Abstract
In the age of the Anthropocene, the ocean has typically been viewed as a sink for pollution. Pollution is varied, ranging from human-made plastics and pharmaceutical compounds, to human-altered abiotic factors, such as sediment and nutrient runoff. As global population, wealth and resource consumption continue to grow, so too does the amount of potential pollution produced. This presents us with a grand challenge which requires interdisciplinary knowledge to solve. There is sufficient data on the human health, social, economic, and environmental risks of marine pollution, resulting in increased awareness and motivation to address this global challenge, however a significant lag exists when implementing strategies to address this issue. This review draws upon the expertise of 17 experts from the fields of social sciences, marine science, visual arts, and Traditional and First Nations Knowledge Holders to present two futures; the Business-As-Usual, based on current trends and observations of growing marine pollution, and a More Sustainable Future, which imagines what our ocean could look like if we implemented current knowledge and technologies. We identify priority actions that governments, industry and consumers can implement at pollution sources, vectors and sinks, over the next decade to reduce marine pollution and steer us towards the More Sustainable Future.
Graphic abstract
![](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11160-021-09674-8/MediaObjects/11160_2021_9674_Figa_HTML.png)
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The ocean has historically been a sink for pollution, leaving modern society with significant ocean pollution legacy issues to manage (Elliott and Elliott 2013; O'Shea et al. 2018). People continue to pollute the ocean at increasing rates creating further damage to marine ecosystems. This results in detrimental impacts on livelihoods, food security, marine navigation, wildlife and well-being, among others (Krushelnytska 2018; Lebreton and Andrady 2019; Nichols 2014; Seitzinger et al. 2002). As pollution presents a multitude of stressors for ocean life, it cannot be explored in isolation (Khan et al., 2018). Thus, global coordinated efforts are essential to manage the current and future state of the ocean and to minimise further damage from pollution (Krushelnytska 2018; Macleod et al. 2016; O'Brien et al. 2019; Williams et al. 2015). Efforts are also needed to tackle key questions, such as how do pollutants function in different environments, and interact with each other?
Pollution can be broadly defined as any natural or human-derived substance or energy that is introduced into the environment by humans and that can have a detrimental effect on living organisms and natural environments (UNEP 1982). Pollutants, including light and sound in addition to the more commonly recognised forms, can enter the marine environment from a multitude of sources and transport mechanisms (Carroll et al. 2017; Depledge et al. 2010; Longcore and Rich 2004; Williams et al. 2015). These may include long range atmospheric movement (Amunsen et al. 1992) and transport from inland waterways (Lebreton et al. 2017).
Current pollutant concentrations in the marine environment are expected to continue increasing with growth in both global population and product production. For example, global plastic production increased by 13 million tonnes in a single year (PlasticsEurope 2018), with rising oceanic plastic linked to such trends (Wilcox et al. 2020). Pharmaceutical pollution is predicted to increase with population growth, resulting in a greater range of chemicals entering the ocean through stormwater drains and rivers (Bernhardt et al. 2017; Rzymski et al. 2017). Additionally, each year new chemical compounds are produced whose impacts on the marine environment are untested (Landrigan et al. 2018).
Marine pollution harms organisms throughout the food-web in diverse ways. Trace amounts of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in organisms have the capacity to cause physiological harm (Capaldo et al. 2018; Hoffman et al. 2011; Salamat et al. 2014) and alter behaviours (Brodin et al. 2014; Mattsson et al. 2017). Artificial lights along coasts at night can disrupt organism navigation, predation and vertical migration (Depledge et al. 2010). Pharmaceutical pollutants, such as contraceptive drugs, have induced reproductive failure and sex changes in a range of fish species (Lange et al. 2011; Nash et al. 2004). Furthermore, some pollutants also have the capacity to bioaccumulate, which means they may become more concentrated in higher trophic marine species (Bustamante et al. 1998; Eagles-Smith et al. 2009).
Pollution also poses a huge economic risk. Typically, the majority of consequences from pollution disproportionately impact poorer nations who have less resources to manage and remediate these impacts (Alario and Freudenburg 2010; Beaumont et al. 2019; Golden et al. 2016; Landrigan et al. 2018). Marine pollution can negatively impact coastal tourism (Jang et al. 2014), waterfront real estate (Ofiara and Seneca 2006), ship** (Moore 2018) and fisheries (Hong et al. 2017; Uhrin 2016). Contamination of seafood poses a perceived risk to human health, but also results in a significant financial cost for producers and communities (Ofiara and Seneca 2006; White et al. 2000). Additionally, current remediation strategies for most pollutants in marine and coastal ecosystems are costly, time consuming and may not prove viable in global contexts (Ryan and Jewitt 1996; Smith et al. 1997; Uhrin 2016).
Reducing marine pollution is a global challenge that needs to be addressed for the health of the ocean and the communities and industries it supports. The United Nations proposed and adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) designed to guide future developments and intended to be achieved by 2030. It has flagged the reduction of marine pollution as a key issue underpinning the achievement of SDG 14, Life Under Water, with target 14.1 defined as “prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution” by 2025 (United Nations General Assembly 2015). In the UN Decade of Ocean Science (2021–2030), one of the six ocean outcomes relates specifically to the identification and reduction of marine pollution (A Clean Ocean; UN DOS SD). The task of reducing marine pollution is daunting—the ocean is so vast that cleaning it seems almost impossible. However, effective management of pollution at its source is a successful way to reduce it and protect the ocean (DeGeorges et al. 2010; Rochman 2016; Simmonds et al. 2014; Zhu et al. 2008). Strategies, implemented locally, nationally and globally, to prevent, or considerably reduce pollution inputs in combination with removing pollutants from the marine environment (Sherman and van Sebille 2016) will allow healthy ocean life and processes to continue into the future. However, such strategies need to be implemented on a collective global scale, and target pollution at key intervals from their creation to their use and disposal.
To help explain how society can most effectively address pollution sources and clean the ocean, we depict two different future seas scenarios by 2030. The first is a Business-As-Usual scenario, where society continues to adhere to current management and global trends. The second is a technically achievable, more sustainable future that is congruent with the SDGs, and where society actively take actions and adopt sustainable solutions. We then explore pollution in three ‘zones’ of action; at the source(s), along the way, and at sink, in the context of river or estuarine systems, as water-transported pollution is commonly associated with urban centres alongside river systems (Alongi and McKinnon 2005; Lebreton et al. 2017; Lohmann et al. 2012; Seitzinger and Mayorga 2016).
Methods
As a group of interdisciplinary scientists, with expertise in marine pollution, we participated in the Future Seas project (www.FutureSeas2030.org), which identified marine pollution as one of 12 grand challenges, and followed the method outlined in Nash et al. (2021). The process involved a structured discussion to explore the direction of marine social-ecological systems over the course of the UN Decade of Ocean Science, specific to marine pollution. The discussion resulted in develo** two alternate future scenarios of marine pollution, a ‘Business-As-Usual’ future that is the current trajectory based on published evidence, and a ‘more sustainable’ future that is technically achievable using existing and emerging knowledge and is consistent with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. To ensure a wide range of world views were present in the future scenarios, Indigenous Leaders and Traditional Knowledge Holders from around the world came together and presented their views, experiences and identified their priorities to remove and reduce marine pollution (Nash et al. 2021; Fischer et al. 2020).
We defined the scope of our paper by identifying key pollutant sources, types and drivers of marine pollution (Table 1 for pollutant sources and types; see "Future Narratives" below). We then developed a list of feasible actions that could drive the current state of the ocean towards a cleaner, more sustainable future (Supplementary Table 1). From these actions we deliberated as a group and identified ten actions that have high potential to be implemented within the next decade and significantly reduce marine pollution (Fig. 1). The linkages between our ten priority actions and the SDGs are outlined in Supplementary Table 2.
![figure 1](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11160-021-09674-8/MediaObjects/11160_2021_9674_Fig1_HTML.png)
source of the pollutant (at the source), once the pollutant is released (along the way), once the pollutant has entered the ocean (at the sink) or at multiple points along the system (bottom arrow). * indicates actions that could be successfully implemented well before the next decade to significantly reduce pollution
Ten actions that can substantially reduce the amount of pollution entering the marine environment. Actions are placed along the system where they could have the greatest impact at reducing pollution: at the
Future narratives
We identified three broad sources of marine pollution: land-based industry, sea-based industry, and municipal-based sources and the most significant types of pollution characteristic of each source (Table 1). We framed our two contrasting future scenarios (Business-As-Usual and a technically feasible sustainable future), around these pollutants and their sources (Table 2). In addition to these future narratives, we reflect on the present impacts that pollution is currently having on the livelihoods and cultures of First Nations peoples and Traditional Knowledge Holders. We include the narratives of the palawa pakana people, from lutruwita/Tasmania (Table 3), and the Greenlandic Inuit people (Table 4).
Drivers
We identified three key drivers that will substantially contribute to an increasingly polluted ocean if no actions are taken to intervene; societal behaviours, equity and access to technologies, and governance and policy. Alternatively, these pollution drivers can be viewed as opportunities to implement strategic measures that shift the trajectory from a polluted marine environment to a healthier marine environment. Below we highlight how current societal behaviours, lack of implementation of technological advancements, and ocean governance and policy making contribute to an increasingly polluted ocean and drive society towards a BAU future (Table 2). Importantly, we discuss how changes in these behaviours, and improvements in technologies and governance can lead to reduced marine pollution, ultimately driving a cleaner, more sustainable ocean for the future.
Societal behaviour
Societal behaviours that drive increasing pollution in the world’s ocean
A consumer culture that prioritizes linear production and consumption of cheap, single-use materials and products over circular product design and use (such as, reusable products or products that are made from recycled material), ultimately drives the increased creation of materials. Current production culture is often aligned with little consideration for the socioeconomic and environmental externalities associated with the pollution that is generated from a product’s creation to its disposal (Foltete et al. 2011; Schnurr et al. 2018). Without a dedicated management strategy for the fate of products after they have met their varying, often single-use objectives, these materials will enter and accumulate in the surrounding environment as pollution (Krushelnytska 2018; Sun et al. 2012). Three examples of unsustainable social behaviours that lead to products and materials ending up as marine pollution are: (1) the design and creation of products that are inherently polluting. For example, agricultural chemicals or microplastics and chemicals in personal care and cosmetic products. (2) social behaviours that normalize and encourage consumption of single-use products and materials. For example, individually wrapped vegetables or take-away food containers. (3) low awareness of the impacts and consequences and therefore the normalization of polluting behaviours. For example, noise generation by ships at sea (Hildebrand 2009) or the large application of fertilizers to agricultural products (Sun et al. 2012).
Shifting societal behaviours towards sustainable production and consumption
A cleaner ocean with reduced pollution will require a shift in production practices across a wide array of industries, as well as a shift in consumer behaviour. Presently, consumers and industry alike are seeking science-based information to inform decision making (Englehardt 1994; Vergragt et al. 2016). Consumers have the power to demand change from industries through purchasing power and social license to operate (Saeed et al. 2019). Policymakers have the power to enforce change from industries through regulations and reporting. Aligning the values between producers, consumers and policymakers will ensure best practices of sustainable consumption and production are adopted (Huntington 2017; Moktadir et al. 2018; Mont and Plepys 2008). Improved understanding of the full life cycle of costs, consequences (including internalised externalities, such as the polluter-pays-principle (Schwartz 2018)), materials used, and pollution potential of products could substantially shift the trajectory in both production and consumerism towards cleaner, more sustainable seas (Grappi et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2016; Lorek and Spangenberg 2014; Sun et al. 2012). For example, economic policy instruments (Abbott and Sumaila 2019), production transparency (Joakim Larsson and Fick 2009), recirculation of materials (Michael 1998; Sharma and Henriques 2005), and changes in supply-chains (Ouardighi et al. 2016) are some of the ways production and consumerism could become more sustainable and result in a cleaner ocean.
Equity and access to technologies
Inequitable access to available technologies
Despite major advancements in technology and innovation for waste management, much of the current waste infrastructure implemented around the world is outdated, underutilised, or abandoned. This is particularly the case for rapidly develo** countries with large populations who have not had access to waste reduction and mitigation technologies and systems employed in upper income countries (Velis 2014; Wilson et al. 2015). The informal recycling sector (IRS) performs the critical waste management role in many of the world’s most populous countries.
Harnessing technologies for today and the future
Arguably, in today’s world we see an unprecedented number and types of technological advances stemming from but not limited to seismic exploration (Malehmir et al. 2012), resource mining (Jennings and Revill 2007; Kampmann et al. 2018; Parker et al. 2016), product movement (Goodchild and Toy 2018; Tournadre 2014) and product manufacturing (Bennett 2013; Mahalik and Nambiar 2010). Applying long term vision rather than short term economic gain could include supporting technologies and innovations that provide substantial improvements over Business-As-Usual. For example, supporting businesses or industries that improve recyclability of products (Umeda et al. 2013; Yang et al. 2014), utilize waste (Korhonen et al. 2018; Pan et al. 2015), reduce noise (Simmonds et al. 2014), and increase overall production efficiency will substantially increase the health of the global ocean. Efforts should be made wherever possible to maintain current waste management infrastructure where proven and effective, in addition to ensuring reliance and durability of new technologies and innovations for improved lifespan and end of life product management. Consumer demand, taxation, and incentives will play a necessary roll to ensure the appropriate technologies are adopted (Ando and Freitas 2011; Krass et al. 2013).
Governance and policy
Lack of ocean governance and policy making
The governance arrangements that address marine pollution on global, regional, and national levels are complex and multifaceted. Success requires hard-to-achieve integrated responses. In addition to the equity challenges discussed in Alexander et al. (2020) which highlight the need for reduced inequity to improve the susatinability of the marine enviornemnt, we highlight that land-based waste is the largest contributor to marine pollution and therefore requires governance and policies that focus on pollution at the source. Current regulations, laws and policies do not always reflect or address the grand challenge of reducing marine pollution at the source. The ocean has traditionally been governed through sectoral approaches such as fisheries, tourism, offshore oil and mining. Unfortunately, this sector approach has caused policy overlap, conflict, inefficiencies and inconsistencies regarding marine pollution governance (Haward 2018; Vince and Hardesty 2016). Although production, manufacturing, and polluting may largely take place under geo-political boundaries, pollution in the high seas is often hard to assign to a country of origin. This makes identifying and convicting polluters very difficult (Urbina 2019). For example, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) has been criticised as ineffective in reducing marine pollution, largely due to the lack of easily monitoring, identifying and convicting offenders (Henderson 2001; Mattson 2006).
Harnessing ocean governance and policy
Binding domestic policies and international agreements are regulatory levers that can drive change at local, community, state, federal and international scales (Vince and Hardesty 2018). The UN Law of the Sea Convention Part XII (articles 192–237) is dedicated to the protection and preservation of the marine environment and marine pollution is addressed in article 194. It also sets out the responsibilities of states and necessary measures they need to undertake to minimise pollution their own and other jurisdictions. While the Law of the Sea recognises the differences between sea-based and land-based pollution, it does not address the type of pollutants and technical rules in detail. Voluntary measures including MARPOL 73/78 (IMO 1978), United Nations Environment Assembly resolutions (UNEA 2019) and the FAO voluntary guidelines for the marking of fishing gear (FAO 2019), already exist in an attempt to reduce specific components of marine pollution. However, the health of marine ecosystems would benefit from multilateral international or regional agreements that minimise the production of items or the use of processes that result in high levels of marine ecosystem harm. For example, international regulation for underwater sound (McCarthy 2004), policies to reduce waste emissions (Nie 2012) and the polluter pays principle (Gaines 1991) are policies and agreements that could minimise pollutants entering the marine ecosystem. Global and regional governance can create a favourable context for national policy action. Policies that adapt to shifts in climate and are guided by science and indigenous knowledge could be more likely to succeed (Ban et al. 2020).
Actions to achieve a more sustainable future
The grand challenge of reducing ocean pollution can seem overwhelming. However, there are myriad actions, interventions and activities which are highly feasible to implement within the next decade to rapidly reduce the quantity of pollution entering the ocean. Implementing these actions requires collaboration among policymakers, industry, and consumers alike. To reduce pollution from sea-based industries, land-based industries and municipal-based pollutants (Table 1), we encourage the global community to consider three ‘zones’ of action or areas to implement change: at the source(s), along the way/along the supply chain, and at sinks (Fig. 1). It is important to highlight that action cannot be implemented at any one zone only. For example, repeated clean ups at the sink may reduce pollution in an area for a time, but will not stem the flow of pollutants. Rather, action at all three zones is required if rapid, effective reductions of ocean pollution are to occur.
Actions at the source(s)
Reducing pollution at its multitude of sources is the most effective way to reduce and prevent marine pollution. This is true for land-based industry pollutants, sea-based industry pollutants and municipal-based pollutants. An example for each includes; reduction in fertilizer leading to less agricultural runoff in coastal waters (Bennett et al. 2001), changes in packaging materials may see reductions in production on a per item basis, and a lowered frequency and timing of seismic blasting would result in a decrease in underwater noise pollution at the source. The benefits of acting at the source are powerful: if a pollutant is not developed or used initially, it cannot enter the marine environment. Action can occur at the source using various approaches such as; prevention of contaminants, outreach campaigns, introduction of bans (or prohibitions) and incentives and the replacement of technologies and products for less impactful alternatives (Fig. 1). However, achieving public support abrupt and major changes can be difficult and time consuming. Such changes may meet resistance (e.g. stop** or changing seismic testing) and there are other factors beyond marine pollution that must be considered (e.g. health and safety of coastal lighting in communities may be considered more important than impacts of light pollution on nearby marine ecosystems). Actions such as outreach and education campaigns (Supplementary Table 2) will be an important pathway to achieve public support.
Actions along the way
Reducing marine pollution along the way requires implementation of approaches aimed at reducing pollution once it has been released from the source and is in transit to the marine environment (Fig. 1). Acting along the way does provide the opportunity to target particular pollutants (point-source pollution) which can be particularly effective in reducing those pollutants. While municipal-based pollutants can be reduced ‘along the way’ using infrastructure such as gross pollutant traps (GPTs) and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), some pollution such as light or sound may be more difficult to minimize or reduce in such a manner. WWTPs can successfully capture excess nutrients, pharmaceuticals and litter that are transported through sewerage and wastewater systems. However, pollution management ‘en route’ means there is both more production and more likelihood of leakage to the environment. In addition, infrastructure that captures pollution is often expensive, requires ongoing maintenance (and hence funding support), and if not managed properly, can become physically blocked, or result in increased risk to human health and the broader environment (e.g. flooding during heavy rainfall events). When considering management opportunities and risks for both land and sea-based pollution, the approaches required may be quite different, yielding unique challenges and opportunities for resolution in each (Alexander et al. 2020).
Actions at the sinks
Acting at sinks essentially requires pollution removal (Fig. 1). This approach is the most challenging, most expensive, and least likely to yield positive outcomes. The ocean encompasses more than 70% of the earth’s surface and extends to depths beyond ten kilometres. Hence it is a vast area for pollutants to disperse and economically and logistically prohibitive to clean completely. However, in some situations collecting pollutants and cleaning the marine environment is most viable option and there are examples of success. For example, some positive steps to remediate excess nutrients include integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (Buck et al. 2018). ‘Net Your Problem’ is a recycling program for fishers to dispose of derelict fishing gear (www.netyourproblem.com). Municipal-based and sea-based industry pollutants are often reduced through clean-up events. For example, large oils spills often require community volunteers to remove and clean oil from coastal environments and wildlife. Such activities provide increased awareness of marine pollution issues, and if data are recorded, can provide a baseline or benchmark against which to compare change. To address pollution at sinks requires us to prioritise efforts towards areas with high acclamations of pollution, (e.g., oil spills). Repeated removal or cleaning is unlikely to yield long term results, without managing the pollution upstream –whether along the route or at the source.
Conclusion
To achieve the More Sustainable Future, and significantly reduce pollution (thereby achieving the SGD targets in Supplementary Table 2), society must take ongoing action now and continue this movement beyond 2030. Prioritising the prevention of pollutants from their sources, using bans and incentives, outreach and education, and replacement technologies, is one of the most important steps that can be taken to shift towards a more sustainable future. Without addressing pollution from the source, current and future efforts will continue to remediate rather than mitigate the damage pollution causes to the ocean and organisms within. For pollutants that are not currently feasible to reduce at the source, collection of pollutants before they reach the ocean should be prioritised. For example, wastewater treatment plants and gross pollutant traps located at point-source locations such as stormwater and wastewater drains are feasible methods for reducing pollutants before they reach the ocean. Actions at the sink should target areas where the maximum effort per quantity of pollution can be recovered from the ocean. For example, prompt clean-up responses to large pollution events such as oil spills or flooding events and targeting clean-ups at beaches and coastal waters with large accumulations of plastic pollution.
These priority actions are not the perfect solution, but they are great examples of what can be and is feasibly done to manage marine pollution. Each action is at risk of failing to shift to a cleaner ocean without the support from governments, industries, and individuals across the whole system (from the source to the sink). Governments and individuals need to push for legislation that is binding and support sustainable practices and products. Effective methods for policing also need to be established in partnership with the binding legislation. Regardless of which zone are addressed, our actions on sea and coastal country must be guided by Indigenous knowledge and science (Fischer et al., 2020; Mustonen (in prep).
We recognise the major global disruptions which have occurred in 2020, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic. The futures presented here were developed prior to this outbreak and therefore do not consider the effects of this situation on global pollution trends. In many ways, this situation allows us to consider a ‘reset’ in global trajectory as discussed by Nash et al. (2021). Our sustainable future scenario may be considered a very real goal to achieve in the coming decade.
References
Abbott JK, Sumaila UR (2019) Reducing marine plastic pollution: policy insights from economics. Rev Env Econ Policy 13:327–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez007
Alario MV, Freudenburg WR (2010) Environmental risks and environmental justice, or how titanic risks are not so titanic after all. Sociol Inquiry 80:500–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00344.x
Alexander KA, Fleming A, Bax N, et al. (2020) Equity of our future oceans: outcomes and practice in marine science research. Authorea pre-print. December 10, 2020 https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160761569.97952359/v1
Alongi DM, McKinnon AD (2005) The cycling and fate of terrestrially-derived sediments and nutrients in the coastal zone of the Great Barrier Reef shelf. Mar Pollut Bull 51:239–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.10.033
Amunsen CE, Hanssen JE, Semb A, Steinnes E (1992) Long-range atmospheric transport of trace elements to southern Norway. Atmos Environ, Part A 26:1309–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-1686(92)90391-W
Ando AW, Freitas LPC (2011) Consumer demand for green stormwater management technology in an urban setting: the case of Chicago rain barrels. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011wr011070
Ban NC, Wilson E, Neasloss D (2020) Historical and contemporary indigenous marine conservation strategies in the North Pacific Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for. Conserv Biol 34:5–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13432
Beaumont NJ et al (2019) Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Marine Pollut Bulletin 142:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022
Bennett D (2013) Tracking the trends in manufacturing technology management. J Manuf Technol Manag 24:5–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381311287454
Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Caraco NF (2001) Human impact on erodable phosphorus and eutrophication: a global perspective: increasing accumulation of phosphorus in soil threatens rivers, lakes, and coastal oceans with eutrophication. Bioscience 51:227–234. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0227:HIOEPA]2.0.CO;2
Bernhardt ES, Rosi EJ, Gessner MO (2017) Synthetic chemicals as agents of global change. Front Ecol Environ 15:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1450
Brodin T, Piovano S, Fick J, Klaminder J, Heynen M, Jonsson M (2014) Ecological effects of pharmaceuticals in aquatic systems—impacts through behavioural alterations. Phil Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 369:20130580. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0580
Buck B, Troell M, Krause G, Angel D, Grote B, Chopin T (2018) State of the art and challenges for offshore integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Front Mar Sci 5:165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00165
Bustamante P, Caurant F, Fowler SW, Miramand P (1998) Cephalopods as a vector for the transfer of cadmium to top marine predators in the north-east Atlantic Ocean. Sci Total Environ 220:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(98)00250-2
Capaldo A et al (2018) Effects of environmental cocaine concentrations on the skeletal muscle of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Sci Total Environ 640–641:862–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.357
Carroll AG, Przeslawski R, Duncan A, Gunning M, Bruce B (2017) A critical review of the potential impacts of marine seismic surveys on fish & invertebrates. Mar Pollut Bull 114:9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.038
DeGeorges A, Goreau TJ, Reilly B (2010) Land-Sourced Pollution with an Emphasis on Domestic Sewage: Lessons from the Caribbean and Implications for Coastal Development on Indian Ocean and Pacific Coral Reefs. Sustainability 2:2919–2949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092919
Depledge MH, Godard-Codding CAJ, Bowen RE (2010) Light pollution in the sea. Mar Pollut Bull 60:1383–1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.002
Eagles-Smith CA, Ackerman JT, De La Cruz SE, Takekawa JY (2009) Mercury bioaccumulation and risk to three waterbird foraging guilds is influenced by foraging ecology and breeding stage. Environ Pollut 157:1993–2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.03.030
Elliott JE, Elliott KH (2013) Tracking Marine Pollution. Science 340:556–558. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235197
Englehardt JD (1994) Identifying promising pollution-prevention technologies. J Environ Eng 120:513–526. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1994)120:3(513)
FAO (2019) Voluntary guidelines on the marking of fishing gear. Directives volontaires sur le marquage des engins de pêche. Directrices voluntarias sobre el marcado de las artes de pesca. Rome/Roma. 88 pp. Licence/Licencia: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
Fischer M, Maxwell K, Fredriksen PO (Nunnoq), Pedersen H, Greeno D, Jones R, Blair JG, Hugu S, Mustonenäki E & Mustonen K. (2020) Empowering her guardians to nurture our oceans future. Authorea https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160391058.89181791/v1
Foltete AS et al (2011) Environmental impact of sunscreen nanomaterials: ecotoxicity and genotoxicity of altered TiO2 nanocomposites on Vicia faba. Environ Pollut 159:2515–2522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.06.020
Gaines SE (1991) The polluter-pays principle: from economic equity to environmental ethos. Tex Int’l LJ 26:463
Golden CD et al (2016) Nutrition: fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534:317–320. https://doi.org/10.1038/534317a
Goodchild A, Toy J (2018) Delivery by drone: an evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicle technology in reducing CO2 emissions in the delivery service industry. Transportation Res Part D Transport Environ 61:58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.02.017
Grappi S, Romani S, Barbarossa C (2017) Fashion without pollution: how consumers evaluate brands after an NGO campaign aimed at reducing toxic chemicals in the fashion industry. J Clean Prod 149:1164–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.183
Haward M (2018) Plastic Pollution of the World’s Seas and Oceans as a Contemporary Challenge in Ocean Governance. Nat Commun 9:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03104-3
Henderson JR (2001) A pre- and post-MARPOL Annex V summary of Hawaiian monk seal entanglements and marine debris accumulation in the northwestern Hawaiian islands, 1982–1998). Mar Pollut Bull 42:584–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-326x(00)00204-6
Hildebrand JA (2009) Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 395:5–20. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08353
Hoffman DJ, Eagles-Smith CA, Ackerman JT, Adelsbach TL, Stebbins KR (2011) Oxidative stress response of Forster’s terns (Sterna forsteri) and Caspian terns (Hydroprogne caspia) to mercury and selenium bioaccumulation in liver, kidney, and brain. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:920–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.459
Hong S, Lee J, Lim S (2017) Navigational threats by derelict fishing gear to navy ships in the Korean seas. Mar Pollut Bull 119:100–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.006
Huntington T (2017) Development of a best practice framework for the management of fishing gear, Part 2: Best practice framework for the management of fishing gear. p 1 – 58, Global Ghost Gear Initiative, USA. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b987b8689c172e29293593f/t/5bb64b578165f5891b931a6b/1538673498329/wap_gear_bp_framework_part_2_mm_lk-2017.10.23.pdf
IMO (1978) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78). International Maritime Organisation, London, England. https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx
Jang YC, Hong S, Lee J, Lee MJ, Shim WJ (2014) Estimation of lost tourism revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in South Korea. Mar Pollut Bull 81:49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.021
Jennings S, Revill AS (2007) The role of gear technologists in supporting an ecosystem approach to fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci 64:1525–1534. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm104
Joakim Larsson DG, Fick J (2009) Transparency throughout the production chain—a way to reduce pollution from the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 53:161–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.01.008
Kampmann P, Christensen L, Fritsche M, Gaudig C, Hanff H, Hildebrandt M, Kirchner F (2018) How AI and robotics can support marine mining. Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2018/4/30/
Khan FR (2018) Ecotoxicology in the Anthropocene: are we listening to nature’s scream? Environ Sci Technol 52(18):10227–10229
Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J (2018) Circular Economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol Econ 143:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
Krass D, Nedorezov T, Ovchinnikov A (2013) Environmental taxes and the choice of green technology. Prod Oper Manag 22:1035–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12023
Krushelnytska O (2018) Solving Marine Pollution: Successful models to reduce wastewater, agricultural runoff, and marine litter (English). World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.
Landrigan PJ et al (2018) The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet 391:462–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0
Lange A, Paull GC, Hamilton PB, Iguchi T, Tyler CR (2011) Implications of persistent exposure to treated wastewater effluent for breeding in wild roach (Rutilus rutilus) populations. Environ Sci Technol 45:1673–1679. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103232q
Lebreton L, Andrady A (2019) Future Scenarios of Global Plastic Waste Generation and Disposal. Palgrave Commun 5:6. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7
Lebreton LC, van der Zwet J, Damsteeg J-W, Slat B, Andrady A, Reisser J (2017) River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans Nature. Communications 8:5611. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611
Liu W, Oosterveer P, Spaargaren G (2016) Promoting sustainable consumption in China: a conceptual framework and research review. J Clean Prod 134:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.124
Lohmann R, Klanova J, Kukucka P, Yonis S, Bollinger K (2012) PCBs and OCPs on a East-to-West transect: the importance of major currents and net volatilization for PCBs in the Atlantic Ocean. Environ Sci Technol 46:10471–10479. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203459e
Longcore T, Rich C (2004) Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2:191–198. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0191:Elp]2.0.Co;2
Lorek S, Spangenberg JH (2014) Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy – beyond green growth and green economies. J Clean Product 63:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.045
Macleod CK, Eriksen RS, Chase Z, Apitz SE (2016) Chemical pollutants in the marine environment: causes, effects, and challenges. In: Solan M, Whiteley N (eds) Stressors in the Marine Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mahalik NP, Nambiar AN (2010) Trends in food packaging and manufacturing systems and technology. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.12.006
Malehmir A et al (2012) Seismic methods in mineral exploration and mine planning: a general overview of past and present case histories and a look into the future. Geophysics 77:WC173–WC190. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2012-0028.1
Mattson G (2006) MARPOL 73/78 and Annex I: an assessment of it effectiveness. J Int Wildlife Law Policy 9(2):175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880290600728195
Mattsson K, Johnson EV, Malmendal A, Linse S, Hansson LA, Cedervall T (2017) Brain Damage and Behavioural Disorders in Fish Induced by Plastic Nanoparticles Delivered through the Food Chain. Sci Rep 7:11452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10813-0
McCarthy E (2004) International Regulation of Underwater Sound. Springer, US, New York
Michael JA (1998) Recycling, international trade, and the distribution of pollution: the effect of increased U.S. paper recycling on U.S. import demand for Canadian paper. J Agric Appl Econ 30:217–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S107407080000818X
Moktadir MA, Rahman T, Rahman MH, Ali SM, Paul SK (2018) Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy: a perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. J Clean Prod 174:1366–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.063
Mont O, Plepys A (2008) Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proud or alarmed? J Clean Prod 16:531–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.01.009
Moore P (2018) Moore on Pricing: The cost of ocean pollution. Logistics Management. https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/moore_on_pricing_the_cost_of_ocean_pollution. Accessed 17/01/2020
Mustonen T, Maxwell KH, Mustonen K et al (2021) Who is the ocean? Preface to the future seas 2030 special issue. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09655-x
Nash JP et al (2004) Long-term exposure to environmental concentrations of the pharmaceutical ethynylestradiol causes reproductive failure in fish. Environ Health Perspect 112:1725–1733. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7209
Nash KL, Alexander KA, Melbourne-Thomas J, Novaglio C, Sbrocchi C, Villanueva C, Pecl GT (2021) Develo** achievable alternate futures for key challenges during the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09629-5
Nichols WJ (2014) Blue Mind Little. Brown Book Group, London
Nie P-y (2012) A monopoly with pollution emissions. J Environ Planning Manag 55:705–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.622742
O’Brien AL, Dafforn KA, Chariton AA, Johnston EL, Mayer-Pinto M (2019) After decades of stressor research in urban estuarine ecosystems the focus is still on single stressors: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 684:753–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.131
Ofiara DD, Seneca JJ (2006) Biological effects and subsequent economic effects and losses from marine pollution and degradations in marine environments: Implications from the literature. Mar Pollut Bull 52:844–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.02.022
O’Shea FT, Cundy AB, Spencer KL (2018) The contaminant legacy from historic coastal landfills and their potential as sources of diffuse pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 128:446–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.047
Ouardighi FE, Sim JE, Kim B (2016) Pollution accumulation and abatement policy in a supply chain. Eur J Oper Res 248:982–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.009
Pan S-Y, Du MA, Huang IT, Liu IH, Chang EE, Chiang P-C (2015) Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: a review. J Clean Prod 108:409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.124
Parker R, Bayne K, Clinton PW (2016) Robotics in forestry NZ Journal of Forestry 60:9
PlasticsEurope (2018) Plastics Europe - The facts 2018: An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data. PlasticsEurope, Brussels, Belgium, https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/focus-areas/strategy-plastics
Rochman CM (2016) Strategies for reducing ocean plastic debris should be diverse and guided by science. Environ Res Lett 11:041001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/041001
Ryan PG, Jewitt D (1996) Cleaning beaches: swee** the rubbish under the carpet. S Afr J Sci 92:275–276
Rzymski P, Drewek A, Klimaszyk P (2017) Pharmaceutical pollution of aquatic environment: an emerging and enormous challenge 17:97 https://doi.org/10.1515/limre-2017-0010
Saeed BB, Afsar B, Hafeez S, Khan I, Tahir M, Afridi MA (2019) Promoting employee’s proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26:424–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1694
Salamat N, Etemadi-Deylami E, Movahedinia A, Mohammadi Y (2014) Heavy metals in selected tissues and histopathological changes in liver and kidney of common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) from Anzali Wetland, the south Caspian Sea. Iran Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 110:298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.09.011
Schnurr REJ et al (2018) Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): a review. Marine Pollut Bulletin 137:157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.001
Seitzinger SP, Kroeze C, Bouwman AF, Caraco N, Dentener F, Styles RV (2002) Global patterns of dissolved inorganic and particulate nitrogen inputs to coastal systems: recent conditions and future projections. Estuaries 25:640–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02804897
Seitzinger SP, Mayorga E (2016) Chapter 7.3: Nutrient inputs from river systems to coastal waters. In: IOC-UNESCO and UNEP (2016) Large Marine Ecosystems: Status and Trends. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, pp 179–195
Sharma S, Henriques I (2005) Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg Manag J 26:159–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.439
Sherman P, van Sebille E (2016) Modeling marine surface microplastic transport to assess optimal removal locations. Environ Res Lett 11:014006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014006
Simmonds MP, Dolman SJ, Jasny M, Parsons ECM, Weilgart L, Wright AJ, Leaper R (2014) Marine noise pollution - increasing recognition but need for more practical action. J Ocean Technol 9:71–90
Smith VK, Zhang X, Palmquist RB (1997) Marine debris, beach quality, and non-market values. Environ Resour Econ 10:223–247. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026465413899
Sun B, Zhang L, Yang L, Zhang F, Norse D, Zhu Z (2012) Agricultural non-point source pollution in China: causes and mitigation measures. Ambio 41:370–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0249-6
The polluter-pays principle. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785365669.VI.20
Tournadre J (2014) Anthropogenic pressure on the open ocean: the growth of ship traffic revealed by altimeter data analysis. Geophys Res Lett 41:7924–7932. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061786
Uhrin AV (2016) Tropical cyclones, derelict traps, and the future of the Florida Keys commercial spiny lobster fishery. Marine Policy 69:84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.009
Umeda Y, Fukushige S, Mizuno T, Matsuyama Y (2013) Generating design alternatives for increasing recyclability of products. CIRP Ann 62:135–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.060
UNEA (2019) Resolutions adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted on 15 March 2019. UNEP,. http://web.unep.org/environmentassembly/proceedings-report-ministerial-declaration-resolutions-and-decisions.
UNEP UNEP (1982) Marine pollution. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 25
United Nations General Assembly U (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development vol A/RES/70/1
Urbina I (2019) The Outlaw Ocean: Crime and Survival in the Last Untames Frontier. The Bodley Head & Vintage Publishing, London, UK
Velis CA (2014) Global recycling markets - plastic waste: A story for one player – China. Report prepared by FUELogy and formatted by D-waste on behalf of International Solid Waste Association - Globalisation and Waste Management Task Force. ISWA, Vienna, September 2014
Vergragt PJ, Dendler L, de Jong M, Matus K (2016) Transitions to sustainable consumption and production in cities. J Clean Prod 134:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.050
Vince J, Hardesty B Swimming in plastic soup: governance solutions to the marine debris problem. Australian Political Studies Association Conference, 26 – 28 September, University of New South Wales, 2016
Vince J, Hardesty BD (2018) Governance solutions to the tragedy of the commons that marine plastics have become. Front Mar Sci 5:214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00214
White AT, Vogt HP, Arin T (2000) Philippine coral reefs under threat: the economic losses caused by reef destruction. Mar Pollut Bull 40:598–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00022-9
Wilcox C, Hardesty BD, Law KL (2020) Abundance of floating plastic particles is increasing in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Environ Sci Technol 54:790–796. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04812
Williams R et al (2015) Impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine life: publication patterns, new discoveries, and future directions in research and management. Ocean Coastal Manag 115:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.021
Wilson DC et al. (2015) Global Waste Management Outlook. UNEP, Vienna, Austria
Yang Q, Yu S, Jiang D (2014) A modular method of develo** an eco-product family considering the reusability and recyclability of customer products. J Clean Prod 64:254–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.030
Zhu W, Graney J, Salvage K (2008) Land-Use Impact on water pollution: elevated pollutant input and reduced pollutant retention. J Contemp Water Res Edu 138:15–21
Acknowledgements
We thank Lola, Rex and Vanessa Greeno for sharing their knowledge of the impacts of pollution on their art and culture. Thank you to Animate Your Science, JB Creative Services and Annie Gatenby for assistance with the graphical aspects of this project. Thank you to Rupert the Boxer puppy for deciding authorship order. This paper is part of the ‘Future Seas’ initiative (www.FutureSeas2030.org), hosted by the Centre for Marine Socioecology at the University of Tasmania. This initiative delivers a series of journal articles addressing key challenges for the UN International Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030. The general concepts and methods applied in many of these papers were developed in large collaborative workshops involving more participants than listed as co-authors here, and we are grateful for their collective input. Funding for Future Seas was provided by the Centre for Marine Socioecology, IMAS, MENZIES and the College of Arts, Law and Education, the College of Science and Engineering at UTAS, and Snowchange from Finland. We acknowledge support from a Research Enhancement Program grant from the DVCR Office at UTAS. Thank you to Camilla Novaglio for providing an internal project review of an earlier draft, and to guest editor Rob Stephenson, editor-in-chief Jan Strugnell and two anonymous reviewers, for improving the manuscript. We acknowledge and pay respect to the traditional owners and custodians of sea country all around the world, and recognise their collective wisdom and knowledge of our ocean and coasts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
P.S. Puskic and K. Willis share equal lead authorship on this paper. All authors wrote sections of this manuscript and contributed to concept design and paper discussions. N.F and H.P. wrote the narratives for Table 4. D.G. wrote Table 3. All authors provided edits and feedback to earlier drafts.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. This work is original and has not been submitted for publication anywhere else.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Willis, K.A., Serra-Gonçalves, C., Richardson, K. et al. Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 32, 145–160 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09674-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09674-8