The tsunami of marine plastics
No one these days can deny the huge problem plastics pose to our planet and oceans. Greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic production threatens global temperature to rise above 1.5C. Marine plastics are suffocating coral propyls, smothering the ocean floor, strangling and killing marine life. Further up the food chain, plastics are entering our bodies.

According to the University of Ghent, the annual dietary exposure for European shellfish consumers can amount to 11,000 microplastics per year. While studies into how these particles affect us is still in its infancy, there is evidence, at least in animals, microplastics can cross the hardy membrane that protects the brain from foreign bodies which enter the bloodstream.
But where is all this marine plastics coming from?
There is an estimated 12.7 million tons of plastic that ends up in our oceans each year. Around 80 percent of this is attributed to come from land, with the remaining 20 percent from marine sources. It has been over 30 years since MARPOL Annex V prohibited the discharge of plastics into the sea from ships, yet in 2020 we are still battling the problem from vessels of varying sizes.
So what can the maritime industry and regulators do to halt the increase of marine plastics before it is too late?
Improved collection of ship waste is certainly one way. The European Commission’s new plan to be adopted by 28 June 2021, requires ships to pay an indirect fee, irrespective of delivery of waste. This covers all ship waste except for cargo residues and waste from scrubbers. Short sea shipping as well as ‘green ships’ are entitled to reduced port fees (rules to be set up by an implementing act).
The plan is simple and yet an excellent deterrent for dumping waste at sea. If there are no savings to be made, why bother breaking the law?
Of course, not everything needs to be in plastics in the first place. Going to the good old days of using oak barrels for storing food and water may be seem an absurd idea in this day and age, but does the alternative have to be plastic containers? Do ships really need to be one of the contributors of the 36 billion beverage bottles used each year, or of the 16 billion coffee cups – and these are just EU figures.
Cutting down on single-use bottles made of Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), used to fabricate beverage containers, especially bottled water is a good place to start.
Often, it is perception of the crew that bottled water is best, rather than the quality of the water that is the problem. Providing good quality filtered water at cooler stations, which is regularly tested and monitored by a designated person, would go a long way to change this misconception but it cannot work on its own. Its needs to be reinforced by litter awareness education for every ship’s crew member.
Seafarers, like many on land, don’t necessarily understand the immense scale of the problem of marine plastics. They are sometimes oblivious as to how livelihoods, fish stocks, coral propyls and ocean health is intertwined. Often, the connection between one’s own actions and the consequence this has on our oceans is not apparent. But the seas have no boundaries. Throwing what seems as an innocuous cigarette butt from the deck of ship into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean on the face of it, does not seem like a big deal, but collectively, the consequences of them may be felt on the other side of the world. And, since cigarette butts are made of cellulose acetate fibres, (a plastic), which does not biodegrade, it would add to the four trillion cigarette butts estimated to be in our seas.
Abandoned, lost or discarded fishing is a major contributor of marine plastics. Fishing gear such as nets or traps not only kills marine life, but is a hazard to navigation from entanglement of propellers. Experiments from eminent universities to make fishing nets degradable are on-going, but as yet, making them biodegradable remains elusive. This means, ultraviolet light from the sun simply degrades the polymers into microplastics, adding to the estimated 15 – 51 trillion pieces said to be in the oceans.
The GloLitter project launched by the IMO and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is looking at new methods to ensure compliance by the global fishing fleets. Such as the marking of fishing gear and tracking it back to its owners, if discarded. Identifiers of vessel registration details and the IMO number are being considered. While these guidelines are currently voluntary, their positive effect in the fight to reduce marine plastic pollutions would be considerable, if adopted worldwide.
If we are going to take a proactive approach to reverse the trend of the ever increasing tsunami of marine plastics, everyone and every industry will need to play their part.
But, a really important avenue for shipping companies is the decreased use of single-use plastics. That is why I was so pleased to join the UK Chamber of Shipping for the launch of their Single-Use Plastics Charter. The industry is showing its commitment to reducing single-use plastics.
This is a guest blog by Fazilette Khan, founder of the GreenSeas trust. The post appered on UK Chamber of Shipping.
лицензионные платформы для игр на деньги рейтинг казино pajkldoktk
I appreciate that the limitations are not glossed over. The measurement is only meaningful if the conditions are held steady.
This is a really eye-opening piece. I never realized how much of the plastic in our oceans comes from land-based sources, and the fact that we’re still dealing with ship waste after 30 years of MARPOL Annex V is disappointing. The idea of indirect fees for waste delivery seems like a smart way to discourage dumping.
The indirect waste fee is a brilliant policy—removing the financial incentive to dump trash at sea is long overdue. Beyond stricter port regulations, the maritime sector really needs to cut down on its reliance on single-use plastics onboard.
The indirect fee model makes a lot of sense—if operators have to pay regardless, there is no financial incentive to dump waste at sea. It is high time the maritime sector also takes serious steps to drastically cut down on single-use plastics and beverage bottles onboard.
The indirect port fee is such a smart approach—removing any financial incentive to dump waste at sea should make compliance much easier. Hopefully, we see more global fleets actively phase out single-use plastics on board as well.
The indirect fee model is a really smart policy since removing the financial incentive to dump waste at sea is long overdue. Beyond regulations, though, significantly cutting down on single-use plastics onboard vessels in the first place is what will truly make a lasting difference.
It’s alarming how widespread microplastics have become, especially in our food chain. Implementing indirect waste fees at ports is a smart step, but reducing single-use plastics on board ships should definitely be the top priority.
The flat fee for port waste collection is a really smart policy—removing the financial incentive to dump trash overboard is key. Hopefully more regions outside of Europe follow suit to help tackle this crisis.
It is alarming how much plastic still ends up in our oceans despite regulations like MARPOL being in place for decades. Charging an indirect fee for port waste disposal is a smart move, but drastically reducing single-use plastics onboard vessels from the start is just as crucial.
The indirect fee structure makes a lot of sense—if there’s no financial benefit to dumping waste at sea, compliance should improve significantly. Microplastics entering the food chain is a terrifying prospect, so cutting down on single-use items aboard ships is long overdue.
Implementing indirect waste fees at ports is a smart move that finally takes away the financial incentive for illegal dumping. Hopefully shipping companies also take real initiative to eliminate single-use plastics on board so there is less waste generated in the first place.
It’s alarming how deeply microplastics have penetrated our food chain, especially seafood. Implementing standard port waste fees sounds like a very practical step to remove any financial incentive for ships to dump trash at sea.
https://xkj.in.net
Bắn cá đại dương bên F8bet có súng lazer bắn quét diện rộng, gom xu cực kỳ đã tay.
The indirect fee system is a brilliant step forward—removing any financial incentive to dump waste overboard is crucial. Hopefully, we’ll see more ports worldwide adopt similar strict measures to tackle maritime plastic pollution.