Study to support the development of measures to combat a range of marine litter source
Specific contract under Framework contract ENV.D.2/FRA/2012/0025
This study investigates two key areas of marine debris research: litter from sea-based sources and microplastic litter from cosmetic products. The aim is to help the European Commission develop measures, including reduction targets, to combat marine litter. The work reviews the scale and nature of each of these sources as well as the measures to reduce them. This process reveals what is known and what is unknown in this field of research. |
| ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||
The study was separated into the four following tasks, all covering different emerging pressures in the field of marine litter sources: |
The different types of cost recovery systems (CRS) used to charge vessels for waste disposal at port reception facilities (PRFs) are reviewed and analysed in terms of how they might incentivise waste delivery and therefore reduce illegal discharges at sea. The types of CRS are categorised in the report according to the net financial cost to the vessel. This enables an analysis of the cost saving (i.e. financial incentive) of illegally discharging the waste at sea rather than at the PRF. The CRS creates an incentive to discharge waste at sea when there is a direct relationship between the quantity of waste and the cost of discharging it at the PRF. When a flat-rate fee is charged to all vessels, whether they deliver a large quantity of waste or none at all, this removes the financial incentive to discharge waste at sea. But this CRS creates no positive incentive to discharge the waste at the PRF either. The most common types of CRS found in the EU do not provide a positive incentive to discharge waste at the PRF. This would be achieved if the vessel is charged with a significant deposit that is only refunded when it discharges waste at the PRF, or conversely a penalty that is imposed if the vessel does not discharge any waste at the PRF. If the deposit/penalty is large enough then the vessel will lose more money by illegally discharging the waste at sea than it would by paying to discharge the waste at the PRF. This was the only type of CRS found to provide a positive financial incentive to discharge waste at the PRF. However, PRF costs are small relative to other costs that are incurred in ports and so the financial incentives created by the CRS may be a key factor in the decision to discharge waste illegally at sea or at the PRF. A refundable deposit could be set at a sufficient level to outweigh the other factors which lead vessels to discharge waste at sea. |
This study reviews the legislative support for activities which combat sea-based sources of marine debris, from waste reduction through to enforcement. The legal provisions for each of the main waste types and pathways are analysed separately. There are few gaps in European legislation prohibiting discharge of wastes, setting inspection regimes and imposing sanctions. However, there are weaknesses and ambiguities within the current legislative framework around the delivery by ships of their waste to port reception facilities, obligations for waste management and reporting, and inspection and enforcement. The following remain weaknesses/gaps in the current legal regime:
|
Reduction measures tend to act either on reducing the current inflow of litter (prevention) or on the stock that has already accumulated in the ocean (removal), and in many cases they target specific sources and pathways of litter. Litter types, sources and pathways of debris from these sectors are therefore analysed to understand the possible efficacy of such measures. Gillnets and other fishing gear items are known to be especially harmful as they can entangle wildlife, vessels and other fishing gear, and so measures to reduce these litter types will be of particular interest to some stakeholders. |
Work package two is intended to investigate the extent to which microplastics are used in the cosmetics industry within Europe and to frame this against the overall microplastics issue. Sources of microplastic have been identified through the literature. A quantification of the problem at an EU level has been attempted for the first time. The results show that whilst cosmetic microplastics are far from the largest microplastic source, they are still significant and contribute up to 4.1% (much more than other recent industry estimates)–this is estimated to be between 2,461 and 8,627 tonnes entering the marine environment from Europe every year. It is recognised that the cosmetics industry is working to reduce this amount, and through engagement with the industry, this report has concluded that a reduction of over 4,000 tonnes can be achieved by 2020. |
| ||||||||