Framework | Geographical scale | Beach litter | Seabed / Sediments | Floating litter and water column | Plastic ingestion by biota | Entanglement and other adverse effects on biota |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EU MSFD | EU | D10C1 Primary: The composition, amount and spatial distribution of litter (excluding micro-litter) on the coastline, in the surface layer of the water column, and on the seabed, are at levels that do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment. For the MSFD D10C1, D10C2, D10C3 and D10C4 criteria Member States shall establish threshold values for these levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account regional or sub-regional specificities. Threshold values are under development Complementary assessment information on specific litter categories for artificially polymers, single use plastic (SUP) and fishing gear | D10C3 Secondary: The amount of litter and micro-litter ingested by marine animals is at a level that does not adversely affect the health of the species concerned. For the MSFD D10C1, D10C2, D10C3 and D10C4 criteria Member States shall establish threshold values for these levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account regional or sub-regional specificities. Threshold values are under development Regionally agreed indicator species: - Fulmar (North-East Atlantic) - Loggerhead turtle (Mediterranean Sea) | D10C4 Secondary: The number of individuals of each species which are adversely affected due to litter, such as by entanglement, other types of injury or mortality, or health effects. For the MSFD D10C1, D10C2, D10C3 and D10C4 criteria Member States shall establish threshold values for these levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account regional or sub-regional specificities. Threshold values are under development There are no regionally agreed indicator species yet available for assessment | ||
OSPAR | North East Atlantic | Common indicator: Beach litter (all visible litter on the beach surface). Corresponding to the MSFD indicator 10.1.1: The composition, amount and spatial distribution of litter (excluding micro-litter) on the coastline. OSPAR CEMP protocol (2021) © | Common indicator: Litter on the seabed. Corresponding to the MSFD indicator 10.1.2: The composition, amount and spatial distribution of litter (excluding micro-litter) on the seabed. Using e.g., IBT surveys OSPAR CEMP protocol (2017) © | n.p. | Plastic ingested by seabirds (mostly micro- and mesoplastic: < 1 mm: “Ecological indicator” for trends in marine litter (EcoQO 3.3), and “Impact on biota” indicator corresponding to the MSFD indicator 10.2.1: litter ingested by marine organisms and other impacts of litter on biota. Ingestion of litter by sea turtles as a candidate indicator for impact of marine litter on biota. Fulmars (>1mm) ©; shearwaters (>1mm); sea turtles (>1mm) OSPAR CEMP protocols (2019, 2020) | n.p. |
HELCOM | Baltic Sea | Core indicator: characteristics and abundance / volume (>5mm). Monitoring units: number of litter items per 100m beach segment. Guidelines: HELCOM (2016a; 2017a). OSPAR, UNEP/MARLIN protocols © | Pre-core indicator: Macro-litter characteristics and abundance / volume using e.g., BIT survey protocol | n.p. | n.p. | n.p. |
Barcelona Convention | Mediterranean Sea | Common indicator 22. Trends in the amount of litter washed ashore and/or deposited on coastlines, i.e., beach litter. | Common indicator 23. Trends in the amount of litter on the seabed. | Common indicator 23: Trends in the amount of litter in the water column incl. MPs and floating litter | Candidate common indicator 24: Trends in the amount of litter ingested by or entangling marine organisms focusing on selected mammals, marine birds and marine turtles. | Candidate common indicator 24: Trends in the amount of litter ingested by or entangling marine organisms focusing on selected mammals, marine birds and marine turtles. Entanglement of sea turtles |
Bucharest Convention (BSC) | Black Sea | n.a. UNEP protocol © | EcoQO 4. Common indicator: Trends in the amount of litter deposited on the seabed. | EcoQO 4. Common indicator: Trends in the amount of litter in the water column incl. MPs and floating litter | EcoQO 4. Common indicator: Trends in the amount of litter ingested by or entangling marine organisms focusing on selected mammals, marine birds, fish. | EcoQO 4. Common indicator: Trends in the amount of litter ingested by or entangling marine organisms focusing on selected mammals, marine birds, fish. |
AMAP | Arctic region | Recommended primary monitoring indicators: Accumulation surveys of litter at reference sites of 100 m segments on shorelines following OSPAR or NOAA guidelines | n.p. | n.p. | Primary indicators: Northern Fulmar (>1mm) © | n.p. |
Framework | Geographical scale | Beach litter | Seabed / Sediments | Floating litter and water column | Plastic ingestion by biota | Entanglement and other adverse effects on biota |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EU MSFD | EU | D10C2 Primary: The composition, amount and spatial distribution of micro-litter on the coastline, in the surface layer of the water column, and in seabed sediment, are at levels that do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment. For the MSFD D10C1, D10C2, D10C3 and D10C4 criteria Member States shall establish threshold values for these levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account regional or sub-regional specificities. Threshold values are under development. The GES Decision sets out ‘artificial polymer materials’ and ‘other’ as assessment elements for micro-litter (particles <5 mm). | D10C3 Secondary: The amount of micro-litter ingested by marine animals is at a level that does not adversely affect the health of the species concerned. For the MSFD D10C1, D10C2, D10C3 and D10C4 criteria Member States shall establish threshold values for these levels through cooperation at Union level, taking into account regional or sub-regional specificities. Threshold values are under development. Litter and micro-litter should be assessed, where possible, in representative species from the following groups: birds, reptiles, fish, or invertebrates. | n.p. | ||
OSPAR | North East Atlantic | n.p. | n.p.. | Plastic ingested by fulmar: “Ecological indicator” for trends in marine litter (EcoQO 3.3), and “Impact on biota” indicator corresponding to the MSFD indicator 10.2.1. | ||
HELCOM | Baltic Sea | n.p. | n.p. | n.p. | ||
Barcelona Convention | Mediterranean Sea | n.a. | n.a. MEDIT survey protocol; video recordings? | Common indicator 23: Trends in the amount of litter in the water column incl. MPs and on the seabed. | ||
Bucharest Convention (BSC) | Black Sea | n.a. | EcoQO 4. Common indicator: Trends in the amount of litter deposited on the seabed | EcoQO 4. Common indicator: Trends in the amount of litter in the water column incl. MPs and floating litter | ||
AMAP | Arctic region | n.p. | Recommended for aquatic sediments, size ranges 300 µm–1 mm and 1-5 mm © | Recommended with 300 µm cut-off (or lower) in coastal waters; with 100 µm, 300 µm and 1000 µm in offshore waters © | ||
Plastic application | % of total use | Amount [Mt] |
Packaging | 31% | 142.6 |
Construction | 17% | 76.9 |
Other | 15% | 67.6 |
Transportation | 12% | 54.4 |
Consumer products | 10% | 46.7 |
Textiles | 10% | 43.9 |
Electronics and machinery | 4% | 20.0 |
Tyres | 2% | 7.7 |
TOTAL | 100% | 459.7 |
Polymer type | % of total | Amount [Mt] |
Other | 18% | 81.0 |
Polypropylene (PP) | 16% | 72.8 |
Synthetic fibres | 13% | 60.4 |
HDPE | 12% | 55.5 |
LDPE, LLDPE | 12% | 54.3 |
PVC | 11% | 51.4 |
Polyethylene tereptalate (PET) | 5% | 24.9 |
PS | 5% | 21.1 |
PUR | 4% | 18.0 |
ABS, ASA, SAN | 2% | 8.9 |
Elastomers (tyres) | 2% | 7.7 |
Bioplastics | 1% | 2.3 |
Road marking coatings | 0% | 0.7 |
Marine coatings | 0% | 0.5 |
TOTAL | 100% | 459.7 |
Region | Building & construction | Consumer & institutional products | Electrical / electronics | Industrial / machinery | Marine coatings | Other | Packaging | Personal care products | Road marking | Textile sector: clothing | Textile sector : others | Transportation: other | Transportation: tyres |
Other Asia | 1% | 11% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 13% | 38% | 0% | 0% | 15% | 4% | 12% | 2% |
China | 1% | 13% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 17% | 45% | 0% | 0% | 8% | 4% | 7% | 1% |
Middle East and Africa | 2% | 13% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 18% | 45% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 4% | 7% | 1% |
Eurasia | 4% | 10% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 12% | 32% | 0% | 0% | 8% | 4% | 22% | 3% |
Other America | 1% | 14% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 19% | 46% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 4% | 6% | 1% |
OECD Pacific | 12% | 12% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 15% | 37% | 0% | 0% | 8% | 4% | 7% | 1% |
OECD Europe | 11% | 12% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 17% | 39% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 4% | 9% | 1% |
OECD America | 5% | 12% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 17% | 38% | 0% | 0% | 7% | 4% | 11% | 2% |
Plastic application | ABS, ASA, SAN | Bioplastics | Elastomers (tyres) | Fibres | HDPE | LDPE, LLDPE | Marine coatings | Other | PET | PP | PS | PUR | PVC | Road marking coatings | Total |
Building & construction | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 16.2 |
Consumer & institutional products | 3.7 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 14.7 | 4.6 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 42.6 |
Electrical / electronics | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 13.9 |
Industrial / machinery | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.3 |
Marine coatings | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 |
Other | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 9.4 | 3.4 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 27.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 4.6 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 57.8 |
Packaging | 0.0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 32.2 | 35.3 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 24.8 | 36.3 | 6.2 | 0.4 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 142.0 |
Personal care products | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Road marking | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
Textile sector: clothing | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 24.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.1 |
Textile sector: others | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.6 |
Transportation: other | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 18.0 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 34.6 |
Transportation: tyres | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.1 |
Total | 7.3 | 2.1 | 5.1 | 51.8 | 44.7 | 49.2 | 0.5 | 57.6 | 24.8 | 62.0 | 15.2 | 11.3 | 21.2 | 0.6 | 353.3 |
World region | Macroplastic [Mt] | Microplastic [Mt] | Total [Mt] |
United States | 0.56 | 0.39 | 0.95 |
Canada | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.14 |
Other OECD America | 0.56 | 0.07 | 0.63 |
OECD EU | 0.55 | 0.28 | 0.83 |
OECD Non-EU | 0.32 | 0.08 | 0.40 |
OECD Asia | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.17 |
OECD Oceania | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.05 |
Latin America | 1.82 | 0.18 | 1.99 |
Other EU | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.09 |
Other Eurasia | 1.40 | 0.11 | 1.51 |
Middle East & North Africa | 1.41 | 0.18 | 1.59 |
Other Africa | 3.28 | 0.19 | 3.47 |
China | 4.38 | 0.49 | 4.88 |
India | 1.94 | 0.26 | 2.21 |
Other non-OECD Asia | 2.93 | 0.31 | 3.23 |
TOTAL | 19.44 | 2.68 | 22.12 |
Region | Macroplastics | |||
Littering | Marine activities | Mismanaged waste | Total | |
Other Asia | 0.220 | 0.060 | 4.593 | 4.873 |
China | 0.240 | 0.112 | 4.032 | 4.384 |
Middle East and Africa | 0.142 | 0.024 | 4.516 | 4.682 |
Eurasia | 0.055 | 0.006 | 1.403 | 1.464 |
Other America | 0.070 | 0.010 | 1.737 | 1.817 |
OECD Pacific | 0.028 | 0.016 | 0.078 | 0.121 |
OECD Europe | 0.124 | 0.024 | 0.726 | 0.874 |
OECD America | 0.192 | 0.011 | 1.023 | 1.226 |
Region | Microplastics | ||||||||||
Artificial turf | Brake dust | Marine coatings | Microbeads | Microplastics dust | Primary pellets | Road markings | Textile wash | Tyre abrasion | WW sludge | Total | |
Other Asia | 0.0042 | 0.0101 | 0.0073 | 0.0007 | 0.2661 | 0.0587 | 0.0337 | 0.0008 | 0.1464 | 0.0395 | 0.5676 |
China | 0.0041 | 0.0096 | 0.0071 | 0.0020 | 0.1532 | 0.0742 | 0.0447 | 0.0040 | 0.1389 | 0.0548 | 0.4927 |
Middle East and Africa | 0.0090 | 0.0054 | 0.0072 | 0.0002 | 0.1668 | 0.0327 | 0.0331 | 0.0003 | 0.0873 | 0.0279 | 0.3700 |
Eurasia | 0.0014 | 0.0022 | 0.0036 | 0.0002 | 0.0382 | 0.0177 | 0.0154 | 0.0004 | 0.0354 | 0.0153 | 0.1298 |
Other America | 0.0036 | 0.0041 | 0.0023 | 0.0001 | 0.0479 | 0.0174 | 0.0195 | 0.0002 | 0.0626 | 0.0187 | 0.1764 |
OECD Pacific | 0.0010 | 0.0013 | 0.0001 | 0.0002 | 0.0083 | 0.0047 | 0.0069 | 0.0003 | 0.0192 | 0.0518 | 0.0938 |
OECD Europe | 0.0123 | 0.0054 | 0.0077 | 0.0005 | 0.0376 | 0.0293 | 0.0274 | 0.0007 | 0.0806 | 0.1551 | 0.3566 |
OECD America | 0.0165 | 0.0081 | 0.0129 | 0.0007 | 0.0520 | 0.0444 | 0.0398 | 0.0016 | 0.1209 | 0.2000 | 0.4967 |
Location on plastics value chain | Uncertainty source | Description | Importance | Suggestions for improving estimates |
Plastic production | Losses of pellets during production and handling | Only few studies have been performed quantifying the leakage of plastics from production and handling of plastics. These studies are done in developed high-income countries and data on potential leakage from production in low- and middle-income countries is lacking. | Minor importance. Production leakage is estimated to account for 0.01% of total losses. However, production leakage leads to high local concentration of plastics which could be major issue for the local environment (UN Environment, 2018) | Better monitoring of leakage. E.g., relating estimated production volume based on feedstock inputs with measurements of plastic production leaving production plant. Better strategies and procedures for reducing/avoiding leakage of plastics during production and handling. Improved monitoring of losses. In particular, for middle- and low-income countries. |
Plastic use state | Leakage from abrasion | The leakage of microplastics due to abrasion of plastic and rubber products is highly uncertain. It is well known and visible that products are abraded over time. However, the actual plastic leakage and, more importantly, the fate of the leaked plastics is highly uncertain. For instance, how much goes to air and where is it transported? How much is collected as sewage systems and where does it go? How much end up in ditches and does it stay there? | Medium importance as direct leakage from abrasion is estimated to account for ca. 8% of total plastic leakage The share of rubber from tyres that is actually abraded was found to be a key parameter in estimates of global plastics leakage to the environment (Ryberg et al., 2019b). | Increased monitoring and collection of leakages and source identification to identify the potential largest leakage sources. This should be compared to known plastic uses to evaluate potential correlations between amounts used for different uses. |
Plastic use state | Capture and treatment in wastewater systems | The fate of the plastics in the environment is generally poorly known. A large part of plastics is likely to be captured in sewage systems. However the actual share captured could be improved. More importantly, the subsequent fate of the plastics in the sewage is poorly known. For instance, how is the wastewater treated and what happens to the treated share, such as sludge from wastewater treatment plants. | Medium importance. Only about 2.5% of losses are estimated to be associated with sludge from wastewater treatment plants. However, a potentially large fraction of plastics lost during production, use and from littering enter the sewer system. Thus the actual amount of plastic that enters sewer system might be much larger. | Increased monitoring of wastewater in different world regions and mapping wastewater treatment and subsequent fate of wastewater sludge. |
Plastic use state | Leakage from marine activities | Direct leakage of plastics from marine related activities are generally poorly accounted for in global plastic leakage models. Monitoring data on leakage is generally lacking, dated or scarce and often in combination. | Medium importance. While estimated leakage in only about 1% of total global leakage. The leaked plastics are designed to last in the marine environment. They are therefore likely to persist for longer lifetime and cause effects on the environment | Increased monitoring of leakage either by comparing inputs of marine plastic for use with outputs of marine plastic for waste management, where the difference can be seen as leaked. Most of the leakage is likely to be in middle- and low-income countries. Hence, focus should be on obtaining better data for these regions. |
Plastic waste management | Littering rate and collection of littered plastics. | Littering rate is highly uncertain and studies monitoring or otherwise documenting the amount of plastic littering are lacking. In particular for middle- and low-income countries. | Medium importance as littering is estimated to account for ca. 5% of total plastic leakage | Studies focusing on measuring and quantifying littering rates in different regions and under different conditions. It is likely that drivers for littering will differ between regions. E.g., some littering might be due to bad behavior while other littering is due to lack of adequate waste management systems for correctly disposing of the plastics waste. Options and efficiency of subsequent sweeping or collection of litter should be conducted to better understand the potential fate of the littered plastic waste. |
Handling of mismanaged waste | Information on waste treatment and handling of waste that is either mismanaged or handled via informal waste sector is scarce and must be qualified. | High importance as leakages from mismanaged waste managed is the largest source of leakage with 82% of total leaked amount | Improved mapping and characterization of local and regional waste management practice to better understand the treatment share of plastics. | |
Leakage from mismanaged waste | The potential leakage rate of plastics from the mismanaged waste to the environment is poorly understood. Currently, estimates are based on highly varying assumptions. The waste can be leaked via different transportation routes that are likely to be specific to the waste handling or dump site. | High importance as leakages from mismanaged waste managed is the largest source of leakage with 82% of total leaked amount. The leakage rate was also found to be the most important parameter for estimates of global leakage to the environment (Ryberg et al., 2019b). | Better monitoring of local leakage rates from e.g., dump sites are required. Potential development of models that can estimates leakage rates based on known physical characteristics about the dumpsite, such as proximity to water and the income-level of the nation/region where it is situated. |