wipes down the toilet, 40% facial

wipes, and 24% tampons. More than half of those who flush these items down the toilet did so

simply due to a lack of knowledge of the impacts.

Bag It And Bin It

–

Don't Flush It:

The aim of the

campaign

was to reduce the incidence of

sanitary items and other sewage-related debris (SRD) on UK beaches and riverbanks through

a programme of education and partnership, encouraging people to dispose of personal waste

carefully, and a better labelling of these products by manufacturers and retailers. In 2002, a

school campaign was launched across 6,000 UK schools within which a variety of campaign

materials were produced, (leaflets, posters, and stickers).

'Let's Stop The Block':

awareness campaign

against the flushing of wipes, nappies, cotton

buds and sanitary products.

Bags

PUBLIC POLICIES

16 EU Members States have already imposed a tax on light-weight single-use plastic bags and

two EU MS chose to implement a ban

on these same items, following the

2015/720 EU

directive

requirement to significantly reduce the consumption of lightweight (thickness below

50 microns) plastic bags in the EU.

These measures, apply most of the time, to thicker plastic bags (e.g. reusable) sold in

supermarkets. According to the result of the Impact Assessment on thicker plastic bags on the

marine environment, the scope of the EU legislation could be extended to a larger category of

plastic bags.

France

Ban of oxo-fragmentable bags (regardless of the 2015/720 Directive on lightweight

plastic bags);

INTERNATIONAL COALITION

'Stop Plastic Waste Coalition':

International coalition

against plastic waste and most

specifically against single-use plastic bags, initiated in 2016 by France, Monaco and Morocco.

Members: France, Morocco, Monaco, Chile, Australia, Bangladesh, Italy, Senegal +

representatives from the civil society

Commitment

from members: to promote, in particular, elimination of these plastic bags in a

consistent manner with existing international instruments and policies, and to share

experience, expertise and best practice gained by States that already take action on this matter.

+ Financial contribution from France to the Global Partnership on Marine Litter for 2017-

2020.

BAN ON ALL PLASTIC BAGS (regardless of thickness)

Bangladesh:

First country to ban all “‘polythene shopping bag[s]’

which means a bag … or

other container which is made of polyethylene or polypropylene or any compound or mixture

thereof

and is used for purchasing, selling, keeping or carrying another article.” Bags

manufactured for export are exempt from the ban. The law imposes a fine and up to ten years

imprisonment for those who “manufacture, market or import” plastic bags, compared to

up to

six months imprisonment for those who “sell, exhibit for sale, stock, commercially transport

or commercially use” them.

Rwanda:

Legislators not only

banned the manufacture and sale of all polythene bags

within

its borders in 2008, but also banned the import of all such bags. Violators face stiff penalties

and fines.

The law requires anyone wishing to “manufacture, import, use and sell” polythene

bags to send a written request to the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, along with

the “reasons for the request and the ways through which he or she will manage the polythene

waste.”

Tamil Nadu (India):

subnational ban on all plastic bags. This

ban also covers

"cup, tumbler,

plate, spoon, fork, knife, straw, box, string, cord, sheet, mat or other article made of, or

containing, plastic.”

Denmark

Ban of all plastic bags (regardless of the 2015/720 Directive on lightweight plastic

bags).

EPR SCHEME

Ghana:

In 2004, the Government of Ghana

created a Recycling Taskforce

to hire waste

collectors to collect and deliver plastic bags to warehouses for recycling. Plastics

manufacturers are required to help fund the project.

TAX ON PLASTIC BAGS

South Africa:

banned plastic bags under 30 microns and imposed a 46-rand cents levy

thicker bags. Violators are subject to a fine and imprisonment up to 10 years.

China:

In 2008,

China banned the “production, use and sale of ultrathin shopping bags”,

defined as bags less than 25 microns in thickness, and mandated that retailers impose fees on

thicker bags

Cutlery, straw and stirrers

PUBLIC POLICIES

Balearic Islands:

Majorca, Menorca and Ibiza plan to ban the sale of plastic cutlery and

straws by 2020, except the ones that can be proved to be 'easily recyclable' or biodegradable.

Scotland

plans to ban plastic straws by end of 2019.

Belgium:

tax passed in 2007 on plastic films (such as dry cleaning bags), aluminum foil, and

disposable cutlery.

Green Public Procurement: Plan to ban plastic bottles + plastic straws from Royal

Estates.

France

Ban of disposable plastic plates from 01/01/2020 (exception for home compostable

ones and/or partly or fully made of bio-based plastics);

California:

Assembly Bill

introduced on January 17, 2018 aiming at making a criminal

offense for restaurant employees to provide patrons with single-use plastic straws (up to six

months jail and $1,000 fine). Measure would only apply to sit-down restaurants, and not fast

food or similar locations.

Miami Beach (Florida-US):

city ordinance

in 2012 prohibiting beachfront hotels from

serving drinks with straws.

R&D

Simplo:

Start-up that uses SFC-certified wood particles to produce elegant and lightweight

disposable utensils.

They are 100% biodegradable, reduce loss of raw material, improve

transport efficiency and can include publicity or messages targeting the end user. As the

cutlery comes attached, SIMPLO also avoids the use of a plastic wrap to keep the cutlery

utensils together.

The Plastic Straw:

Project

created by the Plastic Pollution Coalition and that lists on this

page about twenty alternative solutions to plastic straws: paper straws, glass straws, steel

straws, titanium straws, bamboo straws, etc.

RAISING AWARENESS

The Last Straw

Petition:

On Change.org, newspaper The London Evening Standard is

calling on all food and drink businesses across London to ban plastic straws or draw up plans

to phase them out by the end of 2018.

The Final Straw

Campaign:

spearheaded by Josie and Rob da Bank, founders of Bestival,

aims to ‘purge plastic straws from the festival landscape’, starting

with their own events

–

Bestival, Camp Bestival and Common People. They then aim to eradicate all single-use

plastics

–

like cups and cutlery

–

at festivals in the following years.

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT

Iceland (Supermarket):

The Company has already removed plastic disposable straws from

its own-label range.

Waitrose (Supermarket):

announced that it will stop selling packs of disposable straws from

September 2018.

Wetherspoons (Pub chain):

is replacing plastic straws with biodegradable paper straws.

Northlink (Ferry Operator):

is replacing plastic straws with paper ones on all its sailings.

Diageo (spirits producer):

has

committed

to phasing out the use of all plastic straws and

stirrers from its offices and by 2020.

Balloons and balloon sticks

RAISING AWARENESS

Balloons Blow:

NGO that organises balloon clean-up on beaches, prevention of mass balloon

releases, and promotion of alternatives to balloons and communication of information about

current legislations essentially in the US on intentionally releasing balloons.

Netherlands:

Study

on the environmental impact of balloon in the environment:

approximately one million balloons were launched in 2014 in the NE. Scan analysis shows

that over 50% of societal costs related to balloon originate from the cleaning cost in the end-

of-life phase.

PUBLIC POLICIES

UK:

Oxford, Brighton, Plymouth, Shetland and Worcester have

banned balloon releases

their lands (in open-spaces and parks)

USA:

In 2017, the State of New-Jersey introduced a

Bill

prohibiting intentional release of

balloons inflated with lighter-than-air gases. Florida and Virginia have also banned balloon

releases.

Australia:

In Queensland, the release of balloons into the environment is considered littering

under the

Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011—whether

released deliberately or by

accident.

Under the WRR Act, if a person fails to comply with a compliance notice they may face

further

penalties.

Food containers including fast food

VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT/COMMITMENT

Mark&Spencer:

committed in its

Plan A 2020

to drastically reduce plastic packaging from

its aisles, including with the creation of a Food Packaging Charter.

- All PVC was removed from food packaging by 2000.

- Development of a safe system for the use and labelling of recycled materials in plastics.

- Since 2004, M&S has used 8,000 tonnes of recycled PET (rPET) plastic across produce,

food-to-go, chilled drinks and deli products. During 2007- 2008, 63% of PET packaging

contained a minimum of 50% post-consumer waste. This was further extended to the plastic

films on packs.

- In 2007, M&S replaced foamed plastic trays across all apple and hard pears and it has been

extended to all stone fruit and soft pears.

- Important cooperation with charity organizations Waste and Resources Action Programme

(WRAP) & Marine Conservation Society (MCS).

Mcdonald's:

By 2025, 100 percent of the company’s guest packaging will come from

renewable, recycled or certified (preferably by the Forest Stewardship Council) sources. By

2020,

the company intends

for 100 percent of its fiber-based packaging to come from recycled

or certified sources where no deforestation occurs. As part of this goal, McDonald’s will

eliminate the use of polystyrene foam packaging globally by the end of 2018 + goal to recycle

100 percent of its restaurant packaging.

Iceland (Supermarket):

committed

in January 2018 to replace all plastic packaging from its

own-brand products with fully recyclable paper and pulp-based alternatives by 2023.

Waitrose (Supermarket):

From the end of 2018, all Waitrose own-label meat, fish and

produce will no longer be packaged in black trays.

The company has already removed 65

percent of black plastic packaging from fresh fruit and vegetables. By 2025, Waitrose intends

to make all its brand-owned packaging widely recyclable, reusable or compostable. Since

2009, it has reduced its overall packaging by nearly 50 percent.

R&D

Pulpworks:

Company

that designs and manufactures sustainable packaging: compostable

products, moulded from 100% post-consumer waste paper and agricultural waste such as

bagasse (sugar cane), bamboo, wheat straw and renewable plants like switch grass. It is

compliant with ISO 14000 and European Green Dot standards, facilitating

internationalization. PulpWorks

was the Grand Prize Winner at the 2013 “Think Beyond

Plastic” competition sponsored by the international Plastic Pollution Coalition, at the 2014

North Bay Innovation Summit.

Miwa:

introduces a

digital solution that connects all stakeholders along the value chain

–

from the farm that produces the food to the customer that buys it. It allows anyone with a

mobile phone to order any desired amount of a product to be delivered in reusable packaging

to either their nearest store or directly to their home.

The

Fraunhofer Institute for Silicate Research ISC

has developed a coating with silicate

and biopolymers that can be used in many different food packaging applications protecting

biopolymer packaging and food against premature degradation and is fully compostable.

https://newplasticseconomy.org/innovation-prize/winners/fraunhofer-institute-for-silicate-

research

PUBLIC POLICIES

France:

system currently in place in France, where supermarkets are taxed less for using

sustainable and recyclable packaging, and more for using materials that aren't.

Considered taxes and charges on single-use items such as takeaway containers;

Vanuatu:

Polystyrene takeaway boxes will be

banned

end of January 2018.

Zimbabwe:

outlawed styrofoam containers for fast food. Ahead of implementation, snack bar

owners were encouraged to offer their customers a place to sit in and eat.

Cup and cup lids

PUBLIC POLICIES

Ireland:

Cork City Council

banned

in January 2018 single-use coffee cups from their

canteens and offices.

Meath County Council

replaced disposable cups for all staff in 2015.

Balearic Islands:

Majorca, Menorca and Ibiza plan to ban the sale of plastic cups by 2020,

except for the ones that can be 'easily recyclable' or biodegradable.

United Kingdom:

according to the government, all disposable coffee cups should be recycled

by 2023.

British MPs proposed to impose a

25p "latte levy"

on every disposable coffee cups (under

discussion).

France

Ban of disposable cups/glasses from 01/01/2020 (exception for home compostable

ones and/or partly or fully made of bio-based plastics).

REUSABLES

Cup Club

is the world’s first reusable coffee cup system. With smart cups available at coffee

shops, easy-to-find drop-off points and high-tech wash hubs that deliver the cups to the coffee

shops again, Cup Club is an easy, free and extra-large extra-hot step towards sustainable

living.

http://www.cup-club.co.uk/

Freiburg (Germany):

Freiburger Abfallwirtschaft und Stadt-reinigung (ASF),

a public-

private partnership between REMONDIS & the City of Freiburg, has developed the Freiburg

Cup and a strategy to reduce waste together with café operators. The most important partners

of the Freiburg Cup are the operators of cafés and bakeries that sell coffee to go. As an

alternative to disposable coffee cups, the ASF produces its reusable cups from stable plastic

that holds up in dishwashers. Café businesses do not incur any costs, the City of Freiburg is

bearing the costs for launching the system, while coordination is in the hands of the ASF. The

deposit on the Freiburg Cup is 1 euro. Used cups can be returned at any one of the 60

businesses in the inner city taking part in the initiative. The cups are washed there, with

defective or missing cups being replaced by the ASF.

Pret A Manger:

has set a discount of 50p on hot drinks for customers who use reusable cups

Starbuck:

in up to 25 London stores, will start a three months trail from February 2018 of 5p

charge for disposable cups.

The Eden Cafe:

Otago Polytechnic University in New Zealand

banned single-use cups

and

provided second-hand china instead. These cups can be left at drop-off sites dotted around the

campus where they are collected, washed and reused.

Hamburg (Germany):

system for reusable to-go coffee cups since 2016. Customers pay

€1.50 (about $1.63) to obtain a black “Refill

It!”

cup made from biodegradable, plant-based

lignin. They fill it up with the beverage of their choice at one of 11 cafes participating in the

programme. When it’s empty, they can fill it up again or return it and get their money back.

Festival Republic (a leading UK music events producer):

Introduced a £2 deposit on each

reusable cup, which people get back when returning the cup to the bar.

RAISING AWARENESS

NGO Hubbub:

bins shaped like

giant coffee cups

branded with ‘Recycle your coffee cup

here’.

Responsible Coffee Label:

In Australia, participating cafes get a

poster,

an information

sheet outlining the issue of single-use cups, and bi-yearly metrics on the benefits of the

programme. An

online map

features the closest "responsible cafes" committed not to sell

any disposable coffee cups.

R&D

TrioCup,

a on-the-go coffee cup with an origami-style no-spill

https://cooper.edu/engineering/news/100k-innovation-prize-awarded-former-invention-

factory-winners

3.5.2 Examples of good practice related to fishing gear

lid

Product design

Netherlands:

Under the Green Deal for Fishing in Support of a Clean Sea there is significant

effort put into research into alternatives to the use of dolly ropes. In 2017 Phase 5 of the Dolly

Rope Free project was finalised and will be followed with a testing phase of alternative

materials (i.e. yak leather, biodegradable rope, polyethylene ropes, etc.). Once the most

suitable material has been identified, the commercial market is expected to take over follow-

up developments.

Voluntary agreement for collection systems

Iceland:

Voluntary agreement on collection of fishing gear made of synthetics between the

Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners (LIU) and The Icelandic Recycling Fund

(since 2005 based on Art.8 Processing Charge Act No. 162/2002). LIU (now Fisheries

Iceland) operates and finances a collection system. Under this agreement, fishing nets made of

synthetic materials are exempted from recycling fees. The collected nets are mostly exported

and recycled abroad.

Estimated recovery of fishing nets today: 80%, thanks to continuously increasing recycling

targets.

Norway:

Nofir: private nationwide company which collects discarded equipment from fishing

and fish farming around Europe. Supported since 2012 by the EU Eco Innovation Scheme, it

was created in 2008 by a fish net producer and a waste management company. Between 2012

and 2014 the Norwegian system had collected 4886 tonnes of material, mainly in Norway.

Extended producer responsibility

It makes the manufacturer responsible for the recycling/reuse treatment of their fishing gear

products. In effect, this removes the inconvenience and cost factors associated with waste

management from the fishers.

Norway:

In Norway, the Ministry of Climate and Environment has announced their goal to

introduce a producer responsibility scheme for fishing and discarded marine equipment from

the aquaculture industry.

Deposit refund systems

The consumer pays a deposit upon the purchase of fishing gear, fish boxes, etc.. Once the gear

reaches the end of life stage, the consumer could return the net and retrieve the deposit that

would otherwise be burned, dumped or irresponsibly managed. No systems are currently

known to be in place for fishing gear.

Reward schemes

Similar to “litter retrieval” and “litter retention” programmes, these “gear buy back” schemes

encourage fishermen or other authorities to collect marine litter and bring it back to shore for

a reward and appropriate disposal. No volunteer basis like for the other programmes.

A recycling initiative could offer the same kind of reward system, but the source of money

would be from the recycling market itself instead of taxes from local or regional governments.

Hawaii:

Pilot project



fishers are asked to report derelict fishing nets at sea. A team of

trained volunteers then go to the reported location and remove the fishing gear. Once the gear

is professionally retrieved, the commercial fishers are awarded cash according to the weights

of the reported derelict nets or gear (Brink et al., 2009).

South Korea:

programme within which fishers are responsible for reporting and retrieving

the gear themselves. The programme provides fishers with durable bags to collect fisheries-

related marine litter while at sea. The budget for this programme is shared between the central

and local governments (Macfayden et al., 2009).

"No-fault" approach

Washington:

In 2002, the Washington State legislature passed State Senate Bill 6313,

establishing the Derelict Fishing Gear Removal Program, which is responsible for removing

derelict gear from Puget Sound. The programme includes a popular method of reporting

which takes a no-fault

approach. A “no-fault” approach focuses on cleaning up the gear rather

than focusing on who is responsible for losing it

Anti-dumping laws

China:

China is a party to MARPOL, including Annex V, and has implemented

national

legislation

in accordance with its regulations. China has passed an environmental protection

law, which includes anti-dumping provisions. The law prohibits any dumping of garbage from

vessels, specifically stating that “[n]o unit

is permitted, without approval of the State

competent authority being in charge of marine affairs, to dump any wastes into the sea areas

under the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China.” Any vessels wanting to dump waste

in the Chinese marine environment must obtain a permit.

Namibia:

Regulations

Relating to the Exploitation of Marine Resources.

A fisher in Namibia

“may not, without a written authorization by the Minister, leave any fishing gear or any other

non-biodegradable object utilized for harvesting marine resources on or in the sea or on the

sea shore on the termination of harvesting.” If a fisher does lose or abandon their fishing gear,

they will incur all costs relating to the collection of the gear and if the State recovers the gear,

the fisher will then be indebted to the State.

South Africa:

Fishing line recycling bins on beaches. PVC pipes were converted into bins

that were erected on beaches. These pipes are resistant to the elements and corrosion and

prevent the lines from blowing away. www.plasticsinfo.co.za

Port waste management systems

Norway:

PRF Directive/Norwegian Pollution Control Act requires ports to charge vessels

“indirect” waste handling fees. In this indirect port fee system, all vessels pay a set amount to

use the port and its waste handling services. This means that all vessels pay the same no

matter how much waste the vessels bring back to the port for disposal. = Lower administrative

burden to calculate the amount of waste and no incentive to reduce one's waste by throwing it

aboard.

Netherlands:

Since 2016, sea-going vessels have

been able to dispose of plastic waste’ free

of charge in the ports of Rotterdam Rijnmond and the North Sea Channel district. The waste

must be presented separated and clean. The port authorities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam

agreed on this with the waste collectors in the ports.

This action was implemented as part of the Green Deal Ships’ Waste Supply Chain that the

Minister for Infrastructure and the Environment, Schultz van Haegen, entered into with the

sector on.

10 September 2014. Participants in the Green Deal: Port of Rotterdam Authority, Port of

Amsterdam, Zeeland Seaports, Groningen Seaports, Port of Den Helder, NVVS (ships’

suppliers), KVNR (ship owners), collectors of ships’ waste, ILT and Stichting De Noordzee.

The Green Deal has been operating for three years and the separate collection of plastic

ships’ waste has grown steadily. Extra quality requirements have been incorporated into new

and renewable licences for waste collectors when it comes to collecting, sorting and recycling

plastic. In addition, Dutch and Flemish ports have agreed on a joint financing system for the

waste collection.

The Deal focuses on the implementation of a number of measures, with varying levels of

progress. The measures to improve the removal of operational maritime waste and domestic

waste, and the fine-tuning of port-based collection facilities has resulted in all fisheries ports

being able to facilitate the collection of segregated waste streams. However, disposing end-of-

life fishing gear in ports is still problematic. To attempt to solve this issue, a location-sensitive

mobile app for fishers will be launched, which enables seafarers to notify port authorities of

the type and quantity of waste they will bring ashore ahead of landing. The app also reminds

fishers to prepare and dispose of their waste properly.

Penalty scheme

This scheme would impose a penalty on a vessel that does not discharge any waste at port

(meaning they did it at sea)

Environmental tax

Internalizing the environmental costs of fishing and aquaculture by increasing the final

product’s selling price. The government could achieve this by implementing an environmental

tax.

Raising awareness

AUSTRALIA:

The

Caring for our Country

initiative jointly administered by the Department

of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and the Department of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Forestry, Projects include: “ghost net” cleanup projects across northern

Australia; regional and local marine debris monitoring and cleanup, including education and

awareness raising; and industry initiatives.

Gear marking

Identification marking, which helps in identifying the ownership of lost or deliberately

abandoned gear.



Authorities can better enforce penalties for intentionally dumping fishing

gear and nets into the sea. It also creates an opportunity to return gear that was accidentally

lost to the owner for reuse. + To increase the visibility of gear. For example, floating gear

markings attached to stationary nets under the surface can help notify vessels about the risk of

entanglement in the area (see above reference to FAO guidelines adopted in February 2018).

Norway:

the Norwegian Resources Act does require fishers in Norway to mark their

stationary gear for visibility and identification purposes.

Washington:

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has established

guidelines

minimize the likelihood of lost crab pots: each pot must be clearly marked, attached to a buoy,

and have a biodegradable panel to allow marine life to escape if it does become abandoned

Navigational technology

Fishers can avoid accidental gear loss by attaching tracking devices, called transponders.

These transponders use either radio channels or satellite systems to communicate their

location in the water to the vessel.

Retrieval schemes

Global Ghost Gear Initiative:

GGGI is a global organisation aiming to tackle the problem of

ghost fishing gear. They work in collaboration with a number of retrieval schemes, such as

Ghost Fishing

in The Netherlands,

MCB Seafoods

in the United Kingdom, project

GHOST,

aiming to reduce the impacts of ALDFG in the coastal areas of the north Adriatic Sea and

more.

Waste Free Oceans:

WFO collaborates with fishers and brand owners to retrieve and recycle

marine litter (including fishing gear) into new products.

Blastic:

This project (2016-2018) is co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund

and takes regional and national strategies into use on a local level and also produces updated

local action plans (including retrieval schemes) to reduce the plastic (also from fishing gear)

into the Baltic Sea.

Fishing for litter

Germany:

In 2012 a cooperation between Naturschutzbund (NABU) and Niedersachsen

Wattenmeer National Park has developed a Fishing for Litter scheme. In two years, the

cooperation landed more than 6 tons of litter, of which 80 % was plastic, 13 % rubber, and 9

% metal. NABU also developed other Fishing for Litter programmes in the North Sea.

Netherlands:

Under the Green Deal for Fishing in Support of a Clean Sea the fishing for

litter initiative continuous to receive direct funding from the government. From 2019 funding

will decrease, with the aim of allowing the fishing sector to take over the initiative. This will

also be a build-up to the implementation of the new Port Reception Facilities Directive in

2020.

Marineclean:

Running between 2011 and 2014 this project targeted the reduction of marine

litter through collection of marine litter with new light equipment produced at Turna. Other

activities included production of edible and biodegradable packaging produced at EcoCortec;

through fishing nets produced at Turna and TC PoliEko that can be easily traced, collected

and recycled when lost; and through advocacy.

KIMO:

This organisation is an association of coastal local authorities whose goal is to

eliminate pollution from the Northern Seas. KIMO has 75 member authorities from the UK,

Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Lithuania, Estonia, Germany, Faroe Islands

and the Isle of Man.

Recycling of Fishing Gear

Plastix Global:

This Danish company recycles discarded fishing nets and trawls into reusable

green raw materials such as HDPE, PP and PA. In 2016, the company had a capacity of 12

000 tons per annum, Plastix is one of the few recycling companies capable of recycling most

of the material in fishing gear. For this reason, a number of schemes have partnered up with

the company.

MCB Seafoods Recycling Scheme

allows fishers in ports of Newhaven, Shoreham and

Eastbourne (UK) to deposit their end-of-life fishing gear free of charge, which is then

collected and sent for recycling to Plastix.

Nofir:

Based in Norway with facilities in Turkey and Lithuania, Nofir recycles discarded

plastic equipment from fishing and aquaculture and regenerates it into ECONYL yarn to use

for new textile products (i.e. clothes, furniture, carpets, etc.). Between 2011 and 2016 the

company collected and recycled 26314 tons of end-of-life fishing gear.

Aquafil:

The company is based in Italy with headquarters in Slovenia, Croatia, Germany,

UK, USA, Thailand and China. It recycles fishing gear and turns it into yarn used in the

production of carpets. Similarly to Plastix, the company is in partnership with various

organisations.

Gwr Polymers Ltd

collects and transports baled nets to Slovenia, and recovers costs by

selling on the regenerated pellets.

Ecoalf:

This company uses nylon made from discarded fishing nets and turns it into fashion

products.

Bureo:

This American company based in Chile recycles discarded fishing nets and turns it

into skateboards and toys. They have recycled more than 80 000 kg of discarded materials up

to today.

Intco Environmental Protection Machinery:

INTCO developed Greenmax Machines, a

recycling unit that recycles fish cooling boxes made from Styrofoam (EPS) and turns it into

high-quality EPS blocks. The company has a buy-back scheme, making the purchase of such

a unit financially sustainable for a company.

Nets-To-Energy:

This programme in Hawaii, USA collects fishing nets and then transports it

to a scrap-metal recycler facility. Here the nets are chopped into small pieces suitable for

combustion at the City and County of Honolulu's H-Power Energy from Waste Facility.

Net-Works:

The project empowers coastal communities in developing nations to collect and

sell discarded fishing nets, which are recycled and turned into yarn to make carpet tile.

4 G

LOBAL ACTION

4.1 Existing actions involving EU

4.1.1 Multilateral cooperation at the United Nations and through environmental

agreements

The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) has consistently highlighted marine

plastic debris and microplastics amongst the issues of global importance. At the second

UNEA session (UNEA-2) in 2016, resolution UNEP/EA.2/Res.11 on marine plastic litter and

microplastics was adopted, in which governments requested an assessment by the United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) of the effectiveness of relevant international,

regional and sub-regional governance strategies and approaches to combat marine plastic litter

and microplastics, taking into consideration the relevant international, regional and sub-

regional regulatory frameworks. The resolution called for identification of possible gaps a

well as options for addressing these gaps.

The UNEP assessment

100

, prepared in response to the aforementioned UNEA-2 resolution,

highlights that in the current set-up there is no global institution with the mandate to

coordinate current efforts and manage the issue upstream from the extraction of raw materials,

design and use phases of plastic polymers and additives to final treatment and disposal. Also,

among a number of other conclusions, it notes the lack of harmonised binding standards at the

global level for the mitigation of pollution by plastic waste, particularly from land-based

sources; a lack of global standards for national monitoring and reporting on consumption, use,

final treatment and trade of plastic waste, as well as a lack of global industry standards for

environmental controls and quality specifications of plastics. Concerning in particular liability

and compensation from damages resulting from marine litter, the UNEP assessment notes

that, despite the widespread damage resulting from marine litter, liability and compensation

for damage to the marine environment from accidental or intentional discharge of solid

material in the sea is not covered by any international instrument. The existing instruments

that apply in the context of marine litter and microplastics have geographical limitations as

they fail to cover internal waters and watersheds. The costs of remediation for environmental

damage by marine plastic litter and microplastics are not currently represented in any product

or any other liability legislation with potential compensatory arrangements for environmental

damage. Furthermore, the assessment underlines that extended producer liability and any

other appropriate schemes (e.g. liability and financial compensation schemes for the shipping

sector) would need to be used to induce change in the plastic producing industries. Next to

suggesting consideration of the overall governance set-up to UNEA, the assessment proposes

a number of areas and steps in need of immediate progress. This comprises to give

consideration, in the context of marine plastic litter and microplastics, to the definition of

damage, the measure of damage, responsibility, who can claim and what remedial activities

can be claimed for.

Moreover, several initiatives have been launched to address specifically the impacts of plastic

waste entering the sea from land and include

inter alia:

UNEP’s Global Programme of Action

for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) and the

100

UNEP (2017), Combating marine plastic litter and microplastics: An assessment of the effectiveness of

relevant international, regional and subregional governance strategies and approaches (EA.3/INF/5)

Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML)

101

, the 2015 G7 Action Plan to Combat Marine

Litter

102

, and the 2017 G20 Marine Litter Action Plan

103

Concerning plastic waste and other types of waste discarded from ships, the International

Maritime Organisation (IMO) has also developed action to address the issue, in particular by

further regulating the discharges of garbage from ships in the context of the MARPOL

Convention

104

. Annex V to MARPOL prohibits the discharge of all types of garbage into the

sea from ships, except in the cases explicitly permitted under the Annex (such as food waste,

cargo residues, cleaning agents/additives that are not harmful to the marine environment).

MARPOL also recognizes that some sea areas require higher degrees of protection and can be

designated as Special Areas under MARPOL. Garbage from ships includes all kinds of food,

domestic and operational waste, and comprises all plastics as well as fishing gear. Annex V

applies to all types of ships operating in the marine environment, including fishing vessels and

recreational craft. Yet, although MARPOL provides comprehensive framework addressing

ship-source pollution from different polluting substances, it does not provide for a compliance

mechanism. The success of compliance with the MARPOL discharge norms depends on the

availability of adequate port reception facilities where the garbage can be delivered and

managed appropriately. The EU Port Reception Facilities Directive

105

transposes these

requirements into EU law through a ports based approach, is instrumental for implementing

and enforcing the MARPOL regime, including its ban on plastic discharges.

The EU takes an active part in the decision-making processes under the relevant multilateral

environmental agreements (MEAs) and processes that set legally binding requirements and

provide guidance for all countries, e.g. on chemicals and waste management

106

. In particular,

under the Basel Convention

107

, Parties have adopted a number of measures including an

Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) toolkit that they can use in shaping their national

policies to ensure a sound management of waste, so contributing to achieving the SDGs. The

ESM toolkit consists of practical manuals on waste management and fact sheets covering

specific waste streams; and guidance for developing efficient strategies on waste

prevention

108

. It includes incentives to encourage private sector investments, training

materials, checklist for self-assessment of national capacity, pilot projects, ESM criteria and

case studies on the promotion of ESM in the informal sector. At the 13th meeting of the

Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (COP13 held in April 2017), Parties have

engaged in developing new tools, such as a practical manual on extended producer

responsibility (EPR), guidance on waste prevention and minimisation, factsheets on specific

waste streams and manuals on EPR and financing systems for ESM. Another outcome of

COP13 was the establishment of a new household waste partnership

109

and the inclusion of

https://www.unep.org/gpa/what-we-do/global-partnership-marine-litter

https://www.g7germany.de/Content/EN/_Anlagen/G7/2015-06-08-g7-abschluss-eng_en.html

103

https://www.g20.org/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_G20/2017-g20-marine-litter-en.html?nn=2186554

104

http://www.imo.org/en/about/conventions/listofconventions/pages/international-convention-for-the-

prevention-of-pollution-from-ships-(marpol).aspx

105

Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues

106

London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter; Basel

Convention on the Control of Transboundary movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal; Stockholm

Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure

for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade; etc.

107

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal

108

http://www.basel.int/Implementation/CountryLedInitiative/EnvironmentallySoundManagement/Overview/tabi

d/3615/Default.aspx

109

http://www.brsmeas.org/?tabid=4332&blogId=5148

102

101

marine plastic litter and microplastics in the work programme of the Basel Convention's

Open-ended Working Group

110

for 2018-2019.

Parties under the Convention on Biological Diversity

have adopted

decision XIII/10

prevent and mitigate the potential adverse impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal

biodiversity and habitats

111

. The decision invites Parties and other governments to consider

extended producer responsibility for providing response measures where there is damage or

sufficient likelihood of damage to marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats from marine

debris.

4.1.2 G7 and G20

Both the G7 and now also the G20 have addressed the issues of resource efficiency and

marine litter. Concerning resource efficiency, the G7 Alliance on Resource Efficiency

112

is a

forum to share knowledge and create information networks, in collaboration with businesses,

SMEs, and other relevant stakeholders. The objective is to advance opportunities offered by

resource efficiency, promote best practices and foster innovation, including through

innovative public private partnerships and by collaborating with developing countries. The

Toyama Framework on Material Cycles

113

provides a common vision and a guide for future

actions to deepen G7 efforts on resource efficiency and the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle). The

Five-year Bologna Roadmap on resource efficiency

114

was a key deliverable of the 2017 G7

Environment Ministers' Meeting drafted with the active involvement of all G7 countries and

the EU. It contains a specific reference to plastics

115

. The current Canada presidency of G7 is

proposing that the G7 will adopt a "Plastics Charter" addressing marine litter. The G20

Resource Efficiency Dialogue

116

aims at supporting the transition to a sustainable and

efficient use of all natural resources and contributing to poverty eradication, acknowledging

that an efficient and sustainable use of natural resources is vital for implementing the SDGs.

The work on resource efficiency in both the G7 and the G20 is of particular interest to the EU

because of its own domestic action on a transition towards a circular economy. As to marine

litter, the G7 Action Plan to Combat Marine Litter

117

commits G7 members to priority actions

and solutions to combat marine litter and stresses the need to address land- and sea-based

sources, removal actions, as well as education, research and outreach. A similar approach has

recently been adopted by the G20 through the G20 Action Plan on Marine Litter

118

, where the

G20 recognised the urgent need for action to prevent and reduce marine litter in order to

For more info on the Basel Convention's Open-ended Working Group see:

http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/OpenendedWorkingGroup(OEWG)/OverviewandMandate/tabid/2295/Defa

ult.aspx

111

https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-10-en.pdf

112

https://www.g7germany.de/Content/EN/_Anlagen/G7/2015-06-08-g7-abschluss-annex-

eng_en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (pp. 6-8)

113

http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000159928.pdf

114

http://www.g7italy.it/sites/default/files/documents/Communiqu%C3%A9%20G7%20Environment%20-

%20Bologna_0.pdf (pp. 13-15)

115

'Assess the economic benefits and opportunities for improved product design and address barriers to recycling

and reuse of plastic, in view of reducing the use of primary resources, the negative environmental and economic

impacts over its life-cycle and avoid plastics leakage into the environment, in particular the seas and oceans (in

coordination with relevant G7 work)'.

116

https://www.g20.org/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_G20/2017-g20-resource-efficiency-dialogue-

en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4

117

https://www.g7germany.de/Content/EN/_Anlagen/G7/2015-06-08-g7-abschluss-eng_en.html

118

https://www.g20.org/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_G20/2017-g20-marine-litter-en.html?nn=2186554

110

preserve human health and marine and coastal ecosystems, and mitigate marine litter's

economic costs and impacts.

4.1.3 Bilateral and regional cooperation

Prevention at source will be key to tackling the rising plastic waste tide, in line with the EU's

circular economy approach. This will require the promotion of a circular plastics economy in

third countries through policy dialogues on environment, industry and trade. The Commission

has regular policy dialogues on e.g. environment

119

with partner countries (notably those

members of the G20, including China and India) and is in the process of developing such

dialogues also with key regional organisations, such as the Association of South East Asia

Nations (ASEAN). Beyond policy dialogues, the cooperation mechanisms established under

Free Trade Agreements and in particular their Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters

120

and the Generalised Scheme of Preferences

121

can also be used for these purposes.

4.1.4 Relevant EU policies and programmes with an international dimension

The EU organised events

The European Union hosted the fourth high-level Our Ocean Conference

122

in Malta on 5 and

6 October 2017. The Conference has generated 437 concrete and tangible commitments for

safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed oceans. Out of the 437 commitments in total,

more than one hundred commitments (worth almost €3bn), were related to marine pollution

including actions targeting plastics, which was one of the main themes of the event.

Development Cooperation

The EU supports improved and sound waste management in third countries through its

bilateral and regional funds. From 2006 till 2013, the EU has dedicated €238 million to

finance projects for water treatment, sanitation and waste management, a large part of which

contributes to the circular economy. Building on this, the EU has committed to further €202

million for the timeframe 2014-2018.

The EU SWITCH to Green programmes (Switch Asia, Switch Africa Green and

SwitchMed

123

) supporting sustainable consumption and production (SCP) practices are one of

the main EU contributions to the circular economy in partner countries. They also contribute

to SDG 12 ('Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns') and a number of other

relevant SDGs. They cover a large range of key economic sectors in developing countries, for

example agri-business, garments, manufacturing, construction materials, and SCP practices,

including resource efficiency, eco-innovation, green products design, green products

consumer demand, and green public procurement. They deliver policy support, promote green

business development and facilitate networking among green businesses and with policy

makers.

The programmes contribute to address plastic issues. The NEERE project in Burkina Faso for

example, under SWITCH Africa

124

promotes eco-entrepreneurship through better waste

119

120

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/international_issues/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/

121

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/development/generalised-scheme-of-preferences/

122

http://ourocean2017.org/

123

On Switch-Med, see also section 0.

124

www.switchafricagreen.org

management. Among others, it raises awareness on the impact of plastics pollution, supports

plastic waste collection, and supports recycled plastics-based business development.

Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policies

Countries covered by the Enlargement and Neighbourhood policies are very valuable partners

to promote circular economy and the Plastics Strategy, due to their political and historical

proximity. EU action in these regions combines privileged political dialogues (e.g. sub-

committee meetings) and assistance at regional and national level through institution building

and financial instruments, including blending facilities. All these means could be further used

to promote the circular economy objectives such as more recycling as well as a cost-efficient

and effective waste management. This is all the more relevant for the candidates and potential

candidate countries in the Western Balkans and Turkey, who have to comply with the EU

environmental

acquis,

including revised legislative proposals on waste, upon accession.

Examples of EU action in these regions are:



The regional ECRAN Programme has also helped the Balkan countries to transpose

and implement the EU waste management acquis (Waste Framework Directive's

requirements) and gradually move from dependence on landfills to separate waste

collection and integrated waste management;

A project on “Eco Awareness Campaign in Montenegro”, took place from April to

December 2017, tackling the use of plastic bags and related pollution issues;

There are also two flagship projects of EU regional cooperation with neighbourhood

countries on the promotion and support of sustainable consumption and production

patterns in beneficiary countries: SWITCH Med (EUR 20 million; 2013-2018) and

EaP GREEN (EUR 10M; 2013-2017);

The programme Horizon 2020

125

aims at depolluting the Mediterranean Sea,

addressing municipal waste, urban waste-water and industrial pollution.

The Commission services organised high-level dialogues, to raise awareness on

circular economy (Casablanca in October and Kiev in November 2017).

The EMBLAS II project to improve monitoring in the Black Sea.



Since 2014 bilateral and regional funding for waste and water management in these regions

amount to about €970 million.

Projects include regional assistance as well as blending

facilities. Large part of these resources is dedicated to the Instrument for Pre-Accession

Assistance (IPA)

126

The Commission services have organised or are organising some high level dialogues, to raise

awareness on circular economy (Casablanca in October, Kiev in November, and Belgrade in

December 2017). A high level event will also take place in 2018 in Tunisia with the

participation of relevant Commissioners, in view of strengthening cooperation with partners

to promote adoption and implementation of these approaches.

Policy Dialogues

Prevention at source will be key to tackling the rising plastic waste tide, in line with the EU's

circular economy approach. This will require the promotion of a circular plastics economy in

125

http://www.euneighbours.eu/en/south/eu-in-action/projects/horizon-2020-capacity-buildingmediterranean-

environment-programme-h2020

126

The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) is the means by which the EU supports reforms in the

'enlargement countries' with financial and technical help.

third countries through policy dialogues on environment, industry and trade. The Commission

has regular policy dialogues on e.g. environment

127

with partner countries (notably those

members of the G20) and world regions, such as the Association of South East Asia Nations

(ASEAN). Trade partners can also be used to this end, in the context of free trade

agreements

128

and the Generalised Scheme of Preferences

129

The Partnership Instrument

The EU's ambitious Circular Economy Action Plan fully corresponds to the objectives of the

Partnership Instrument

130

, namely to support EU action on global challenges including by

promoting EU innovative solutions, thereby supporting market access and jobs in the Union.

The circular economy creates the right conditions for the EU to accelerate the global

transition to a resource efficient, low-carbon and circular economy, and boost the

competitiveness of our businesses. Actions can include improving access to the country’s

markets by enhancing trade, investment and business opportunities for European companies

who have already adopted circular design and business models.

In that respect, the EU has adopted, under the Partnership Instrument, a number of actions that

support the circular economy and, indirectly, the EU Plastics Strategy. These include the

China EU Water Platform (CEWP), the India-EU Water Partnership (IEWP), and the

Resource Efficiency Initiative (REI) in India, which bring together expertise from the EU and

its Member States experts, and strongly engage with the private sector.

Regional Seas Conventions

The EU is already actively cooperating with the Regional Seas Conventions protecting the

marine and coastal environment in the four marine regions around Europe

131

. Regional marine

litter action plans are in place in three regions, and under preparation in the Black Sea; A

project supporting implementation of the Regional Plan against marine litter of the Barcelona

Convention is ongoing

132

The EU is a Contracting party to the Barcelona, OSPAR and HELCOM Conventions for the

protection of the marine environment in the Mediterranean, the Northeast Atlantic and the

Baltic respectively. The Commission, representing the EU in these Conventions has supported

the adoption and implementation of action plans to combat marine litter in these marine

regions. Their aim is to ensure coherent and efficient actions of the riverine countries to

reduce marine litter and its impacts. Regular meetings take place for the coordination of the

regional activities against marine litter among themselves, and with the implementation of

MSFD at EU and national level.

127

128

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/international_issues/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/

129

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/development/generalised-scheme-of-preferences/

130

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fpi/what-we-do/partnership_instrument_en.htm.

131

The EU is member of the OSPAR (Northeast Atlantic), HELCOM (Baltic) and Barcelona Conventions

(Mediterranean) and provides support to the Bucharest Convention (Black Sea).

132

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-

10/pdf/Marine_litter_med_project_20_4_2016.pdf

Efforts are being undertaken with each of the Conventions to ensure a synergetic application

of the EU plastic strategy. The Commission also supports financially and technically the

development of such an action plan in the fourth European marine region, the Black Sea

133

A project supporting implementation of the Regional Plan against marine litter of the

Barcelona Convention is ongoing

134

; in 2017 two big INTEREG projects (CleanAtlantic and

Oceanwise) were launched, which contribute directly and substantially to the implementation

of the OSPAR Action Plan against marine litter; a project on marine litter in Northern

Periphery & Arctic region, dealing with the re-use of the lost fishnets is another example of

how regional EU action supports entrepreneurship and efforts against marine litter

(http://www.circularocean.eu/ ).

Table 17: Summary of existing measures regarding SUPs globally

Asia

Bangladesh

Bhutan

China

–

Jilin

Province

Indonesia

–

Badung

India - Karnataka

India - Delhi

Ban

–

Regional

Ban

–

Regional

Ban

–

Regional

Ban

–

Regional

Total ban on polyethylene plastic bags.

Total ban on plastic bags.

Total ban on non-biodegradable plastic tableware

(and bags) in the Jilin Province.

Ban on the use of Styrofoam in the city of Badung.

All Plastic

–

covers sale of plastic carrier bags,

plastic plates/cups/spoons, and cling film.

All single use plastic items including plastic cups,

bags, plates and cutlery, in the national capital

territory area.

Ban on the sale and use of non-biodegradable plastic

bags in >59 municipalities.

Use of Styrofoam containers is prohibited in Manila.

Ban on Styrofoam containers.

Ban on beverage cups, straws, plastic bags and

single use tableware.

2002

2009

2015

2016

2017

Philippines

Sri Lanka

Taiwan

North America

USA

–

San

Francisco

USA

–

New York

City

135

Ban

2011

2017

2030

Ban

–

Regional

Plastic water bottles on city properties.

2014

Ban- Regional

Ban on single-use Styrofoam containers in New

York. The ban was challenged by a coalition of

2013/

recycling firms and plastic manufacturers who

2017

claimed the material is recyclable. The ban was lifted

in 2015 and reintroduced in 2017.

133

Action Plan for the Mediterranean:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-

status/descriptor-10/pdf/decision_21_7_marine_litter_mediteranien.pdf

Action Plan for the Atlantic:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-

10/pdf/atlantic_mlrap_brochure.pdf

Action Plan for the Baltic : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-

10/pdf/baltic_regional_action_plan_marine_litter.pdf

134

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-

10/pdf/Marine_litter_med_project_20_4_2016.pdf

135

Plastic Bag Ban Assessment DRAFT, IETC

USA

–

Washington

D.C

Ban

–

Regional

On wet wipes labelled as flushable, unless it can be

proven that they break down in normal sewer

conditions.

2018

USA

–

Seattle,

Washington,

Portland, Oregon,

Ban

–

Regional

Westchester,

Berkeley and Malibu

USA

–

Laguna

Beach and Santa

Monica

USA - Seattle

Costa Rica

Ban

–

Regional

Ban - Regional

Ban

Ban on styrofoam foodware.

Date

not

listed

Date

not

listed

2018

2021

2019

2014,

2017

2016

2013

2018

2017

Ban on polystyrene foodware.

Ban on plastic straws and plastic utensils.

All single use plastics.

Total ban on the importation and use of plastic

utensils and Styrofoam containers.

Total ban on polyethylene bags in Punta Arenas.

Total ban on the sale of plastic bags in 102 coastal

villages and towns.

Ban on disposable plastic bags smaller than

30x30cm.

Total ban on plastic bags and Styrofoam containers

in San Pedro La Laguna.

Ban on the import and use of Styrofoam items.

Ban on the import and production of plastic bags and

Styrofoam containers.

Ban on all non-biodegradable plastic bags below 50-

gallon capacity and on Styrofoam containers.

Ban on the import of Styrofoam products, VAT

removed from biodegradable alternatives to lower

their costs.

South and Central America

Antigua and Barbuda Ban

Chile, Punta Arenas

and coastal regions

Columbia

Guatemala, San

Pedro La Laguna

Guyana

Haiti

Jamaica

St Vincent and the

Grenadines

Australia/Oceania

Australia, Hobart,

Tasmania

Australia, South

Australia

Vanuatu

Africa

Benin

Cameroon

Cape Verde

Eritrea

Guinea-Bissau

Kenya

Ban

Ban - Regional

Ban- Regional

Ban

Ban - Regional

Ban

Ban on plastic takeaway containers.

Ban on all non-biodegradable plastic bags.

Ban on lightweight plastic bags.

Ban on polystyrene takeaway boxes.

Considering the introduction of a ban on the use and

import of single use plastic bags and bottles.

Total ban on import, production, sale, and use of

non-biodegradable plastic bags.

Total ban on non-biodegradable plastic bags.

Total ban on the sale and use of plastic bags.

Ban on the import, production, sale and distribution

of plastic bags.

Total ban on the use of plastic bags.

Total ban on the import, production, sale and use of

2020

2003

2009

2018

Australia, Coles Bay Ban - Regional

Ban - Regional

Ban

Potential Ban

2018

2014

2017

2004

2016

2017

plastic bags.

Mali

Mauritius

Morocco

Rwanda

Tanzania

Zimbabwe

Ban

Total ban on the production, import, possession, sale

and use of non-biodegradable plastic bags.

Ban on the import, manufacture, sale or supply of

plastic bags.

Ban on the production, import, sale and distribution

of plastic bags.

Total ban on production, use, import and sale of all

polyethylene bags.

Total ban on all plastic bags.

Total ban on Styrofoam products

–

was temporarily

lifted after introduction to allow businesses time to

replace Styrofoam containers with reusable,

recyclable or biodegradable ones.

2012

2016

2008

2018

2017

4.2 Actions to be taken

4.2.1 UN Level

This year's third session of the United Nations Environment Assembly held in Nairobi on 4-6

December 2017, addressed the theme 'Towards a pollution-free planet'. UNEA-3 adopted

inter alia a resolution tabled by Norway on marine litter microplastics and building on the

above-mentioned UNEP assessment

136

. The resolution decided the establishment of an Ad

Hoc Open Ended Expert Group to further examine the barriers to, and options for, combating

marine plastic litter and microplastics from all sources, especially land based sources. This

working group will report back to the fourth session of the United Nations Environment

Assembly in 2019 with recommendations for further actions.

4.2.2 G7 and G20

The EU will continue its engagement with the G7 Alliance on Resource Efficiency and in

particular the work on plastic identified in the Bologna Roadmap adopted by the G7

Environment Ministers' Meeting in June 2017, the G20 Resource Efficiency Dialogue, and

support current and upcoming G7/G20 Presidencies in implementing the G7 Action Plan to

Combat Marine Litter and the G20 Marine Litter Action Plan, adopted in July 2017,

respectively.

In particular, the Commission services organise a G7 workshop on plastic management in

Brussels in March 2018, open to G20 experts, to assess the opportunities for improved

product design, address barriers to recycling and reuse of plastic, and avoid plastics leakage

into the environment, in particular the seas and oceans.

4.2.3 EU international actions

The EU will support the adoption and implementation by third countries of environmentally

sound waste management approaches (ESM) and strategies, inspired by the waste hierarchy

136

UNEP (2017), Combating marine plastic litter and microplastics: An assessment of the effectiveness of

relevant international, regional and subregional governance strategies and approaches

and by extended producer responsibility (EPR) approaches. Examples of international action

supported by the EU are:



The Commission services are working on a Partnership Instrument project for

contributing to reducing plastic waste and marine litter in East and South East Asia to

be adopted by the end of 2018.

With EU support, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has

become the first fisheries organization to adopt binding provisions on the recovery of

Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs).

In February 2018 the Commission took part in the FAO Technical Consultation that

adopted the Report and the Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear and

that are expected to be endorsed in July 2018.

Development of international industry standards on sorted plastic waste and recycled

plastics to facilitate trade in these secondary raw materials, while at the same time

protecting workers' health and the environment (see above). Moreover, this will

further allow for the development of a stronger EU position during coming discussions

at international level given the existing Vienna Agreement between CEN and ISO.