(Paper title:)



Reducing Plastic Pollution in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean

Reducing Plastic Pollution in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean

A Working Paper submitted by the United Kingdom

Summary

The issue of plastic pollution, particularly marine plastic pollution, has recently been recognised as a major global conservation issue. There is also increasing research demonstrating plastic pollution within the Antarctic Treaty area, both micro- and macro-plastic. The UK believes that making every effort to reduce the amount of both micro-plastics and single use macro-plastics transported into the Antarctic Treaty area is of crucial importance, as are efforts to better study both the levels and effects of plastic pollution in the Antarctic Treaty area.

Introduction

1. Marine plastic pollution is a major global conservation issue. Public awareness and interest has increased significantly in recent years, including for example following media coverage in programmes such as the BBC’s ‘Blue Planet II’. The presence of plastic debris on shorelines, in surface waters and in the deep ocean, poses a significant threat to marine ecosystems around the world; and the Polar Regions are not immune. To date, much of the research effort into plastic pollution has focussed on the levels of macro-plastics in the world’s oceans (e.g. plastic ropes, nets, bottles, crates, drums, packaging, polystyrene, etc.), but increasing attention is now being directed towards the quantification and impacts of micro-plastics, which are plastic particles less than 5 mm in diameter.

Macro-plastics in the Southern Ocean

2. Monitoring work (e.g. Walker et al. 1997, do Sul et al. 2011, Waluda & Staniland, 2013) undertaken since the late 1980s at a small number of sites within the Antarctic Treaty area has revealed that macro-plastics can originate from:

• ships, including fishing vessels;

• research stations with inadequate waste management practices; and

• outside the Southern Ocean.

Studies have reported that plastics can contribute 50-90% of beached debris washed up on shorelines around the Southern Ocean and 8-50% of this debris consists of lost or discarded fishing gear (Convey et al. 2002).

Micro-plastics in the Southern Ocean

3. Until recently, it was thought that the Southern Ocean was relatively free of micro-plastic contamination. However, increasing numbers of studies are reporting the presence of micro-plastics in Antarctic marine sediments and surface waters (Cincinelli et al., 2017; Isobe et al., 2017; Lacerda et al., 2019; Waller et al., 2017). Micro-plastics can originate from personal care products (e.g. some toothpastes and face scrubs) and from laundry grey water; with an estimated 728,000 micro-plastic fibres potentially released from a single 6 kg wash of acrylic fabric (Napper and Thompson 2016). Micro-plastics can also be generated through the breakdown of larger macro-plastic items, many of which are likely to have entered the oceans outside the Treaty area. As a compounding factor, high levels of UV in the Polar Regions are likely to accelerate the breakdown of large plastic items into smaller pieces. Based on estimated levels, micro-plastic pollution released into the Antarctic Treaty area from ships and scientific research stations are likely to be negligible at the scale of the Southern Ocean. However, levels of micro-plastic pollution may be significant on a local scale, for example, in the vicinity of research stations (Munari et al., 2017; Waller et al., 2017; Reed et al 2018).

Sources of plastics outside Antarctica

4. The Southern Ocean’s strong circumpolar winds, ocean currents and fronts, storm-forced surface waves and the generation of eddies may be dramatically increasing oceanographic connectivity and enhancing the transport of surface-floating plastic across the Polar Front into the Southern Ocean. Such processes may explain, to some degree, why actual levels of micro-plastics reported in published sampling surveys were five orders of magnitude higher than predictions of micro-plastic concentrations originating solely from stations and vessels within Antarctica (Waller et al. 2017).

Impacts

5. The impacts of plastic pollution may be varied. Macro-plastic items may cause entanglement of seals, seabirds and cetaceans, and can be ingested by birds and marine mammals (Gregory, 2009; Andrady, 2011; Cole et al., 2011; Waluda and Staniland, 2013). Conversely, micro-plastics may enter the base of the food chain leading to bioaccumulation in higher trophic levels. There is evidence to suggest that micro-plastics may cause toxicological effects (Guzzetti et al., 2018).

Legislations and policy developments

6. International legislation controlling the use and release of micro-plastics has only started to address the emerging environmental consequences of their production. The challenge of micro-plastic pollution has been partly addressed through prohibitions on their use in personal care products (see: ). However, there has to date been little international focus on the discharge of micro-plastics in wastewater (including bathing and laundry grey water).

7. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78) aims to prevent pollution of the marine environment. The issue of marine debris is covered in its Annex V, which prohibits the deliberate release of plastics (such as plastic ropes, fishing nets and plastic bags) and other waste from ships, but the level of adherence to these regulations may not always be consistent, particularly amongst those participating in illegal, unreported, unregulated (IUU) fishing.

8. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty contains Annexes on Waste Disposal and Waste Management (Annex III) and Prevention of Marine Pollution (Annex IV). Release of wastewater from vessels within 12 nautical miles of the coast is prohibited, but Parties are not compelled to treat wastewater released from their scientific research stations, beyond maceration (Annex III; Article 5, 1b). That said, Annex I, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), requires Parties to undertake EIAs for all activities within the Antarctic Treaty area, including the implementation of measures to mitigate impacts. Annex IV specifically prohibits the disposal into the sea of all plastics, including but not limited to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets and plastic garbage bags.

9. A small number of sites around Antarctica are consistently monitored for the presence of anthropogenic debris, including macro-plastics, and this information is reported to CCAMLR. CCAMLR Conservation Measures cover reducing the impact of plastic packaging bands and require the reporting of lost fishing equipment. As yet, the CCAMLR Marine Debris programme does not include monitoring for micro-plastics. However, the issue of micro-plastic pollution has been discussed as both a scientific and policy issue in recent years, and is a topic of interest and potential concern for many Members.

Recent developments in practical response

CCAMLR Fishing Industry Initiative in Sub-Areas 48.3 and 48.4

10. The UK reported to CCAMLR in 2018 that the British company Argos Froyanes Ltd. had reviewed its entire waste management processing system, including in part as a response to increased evidence of micro-plastics being released from personal products and laundry wastewater. Argos Froyanes Ltd. has prohibited the use of detergents and personal grooming products containing microbeads across its fleet of fishing vessels, including cleaning products used in the factory and engine rooms. The company also identified a number of items that could reduce the numbers of fibres released during laundry cycles and, after extensive review, chose external filters which are fitted to the outlet side of washing machines as the most practical solution. Argos Froyanes Ltd. are taking waste water samples from before and after the filtration system to establish the efficacy of the product and allow a detailed analysis and comparison with other similar products.

Recommendations

The United Kingdom recommends that the Committee:

1. recommends to the ATCM that all Parties commit to take steps to reduce the amount of plastics – both macro and micro – transported into the Antarctic Treaty Area;

2. recommends to the ATCM that measures are taken to prohibit the use of personal care products containing micro-plastic beads within the Treaty area;

3. promotes the development, use and sharing of methods and technologies to reduce plastic pollution release into the Antarctic environment, including in partnership with CCAMLR as appropriate;

4. encourages greater monitoring of plastic pollution around Antarctica and in the Southern Ocean, and asks SCAR to report to the Committee as new information emerges that quantifies plastic pollution and details the risks to Antarctic species and communities;

5. considers the issue of micro-plastic release in any future revisions of Annexes I, III and IV to the Protocol.

6. considers proposing the attached draft Resolution to the ATCM.

DRAFT RESOLUTION

Reducing Plastic Pollution in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean

The Representatives,

Noting the increasing level of both macro-plastic and micro-plastic found in the Antarctic Treaty Area;

Conscious of their responsibilities to protect the Antarctic environment and its biodiversity;

Acknowledging that the majority of plastic found in Antarctica originates from outside of Antarctica;

Nevertheless wishing to minimise plastic pollution in Antarctica; and

Recalling Article 1 of Annex III and Article 5 of Annex IV to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.

Recommend that their Governments:

1. take steps to reduce the amount of plastic – both macro and micro – transported into the Antarctic Treaty area;

2. require all persons under their jurisdiction organising or conducting tourist or other non-government activities in the Antarctic Treaty area and National Antarctic Programmes, to take steps to prohibit the introduction into the Antarctic Treaty area of personal care products containing micro-plastic beads;

3. support greater monitoring of plastic pollution in Antarctica using standard and comparative methodologies, particularly near areas of human activity;

4. invite SCAR to report as new information emerges that quantifies plastic pollution and details the risks to Antarctic species and communities; and

5. consider the issue of microplastic release in any future revisions of Annexes I, III and IV to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.

References

Andrady, A.L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 1596-1605.

Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., and Galloway, T.S. (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62:2588-2597.

Convey, P., Barnes, D.K.A., and Morton, A. (2002). Debris accumulation on oceanic island shores of the Scotia Arc, Antarctica. Polar Biology 25: 612-617.

do Sul, J.A.I., Barnes, D.K.A., Costa, M.F., Convey, P., Costa, E.S., and Campos, L.S. (2011). Plastics in the Antarctic environment: are we looking only at the tip of the iceberg? Oecologia Australis 15:150-170.

Cincinelli A., Scopetani C., Chelazzi D., Lombardini E., Martellini T., Katsoyiannis A., Fossi M. C., and Corsolini, S. (2017). Microplastic in the surface waters of the Ross Sea (Antarctica): Occurrence, distribution and characterization by FTIR. Chemosphere 175: 391-400.

Gregory, M.R. (2009). Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 364: 2013-2025.

Guzzetti, E., Sureda, A., Tejada, S., and Faggio, C. (2018). Microplastic in marine organisms: Environmental and toxicological effects. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 64: 164-171.

Isobe, A., Uchiyama-Matsumoto, K., Uchida, K., and Tokai, T. (2016). Microplastics in the Southern Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 114: 623-626.

Lacerda, A.L., Rodrigues, L. S., van Sebille, E., Rodriques, F. L., Ribeiro, L., Secchi, E. R., Kessler, F., and Proietti, M. C. (2019) Plastics in sea surface waters around the Antarctic Peninsula. Scientific Reports 9: 3977.

Munari, C., Infantini, V., Scoponi, M., Rastelli, E., Corinaldesi, C., and Mistri, M. (2017). Microplastics in the sediments of Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea, Antarctica). Marine Pollution Bulletin 122: 161-165.

Napper, I. E., and Thompson, R. C. (2016). Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines: effects of fabric type and washing conditions. Marine Pollution. Bulletin 112: 39–45.

Reed, S., Clark, M., Thompson, R., and Hughes, K.A. (2018). Microplastics in marine sediments near Rothera Research Station, Antarctica. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133: 460-463.

Waller, C.L., Griffiths, H.J., Waluda, C.M., Thorpe, S.E., Loaiza, I., Moreno, B., Pacherres, C.O., and Hughes, K.A. (2017). Microplastics in the Antarctic marine system: an emerging area of research. Science of the Total Environment 598: 220-227.

Walker, T.R., Reid, K., Arnould, J.P.Y., and Croxall, J.P. (1997). Marine debris surveys at Bird Island, South Georgia 1990–1995. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34: 61-65.

Waluda, C.M., and Staniland, I.J. (2013). Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 74: 261-274.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download