47 / 60
47
Marine Litter
Vital Graphics
RESPONSES
to reduce marine debris at the source. There is already
a wealth of environmental regulatory instruments
addressing release of litter both on land and at sea
which, if implemented to their full extent, would have a
noticeable effect on the amount of marine plastic debris
released into the ocean.
Extended producer responsibility
The application of extended producer responsibility (EPR)
can help to avoid certain types of marine litter, including
some that is particularly prevalent such as single-use
packaging items. Making producers financially and/or
logistically responsible for their products at the end-
of-life stage encourages the development of take-back
and collection.
Economic incentives
Deposit-refund schemes and plastic bag charges can
influence consumer choice by influencing which products
to buy. They can also encourage different habits such as
returning bottles or carrying multi-use bags. In this way
these incentives can act as an effective upstream measure.
Incentives ensure awareness of the fact that plastic has a price
– at the beginning and the end of its life – and it is therefore
more widely recognised as a valuable resource. This reduces
consumption and waste and increases recycling, as well as
supporting the transition to a circular economy.
Bans
Bans on plastic bags, smoking on beaches, plastic
blasting in shipyards or plastic microbeads in cosmetics
can provide a cost-effective solution to avoiding marine
litter, although feasibility will depend on various factors
including the availability of substitutes, competitiveness
concerns and political will.
Investment in waste management and
wastewater treatment infrastructure
Investment in waste management infrastructure and
wastewater treatment facilities can avoid dispersion
of litter in the marine environment. This can include
perimeter netting at landfills to catch windblown waste,
improved beach and port waste infrastructure, and
investments in wastewater treatment plants to provide
litter traps and filters to capture microfibres (although
this does not address items transported through storm
drains). Investment in waste collection and management
in coastal areas or near rivers, and particularly in areas
where infrastructure is inadequate or absent, would help
to contain the transportation of litter to the ocean.
Clean-ups and fishing for litter
Environmentally sound and risk-based clean-ups are costly
but necessary downstream actions (at least until marine
Research to improve product design and e ciency of processes can prevent waste, and improve recycling and resource e ciency Research to improve knowledge on sources, pathways and fate to improve existing measures and regulations and enable awareness and attitude change. The application of extended producer responsibility (EPR) can help to avoid certain types of marine litter Behavioural and system changes leading towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns PREVENTION CLEAN-UP BUY-A-LOT Investment in waste management infrastructure and wastewater treatment facilities can avoid dispersion of litter in the marine environment Preventing is better than cleaning up i i Economic incentives , such as deposit refund schemes and plastic bag charges, can in uence consumer choice and/or encourage di erent habits Bans (e.g. on plastic bags, smoking on beaches, plastic blasting in shipyards or plastic microbeads in cosmetics) can provide a cost-e ective solution to avoiding marine litter Awareness raising activities among distributors/retailers and consumers can help avoid the generation of marine litter Better implementation of existing legislation on the release of litter, on land and at sea, helps to reduce marine litter at source Marine litter clean-ups are costly but necessary downstream actions Fishing for litter can be a useful nal option, but can only address certain types of marine litter i i i i i i i i i