IP 133

ENG

Agenda Item: CEP 11 Presented by: ASOC Original: English Submitted: 31/5/2019

Mitigating microplastic pollution in

1

IP 133

Mitigating microplastic pollution in Antarctica

Information Paper submitted by ASOC1

Summary ASOC is pleased to see increasing attention to the issue of plastic pollution in the . In this paper, we explore some potential ways to mitigate microplastic pollution and provide information on easily implementable methods for filtering laundry water, a common source of local microplastic pollution. These methods are already in use, including by some fishing vessels operating in the Southern Ocean. We encourage national Antarctic programs to explore implementing these methods and to adopt other measures for reducing plastic pollution, such as prohibiting the use of personal care products containing microbeads by station personnel. ASOC strongly supports the resolution proposed by the in WP14 (submitted to this meeting).

Background The issue of microplastic and other plastic pollution in the marine environment has garnered significant media coverage in recent months, and is the subject of a growing body of scientific research. This work has determined that although remote from many major sources of plastic pollution, the Antarctic is unfortunately not free from this problem. In this paper, ASOC provides information on Southern Ocean microplastics, presents some options for mitigation of local sources, and discusses steps that national Antarctic programs and others can take to help address the problem.

While other regions of the ocean are more heavily affected, there is evidence that microplastic pollution is present in the Antarctic. As reported in WP14, some of this is attributable to local sources.2 Studies have found microplastics in intertidal sediment in Subarea 48.3 (Barnes et al. 2009), near stations south of the Polar Front (Cózar et al. 2014), in deep-sea sediment in the (Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2013), and from towed neuston nets in the Southern Ocean (Eriksen et al. 2014). In addition, researchers are attempting to determine a baseline for microplastics in the Antarctic region and have conducted sampling in several locations. The concentration of microplastics in each example below is attributed to local human activities. Some key findings thus far are:

• In the region, samples taken near the sewage treatment plant at Mario contained more microplastic fragments than those taken further offshore (Cincinelli et al. 2017). • Sampling from Terra Nova Bay – encompassing an area up to 10 km from Mario Zucchelli Base – confirmed Cincinelli’s analysis that the number of plastic particles in sediment decreased the further the samples were from the station (Munari et al. 2017). • Rothera Research Station (Reed et al. 2018) and the South Shetland Islands (Waller et al. 2017) also showed an increased concentration of marine microplastics near scientific stations.

1Lead authors Claire Christian and Hannah Hayes, with contributions from Ricardo Roura and Rodolfo Werner. This paper is a revised and updated version of SC-CAMLR-XXXVII/BG/18, Responding to the emerging threat of microplastics in the Southern Ocean, submitted by ASOC and COLTO (Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators). Further information on research findings can be found in this paper, please see: https://www.asoc.org/storage/documents/Meetings/CCAMLR/XXXVII/sc-xxxvii-bg-18.pdf 2United Kingdom. 2019. Reducing Plastic Pollution in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. ATCM XLII WP14. 3

IP 133

• A recent Greenpeace expedition discovered microplastic fragments from single-use plastic in the Southern Ocean (2018). Scientists also collected samples at five stations in the Southern Ocean with a neuston net. Their results exhibited that higher latitudes – south of 60°S – had more microplastic particles, while mid-latitudes had significantly fewer (Isobe et al. 2017). Surprisingly, the estimated number of particles per square kilometer for Antarctic sampling sites was similar to that found in the North Pacific closer to inhabited areas (Isobe et al. 2017). Since some of the particles appear to have come from outside the Antarctic, the researchers speculate that this “implies that the microplastics are likely to be trapped around Antarctica once they are transported beyond the ACC and oceanic fronts” since the particles tend to stay in surface ocean layers (Isobe et al. 2017).

Prevention of further plastic pollution in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean

MARPOL Annex V already prohibits the discharge of plastic garbage, which can contribute to microplastic pollution through photodegradation, abrasion and biologically accelerated fragmentation. Similarly Article 5 (1), Annex IV of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty prohibits "...the disposal into the sea of all plastics, including but not limited to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, and plastic garbage bags". CCAMLR Conservation Measure 26-01 also regulates the use of plastic packaging bands on board fishing vessels. Nevertheless, these are clearly insufficient to prevent pollution entirely, and new efforts are needed to further reduce microplastics.

ASOC is pleased to see that there is increasing attention to the issue of Antarctic plastic pollution from the scientific community and governments, and strongly supports the adoption of the resolution proposed by the UK for this ATCM (WP14). Other stakeholders, such as the fishing and tourism industries, also have a role to play in preventing plastics from entering the marine environment.

For example, the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO) member Talley’s Group Ltd. has undertaken plankton tows in areas 88.1 and 88.2 in the Southern Ocean. The materials will be analysed for evidence of microplastics in the Ross Sea. As noted by the UK, toothfish vessels operated by Argos Froyanes Ltd., also a COLTO member, are fitted with the Lint LUV-R washing machine discharge filter. The filters are collecting lint and Argos Froyanes Ltd. is analysing water samples for plastic content, and will share results. The use of products containing plastic microbeads has also been prohibited by this company (WP14). Other COLTO member companies have also begun installing the LUV-R filters to their vessels in 2019. IAATO has reported to this meeting on its efforts to reduce plastic usage and support research on this issue (see IP 99). Further, IAATO member Hurtigruten has committed to ending single-use plastic in its operations.3

These actions send a strong signal that reducing pollution from plastic, which has become ubiquitous in daily life, is an achievable goal. ASOC encourages other vessels, as well as research stations, to explore prohibiting products containing microbeads and adopting various methods for filtering laundry water. Laundry water can be a major source of local microplastic pollution given that many clothing items are now made from synthetic materials. Fleece fabrics shed significantly more fibers than other knits. PET (polyethylene terephthalate) fleece sheds an estimated 110,000 fibers per garment and wash (Carney Almroth et al. 2018).

3 Hurtigruten. 2018. “Hurtigruten wages war on plastic: Bans single-use plastic by this summer”. Available from < https://global.hurtigruten.com/about-us/news/war-on-plastic/> Accessed 24 May 2019.

4

IP 133

There are several methods, including the Lint LUV-R, for collecting these fibers and filtering them out during laundering, which are summarized in Annex 1. ASOC provides this detailed information in the hopes of facilitating their adoption onboard vessels and at research stations.

Conclusion and recommendations Microplastic pollution is one of several emerging threats facing Southern Ocean ecosystems that requires complex global solutions. While the full impact of widespread microplastics pollution is not yet fully understood, including ingestion by marine species, toxicity associated with microplastics and nanoplastics is a major concern. Since there are no viable methods for large-scale removal of microplastic particles from the ocean and particles may remain in the environment for centuries, the application of the precautionary approach is critical. Therefore, efforts need to be focused primarily on avoiding the discharge of microplastics into the ocean. It would seem that is relatively easy to mitigate some ongoing sources of this problem, particularly in regards to waste management and the unwanted disposal of lint in laundry water originating from Antarctic ships and research stations. Prohibiting the use of products containing plastic microbeads should also be relatively straightforward since several countries have already required manufactures to either cease or phase out their use.

ASOC therefore recommends: • That all vessels and research stations operating in the Antarctic consider using filtration technologies such as the ones described in Appendix 1 to reduce the amount of microplastic particles entering the Antarctic marine environment. • That all vessels and research stations prohibit the use of products containing microbeads. • That ATCPs note the formation of the SCAR Action Group on plastics and look for opportunities to participate in microplastics research. • That ATCPs adopt the resolution on reducing plastic pollution proposed in WP14.

References

Barnes, David K. A., Francois Galgani, Richard C. Thompson, and Morton Barlaz. 2009. “Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of . Series B, Biological Sciences 364, no. 1526 (July): 1985-98. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205. Carney Almroth, Bethany M., Linn Astrom, Sofia Roslund, Hanna Peterson, Matts Johansson, Nils-Krister Persson. 2018. Quantifying shedding of synthetic fibers from textiles; a source of microplastics released into the environment. Environmental Science Pollution Research 25: 1191- 1199. Cincinelli, Alessandra, Costanza Scopetani, David Chelazzi, Emilia Lombardini, Tania Martellini Athanasios Katsoyiannis, Maria Cristina Fossi, and Simonetta Corsolini. 2017. “Microplastic in the surface waters of the Ross Sea (Antarctica): Occurrence, distribution and characterization by FTIR.” Chemosphere 175 (May): 391-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.024. Cózar, Andrés, Fidel Echevarríaa, J. Ignacio González-Gordilloa, Xabier Irigoienb,c, Bárbara Úbedaa, Santiago Hernández-Leónd, Álvaro T. Palmae, Sandra Navarrof, Juan García-de-Lomasa, Andrea Ruizg, María L. Fernández-de-Puellesh, and Carlos M. Duartei. 2014. “Plastic debris in the open ocean.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, no. 28 (June): 10239-44, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314705111.

5

IP 133

Eriksen, Marcus, Laurent C. M. Lebreton, Henry S. Carson, Martin Thiel, Charles J, Moore, Jose C. Borerro, Francois Galgani, Peter G. Ryan, Julia Reisser. 2014. “Plastic Pollution in the World’s Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea.” PLoS One 9, no. 12 (December): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913. Greenpeace International. 2018. “Microplastics and persistent fluorinated chemicals in the Antarctic.” Accessed August 15, 2018. https://storage.googleapis.com/p4-production-content/international/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/4f99ea57-microplastic-antarctic-report-final.pdf. Isobe, Atsuhiko, Kaori Uchiyama-Matsumoto, Keiichi Uchida, and Tadashi Tokai. 2017. “Microplastics in the Southern Ocean.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 114, no. 1 (January): 623-626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.037. Munari, Cristina, Vanessa Infantini, Marco Scoponi, Eugenio Rastelli, Cinzia Corinaldesi, and Michele Mistri. 2017. “Microplastics in the sediment of Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea, Antarctica).” Marine Pollution Bulletin 122, no. 1-2 (September):161-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.039. Van Cauwenberghe, Lisbeth, Ann Vanreusel, Jan Mees, and Colin R. Janssen. 2013. “Microplastic pollution in deep-sea sediment.” Environmental Pollution 182 (November): 495-499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.08.013. Waller, Catherine L., Huw J. Griffiths, Claire M. Waluda, Sally E. Thorpe, Iván Loaiza, Bernabé Moreno, Cesar O. Pacherres, Kevin A. Hughes. 2017. “Microplastics in the Antarctic marine system: An emerging area of research.” Science of the Total Environment, no. C (November): 220-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.283.

6

IP 133

Annex 1: Current options for removing microplastic fibers from laundry water

Product Method of Operation and Additional details Website Cost Lint LUV-R Attaches to washing Requires installation. Once https://environmentalenhancem machine discharge hose and installed, works automatically. ents.com/index.html filters leaving washing Does not require filter machine. $140 USD per cleaning after every load. May filtration system. not work on all vessels but has already been installed on some fishing vessels. Catches over 80% of fibers (manufacturer- provided statistics based on a study done by university students). Filter more complicated to clean and may need to be cleaned frequently depending on volume of laundry. Manufacturer offers 5-year replacement guarantee on the filter housing and a lifetime guarantee on the filter screen. Guppyfriend Bag for clothing that collects No installation required and http://guppyfriend.com/en/ loose microfibers. Fibers simple fiber removal process. collect in the seam of the Stops 86% of fibers bag and are removed (manufacturer statistics). May manually. 29.75 Euros per prevent fibers from being bag. released from clothing and prolong their life. Only holds a few garments so many would be needed for larger capacity washers. May prevent full cleaning of garment. Cora Ball This is a ball with multiple Does not require installation https://coraball.com/ loops that catch loose and fiber removal process is microfibers during the wash simple. Each ball can collect cycle. Collected fibers are approximately 35% of the removed manually from the fibers released (manufacturer- loops. Multiple balls provided statistics). Multiple recommended for full balls recommended to achieve coverage or large washers. maximum fiber removal. Cora $29.99 USD per ball, Ball manufacturers willing to discounts potentially accept collected fibers from available for large orders. Antarctic vessels and will analyse effectiveness. Requires user to add to each load.

7