Here comes my abstract!

SUMMARY

The knowledge about the severe impacts of marine plastic debris and its widespread distribution into even the most pristine environments grows steadily. It has been documented in literature that numerous seabirds, turtles, fish and whale species suffer and die from ingestion of plastic particles mistaken for food and from entanglement in plastic items. Further, floating debris acts as a vector for the spread of alien species and can hinder gas exchange on the seafloor when sedimented. Additionally, plastic particles concentrate endocrine disrupting toxics and other persistent chemicals on their surface which are then accumulated in the food chain across trophic levels. Against this background, different problem mitigation strategies are reviewed and a life-cycle assessment of an arctic beach-cleaning operation is conducted, which tries to quantify the negative and positive effects of this particular mitigation action. The amount of plastics removed and the resulting ecological benefit for local wildlife as well as the increased societal awareness of marine litter counterbalance the carbon emissions caused by the operation. The project identified a lack of operational assessment methods for positive environmental impacts. Therefore own approaches to describe the achieved effects are set up as evaluation methods for the positive impact here. Finally, we will only manage to tackle this pervasive problem if the input of new plastic debris into the oceans will be stopped eventually or at least reduced drastically in the near future. Only then, the health of marine ecosystems can be safeguarded in order to not cross any essential ecological thresholds.

Keywords: Plastic litter, Beach clean-up, Life cycle assessment, Clean-up operation, Ocean plastic waste, Positive environmental impact, Ecobalance, Svalbard.              

New introduction and conclusion

1 Introduction

“Marine plastic pollution is one of the most serious emerging threats to the health of oceans and is now considered a major hazard to marine biodiversity. Plastics may fragment but do not biodegrade and so persist indefinitely, leading to a progressive rise in quantities found in the marine environment.” (Environmental Investigation Agency, 2016)

Nowadays, the knowledge about the pollution of the environment by humans is well-established and widespread. Nevertheless, many people do not act according to this knowledge. Taking littering as an example, it is publicly known that littering harms the environment. Despite this, many people drop their waste just where they are – in the streets, in the woods or even into the water when they are near a lake or ocean. A big part of this waste is plastics (Plastic Europe, 2015), mostly light-weight material which floats on water and thus often ends up in the ocean. Here begins the area of interest for this study which will review the characteristics and impacts of marine plastic debris to introduce the topic. So one of the research questions to be answered is where the debris found in the oceans comes from and where it goes. This is to be visualised in Sankey diagrams, which will show the different plastic flows in order to form a global picture of the problem. As the most remarkable part of marine litter are different kinds of plastic fractions, the attention here is focused on plastics only. Additionally, the impacts of marine debris on wildlife and the ocean ecosystem in general as well as on human beings are summarised.

This review is used as the background for the second part, where an analysis regarding problem mitigation strategies will be conducted. So the description of the problem in the first part delivers the motivation for why mitigation actions against marine littering are of essential importance. Different mitigation actions will be presented and assessed for their utility in the given context. Then next, different environmental evaluation methods will be presented and applied onto the described mitigation efforts with the goal to get an idea about their effectiveness. A specific section of the second part is the environmental evaluation of an arctic clean-up operation as an example for mitigation actions, which will be conducted in terms of a life cycle assessment (LCA).

1.1 Research aims and context

The more general aim of this exploratory study is to collect and organise the growing knowledge about plastics in marine environments and to review the debris flows and their related problems. The analytical aim is to appraise the effectiveness of the analysed mitigation project Clean Up Svalbard; that is if the benefits for the ecosystem weight out the costs of the operation for the environment (greenhouse gas emissions). The study will be done in the context of Industrial Ecology, as it explores the impact of industrial systems (industries, human settlements) onto the ocean environment. The relevance of the topic of marine plastic debris for environmental sciences is based on the importance of the ocean ecosystem for life on earth and the growing attention for the topic from environmental researchers just now. 

9 Conclusion

The research questions about where the plastic debris comes from, where it goes and what impact it has on the oceans and on us humans have been covered throughout this report. Still, the knowledge about the severe impacts of marine plastic debris and its widespread distribution into even the most pristine environments is growing steadily. It has been documented in literature that numerous seabirds, turtles, fish and whale species suffer and die from ingestion of plastic particles mistaken for food and from entanglement in plastic items. Further, floating debris acts as a vector for the spread of alien species and can hinder gas exchange on the seafloor when sedimented. Additionally, plastic particles concentrate endocrine disrupting toxics and other persistent chemicals on their surface which are then accumulated in the food chain across trophic levels. 

As researchers find out more and more alarming characteristics of the problem, people also get creative and think about problem mitigation strategies. While The Ocean Cleanup probably is one of the most remarkable projects at the moment, also numberless smaller and more locally focused beach cleaning actions around the world contribute essentially to the urgently required change. In the conducted life-cycle assessment of the arctic beach-cleaning operation Clean Up Svalbard it was calculated that 268 t of carbon were emitted in total, with roughly 500 kg of plastic debris collected on about 12 km of coastline. The carbon emissions equal 2.37 ton per person which is about a third of annual Swedish emissions per capita. Though not quantifiable properly, the various benefits arising from the project seem to outweigh the caused negative effect of greenhouse gas emissions. One resulting benefit is an increased awareness of marine litter for all participants and their nearest acquaintances, however not measurable, which contributes to reduced littering behaviour in the long term. General awareness raising and to attain a positive impact for the local environment through participation in clean-up projects etc. could also be promoted as a new strategy for ecotourism. In addition, an ecological benefit is assumed to arise from the clean-up, although it could neither be detected in local wildlife observation nor in the amount of plastics ingested by an indicator species. 

The study identified a lack of operational assessment methods for positive environmental impacts. Therefore own approaches to describe the achieved effects are set up as evaluation methods for the positive impact here. For a better quantification of the positive impact of planned or conducted mitigation projects in the future, observation efforts should to be reinforced and the harmful impacts of debris documented more systematically. Besides, standardised methods for sampling would ensure the comparability of results, so that a more consistent picture of marine pollution around the globe could be formed.  

Finally, we will only manage to tackle this pervasive problem if the input of new plastic debris into the oceans will be stopped eventually or at least reduced drastically in the near future. As in the IUCN Net Positive Impact approach where the aim is to make a positive impact in order to ensure the achievement of at least No Net Loss, the goal should be to stop new pollution altogether and to remove as much of the litter that already is in the oceans as possible. Thereby, we should be able to safeguard the health of marine ecosystems and to most likely not cross any essential ecological thresholds. The oceans provide food, medicine and various vital ecosystem services that many communities rely on. Life on earth depends on the ocean, let us not jeopardise its soundness. 

 

Evaluation methods for positive environmental impacts

   Ø  Impact on local wildlife, observed changes

·         No records of changes exist, only increasing pollution noticed but no direct difference due to the cleaning of beaches

·         “The plastic pollution is increasing at Svalbard. We see more and more animals affected. However, we are not able to document any ecological impact of the collection of plastics on the beaches at Svalbard.” Geir Wing Gabrielsen, Adjunct Professor in Ecotoxicology at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), by Mail 2016-05-09

   Ø  Differences in the amount of plastics found in the stomachs of Fulmars as indicator species on Svalbard and comparable habitats elsewhere that are not cleaned

·         As can be seen in the table below, the beach cleaning apparently does not reflect itself in plastic ingestion rates from Svalbard and elsewhere in the Arctic.

Table 4: Plastic ingestion by Northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis, modified from Trevail et al, 2015, p. 13

Location	Years	Incidence of plastic ingestion	References
Svalbard, Europe. 78.3˚N, 16.1˚E	1982-1984	29%	Mehlum and Gjertz 1984; Gjertz et al. 1985; Lydersen et al. 1985
	2013	87.5%	Trevail et al. 2015
Bear Island, Svalbard, Europe 74˚24’N, 19˚0E	1983	82%	Van Franeker 1985
Jan Mayen, Europe, 71˚0’N, 9˚0’W	1983	79%	Van Franeker 1985
East Canadian Arctic. 67-74˚N, 62-90˚W	2002 - 2008	Latest: 84%	Mallory et al. 2006; Mallory 2008; Provencher et al. 2009

   Ø  Effects of awareness raising actions on (littering) behaviour

·         “Marine wildlife tours can provide a range of education and conservation benefits for visitors, including emotional (i.e., affective) responses and learning (i.e., cognition).” (Zeppel, 2008).

·         “Encounters on wildlife tours motivate visitors to respect marine life, foster environmentally responsible attitudes and behaviours, and benefit marine conservation” (Zeppel & Muloin, 2008).

   Ø  Amount / percentage / kilometres of beach or coastline cleaned (in contrast to the space occupied by the landfilling then)

·         2314 km of coastline for the four main islands (though only part of that is beaches) vs. about 12 km of beachline have been cleaned à % of beaches of the coastline

Strengh and weaknesses of the methods

o   Impact on local wildlife, observed changes

§  To observe the benefit on local wildlife is a biocentric measure that cannot be quantified but only assumed which certainly is a weakness. However, observation efforts could be reinforced and documented in a centralised manner in order to establish quantifiable records for the future. Entanglements of individuals could be counted and the number corrected with a parameter for the general increase in the amount of marine debris for the purpose of quantifying impacts on wildlife by the clean-up of beaches. 

o   Differences in the amount of plastics found in the stomachs of Fulmars

§  As for the method before, this is a biocentric measure which would complement the entanglement records with records of ingestion if the observed amounts of plastics in birds´ stomachs would be documented with increased efforts as described above. At the current status, this method cannot be used quantitative but could be strengthened by improved documentation. 

o   Effects of awareness raising actions on littering behaviour

§  Even though the positive effects of ecotourism or the like are recognised, they cannot be quantified which is a weakness here. Nevertheless, the societal effects of the project are captured in this anthropocentric measure. It is not only the people themselves who went on that excursion but also their nearest friends and family who probably changed their behaviour due to awareness transmitted to them by the participants. Assuming that every participant imparts his or her knowledge to four other people, then that one clean-up trip would have influenced the attitude of 565 people.

o   Amount of beach / coastline cleaned

§  This is an easily quantifiable measure which is neither biocentric nor anthropocentric but in between. Its flaw is that even though it gives a distinct figure, this number does have a low informative value. As already mentioned for a method above, the significance here could be enhanced as well by better documentation. The amount of coastline where debris is washed ashore would need to be estimated from geographic maps, that is beaches and other shallow parts of the shoreline. Then, a more realistic number of kilometres of coastline which are polluted and a percentage of that which are cleaned could be given.