Threat Abatement Plan

for the impacts of marine debris on the vertebrate
wildlife of Australia’s coasts and oceans (2018)

© Commonwealth of Australia, 2018.

Threat Abatement Plan for the impacts of marine debris on the vertebrate wildlife of Australia’s coasts and oceans (2018) is licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence with the exception of the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the report, content supplied by third parties, and any images depicting people. For licence conditions see:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/au/

This report should be attributed as ‘Threat Abatement Plan for the impacts of marine debris on the vertebrate wildlife of Australia’s coasts and oceans, Commonwealth of Australia 2018’.

The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify content supplied by third parties using the following format ‘© Copyright, [name of third party] ’.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment and Energy.

Front Cover photo: A pelican killed by marine debris at Cardwell, Queensland. Image: P. Campbell, Tangaroa Blue Foundation

Back Cover photo: Removing net from an entangled Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus). Image: Phillip Island Nature Parks

Contents

1.                 Background                                                          4

2.                 Objectives and actions                                  8

Objective 1: Contribute to long-term prevention of marine debris                     8

Objective 2: Understand the scale of impacts from marine plastic and microplastic on key   species, ecological communities and locations              20

Objective 3: Remove existing marine debris                                   26

Objective 4: Monitor the quantities, origins and hazardous chemical contaminants of marine debris and assess the effectiveness of management arrangements for reducing

marine debris                                                       30

Objective 5: Increase public understanding of the causes and impacts of marine debris, including microplastic and hazardous chemical contaminants, to bring about

behaviour change                                                    33

3.                 Duration, investment, implementation and evaluation

of the plan 37

3.1 Duration                                                        37

3.2 Investment in the plan                                               37 Table 1: Estimated costs of implementation for selected actions

(note that these are not funded actions)                                     38 Table 2: Estimated average cost of beach clean-ups per kilometre (Tangaroa Blue)              39

3.3 Links to legislation and to Australian Government plans and programs               39

3.4 Evaluating implementation of the plan                                    40 Appendix A 41 Appendix B              45 Appendix C              46 References              47

3

1.    Background

Threat abatement plans

Threat abatement plans address key threatening processes listed under section 183 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). A key threatening process is ‘a process that threatens or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community’. If the environment minister decides, with advice, that a feasible, effective and efficient way of addressing a listed key threatening process is the development of a threat abatement plan, the Australian Government works with stakeholders to develop a plan under section 270A of the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act describes the process, content and consultation required when making a threat abatement plan.

The Australian Government implements actions under threat abatement plans that are its direct responsibility. It also guides the implementation of actions where other groups (e.g. state or territory governments, industry or community groups) lead the implementation of a threat abatement plan.

The Australian Government undertakes the threat abatement planning process with assistance from stakeholders including other governments, scientific experts, industry, non-government agencies and the community. To progress actions under the Threat abatement plan for the impacts of marine debris on the vertebrate wildlife of Australia’s coasts and oceans, the Australian Government will rely on engagement from all stakeholders involved in this complex problem.

Plastic debris on Christmas Island Image: © CSIRO

4  /  Threat Abatement Plan

Background to this threat abatement plan

Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris was listed as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act in August 2003.

Harmful marine debris includes land-sourced garbage, fishing gear from recreational and commercial fishing abandoned or lost to the sea, and vessel-sourced, solid, non-biodegradable floating materials disposed of or lost at sea. Most of these items are made of synthetic plastics. Harmful marine debris is recognised as a ubiquitous, global problem.

Many industry, government and non-government stakeholders are working to address marine debris and related issues (e.g. through beach clean-up and management of litter and illegal dumping).

In 2009, a threat abatement plan (TAP) to address the key threatening process was prepared and approved in accordance with the EPBC Act. The primary focus of the TAP was the impact of entanglement and ingestion of marine debris on vertebrate marine life.

A review of action under the 2009 TAP was completed in 2015. The review concluded that, despite progress, particularly in beach clean-up efforts, the key threatening process had not been abated and the objectives of the 2009 TAP had not been met. Community and non-government stakeholders were noted as key partners in effective action. The review also noted that understanding had increased over the life of the 2009 plan, particularly regarding the global nature of the marine debris problem and the potential sublethal and other impacts of microplastic and associated chemical contamination.

The Department of the Environment and Energy held an expert workshop in August 2015, involving research, industry, non-government and government organisations, to understand priorities for revising and updating the TAP. This workshop led to the development of this plan, which replaces the 2009 plan.

With increasing public interest in this issue, in June 2015 the Australian Senate referred the threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia for inquiry and reporting. The Senate Inquiry report, Toxic tide: the threat of marine plastic, was tabled on 20 April 2016, and highlighted the need for improved action on many issues relevant to the TAP (Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, 2016).

This plan incorporates new actions needed to abate the listed key threatening process, particularly actions to develop understanding about microplastic impacts and the potential role of new technologies in waste management. The actions are intended to be feasible, effective and efficient, as required by the EPBC Act. The plan binds the Commonwealth and its agencies to respond to the impact of marine debris on vertebrate marine life, and identifies the research, management and other actions needed to reduce the impacts of marine debris on affected species. The plan is subject to review at intervals of no more than five years.

Since 2009, marine wildlife researchers have documented additional EPBC Act-listed species that are being impacted by marine debris. Appendix A has been updated to include these species.

5

Why is plastic debris a problem in the marine environment?

Anthropogenic debris entering and accumulating in the world’s oceans is comprised of many types of materials. However, a recent systematic review of the demonstrated ecological impacts of these materials (Rochman et al., 2016), found that the majority (82 per cent) were plastic. The review suggested that there is sufficient evidence now for decision makers to begin to mitigate problematic plastic debris to avoid risk of irreversible ecological harm. Other researchers (e.g. Browne et al., 2015) suggest that policies on anthropogenic debris should focus on replacing problematic products with safer alternatives by tasking ecologists and engineers to identify and remove features of products that might cause ecological impacts.

Plastics are an obvious, problematic target for action. Experts say fishing gear (ropes and nets made from synthetic fibres), balloons and plastic bags are the biggest entanglement threat to marine fauna, and plastic bags and utensils are the biggest ingestion risk for seabirds, turtles and marine mammals (Wilcox et al., 2016). Plastics may also be chemically harmful in some contexts, either because of their potential toxicity or because they absorb other pollutants (Rochman et al., 2013).

As plastic debris accumulates in the environment, exposure to physical, chemical and biological processes results in its fragmentation into smaller pieces, and the potential for ingestion by animals increases (Browne et al., 2008). Potential routes for entry of microplastics (including beads and fibres) into the environment include fragmentation of larger items, introduction of small particles that are used as abrasives in cleaning products, and spills of plastic powders and pellets in sewage waste.

Fragments of plastic on the shoreline. Image: © CSIRO

Seabirds often eat floating plastic. Wilcox et al. (2015b) suggested that nearly all species of seabirds will eventually be found ingesting plastic, based on the discoveries reported so far. For example, 21 per cent of surveyed wedge-tailed shearwater (Ardenna pacifica) chicks on Heron Island in the southern Great Barrier Reef were fed plastic fragments by their parents, ingesting 3.2 fragments on average (Verlis et al., 2013). In addition, plastic-derived polybrominated diphenyl ethers (a very common class of flame retardants) are found in the abdominal fat tissues of short-tailed shearwaters (Ardenna tenuirostris) in the north Pacific Ocean, presumably transferred from ingested plastics (Tanaka et al., 2013).

6  /  Threat Abatement Plan

An extreme example of plastic ingestion — an albatross chick from Midway Island, USA, killed by the plastic it was fed by parent birds. Image: © Britta Denise Hardesty

Studies published between 1985 and 2012 identified general plastic as the main debris ingested by marine turtles, followed by soft plastic, rope and styrofoam (Schuyler et al. 2014). Up to 52 per cent of sea turtles may have ingested debris (Schuyler et al. 2016). Other research suggests that turtle nesting activity (and therefore recruitment of new generations) may also be impacted by marine debris. Fujisaki and Lamont (2016), found a substantial increase in loggerhead turtle nesting activity after the removal of large debris from nest beaches in Florida, USA.

Plastic ingestion studies on fish are still in their infancy, especially in the southern hemisphere (Cannon et al., 2016). There is, however, experimental evidence that ingested microbeads can transfer sorbed pollutants (specifically polybrominated diphenyl ethers) to Murray River rainbow fish (Melanotaenia fuviatilis) (Wardrop et al., 2016).

The size range of microplastics overlaps with the preferred particle size ingested by animals at the base of the marine food web; detritus-, suspension- and filter-feeders are readily able to ingest the fragments. This leads to uptake and trophic transfer of the plastics themselves and any chemicals they contain or have absorbed from seawater (Galloway and Lewis, 2016). Ingestion of polystyrene microparticles has been shown to interfere with energy uptake and allocation, reproduction, and offspring performance in oysters (Sussarellu et al., 2016).

There is no information available on uptake or biological effects of microplastics originating from marine or terrestrial debris and subsequently ingested by humans through the food chain (Galloway, 2015). Microplastic and chemical contaminant transfers, and the possible accumulation of such contaminants in marine food webs, requires further investigation.

7

Plastic debris increases the susceptibility of reef-building corals to disease, with subsequent habitat implications for marine wildlife. The likelihood of disease increased from 4 per cent to 89 per cent when corals were in contact with plastic (Lamb et al., 2018). Structurally complex corals were eight times more likely to be affected by plastic, suggesting that microhabitats for reef-associated organisms and valuable fisheries may be disproportionately affected.

As an example of the extent of plastic pollution and the concern this issue generates, the first coordinated joint survey of floating macroplastics in remote seas around east and west Antarctica in 2007–2008 found that the seabeds immediately surrounding continental Antarctica are probably the last environments on the planet yet to be reached by plastics (Barnes et al. 2010). However, with pieces of plastic floating into the surface of the Amundsen Sea, this seems likely to change. Australian scientists are planning to investigate the impact of microplastics on the Southern Ocean food web in Antarctica during the life of this plan.

2.    Objectives and actions

This plan provides national guidance on action to prevent and mitigate the impacts of harmful marine debris on vertebrate marine life through five major objectives:

1. Contribute to long-term prevention of the incidence of marine debris
2. Understand the scale of impacts from marine plastic and microplastic on key species, ecological communities and locations
3. Remove existing marine debris
4. Monitor the quantities, origins, types and hazardous chemical contaminants of marine debris, and assess the effectiveness of management arrangements for reducing marine debris
5. Increase public understanding of the causes and impacts of harmful marine debris, including microplastic and hazardous chemical contaminants, to bring about behaviour change.

The criteria for success remain consistent with those in the previous TAP and with national indicators for estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems:

•   a general decline in the presence and extent of harmful marine debris in Australia’s marine environment

•   a general decline in the number of marine vertebrates dying and being injured from ingestion of and/or entanglement in harmful marine debris.

Context and specific actions for each objective are outlined below.

Objective 1: Contribute to long-term prevention of marine debris

Globally, the loss of plastic to the environment is increasing at an exponential rate. The World Economic Forum estimates that 95 per cent of plastic packaging material value (or over $80 trillion annually) is lost to the economy after a short first use (World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company, 2016).

It is widely cited that 80 per cent of marine debris originates from land (rather than ship- or marine-based sources), but this figure is not well substantiated (Jambeck et al., 2015). During 2010, 275 million metric tonnes of plastic waste was generated in 192 coastal countries, with 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes entering the ocean (Jambeck et al., 2015). In 2014, 15 to 51 trillion microplastic particles (items above 0.33 mm), weighing between 93 and 236 thousand tonnes were present in global oceans (van Sebille et al., 2015). The ocean may contain upward of 150 million tonnes of plastic (Ocean Conservancy, 2015). In a business-as-usual scenario, the sea is expected to contain 1 tonne of plastic for every 3 tonnes of fish by 2025, and by 2050, more plastics than fish (by weight) (World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company, 2016).

8  /  Threat Abatement Plan

Reisser et al. (2013) characterised and estimated the concentration of marine plastics in waters around Australia and inferred their potential pathways. The marine plastics recorded were predominantly microplastics resulting from the break-up of larger objects made of polyethylene and polypropylene (e.g. packaging and fishing items). Mean sea surface plastic concentration was over 4000 pieces per square kilometre, and after incorporating the effect of vertical wind mixing, this value increased to nearly 9000 pieces per square kilometre. These microplastics appear to be associated with ocean currents that connect sampled sites to their international and domestic sources, including populated areas of Australia’s east coast.

Australian action can contribute to reducing the effects of plastic marine debris on marine wildlife globally, particularly through development of innovative concepts and technologies that help prevent plastic debris entering the marine environment. Domestic policies on materials, supply chains, product stewardship, waste management and resource recovery can all assist in minimising the volumes of debris entering the ocean. For example, the Australian Packaging Covenant is an agreement between the state and Australian Government environment ministers and the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, (APCO) a non-government organisation that focuses on sustainable packaging. The covenant seeks to minimise the impacts of packaging on the environment and the strategic plan (Australian Packaging Covenant, 2016), advocates for resource use, reuse and recycling innovation to minimise packaging going to landfill. APCO is working to instil a ‘circular economy’ culture in Australian businesses, focusing on keeping product packaging within an active economy by recovering it for further use after its initial use.

Australia is also working regionally and internationally to address the issue of marine debris, particularly through the United Nations General Assembly, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Whaling Commission and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.

Australia is a member of the International Whaling Commission’s entanglement response network, which includes an entanglement response capacity building program incorporating threat mitigation relating to large marine debris. Australian scientists have also been involved in the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee’s program ‘Pollution 2020,’ which is studying the origin, fate and distribution of microplastics. As chair of the Commission’s Standing Working Group on Conservation Management Plans, Australia is working to incorporate consideration of marine debris into existing and new conservation management plans, which are a practical tool for improving the conservation status of at-risk cetaceans.

Most plastic enters the ocean from a small geographic area, with over half coming from five rapidly growing economies—China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam (Ocean Conservancy, 2015). Recent, significant economic gains, reduced poverty, and improved quality of life in these countries have generated demand for consumer products that has not yet been met with a commensurate waste management infrastructure.

As well as improving waste, litter and stormwater management domestically, improving marine debris management in regional developing countries will improve outcomes for Australia’s marine wildlife, particularly for migratory species that use areas affected by these international sources. This will require immense resources and effort, beyond the scope of this plan. However, while marine debris is the result of outflow of waste from global economic activity, much can be done by Australia domestically to provide leadership and coordination in limiting further contributions of marine debris to the ocean.

9

Land-based sources of marine debris

Marine debris comes from many different land-based sources. Kroon et al. (2015) identify that chronic exposure to plastic pollution is likely near sewage, stormwater, aquaculture and industrial discharges. A study of plastic waste on coastal beaches in the greater Sydney region in New South Wales found high correlation between plastic debris and both the frequency of storm-water drains and local population sizes. This suggests that storm-water drains may be responsible for delivering plastic waste to coastal ecosystems, with the amount of plastic debris proportional to the size of the surrounding population (Duckett and Repaci, 2015).

Pre-production resin plastic pellets (or nurdles) are produced and shipped around the world in significant volumes. These pellets can be lost to the environment in many ways, but spills around factories and transport over land are major factors. Pellets spilled on land may eventually find their way into drainage systems and out to sea, contributing to marine microplastic debris levels. The non-government organisation Tangaroa Blue has introduced Operation Clean Sweep to Victoria (funded through the Victorian Government’s Litter Hotspots Program) with the aim of ensuring that resin pellets are contained, reclaimed and/or disposed of properly, and with a goal of zero pellet loss.

Plastics along Australia’s east coast mostly come from domestic uses (Reisser et al., 2013). A study on hotspots of coastal debris across Australia found relatively high loads in Western Australia due to prevailing onshore transport from wind and wave action, along with potential transport from currents in the Indian Ocean (Hardesty et al., 2016). On the east coast of the mainland, the debris loads increase from Queensland south to New South Wales, and further increase on the Victorian coastline, likely due to transport of materials southward along the coast in the East Australian Current. Debris from Brisbane appears to be exported southward, and transported onshore by wind and waves. This plume is steadily joined by additional debris from sources down the populated eastern coast, with deposition along the way, leading to the highest levels on the Victorian coastline. Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory have relatively low debris loads compared with the other states.

Marine-based sources of debris

Marine sources of debris include commercial shipping, offshore installations such as oil rigs (Reisser et al., 2013), and recreational and commercial fishing.

Chronic exposure to marine debris on the Great Barrier Reef was found to be most likely in areas frequented by ships, primarily in ports and marinas, at anchorage areas, at moorings and to a lesser extent along shipping lanes (Kroon et al., 2015). This situation is likely to be reflected in such facilities around the Australian coastline.

Coastal clean-ups in Australia show that recreational fishing appears to provide a source of very high-impact material (C. Wilcox, pers. comm., 2016). Seabirds may be particularly vulnerable to injury from recreational fishing material given their scavenging and fishing activities in areas that are also used by humans (Carapetis et al., 2010). Globally, an estimated 640 000 tonnes of commercial fishing gear is lost in the oceans each year (UNEP, 2016). This gear (referred to as ghost gear or ghost nets) is predominantly comprised of plastic material and, whether accidently or deliberately discarded, threatens marine wildlife through indiscriminate entanglement

10  /  Threat Abatement Plan

A large ghost net in Australian waters. Image: © GhostNets Australia

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is fishing that does not comply with national, regional or global fisheries conservation and management obligations. Such fishing contributes to the impact of abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear on marine wildlife. Australia has been actively involved in working to strengthen existing regional and international fisheries management and conservation arrangements. Australia also takes a role in pursuing the development and adoption of new measures (where appropriate) to combat IUU fishing and to fully implement key international instruments to ensure that vessels do not act in contravention of their international obligations.

Australia is party to Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which regulates garbage pollution from ships (including fishing vessels). The discharge of plastic into the sea has been prohibited under MARPOL Annex V since 1988; the discharge of all types of garbage into the sea, with very limited exceptions (not related to plastics), has been prohibited since 2013. MARPOL also obliges parties to ensure that adequate waste reception facilities that fully meet the needs of ships normally using them are available in all ports and terminals. Adequate waste reception facilities assist and encourage crews to dispose of plastic wastes appropriately. The potential biosecurity risks posed by ships’ waste delivered to port waste reception facilities is an important consideration.