research paper about ocean pollution

For Immediate Release

New study takes comprehensive look at marine pollution.

December 3, 2020

Paper finds ocean pollution is a complex mix of chemicals and materials, primarily land-based in origin, with far-reaching consequences for environmental and human health, but there are options available for world leaders

For centuries, the ocean has been viewed as an inexhaustible receptacle for the byproducts of human activity. Today, marine pollution is widespread and getting worse and, in most countries, poorly controlled with the vast majority of contaminants coming from land-based sources. That’s the conclusion of a new study by an international coalition of scientists taking a hard look at the sources, spread, and impacts of ocean pollution worldwide.

The study is the first comprehensive examination of the impacts of ocean pollution on human health. It was published December 3 in the online edition of the Annals of Global Health and released the same day at the Monaco International Symposium on Human Health & the Ocean in a Changing World, convened in Monaco and online by the Prince Albert II de Monaco Foundation, the Centre Scientifique de Monaco and Boston College.

“This paper is part of a global effort to address questions related to oceans and human health,” said Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) toxicologist and senior scientist John Stegeman who is second author on the paper. “Concern is beginning to bubble up in a way that resembles a pot on the stove. It’s reaching the boiling point where action will follow where it’s so clearly needed.”

Despite the ocean’s size—more than two-thirds of the planet is covered by water—and fundamental importance supporting life on Earth, it is under threat, primarily and paradoxically from human activity. The paper, which draws on 584 peer-reviewed scientific studies and independent reports, examines six major contaminants: plastic waste, oil spills, mercury, manufactured chemicals, pesticides, and nutrients, as well as biological threats including harmful algal blooms and human pathogens.

It finds that ocean chemical pollution is a complex mix of substances, more than 80% of which arises from land-based sources. These contaminants reach the oceans through rivers, surface runoff, atmospheric deposition, and direct discharges and are often heaviest near the coasts and most highly concentrated along the coasts of low- and middle-income countries. Waters most seriously impacted by ocean pollution include the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea, and Asian rivers. For the many ocean-based ecosystems on which humans rely, these impacts are exacerbated by global climate change. According to the researchers, all of this has led to a worldwide human health impacts that fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations in the Global South, making it a planetary environmental justice problem, as well.

In addition to Stegeman, who is also director of the NSF- and NIH-funded Woods Hole Center for Oceans and Human Health , WHOIbiologists Donald Anderson and Mark Hahn , and chemist Chris Reddy also contributed to the report. Stegeman and the rest of the WHOI team worked on the analysis with researchers from Boston College’s Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, directed by the study’s lead author and Professor of Biology Philip J. Landrigan, MD. Anderson led the report’s section on harmful algal blooms, Hahn contributed to a section on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) with Stegeman, and Reddy led the section on oil spills. The Observatory, which tracks efforts to control pollution and prevent pollution-related diseases that account for 9 million deaths worldwide each year, is a program of the new Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society, part of a $300-million investment in the sciences at BC. Altogether, over 40 researchers from institutions across the United States, Europe and Africa were involved in the report.

In an introduction printed in Annals of Global Health , Prince Albert of Monaco points out that their analysis, in addition to providing a global wake-up, serves as a call to mobilize global resolve to curb ocean pollution and to mount even greater scientific efforts to better understand its causes, impacts, and cures.

“The link between ocean pollution and human health has, for a long time, given rise to very few studies,” he says. “Taking into account the effects of ocean pollution—due to plastic, water and industrial waste, chemicals, hydrocarbons, to name a few—on human health should mean that this threat must be permanently included in the international scientific activity.”

The report concludes with a series of urgent recommendations. It calls for eliminating coal combustion, banning all uses of mercury, banning single-use plastics, controlling coastal discharges, and reducing applications of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. It argues that national, regional and international marine pollution control programs must extend to all countries and where necessary supported by the international community. It calls for robust monitoring of all forms of ocean pollution, including satellite monitoring and autonomous drones. It also appeals for the formation of large, new marine protected areas that safeguard critical ecosystems, protect vulnerable fish stocks, and ultimately enhance human health and well-being.

Most urgently, the report calls upon world leaders to recognize the near-existential threats posed by ocean pollution, acknowledge its growing dangers to human and planetary health, and take bold, evidence-based action to stop ocean pollution at its source.

“The key thing to realize about ocean pollution is that, like all forms of pollution, it can be prevented using laws, policies, technology, and enforcement actions that target the most important pollution sources,” said Professor Philip Landrigan, MD, lead author and Director of the Global Observatory on Pollution on Health and of the Global Public Health and the Common Good Program at Boston College. “Many countries have used these tools and have successfully cleaned fouled harbors, rejuvenated estuaries, and restored coral reefs. The results have been increased tourism, restored fisheries, improved human health, and economic growth. These benefits will last for centuries.”

The report is being released in tandem with the Declaration of Monaco: Advancing Human Health & Well-Being by Preventing Ocean Pollution, which was read at the symposium’s closing session. Endorsed by the scientists, physicians and global stakeholders who participated in the symposium in-person and virtually, the declaration summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the Monaco Commission on Human Health and Ocean Pollution. Based on the recognition that all life on Earth depends on the health of the seas, the authors call on leaders and citizens of all nations to “safeguard human health and preserve our Common Home by acting now to end pollution of the ocean.”

“This paper is a clarion call for all of us to pay renewed attention to the ocean that supports life on Earth and to follow the directions laid out by strong science and a committed group of scientists,” said Rick Murray, WHOI Deputy Director and Vice President for research and a member of the conference steering committee. “The ocean has sustained humanity throughout the course of our evolution—it’s time to return the favor and do what is necessary to prevent further, needless damage to our life planetary support system.”

Funding for this work was provided in part by the U.S. Oceans and Human Health Program (NIH grant P01ES028938 and National Science Foundation grant OCE-1840381), the Centre Scientifique de Monaco, the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, the Government of the Principality of Monaco, and Boston College.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) is a private, non-profit organization on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930, its primary mission is to understand the ocean and its interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate an understanding of the ocean’s role in the changing global environment. WHOI’s pioneering discoveries stem from an ideal combination of science and engineering—one that has made it one of the most trusted and technically advanced leaders in basic and applied ocean research and exploration anywhere. WHOI is known for its multidisciplinary approach, superior ship operations, and unparalleled deep-sea robotics capabilities. We play a leading role in ocean observation, and operate the most extensive suite of data-gathering platforms in the world. Top scientists, engineers, and students collaborate on more than 800 concurrent projects worldwide—both above and below the waves—pushing the boundaries of knowledge and possibility. For more information, please visit www.whoi.edu

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Human Health and Ocean Pollution

Affiliations.

1 Boston College, US.
2 Woods Hole Center for Oceans and Human Health, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, US.
3 European Centre for Environment and Human Health, GB.
4 University of Exeter Medical School, GB.
5 Centre Scientifique de Monaco, MC.
6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US.
7 Université Côte d'Azur, FR.
8 Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Inserm, C3M, FR.
9 International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE), CH.
10 Health and Environment of the Global Alliance on Health and Pollution (GAHP), AR.
11 Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, FR.
12 IOC Science and Communication Centre on Harmful Algae, University of Copenhagen, DK.
13 Ecotoxicologie et développement durable expertise ECODD, Valbonne, FR.
14 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, FR.
15 Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, FR.
16 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, US.
17 Trinity College Dublin, IE.
18 Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation des Mers, FR.
19 University of Exeter, GB.
20 CIESM The Mediterranean Science Commission, MC.
21 Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, US.
22 University of California at San Diego, US.
23 Universidad de la República, UY.
24 Institute for Global Prosperity, University College London, GB.
25 Strathmore University Business School, Nairobi, KE.
26 Nigerian Institute for Medical Research, Lagos, NG.
27 Imperial College London, GB.
28 World Health Organization, CH.
29 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, US.
30 Sorbonne Université, FR.
31 Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, US.
32 Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Section of Sustainable Health, Umeå University, Umeå, SE.
33 University of KwaZulu-Natal, ZA.
34 University of Genoa, IT.
35 University of the Faroe Islands and Department of Occupational Medicine and Public Health, FO.
36 Brunel University London, GB.
37 WHO Collaborating Centre for Health and Sustainable Development, MC.
PMID: 33354517
PMCID: PMC7731724
DOI: 10.5334/aogh.2831

Background: Pollution - unwanted waste released to air, water, and land by human activity - is the largest environmental cause of disease in the world today. It is responsible for an estimated nine million premature deaths per year, enormous economic losses, erosion of human capital, and degradation of ecosystems. Ocean pollution is an important, but insufficiently recognized and inadequately controlled component of global pollution. It poses serious threats to human health and well-being. The nature and magnitude of these impacts are only beginning to be understood.

Goals: (1) Broadly examine the known and potential impacts of ocean pollution on human health. (2) Inform policy makers, government leaders, international organizations, civil society, and the global public of these threats. (3) Propose priorities for interventions to control and prevent pollution of the seas and safeguard human health.

Methods: Topic-focused reviews that examine the effects of ocean pollution on human health, identify gaps in knowledge, project future trends, and offer evidence-based guidance for effective intervention.

Environmental findings: Pollution of the oceans is widespread, worsening, and in most countries poorly controlled. It is a complex mixture of toxic metals, plastics, manufactured chemicals, petroleum, urban and industrial wastes, pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceutical chemicals, agricultural runoff, and sewage. More than 80% arises from land-based sources. It reaches the oceans through rivers, runoff, atmospheric deposition and direct discharges. It is often heaviest near the coasts and most highly concentrated along the coasts of low- and middle-income countries. Plastic is a rapidly increasing and highly visible component of ocean pollution, and an estimated 10 million metric tons of plastic waste enter the seas each year. Mercury is the metal pollutant of greatest concern in the oceans; it is released from two main sources - coal combustion and small-scale gold mining. Global spread of industrialized agriculture with increasing use of chemical fertilizer leads to extension of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) to previously unaffected regions. Chemical pollutants are ubiquitous and contaminate seas and marine organisms from the high Arctic to the abyssal depths.

Ecosystem findings: Ocean pollution has multiple negative impacts on marine ecosystems, and these impacts are exacerbated by global climate change. Petroleum-based pollutants reduce photosynthesis in marine microorganisms that generate oxygen. Increasing absorption of carbon dioxide into the seas causes ocean acidification, which destroys coral reefs, impairs shellfish development, dissolves calcium-containing microorganisms at the base of the marine food web, and increases the toxicity of some pollutants. Plastic pollution threatens marine mammals, fish, and seabirds and accumulates in large mid-ocean gyres. It breaks down into microplastic and nanoplastic particles containing multiple manufactured chemicals that can enter the tissues of marine organisms, including species consumed by humans. Industrial releases, runoff, and sewage increase frequency and severity of HABs, bacterial pollution, and anti-microbial resistance. Pollution and sea surface warming are triggering poleward migration of dangerous pathogens such as the Vibrio species. Industrial discharges, pharmaceutical wastes, pesticides, and sewage contribute to global declines in fish stocks.

Human health findings: Methylmercury and PCBs are the ocean pollutants whose human health effects are best understood. Exposures of infants in utero to these pollutants through maternal consumption of contaminated seafood can damage developing brains, reduce IQ and increase children's risks for autism, ADHD and learning disorders. Adult exposures to methylmercury increase risks for cardiovascular disease and dementia. Manufactured chemicals - phthalates, bisphenol A, flame retardants, and perfluorinated chemicals, many of them released into the seas from plastic waste - can disrupt endocrine signaling, reduce male fertility, damage the nervous system, and increase risk of cancer. HABs produce potent toxins that accumulate in fish and shellfish. When ingested, these toxins can cause severe neurological impairment and rapid death. HAB toxins can also become airborne and cause respiratory disease. Pathogenic marine bacteria cause gastrointestinal diseases and deep wound infections. With climate change and increasing pollution, risk is high that Vibrio infections, including cholera, will increase in frequency and extend to new areas. All of the health impacts of ocean pollution fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations in the Global South - environmental injustice on a planetary scale.

Conclusions: Ocean pollution is a global problem. It arises from multiple sources and crosses national boundaries. It is the consequence of reckless, shortsighted, and unsustainable exploitation of the earth's resources. It endangers marine ecosystems. It impedes the production of atmospheric oxygen. Its threats to human health are great and growing, but still incompletely understood. Its economic costs are only beginning to be counted.Ocean pollution can be prevented. Like all forms of pollution, ocean pollution can be controlled by deploying data-driven strategies based on law, policy, technology, and enforcement that target priority pollution sources. Many countries have used these tools to control air and water pollution and are now applying them to ocean pollution. Successes achieved to date demonstrate that broader control is feasible. Heavily polluted harbors have been cleaned, estuaries rejuvenated, and coral reefs restored.Prevention of ocean pollution creates many benefits. It boosts economies, increases tourism, helps restore fisheries, and improves human health and well-being. It advances the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). These benefits will last for centuries.

Recommendations: World leaders who recognize the gravity of ocean pollution, acknowledge its growing dangers, engage civil society and the global public, and take bold, evidence-based action to stop pollution at source will be critical to preventing ocean pollution and safeguarding human health.Prevention of pollution from land-based sources is key. Eliminating coal combustion and banning all uses of mercury will reduce mercury pollution. Bans on single-use plastic and better management of plastic waste reduce plastic pollution. Bans on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) have reduced pollution by PCBs and DDT. Control of industrial discharges, treatment of sewage, and reduced applications of fertilizers have mitigated coastal pollution and are reducing frequency of HABs. National, regional and international marine pollution control programs that are adequately funded and backed by strong enforcement have been shown to be effective. Robust monitoring is essential to track progress.Further interventions that hold great promise include wide-scale transition to renewable fuels; transition to a circular economy that creates little waste and focuses on equity rather than on endless growth; embracing the principles of green chemistry; and building scientific capacity in all countries.Designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) will safeguard critical ecosystems, protect vulnerable fish stocks, and enhance human health and well-being. Creation of MPAs is an important manifestation of national and international commitment to protecting the health of the seas.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare no Conflict of Interest in regard to the work presented in this paper with the following exceptions. – Author William H. Gaze declares no conflict of interest although he has received co-funding for PhD studentships from AstraZeneca.– Author Philippe Grandjean has provided paid expert assistance in legal cases involving populations exposed to PFAS.– Author Barbara Demeneix is an inventor of “Transgenic clawed frog embryos and used as detectors of endocrine disruption in the environment”, a French patent application filed in 2002 (n°FR0206669), that was extended through a PCT application filled in 2003. Applicants: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN). Inventors: B. Demeneix and N. Turque. The patent has been extended worldwide: France (2007), Japan (2011), United States (2013), Canada (2013) and Europe (2015). There has been no financial compensation for the patent.

Ocean Pollution – A Complex…

Ocean Pollution – A Complex Mixture.

Areas considered suitable for Vibrio…

Areas considered suitable for Vibrio cholerae [50]. Source : Escobar et al., (2015)…

Total global mercury releases and…

Total global mercury releases and relevant historical factors, 1510–2010. Source : Street et…

Geographic differences in methylmercury concentrations…

Geographic differences in methylmercury concentrations of yellowfin tuna ( Thunnus albacares ). Source…

Cumulative Plastic Production since 1960.…

Cumulative Plastic Production since 1960. Calculated as the sum of annual global polymer…

Global Chemical Production and Capacity…

Global Chemical Production and Capacity Index (%) 1987–2020. Source : The pH Report,…

Impact of geographic variation on…

Impact of geographic variation on risk-based fish consumption advisories. Ranges of risk-based consumption…

Major Oil Spills, 1967–2010. From:…

Major Oil Spills, 1967–2010. From: World Ocean Review 3, maribus gGmbH, Hamburg 2015.…

Frequency of Bottom-Water Hypoxia (‘Dead…

Frequency of Bottom-Water Hypoxia (‘Dead Zones’), Gulf of Mexico, 1985–2014. Source : Rabalais…

Geographical Distribution of Paralytic Shellfish…

Geographical Distribution of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) Events, 1970 and 2017. Source :…

Trends in conditions favorable to…

Trends in conditions favorable to Vibrio outbreaks in selected world regions [411]. Source…

Sea surface temperature and relative…

Sea surface temperature and relative risk of clinically notified cases of Vibrio infection,…

Seasonal abundance of Vibrio species,…

Seasonal abundance of Vibrio species, Neuse River Estuary, NC, USA, 2003–2017. (Autoregressive integrated…

Global changes in maximum fish…

Global changes in maximum fish catch potential. Source : IPCC.

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Cited in Books

Grants and funding

001/WHO_/World Health Organization/International
P01 ES028938/ES/NIEHS NIH HHS/United States
P42 ES027706/ES/NIEHS NIH HHS/United States
R01 ES030318/ES/NIEHS NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central
Ubiquity Press

Miscellaneous

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Impact of ocean warming, overfishing and mercury on european fisheries: a risk assessment and policy solution framework.

$\r\nIbrahim Issifu*$

1 Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
2 School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Previous studies have shown that multiple-environmental stressors are expected to have significant and geographically differential impacts on the health and abundance of marine species. In this paper, we analyze the combined impacts of ocean warming, overfishing and mercury pollution in European waters by projecting the impacts of climatic and non-climate drivers on marine species in European waters. Our findings suggest that the impacts vary widely depending on different species and their mean temperature tolerance (MTT). We find for instance, that more than 5 temperate benthopelagic species including, bobtail squids ( Sepiida) frogfishes ( Lophius) great Atlantic scallop ( Pecten maximus) red mullet ( Mullus barbatus barbatus) and common octopus ( Octopus vulgaris) are affected (i.e., weakens their resilience to climate change) by the increase in sea surface temperature (SST) under RCP 8.5 in 2050 and 2100. Mercury contamination was estimated to increase in some species (e.g., ∼50% in swordfish), exceeding mercury consumption guideline thresholds (>1 mg/kg). This negative impact may limit the capacity of fisheries and marine ecosystem to respond to the current climate induced pollution sensitivity. An implication of our study is that the international community should strengthen a global ban on mercury emissions under the mandate of the Minamata Convention, comparable to the United Nations framework for persistent organic pollutant emission sources. Ongoing global efforts aimed at minimizing carbon footprint and mercury emissions need to be enhanced in concert with a reduction in fishing intensity to maintain effective conservation measures that promote increased resilience of fisheries to climate change and other stressors.

Introduction

Marine ecosystems and biodiversity provide important and valuable goods and services such as food, amenity benefits, tourism, and carbon sink, but a myriad of anthropogenic activities have also altered and are changing the biogeochemistry and biophysics of the oceans, affecting marine species through direct and indirect impacts ( Lotze et al., 2006 ; McCauley et al., 2015 ; Halpern et al., 2019 ). In most parts of the world, overfishing, anthropogenic climate change and pollution are already having quantifiable effects on the marine ecosystem, and their implications for the future are of great concern. As stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human influence on the climate system is clear, and anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions have impacted on the marine environment at unprecedented levels ( IPCC, 2014 , 2018 , 2021 ).

Particularly, the ocean, the marine species biodiversity it holds and the fisheries they sustain are facing many threats, e.g., ocean pollution by chemical assaults [e.g., plastics, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and mercury (methyl-mercury, MeHg)]; (e.g., Alava et al., 2017a , 2018 ; Schartup et al., 2019 ; Issifu and Sumaila, 2020 ; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021 ), global climate change ( Noone et al., 2013 ; IPCC, 2018 , 2021 ), and overfishing ( Pauly et al., 1998 , 2005 ; Rogers and Laffoley, 2011 ; Sumaila et al., 2011 ; McCauley et al., 2015 ). Researchers have observed that the interaction of most of these stressors in the ocean is damaging the health of marine wildlife, and reducing fisheries quality and quantity ( McCauley et al., 2015 ; Alava et al., 2017a ; Halpern et al., 2019 ; Schartup et al., 2019 ).

There have been some decades of individual studies on climate change events, pollution, and overfishing. However, it is only recently that linkages and combined impacts of these previously dispersed anthropogenic stressors are being established to holistically adapt to risk management in fisheries ( Booth and Zeller, 2005 ; Noone et al., 2013 ; Schartup et al., 2019 ). For example, the ongoing Nippon Foundation-Nexus Program, 1 and Stockholm Resilience Center 2 aspire to address some of the challenges of ocean health ( Leape et al., 2021 ).

This study offers conceptual framework and assess the weight of evidence of overfishing, marine pollution and climate change interactions. We argue that reducing pollution and overfishing is also climate actions. Therefore, the overarching goal of this paper includes: (1) review the combined impacts of multiple stressors on European fisheries; (2) examine the interactive impacts of multiple anthropogenic stressors (i.e., overfishing, climate change and ocean pollution) on fisheries; (3) investigate top fish species in the European waters that are vulnerable to the onslaught of climatic and non-climate stressors; (4) explore management policy options to address the impacts of climate change, overfishing and pollution on marine ecosystems.

Overfishing and Fisheries Decline

The expansion of fisheries and overfishing inflict changes in the community structure and fish size because of selective harvesting of target species and bycatch of non-target species, as well as via habitat modification, triggering changes in the biomass, species composition and size structure ( Pauly et al., 1998 ; Bianchi et al., 2000 ; Jennings and Blanchard, 2004 ). According to FAO (2012) , 87% of global fish stocks are either overexploited or fully exploited. The status of other species, such as brown shrimp is uncertain, while others are classified as underexploited (e.g., yellowfin tuna, Tunnus albacares ). Recent estimates indicate that between 40 and 70% of fish stocks in European waters are currently at an unsustainable level—either overfished or at their lower biomass limits ( Dulvy et al., 2003 ; Sumaila and Tai, 2020 ). European stock assessments report that the current size and capacity of the European Union (EU) fleet is estimated to be 2–3 times above the sustainable level in a number of fisheries ( European Commission, 2008 ). Several offshore fisheries capture species in European waters are classified as fully exploited; e.g., herring, Norway lobster, mackerel, and horse mackerel (STECF, 2017).

Illegal fishing targeting tuna and other tuna fish species in West Africa ( Sumaila, 2018 ; EJF, 2020 ) and the eastern tropical Pacific ( Alava et al., 2015 , 2017b ; Martínez-Ortiz et al., 2015 ; Alava and Paladines, 2017 ), are exported to EU markets ( Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, 2017 ; EJF, 2020 ; Monnier et al., 2020 ). On average, for example, the value of exports canned tuna and tuna loins from Ecuador to the EU over the 2007–2016 period accounted for 343 million USD and 124 million USD, respectively ( Ministerio de Comercio Exterior, 2017 ). While the EU strictly regulates and supervises certified fish products and exports from fisheries overseas to mitigate and prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, questions linger as to whether illegally harvested tuna exports are reaching the EU fish market chains.

It is important to note that this sobering statistic only considers individual stocks that are deemed commercially valuable and does not consider the amount of environmental degradation and ecosystem destruction that accompanies overfishing. The FAO also estimates that “oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests” ( FAO, 2009 ). Overfishing can be defined as fishing down marine food web ( Pauly et al., 1998 , 2005 ) or depleting populations due to excessive fishing mortality and defaunation ( McCauley et al., 2015 ; Baum and Fuller, 2016 ). To put the deleterious impact of excessive fishing into perspective, the European hake ( Merluccius merluccius ) stocks are among the fish species under more intense overfishing, with fishing mortality rates up to 10 times higher than the optimal target ( STECF, 2017 ). Overfishing pose one of the greatest threats to ocean health ( Pauly et al., 1998 , 2005 ; McCauley et al., 2015 ). Apart from depleting populations ( STECF, 2017 ), overfishing can erode the age and size structure and spatial distribution of stocks making populations more susceptible to environmental fluctuations. This is particularly relevant for highly impacted areas and vulnerable species (e.g., elasmobranchs). Overfishing of top predators and pelagic resources has also been associated with trophic cascades and ecosystem regime shifts in the Black Sea ( Daskalov et al., 2017 ). A combination of climate-related stresses and widespread over-exploitation of fisheries reduces the scope for adaptation and increases risks of stock collapse ( Allison et al., 2009 ). Overfishing makes marine fisheries production more vulnerable to ocean warming by compromising the resilience of many marine species to climate change, and continued warming will hinder efforts to rebuild overfished populations ( Free et al., 2019 ). It can also exacerbate the mercury levels in some fish species. For instance, recent studies show that Pacific salmon, squid and forage fish, as well as Atlantic bluefin tuna and Atlantic cod and other fish species are susceptible to increases in methylmercury (MeHg) due to overfishing ( Schartup et al., 2019 ) and rising ocean temperatures ( Alava et al., 2018 ). Overfishing weakens the resilience of fish stocks and marine ecosystems to climate change ( Sumaila and Tai, 2020 ), and has even been identified as one of the greatest threats to ocean health ( Pauly et al., 2005 ; Halpern et al., 2015 ; Gattuso et al., 2018 ). Indeed, after the collapse of northern cod stocks in Canada due to overfishing, Newfoundland and other Canadian coastal areas changed to shellfish, shrimp and crab which dominates the industry today. This transition is known as fishing down the food web and is usually the result of unsustainable fishing practices ( Pauly et al., 1998 ).

Overfishing is linked directly to multiple destructive fishing practices such as trawling, IUU fishing, bycatch, and harmful subsidies ( Sumaila et al., 2006 , 2021 ; Agnew et al., 2009 ; Moomaw and Blankenship, 2014 ). Continued use of destructive fishing practices such as bottom trawling, which has an impact on both targeted and non-targeted species and damages ocean sea floors, may lead to overfishing. In addition to this, overfishing often correlates with large amounts of bycatch as increased effort is translated directly into unintentionally catching non-targeted species which harms marine ecosystem. Also, harmful subsidies encourage overfishing by supporting fleets that are over capacity in terms of number of ships, effort and technology ( Schuhbauer et al., 2017 ; Sumaila et al., 2021 ).

Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems

In the near future, climate-driven phenomenon including deoxygenation and ocean acidification, are likely to have a growing effect on the productivity of global fisheries. Recent studies have observed fundamental changes to ocean biogeochemistry, including rising sea surface and bottom temperatures, changes in primary production, reduced pH, decreased subsurface oxygen levels (i.e., hypoxia) in coastal waters ( Bindoff et al., 2019 ). Most of these anthropogenic disturbances are linked to fossil fuel emissions and fertilizer use, which is expected to increase in the years to come, placing further pressures on marine ecosystem ( Doney, 2010 ).

Globally, rising sea temperature will likely shift the location, distribution and abundance of marine fisheries. In fact, Cheung et al. (2010) demonstrated that fisheries in some regions stand to gain from climate change (“winners”), while others stand to lose (“losers”). Their study estimates that the average catch potential in high-latitude regions will increase by 30–70% by 2055, benefiting countries such as Norway, Greenland, and Russia. On the other hand, average catch potential in the tropics is projected to drop by 40% by 2055, resulting in substantial losses for countries such as Indonesia, Chile, and China ( Cheung et al., 2010 ). In effect, shifts in species distributions can create incentives for overharvest. For example, a country that is losing a fishery due to climate change may overfish the target species to compensate for the anticipated loss.

In addition to rising temperatures, rising atmospheric CO 2 levels pose a major threat to the ocean and fisheries resources. In general, alterations to ocean chemistry hinders the ability of a wide range of marine organisms such as corals, mollusks, and some plankton to grow and maintain external calcium carbonate skeletons ( Orr et al., 2005 ). As a result, declining fisheries harvests are expected once ocean chemistry moves outside the present range of natural variability, which is expected to occur as early as 2025 in some regions of the Southern Pacific ( Cooley et al., 2012 ). Already, high-trophic level large pelagic species such as salmon, tunas, billfish, and sharks, as well as the mid-trophic level small pelagic species such as sardines, anchovies, and squids are particularly sensitive to climate impacts ( Chavez et al., 2003 ; Cheung et al., 2013 ).

In the European shelf seas, the impacts of climate change on fisheries have been noted for several important commercial species, notably nephrops, mussels, oysters, and lobster (e.g., Styf et al., 2013 ; Ostle et al., 2016 ). Fernandes et al. (2017) quantified the potential effects of ocean warming and acidification on fisheries catches, resulting revenues and employment in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under different greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Standing stock biomasses were projected to decrease significantly by 2050 and the main driver of this decrease was rising sea surface temperature (SST). The European waters account for about 14 and 15 percent of global carbon sink and fishing intensity, respectively ( Cavan and Hill, 2020 ). In effect, losses in revenue were estimated to range between 1 and 21 percent in the short-term (2020–2050). For Europe as a whole, the annual impact was estimated to be over 1 billion USD by 2100 although subject to considerable uncertainty. Figure 1 shows that European seas are the most fished with the highest carbon sink.

Figure 1. European shelfregion (black rectangle) has one of the highest global fishing and catch areas and carbon sink intensity, especially the Northeast Atlantic (NEA). The NEA area is one of the highest-ranking areas, for both carbon sink and fishing intensity and responsible for about 14 and 15% of global carbon sink and global fishing effort, respectively (see Cavan and Hill, 2020 ). Map retrieved and modified from the Sea Around Us database ( https://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/spatial-catch ; Pauly et al., 2020 ).

Chemical and Biological Pollutants Impact on Marine Ecosystem

The proliferation of chemical pollutants (e.g., POPs, mercury) has become a prominent environmental issue in recent years, as growing evidence draws attention to its negative impacts on marine fisheries and food webs under the impact of climate change ( Booth and Zeller, 2005 ; Alava et al., 2017a , 2018 ; Schartup et al., 2019 ). While evidence suggests that large amounts of emerging anthropogenic pollutants such as ocean macroplastics and microplastics ( Eriksen et al., 2014 ; Jambeck et al., 2015 ; Lebreton et al., 2018 ; Alava, 2019 ; Issifu and Sumaila, 2020 ) are accumulating in the deep sea ( Rochman et al., 2014 ; Choy et al., 2019 ; Kane et al., 2020 ), mercury concentrations in the North Pacific Ocean are predicted to double by 2050 ( Sunderland et al., 2009 ). Small-scale gold mining, coal and fossil fuel burning and industrial emissions are the major contributors of mercury into oceans ( Mason and Sheu, 2002 ; European Environment Agency, 2018 ). The global spread of mercury and other industrial pollutants is of immediate concern, as these pollutants bioaccumulate in the tissues of marine organisms and are passed up the food chain, posing a serious threat to human health. Additionally, methylation of mercury to form MeHg has been found to increase when temperatures rise ( Johnson et al., 2016 ). The effect of these perturbations on global fisheries is only projected to grow as industrial activity and fertilizer use increases over the next two decades ( Doney, 2010 ).

In the European waters, pollution is particularly important in the Black Sea, where the ecosystem has undergone different phases of eutrophication caused by increased input of nutrients, intensive farming and the use of agrochemicals and phosphate detergents. It is also noteworthy that the Black Sea and particularly the Mediterranean are hotspots for plastic and mercury pollution. Fishes absorb contaminants directly from the water and sediment and indirectly through food web transport. Higher concentration of mercury on several important commercial fish species such as anglerfish, common sole, striped mullet, swordfish, mackerel, and cod have been documented ( Storelli and Marcotrigiano, 2001 ). Though mercury concentrations vary widely by species and ocean. There are varying health impacts associated with mercury pollution in different fish species, but the primary consequence is lower reproductive success such as decreased spawning and increased embryo mortality leading to reduced reproductive success ( Sandheinrich and Wiener, 2011 ), increased vulnerability due to reproductive and neurological problems, which can lead to behavioral abnormalities ( Dawson, 1982 ). In addition, elevated mercury levels have altered hormone profiles, indicating that the mercury is also affecting the health of the fish themselves ( National Wildlife Federation, 2006 ), as well as the hatching times and the survival rates of offspring ( Bridges et al., 2016 ) and ultimately death since fishes’ inability to survive extremely high levels of mercury ( Matta et al., 2001 ). In effect, mercury pollution should be considered a stressor that reduces the resilience of fish assemblages to climate changes.

Fish consumption is known to have beneficial effects on human health due to its nutrients—the presence of long-chain, poly-unsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs). For instance, provide protection against diseases such as coronary heart diseases, high blood pressure ( Oomen et al., 2000 ; Miles and Calder, 2012 ; Rangel-Huerta et al., 2012 ). On the other hand, fish is the main dietary source of methylmercury for all age groups in Europe, given that many of the most popular species such as the hake, swordfish, whiting and cod are among those with the highest levels of mercury ( EFSA, 2015 ). Substantial amount of methylmercury from the consumption of fish can have an effect on the nervous system, cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems ( Carta et al., 2003 ; Yokoo et al., 2003 ; Stern, 2005 ; Oken et al., 2008 ; Houston, 2011 ). Sandborgh-Englund et al. (1998) found that children exposed to mercury in the prenatal period had defects in attention, language, memory, and motor function. Children born in countries with high fish consumption, such as Portugal and Spain, received most exposure to methylmercury ( Science for Environment Policy, 2017 ). Višnjevec et al. (2013) carried out a comprehensive Europe-based review of exposure to mercury, looking at studies published since 2000 and found out that the highest exposure to mercury was in coastal populations, due to their higher consumption of fish compared to inland residents.

Materials and Methods

Fish like all living organisms exhibits a temperature range within which they thrive. There are a number of approaches available for measuring the distribution of temperature for fish species. Here we calculated the temperature tolerance index (TTI), by using the average temperature preference range of our selected fish species. We estimated the percentage change in SST, as well as the bottom temperature in the 2050s/2100s under different climate change scenarios, using the Representative Concentrations Pathways (RCPs): RCP 2.6 (i.e., low CO 2 emission/high mitigation scenario) and RCP8.5 (high CO 2 emissions or business-as-usual). Data for SST and bottom temperature for RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 covers all European Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and were retrieved from the NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Earth System Model 2M (GFDL ESM2M; Dunne et al., 2012 ). We included 38 EEZs of 27 European countries in the European FAO region as presented in Supplementary Material .

To estimate TTI, the following three equations were derived. We expressed the mean temperature preference (MTP) for each species as follow

where T MAX and T MIN are maximum and minimum temperatures within the temperature preference range of each species i , respectively.

We estimated the change in temperature within the distribution range of each species using the following equation:

Let △ T denotes the change in temperature within the distribution range for each fish species, SST 2050 represents the SST in the year 2050 under RCP 2.6 or RCP 8.5, while SST currents stands for the prevailing SST. We assume each species is living within its SST preference under the current status. The corresponding calculations were also done for 2100.

Finally, we calculated the TTI using mean temperature preference range (MTP) for species under each climate change scenario (i.e., RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5) along with TMAX the upper limit temperature for a given fish species.

Based on Equation (3), we can check whether the projected change in temperature will exceed the highest temperature range of fish species or otherwise. The corresponding calculations were also done for 2100. We can infer whether the projected change in temperature will exceed the highest temperature range of fish species or otherwise. We assume that if the estimated (TTI) > 1, then the species cannot tolerate exposure and is affected by ocean warming due to climate change; if the estimated (TTI) = 1, no exposure to thermal stress or eco-physiological health effect. On the other hand, if (TTI) < 1, the projected SST is still within the temperature preference range of the species, which implies the species can still tolerate extreme SST anomalies and survive under climate change.

In an effort to capture the exposure risk to SST under climate change forcing (RCP 2.6 or RCP 8.5), a pragmatic ecotoxicological risk index to calculate the TTI ER was also applied, using the mean temperature tolerance (MTT), as follows:

Where, TTI ER denotes ecotoxicological risk index to estimate the TTI, SST CC is a term to express the overall average of SST to reflect the climate change forcing based on SST predictions for RCP 2.6 (i.e., SST RCP 2.6 ) and RCP 8.5 (SST RCP 8.5 ) by 2050 and 2100, respectively. A major advantage of using MTT is that it captures the distribution of the temperatures (means and variability/SD) of a given species of fish in terms of the metabolic scope (e.g., oxygen consumption influenced by ambient sea surface or bottom temperature) and affected by changes in temperatures, i.e., ocean warming ( Cheung et al., 2013 ).

The outcomes resulting from Equation (3) were also correlated against the MTT to explore the relationship between TTI ER and MTT.

Fisheries of the Europeans Waters

The EU represents the largest single market for fish and fish products in the world. Table 1 provides the breakdown of the top 20 taxa with the highest annual catch (tons) and landed values (USD) taken from the European waters by EU countries from 2007 to 2016. In 2015, the EU fishing fleet comprised of 63,976 active vessels, of which 74% were classified as small-scale coastal vessels, 25% as large-scale and remaining 1%, distant-water vessels. These EU fleets spent 4.8 million days at sea and consumed 2.3 billion liters of fuel to land over 5 million tons of seafood with a reported value of €7 billion ( STECF, 2017 ). The EU fishing fleet operate in major sea basin including: North Sea and Eastern Arctic, Baltic Sea, North East Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black Sea, as well as fleets operating in other fishing regions, such as the Northwest Atlantic ( STECF, 2017 ).

Table 1. List of top 20 fish species by average annual catch (tons) and landed values (USD) taken from European waters by EU countries between 2007 and 2016.

In terms of volume of catches, Atlantic herring was the most important species by annual catch (233 thousand tons), followed by European pilchard (188 thousand tons), Blue whiting (134 thousand tons) and European anchovy (117 thousand tons) as shown in Table 1 . In terms of annual landed values, landings of European hake generated the most value (358USD million), followed by Norway lobster (281USD million), European anchovy (276 USD million), and Common sole (263 USD million).

Temporal Levels of Mercury in Fisheries From European Waters

Within the group of the top 20 marine taxa ( Table 1 above) with the highest annual average landed values taken from the European waters by EU countries from 2007 to 2016, 99% of all fishes had mercury concentrations below the U.S. EPA human health criteria of 0.30 mg/kg wet weight (ww) ( Table 2 ). This group of low mercury commercial fishes includes several commercially important marine species of European hake ( Merluccius merluccius ) and Great Atlantic scallop ( Pecten maximus ). Other notable low-mercury fish within this group of commercial fishes includes the Common shrimp ( Crangon crangon ), a widely distributed and commonly consumed fish across the North Sea and Eastern Arctic region ( STECF, 2017 ). Swordfish ( Xiphias gladius ) from the Mediterranean also had elevated mercury concentrations (0.995 ± 0.539 mg/kg). In general, mercury levels are the lowest in smaller, mid-trophic or intermediate level pelagic species such as anchovies and always below ( European Commission, 2002 ; World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010 ) general guideline level of 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg ww, respectively. Conversely, highest mercury concentrations were found in large high-trophic level pelagic species such as swordfish.

Table 2. Results from the preliminary analysis of mercury levels in commercial fish and shellfish species in European waters.

Based on Schartup et al. (2019) , we estimated the increase in mercury concentration (ppm) by assuming the percent increase in concentrations predicted (i.e., mercury concentration increasing from > 30 to 50% at a temperature increase of 1°C under warming conditions) in fish species from the North Atlantic (e.g., Atlantic cod, Bluefin tuna) based on the data reported by Schartup et al. (2019) , as follows:

Understanding average concentrations of mercury in fish and fish products by EU and WHO can help reduce mercury intake by consumers, including vulnerable populations like infants and young children as well as pregnant and breastfeeding mothers. Following fish-consumption advisories attributed to mercury ( European Commission, 2002 ; U.S. EPA, 2002 ; World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010 ) can help consumers make informed choices when choosing fish and fish products that are nutritious and safe to eat.

We assumed a conservative increase of 50% used for all pelagic fish (i.e., small and large pelagic fish); and for demersal or bottom fish an increase of 33% was used, based on the mercury concentration increase for Atlantic Cod reported in Schartup et al. (2019) . We observed that mercury concentrations in our 20 fish species (except the predatory sword fish) were all below the established general fish consumption threshold by the EU (i.e., 0.5 mg/kg, 1.0 mg/kg predatory fish), U.S. EPA (i.e., 0.30 mg/kg, ww), and World Health Organization (WHO) (i.e., 0.50 mg/kg, ww).

Conceptual Framework

In this study, we encountered a rich knowledge base about climate change via ocean warming, overfishing and pollution and its effects on European fisheries. We constructed the conceptual framework following the approaches of Alava et al. (2017a , 2018 ), Bindoff et al. (2019) , and Schartup et al. (2019) , in order to display the coherences of the interactions of climate change and environmental stressors to assess their impacts on fisheries. Figure 2 illustrates the interactions of climate change, overfishing and pollutants on marine fisheries and food webs.

Figure 2. Climate change-overfishing-pollution assessment framework. The pathways through which scenario of climatic, overfishing and pollutants hazards (orange, blue, and green boxes, respectively) and their interactions can lead to increases in exposure to hazards by the biota, ecosystems and people sensitivity (dashed gray box) and the risk of impacts to ecosystem and human health and societies (red box). Climate change is a threat multiplier that compounds overfishing and pollution. For instances, climate change induces fisheries susceptibility and vulnerability to overfishing; while overfishing and climate change influence pollution sensitivity; thus, the resilience of fish stocks and marine ecosystems can be weakened. The synthesis is based on literature review and framework presented in Alava et al. (2017a) . Adapted from Alava et al. (2017a) and Bindoff et al. (2019) .

Results and Discussion

Trends reported in Table 2 indicate that organisms with the highest mercury concentration are swordfish (1.495 mg/kg), followed by European seabass (0.25 mg/kg) and Atlantic herring (0.135 mg/kg). Comparing these trends with World Health Organization (WHO) and European Commission (EC) limits, the mercury levels are the lowest in smaller, short-lived fish and always below ( European Commission, 2002 ; World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010 ) general guideline level of 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg ww, respectively ( European Commission, 2002 ; World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010 ). Conversely, highest mercury concentrations were found in large, long-lived species such as swordfish.

The average temperature of surface waters of European continental shelf areas such as the southern North Sea has experienced one of the greatest warming rates ( Levitus et al., 2009 ; González-Taboada and Anadón, 2012 ). We explored the impacts of climate change including SST and bottom water temperature on future fisheries resilience. Figure 3 illustrates the relationship of the estimated TTI for all fish species assessed vs. the species-specific MTT under the strong mitigation scenario (RCP 2.6), in which there is a drastic reduction in global fossil fuel emissions, and under the business-as-usual scenario (RCP 8.5).

Figure 3. The relationship between the estimated TTI ( T T I = ( M T P + M T P * △ T ) T M A X ) for all fish species assessed vs. the species-specific MTT under RCP 2.6 (i.e., low CO 2 emission/high mitigation scenario) for (A) 2050 and (B) 2100; and RCP 8.5 (high CO 2 emissions or business-as-usual) for (C) 2050 and (D) 2100. The relationship between TTI and MTT under RCP 8.5 shows that most temperate pelagic and benthopelagic species will be affected either by high SST under RCP 8.5 by 2100 (D) , as an indication of high sensitivity of exposure to ocean warming.

The relationships observed in Figure 3 shows positive correlations and significant linear regression between TTI and MTT under RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 by either 2050 or 2100 ( r 2 = 0.39, r = 0.62, p = 0.003; Figures 3A–D ), projecting that both TTI and MTT increase, as well. Some benthopelagic species (i.e., Great Atlantic scallop, red mullet, cuttlefishes, bobtail squids, frogfishes; Figure 3D ) exhibit TTI > 1 under RCP 8.5 by 2100, as an indication of high sensitivity and exposure to increasing SST.

Conversely, when applying the ecotoxicological risk index (i.e., TTI = SST CC /MTT), the relationships observed in Figure 4 illustrate negative correlations, in which the TTI significantly decreases as the MTT increases in fish for both RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 scenarios by 2020 and 2100 ( r = −0.97; p < 0.00001). These trends indicate that fish with higher MTT values (e.g., sword fish, gilthead seabream) are less impacted by and more tolerant to increasing changes of SST, while fish species (i.e., Atlantic cod; Atlantic herring) with lower MTT and higher TTI values are the most affected due to the exposure to ocean warming (i.e., RCP 8.5), appearing to be susceptible even under the mitigation or low emissions scenario (RCP 2.6), as shown in Figures 3A–D . The impact of SST under RCP 2.6 is relatively lower than under RCP 8.5 ( Figure 3 ), with TTI increasing by an average of 5.0 and 35%, respectively, by 2050 and 2100 relative to current temperature 2001–2020. We found that bobtail squids, frogfishes, great Atlantic scallop, red mullet and common octopus will be affected by high SST under RCP 8.5 in 2050 and 2100 (i.e., potential impacts on abundance and distribution due to less resistant to changes in SST). Likewise, under the strong mitigation scenario (RCP 2.6), the impact of bottom sea temperature is lower than that under RCP 8.5, with TTI increasing by an average of 5.0 and 30%, respectively, by 2050 and 2100 relative to current temperature 2001–2020. In particular, based on the ecotoxicological risk index, these species exhibited a TTI > 1, ranging from 1.3 to 1.5 under RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5, corroborating its lack of tolerance to ocean warming ( Figure 4 ).

Figure 4. The relationship between the estimated TTI (TTI = SST CC /MTT) for all fish species assessed vs. the species-specific MTT under RCP 2.6 (i.e., low CO 2 emission/high mitigation scenario) for (A) 2050 and (B) 2100; and RCP 8.5 (high CO 2 emissions or business-as-usual) for (C) 2050 and (D) 2100. The relationship between TTI and MTT under RCP 8.5 shows that most temperate pelagic and benthopelagic species will be affected either by high SST under RCP 8.5 and even under the mitigation scenario (RCP 2.6), as an indication of high sensitivity of exposure to ocean warming.

The combined interaction of fishing pressure impacts in tandem with climate change exacerbating mercury biomagnification has been modeled in a foodwebs of the Faroe Islands (North Atlantic), involving a depleted fish stock and cetacean species, including the Atlantic cod ( G. morhua ) and long-finned pilot whale ( Globicephala melas ), resulting in high concerns for food safety and neurotoxic effects to human health because of the high consumption of mercury-contaminated fish and marine mammal meat ( Booth and Zeller, 2005 ). More recently, this cumulative multiple-stressor interaction was corroborated by Schartup et al. (2019) , uncovering that the combination of climate change and overfishing in depleted fish populations such as Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua) and bluefin tuna ( Thunnus thynnu s) further contaminate fish and exacerbate bioaccumulation of the neurotoxic MeHg in foodwebs. This has obvious implications for healthy marine ecosystems, but also for the public health of coastal communities strongly relying on seafoods.

The combined onslaught of ocean warming, overfishing and pollution on fisheries in European waters may have significant implications for fish distribution, food security, and livelihoods. Pollution, overfishing, and rising SST, among other anthropogenic pressures, put at risk future prospects for food security and nutrition, and resilient livelihoods in the longer term. For instance, overfishing results in overexploitation of fish stocks, threatening the health of the ecosystem and fish stocks while generating losses in fishers’ revenues, as well as a loss in socio-economic benefits such as food and nutritional security of people ( Bondaroff et al., 2015 ; Sumaila et al., 2020 ). One major impact of climatic and non-climate stressors on fisheries is the changes in stock distributions, which affect where fish can be caught and who might catch them. These stressors might alter the conditions of marine ecosystems and the distributions of fish species across the oceans shift in response to climate change. This implies some traditional fisheries will move into new jurisdictions and those that cannot move fast enough perish. That means our results have significant implications to the decision makers for management risks and designing policies for sustainable fisheries. It is therefore crucial for us to incorporate the outputs from this study into to risk management and policy solution framework.

This projected changes in distribution are likely to exacerbate existing conflicts between stakeholders, both within nations and when the distribution of important species changes across boundaries between neighboring economies or between country EEZs and the high seas. For instance, the rapid northwards shift of Atlantic mackerel ( Scomber scombrus ) distribution from Norwegian waters to the waters of the Faroe Islands and Iceland led to conflict over allocations between the affected countries ( Jensen et al., 2015 ).

Another devastating impact of environmental and anthropogenic stressors on fisheries is changes in stock productivity, which affect potential yields and profits. As an example, Lam et al. (2016) modeled the impacts of climate change on fish revenues through changes in the amount and composition of catches and found that global fishers’ revenues could drop by 35% due to decrease in catches by developing countries vessels operating in more severely impacted distant waters.

Our study has limitations. First, the equation TTI = (MTP+MTP*ΔT)/T MAX uses maximum temperature (T MAX ) or the upper limit temperature tolerated by a given fish species as the denominator, in which the numerator is basically adjusted to the maximum temperature creating a maximum temperature-normalization of the fish data to produce a TTI with Equation (3). Second, while this application is fairly sound, an aspect to consider is that by using T MAX in this equation, we may well overestimate or generate over-projection in terms of the thermal capacity of a fish species to tolerate larger changes in SST (i.e., not all individuals of a population are metabolically and physiologically able to exhibit a T MAX and only a few or some, depending on the most temperature-tolerant individuals of the same species, which may well include outliers). Conversely, using the MTT will help to recognize and represent the species’ overall mean thermal tolerance. Doing so, the basic equation TTI = SST CC /MTT, where SST CC is a term to express the overall average of SST to reflect the climate change forcing based on the SST predictions for RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 by 2050 and 2100, may well be applied to compare both methods. Again, while the use of T MAX is useful, how sensitive on average a given fish species as a whole is to SST changes or scenarios under climate changes, using the MTT? Thus, future work should be conducted to test if this is the case by comparing both estimation methods.

Temperature Tolerance Index and mercury concentration patterns analysis of the European waters data series show that there is some evidence of weakening the resilience of fisheries to climatic and non-climate stressors. Our results highlight that SST could rise between 0.5 and 0.7°C by 2100 for the lowest carbon emissions scenario (RCP 2.6) and in excess of 2°C under RCP 8.5. This will ultimately weaken the resilience of fish stocks and marine ecosystem in European waters. The study has found that over 5 temperate benthopelagic species such as Norway lobster, common sole, great Atlantic scallop, red mullet, European hake and European seabass will be negatively affected (in terms of abundance and distribution) by high SST under RCP 8.5 in 2050 and 2100 because their estimated TTI > 1. Therefore, global effort that is already ongoing to minimize carbon footprint need to be intensified. It is essential for stakeholders, including governments, fishers and resource managers and citizens, should focus more attention on the monitoring of environmental parameters, such as SST, mercury pollution, to determine the resilience of fishery such as bobtail squids, frogfishes, great Atlantic scallop, red mullet, and common octopus that are more vulnerable to climate change and non-climate stressors. In addition, a prevention risk management plan based on the weight of evidence and conceptual framework proposed here ( Figure 2 ) for European fisheries in tandem with national and international instruments is of paramount to proactively address and combat the multiple anthropogenic stressors, resulting from the combined interaction of warming oceans, mercury pollution, overfishing in the face of global changes. Precautionary decision-making processes and development of concerted management actions and mitigation policies for climate change, chemical pollution, and fishing activities may well follow a proactive bottom-up policy, supporting the prevention pathway and precautionary approach to mitigate and eliminate mercury pollution and neutralize carbon emissions (e.g., net-zero emissions and decarbonized economy) from anthropogenic sources ( Alava et al., 2017a ; Alava, 2019 ), as well as championing sustainable fishing activities by eradicating harmful fisheries subsidies ( Sumaila et al., 2021 ), instead of the classic, imposed top-down policy perpetuating “business as usual” and status quo.

Also related are awareness raising, improving education, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation. Anthropogenic-induced pressures such as mercury pollution from human-made sources may reduce the ability of fisheries and marine ecosystem to respond to present day climatic pressures. Enhanced resilience of fisheries and marine ecosystem by reducing stressors, including pollution and the use of habitat destructive fishing gears (e.g., dredge, bottom trawl). Also, the international community should strengthen a global ban on mercury and worldwide control of persistent organic pollutants’ emission sources within the United Nations framework as well as increase fish consumption advisories for methylmercury.

The next pathway, in terms of reducing fisheries and ecosystem resilience is industrial fishing. Overfishing is the most serious threat to fisheries in the European waters, and therefore effective fisheries management measures are required in order to decrease the ecological effects of overfishing and increase the food security especially for the coastal communities in the Europe. Hence the ongoing effort in the fisheries sector as a whole on reversing overfishing on target stocks and fisheries impacts on non-commercially fished species ( Garcia et al., 2018 ) as well as increase efforts to rebuild fisheries and promote the restoration of the fisheries ( Worm et al., 2009 ) in European waters need to be intensified to enhance fisheries’ resilience to climatic and non-climate stressors. Generally, reduction in fishing intensity including measures that promote social resilience within the fishing sector while maintaining effective conservation measures will increase resilience of the fisheries. Such strategies include enhancing transferable fishing quotas, alternative fisheries and livelihood diversification. Future research can incorporate ecosystem and foodwebs modeling experiments that explore the impact of combined environmental stressors (e.g., addressing mercury pollution, overfishing, and climate change forcing simultaneously).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval were not required for the study because we used public information.

Author Contributions

II, JA, VL, and US: conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft, and writing—reviewing and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We thank Cheung W.W. for helpful discussion and data. We thank to Fisheries Economics Research Unit and Ocean Pollution Research Unit for invaluable advice on the original draft, and SeaAroundUs for giving us access to their useful data. We acknowledge support from OurFish . We are grateful to Rebecca Hubbard and Mike Walker for offering invaluable advice during Symposium presentation entitled: Delivering on Climate and Biodiversity Targets Through Better Fisheries Management on 23 March, 2021.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.770805/full#supplementary-material

^ https://earthlab.uw.edu/members-and-affiliates/climate-impacts-group/
^ https://www.stockholmresilience.org/publications.html

Agnew, D. J., Pearce, J., Pramod, G., Peatman, T., Watson, R., Beddington, J. R., et al. (2009). Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS One 4:e4570. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004570

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alava, J. J. (2019). “Ocean pollution and warming oceans: towards ocean solutions and natural marine bioremediation,” in Predicting Future Oceans: Sustainability of Ocean and Human Systems amidst Global Environmental Change , eds A. M. Cisneros-Montemayor, W. W. L. Cheung, and Y. Ota (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 495–518.

Google Scholar

Alava, J. J., Cheung, W. W. L., Ross, P. S., and Sumaila, R. U. (2017a). Climate change-contaminant interactions in marine food webs: towards a conceptual framework. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 3984–4001. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13667

Alava, J. J., Barragán-Paladines, M. J., Denkinger, J., Muñoz-Abril, L., Jiménez, P. J., Paladines, F., et al. (2017b). Massive Chinese fleet jeopardizes threatened shark species around the Galápagos Marine Reserve and waters off ecuador: implications for National and International Fisheries Policy. Int. J. Fish. Sci. Res. 1:1001.

Alava, J. J., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Sumaila, U. R., and Cheung, W. W. (2018). Projected amplification of food web bioaccumulation of MeHg and PCBs under climate change in the Northeastern Pacific. Sci. Rep. 8:13460. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-31824-5

Alava, J. J., Lindop, A., and Jacquet, J. (2015). Reconstruction of Marine Fisheries Catches for Continental ECUADOR, 1950-2010 . UBC Fisheries Centre Working Paper # 2015–34. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Alava, J. J., and Paladines, F. (2017). Illegal fishing on the Galápagos high seas. Science 357, 1362–1363.

Allison, E. H., Perry, A. L., Badjeck, M. C., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Conway, D., et al. (2009). Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish Fish. 10, 173–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00310.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baum, J. K., and Fuller, S. D. (2016). Canada’s Marine Fisheries: Status, Recovery Potential and Pathways to Success. Toronto, ON: Ocean Canada.

Bianchi, G., Gislason, H., Graham, K., Hill, L., Jin, X., Koranteng, K., et al. (2000). Impact of fishing on size composition and diversity of demersal fish communities. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 558–571.

Bindoff, N. L., Cheung, W. W. L., Kairo, J. G., Arístegui, J., Guinder, V. A., Hallberg, R., et al. (2019). “Changing ocean, marine ecosystems, and dependent communities,” in IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate , eds H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, et al. (Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)).

Bondaroff, T. N. P., Werf, V. D., and Reitano, T. (2015). The Illegal Fishing and Organized Crimenexus: Illegal Fishing as Transnational Organized Crime. Geneva: The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime and The Black Fish.

Booth, S., and Zeller, D. (2005). Mercury, food webs, and marine mammals: implications of diet and climate change for human health. Environ. Health Perspect. 113, 521–526. doi: 10.1289/ehp.7603

Bridges, K. N., Soulen, B. K., Overturf, C. L., Drevnick, P. E., and Roberts, A. P. (2016). Embryotoxicity of maternally transferred methylmercury to fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas ). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35, 1436–1441. doi: 10.1002/etc.3282

Carta, P., Flore, C., Alinovi, R., Ibba, A., Tocco, M. G., Aru, G., et al. (2003). Sub-clinical neurobehavioral abnormalities associated with low level of mercury exposure through fish consumption. Neurotoxicology 24, 617–623. doi: 10.1016/S0161-813X(03)00080-9

Cavan, E. L., and Hill, S. L. (2020). Commercial fishery disturbance of the global open-ocean carbon sink. bioRxiv [Preprint] doi: 10.1101/2020.09.21.307462

Chavez, F. P., Ryan, J., Lluch-Cota, S. E., and Niquen, M. (2003). From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299, 217–221. doi: 10.1126/science.1075880

Cheung, W. W., Lam, V. W., Sarmiento, J. L., Kearney, K., Watson, R. E. G., Zeller, D., et al. (2010). Large scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 16, 24–35.

Cheung, W. W., Sarmiento, J. L., Dunne, J., Frölicher, T. L., Lam, V. W., Palomares, M. D., et al. (2013). Shrinking of fishes exacerbates impacts of global ocean changes on marine ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 254–258.

Choy, C. A., Robison, B. H., Gagne, T. O., Erwin, B., Firl, E., Halden, R. U., et al. (2019). The vertical distribution and biological transport of marine microplastics across the epipelagic and mesopelagic water column. Sci. Rep. 9:7843.

Cooley, S. R., Lucey, N., KitePowell, H., and Doney, S. C. (2012). Nutrition and income from molluscs today imply vulnerability to ocean acidification tomorrow. Fish Fish. 13, 182–215.

Daskalov, G. M., Boicenko, L., Grishin, A. N., Lazar, L., Mihneva, V., Shlyahov, V. A., et al. (2017). Architecture of collapse: regime shift and recovery in a hierarchically structured marine ecosystem. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 1486–1498. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13508

Dawson, M. A. (1982). Effects of long-term mercury exposure on hematology of striped bass. Morone saxatilis. Fish. Bull. 80, 389–392.

Doney, S. C. (2010). The growing human footprint on coastal and open-ocean biogeochemistry. Science 328, 1512–1516. doi: 10.1126/science.1185198

Dulvy, N. K., Sadovy, Y., and Reynolds, J. D. (2003). Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish Fish. 4, 25–64.

Dunne, J. P., John, J., Adcroft, A., Griffies, S., Griffies, R. W., Shevliakova, E., et al. (2012). GFDL’s ESM2 global coupled climate–carbon earth system models. Part I: physical formulation and baseline simulation characteristics. J. Clim. 25, 6646–6665.

EFSA (2015). Statement on the benefits of fish/seafood consumption compared to the risks of methylmercury in fish/seafood. EFSA J. 13:3982. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3982

EJF (2020). Europe – A Market for Illegal Seafood from West Africa: The Case of Ghana’s Industrial Trawl Sector. Availabl online at: https://ejfoundation.org/resources/downloads/EJF_Europe-A-Market-for-Illegal-Seafood-from-West-Africa_2020_final.pdf (accessed December 13, 2021).

Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C. M., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., et al. (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:e111913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111913

European Commission (2002). Amending Regulation (EC) No. 466/2001 Setting Maximum Levels for Certain Contaminants in Foodstufs. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission (2008). Reflections on Further Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels: European Commission.

European Environment Agency (2018). Mercury in Europe’s Environment: A priority for Europeans and global action. København: European Environment Agency.

FAO (2009). The State of Food and Agriculture . Rome: FAO.

FAO (2012). The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: FAO.

Fernandes, J. A., Papathanasopoulou, E., Hattam, C., Queirós, A. M., Cheung, W. W. L., Yool, A., et al. (2017). Estimating the ecological, economic and social impacts of ocean acidification and warming on UK fisheries. Fish Fish. 18, 389–444. doi: 10.1111/faf.12183

Free, C. M., Thorson, J. T., Pinsky, M. L., Oken, K. L., Wiedenmann, J., and Jensen, O. P. (2019). Impacts of historical warming on marine fisheries production. Science 363, 979–983.

Garcia, S. M., Ye, Y., Rice, J., and Charles, A. (Eds). (2018). Rebuilding of Marine Fisheries. Part 1: Global Review . FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 630/1. Rome: FAO.

Gattuso, J., Magnan, A. K., Bopp, L., Cheung, W. W. L., Duarte, C. M., Hinkel, J., et al. (2018). Ocean solutions to address climate change and its effects on marine ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. 5:337.

González-Taboada, F., and Anadón, R. (2012). Patterns of change in sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic during the last three decades: beyond mean trends. Clim. Chang. 115, 419–431. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0485-6

Halpern, B. S., Frazier, M., Afflerbach, J., Lowndes, J. S., Micheli, F., O’Hara, C., et al. (2019). Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Sci. Rep. 9:11609. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47201-9

Halpern, B. S., Frazier, M., Potapenko, J., Casey, K. S., Koenig, K., Longo, C., et al. (2015). Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 6:7615. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8615

Houston, M. (2011). Role of mercury toxicity in hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and stroke. Journal of Clinical Hypertension 13, 621–627. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2011.00489.x

IPCC (2014). Summary for Policy Makers. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability - Contributions of the Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report. Geneva: IPCC, 1–32.

IPCC (2018). in Summary for Policymakers , eds V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, et al. (Geneva: World Meteorological Organization).

IPCC (2021). “Summary for Policymakers,” in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , eds V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Issifu, I., and Sumaila, U. R. (2020). A review of the production, recycling and management of marine plastic pollution. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8, 1–16.

Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., et al. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347, 768–771. doi: 10.1126/science.1260352

Jennings, S., and Blanchard, J. L. (2004). Fish abundance with no fishing: predictions based on macroecological theory. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 632–642. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01466.x

Jensen, T., Frost, H., Gersen, T., and Andersen, J. L. (2015). Game theory and fish wars: the case of the Northeast Atlantic mackerel fishery. Fish. Res. 172, 7–16.

Johnson, N. W., Mitchell, C. P. J., Engstrom, D. R., Bailey, L. T., Wasik, C. J. K., and Berndt, M. E. (2016). Methylmercury production in a chronically sulfate-impacted sub-boreal wetland. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 18, 725–734. doi: 10.1039/c6em00138f

Kane, I. A., Clare, M. A., Miramontes, E., Wogelius, R., Rothwell, J. J., Garreau, P., et al. (2020). Seafloor microplastic hotspots controlled by deep-sea circulation. Science 368, 1140–1145. doi: 10.1126/science.aba5899

Lam, V. W. Y., Cheung, W. W. L., Reygondeau, G., and Sumaila, U. R. (2016). Projected change in global fisheries revenues under climate change. Sci. Rep. 6:32607. doi: 10.1038/srep32607

Leape, J., Micheli, F., Tigchelaar, M., Allison, E. H., Basurto, X., Bennett, A., et al. (2021). The Vital Roles of Blue Foods in the Global Food System. Available online at https://sc-fss2021.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FSS_Brief_Blue_Economy_MT.pdf (accessed July 18, 2021).

Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., et al. (2018). Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci. Rep. 8:4666. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22939-w

Levitus, S., Antonov, J. I., Boyer, T. P., Locarnini, R. A., Garcia, H. E., and Mishonov, A. V. (2009). Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36:L07608.

Lotze, H. K., Lenihan, H. S., Bourque, B. J., Bradbury, R. H., Cooke, R. G., Kay, M. C., et al. (2006). Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312, 1806–1809. doi: 10.1126/science.1128035

Martínez-Ortiz, J., Aires-da-Silva, A. M., Lennert-Cody, C. E., and Maunder, M. N. (2015). The Ecuadorian artisanal fishery for large pelagics: species composition and spatio-temporal dynamics. PLoS One 10:e0135136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135136

Mason, R. P., and Sheu, G. R. (2002). Role of the ocean in the global mercury cycle. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 16, 40–41.

Matta, M. B., Linse, J., Cairncross, C., Francendese, L., and Kocan, R. M. (2001). Reproductive and transgenerational effects of methylmercury or aroclor 1268 on Fundulus heteroclitus . Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20, 327–335.

McCauley, D. J., Pinsky, M. L., Palumbi, S. R., Estes, J. A., Joyce, F. H., and Warner, R. R. (2015). Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347:1255641. doi: 10.1126/science.1255641

Miles, E. A., and Calder, P. C. (2012). Influence of marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on immune function and a systematic review of their effects on clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Br. J. Nutr. 107, S171–S184. doi: 10.1017/S0007114512001560

Ministerio de Comercio Exterior (2017). Report of the Ecuadorian Tuna Sector. August 2017, Ecuador. 30. Available online at: https://www.produccion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Reporte-del-sector-atunero-ingles.pdf (accessed October 11, 2021)

Monnier, L., Gascuel, D., Alava, J. J., Barragán, M. J., Gaibor, N., Hollander, F. A., et al. (2020). Small-Scale Fisheries in a Warming Ocean: Exploring Adaptation to Climate Change. Scientific Report. Hamburg: International WWF Centre for Marine Conservation.

Moomaw, W., and Blankenship, S. (2014). Charting a New Course for the Ceans: A Report on the State of the World’s Oceans, Global Fisheries and Fisheries Treaties, and Potential Strategies for Reversing the Decline in Ocean Health and Productivity . The Center for International Environment & Resource Policy, Number 011. Medford, MA: Center for International Environment and Resource Policy.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021). Reckoning with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Wildlife Federation (2006). Poisoning Wildlife: the Reality of Mercury Pollution. Reston, VA: National Wildlife Federation.

Noone, K. J., Sumaila, U. R., and Diaz, R. J. (2013). Managing Ocean Environments in a Changing Climate: Sustainability and Economic Perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier publication.

Oken, E., Radesky, J. S., Wright, R. O., Bellinger, D. C., Amarasiriwardena, C. J., Kleinman, K. P., et al. (2008). Maternal fish intake during pregnancy, blood mercury levels, and child cognition at age 3 years in a US cohort. Am. J. Epidemiol. 167, 1171–1181.

Oomen, C. M., Feskens, E. J., Räsänen, L., Fidanza, F., Nissinen, A. M., Menotti, A., et al. (2000). Fish consumption and coronary heart disease mortality in Finland, Italy, and The Netherlands. Am. J. Epidemiol. 151, 999–1006. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010144

Orr, J. C., Fabry, V. J., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Doney, S. C., Feely, R. A., et al. (2005). Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437, 681–686. doi: 10.1038/nature04095

Ostle, C., Williamson, P., Artioli, Y., Bakker, D. C. E., Birchenough, S., Davis, C. E., et al. (2016). Carbon Dioxide and Ocean Acidification Observations in UK Waters: Synthesis Report with a Focus From 2010 to 2015. Norwich: University of East Anglia.

Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., and Torres, F. (1998). Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, 860–863.

Pauly, D., Watson, R., and Alder, J. (2005). Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on marine ecosystems and food security. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 360, 5–12. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1574

Pauly, D., Zeller, D., and Palomares, M. L. D. (eds) (2020). Sea Around Us Concepts, Design and Data. Available online at: seaaroundus.org (accessed January 7, 2022).

Rangel-Huerta, O. D. R., Aguilera, C. M., Mesa, M. D., and Gil, A. (2012). Omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids supplementation on inflammatory biomakers: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. Br. J. Nutr. 107, S159–S170. doi: 10.1017/S0007114512001559

Rochman, C. M., Lewison, R. L., Eriksen, M., Allen, H., Cook, A. M., and Teh, S. J. (2014). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBEs) in fish tissue may be an indicator of plastic contamination in marine habitats. Sci. Total Environ. 476–477, 622–633. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.058

Rogers, A. D., and Laffoley, D. A. (2011). International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts . Summary report. Oxford: International Programme on the State of the Ocean.

Sandborgh-Englund, G., Elinder, C. G., Langworth, S., Schütz, A., and Ekstrand, J. (1998). Mercury in biological fluids after amalgam removal. J. Dental Res. 77, 615–624. doi: 10.1177/00220345980770041501

Sandheinrich, M. B., and Wiener, J. G. (2011). “Methylmercury in freshwater fish: recent advances in assessing toxicity of environmentally relevant exposures,” in Environmental Contaminants in Biota: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations , eds W. N. Beyer and J. P. Meador (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press).

Schartup, A., Thackray, C., Qureshi, A., Dassuncao, C., Gillespie, K., Hanke, A., et al. (2019). Climate change and overfishing increase neurotoxicant in marine predators. Nature 572, 648–650. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1468-9

Schuhbauer, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Cheung, W. W., Greer, K., and Sumaila, U. R. (2017). How subsidies affect the economic viability of small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy 82, 114–121. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.013

Science for Environment Policy (2017). Tackling Mercury Pollution in the EU and Worldwide. Bristol: European Commission.

STECF (2017). The 2017 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF-17-12). Luxembourg: Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).

Stern, A. H. (2005). A review of the studies of the cardiovascular health effects of methylmercury with consideration of their suitability for risk assessment. Environ. Res. 98, 133–142. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2004.07.016

Storelli, M. M., and Marcotrigiano, G. O. (2001). Total mercury levels in muscle tissue of Swordfish ( Xiphias gladius ) and Bluefin Tuna ( Thunnus thynnus ) from the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). J. Food Protect. 64, 1058–1061. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-64.7.1058

Styf, H. K., Sköld, H. N., and Eriksson, S. P. (2013). Embryonic response to long-term exposure of the marine crustacean Nephrops norvegicus to ocean acidification and elevated temperature. Ecol. Evol. 3, 5055–5065. doi: 10.1002/ece3.860

Sumaila, U. R. (2018). Illicit trade in the marine resources of West Africa. Ghana. J. Econ. 6, 108–116.

Sumaila, U. R., Alder, J., and Keith, H. (2006). Global scope and economics of illegal fishing. Mar. Policy 30, 696–703.

Sumaila, U. R., Cheung, W. W. L., Lam, V. W. Y., Pauly, D., and Herrick, S. (2011). Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1, 449–456.

Sumaila, U. R., Skerritt, D. J., Schuhbauer, A., Villasante, S., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Sinan, H., et al. (2021). WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies. Science 374, 544–544. doi: 10.1126/science.abm1680

Sumaila, U. R., and Tai, T. C. (2020). End overfishing and increase the resilience of the ocean to climate change. Front. Mar. Sci. 7:523. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008256117

Sumaila, U. R., Zeller, D., Hood, L., Palomares, M. L. D., Li, Y., and Pauly, D. (2020). Illicit trade in marine fish catch and its effects on ecosystems and people worldwide. Sci. Adv. 6:eaaz3801. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz3801

Sunderland, E. M., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Moreau, J. W., Strode, S. A., and Landing, W. M. (2009). Mercury sources, distribution, and bioavailability in the North Pacific Ocean: insights from data and models. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23:GB2010.

U.S. EPA (2002). Toxic Release Inventory – 2002. Data Release Washington D. C: US. Washington DC: EPA.

Višnjevec, A. M., Kocman, D., and Horvat, M. (2013). Human mercury exposure and effects in Europe. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 33, 1259–1270. doi: 10.1002/etc.2482

World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010). Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption. Rome: World Health Organization.

Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., Collie, J. S., Costello, C., et al. (2009). Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325, 578–585.

Yokoo, E. M., Valente, J. G., Grattan, L., Schmidt, S. L., Platt, I., and Silbergeld, E. K. (2003). Low level methylmercury exposure affects neuropsychological function in adults. Environ. Health 2:8. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-2-8

Keywords : Europeans waters, climate change, overfishing, pollution, mercury

Citation: Issifu I, Alava JJ, Lam VWY and Sumaila UR (2022) Impact of Ocean Warming, Overfishing and Mercury on European Fisheries: A Risk Assessment and Policy Solution Framework. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:770805. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.770805

Received: 05 September 2021; Accepted: 27 December 2021; Published: 07 February 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Issifu, Alava, Lam and Sumaila. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Ibrahim Issifu, [email protected] ; Juan José Alava, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution

Original Research
Published: 02 August 2021
Volume 32 , pages 145–160, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

Kathryn A. Willis 1 , 2 , 5 na1 ,
Catarina Serra-Gonçalves 1 , 3 ,
Kelsey Richardson 1 , 2 , 5 ,
Qamar A. Schuyler 2 ,
Halfdan Pedersen 8 ,
Kelli Anderson 4 ,
Jonathan S. Stark 1 , 7 ,
Joanna Vince 1 , 5 ,
Britta D. Hardesty 1 , 2 ,
Chris Wilcox 1 , 2 , 3 ,
Barbara F. Nowak 1 , 4 ,
Jennifer L. Lavers 3 ,
Jayson M. Semmens 3 ,
Dean Greeno 1 , 6 ,
Catriona MacLeod 1 , 3 ,
Nunnoq P. O. Frederiksen 9 , 10 &
Peter S. Puskic ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1352-8843 1 , 3 na1

16k Accesses

30 Citations

28 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Pollution in Marine Ecosystem: Impact and Prevention

The Oceans and Their Challenge to Conserve Marine Biodiversity

Leveraging Multi-target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean

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 ), shipping (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 ).

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 developing 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.

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 ).

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 developing 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. stopping 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.

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.

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

Article Google Scholar

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

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

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

Article PubMed Google Scholar

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

Article CAS Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

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) Developing 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: sweeping 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 developing 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

Download references

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

P.S. Puskic and K.A. Willis share equal lead authorship on this paper.

Authors and Affiliations

Centre for Marine Sociology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Kathryn A. Willis, Catarina Serra-Gonçalves, Kelsey Richardson, Jonathan S. Stark, Joanna Vince, Britta D. Hardesty, Chris Wilcox, Barbara F. Nowak, Dean Greeno, Catriona MacLeod & Peter S. Puskic

CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Kathryn A. Willis, Kelsey Richardson, Qamar A. Schuyler, Britta D. Hardesty & Chris Wilcox

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Catarina Serra-Gonçalves, Chris Wilcox, Jennifer L. Lavers, Jayson M. Semmens, Catriona MacLeod & Peter S. Puskic

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of Tasmania, Newnham, TAS, Australia

Kelli Anderson & Barbara F. Nowak

School of Social Sciences, College of Arts, Law and Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Kathryn A. Willis, Kelsey Richardson & Joanna Vince

School of Creative Arts and Media, College of Arts, Law and Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Dean Greeno

Australian Antarctic Division, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Jonathan S. Stark

Pikkoritta Consult, Aasiaat, Greenland

Halfdan Pedersen

The PISUNA Project, Qeqertalik Municipality, Attu, Greenland

Nunnoq P. O. Frederiksen

Snowchange Cooperative, Selkie, Finland

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Correspondence to Peter S. Puskic .

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.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 509 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About 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

Download citation

Received : 24 April 2020

Accepted : 08 July 2021

Published : 02 August 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09674-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Future scenario
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Ocean Decade
Sustainable solutions
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution

Kathryn a. willis.

1 Centre for Marine Sociology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS Australia

2 CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Hobart, TAS Australia

5 School of Social Sciences, College of Arts, Law and Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS Australia

Catarina Serra-Gonçalves

3 Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS Australia

Kelsey Richardson

Qamar a. schuyler, halfdan pedersen.

8 Pikkoritta Consult, Aasiaat, Greenland

Kelli Anderson

4 Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of Tasmania, Newnham, TAS Australia

Jonathan S. Stark

7 Australian Antarctic Division, Hobart, TAS Australia

Joanna Vince

Britta d. hardesty, chris wilcox, barbara f. nowak, jennifer l. lavers, jayson m. semmens, dean greeno.

6 School of Creative Arts and Media, College of Arts, Law and Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS Australia

Catriona MacLeod

Nunnoq p. o. frederiksen.

9 The PISUNA Project, Qeqertalik Municipality, Attu, Greenland

10 Snowchange Cooperative, Selkie, Finland

Peter S. Puskic

Associated data.

Graphic abstract

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 11160_2021_9674_Figa_HTML.jpg

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11160-021-09674-8.

Introduction

We defined the scope of our paper by identifying key pollutant sources, types and drivers of marine pollution (Table (Table1 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.

A list of the three major sources of marine pollution and examples of the key types of pollution from each

source considered in our future scenarios. * denotes a pollutant that is outside the scope of this paper

	Pollutant Source
Pollutant Type	Land-based industry	Municipal-based	Sea-based industry
Sediment	Sediment from mining , agriculture, or forestry	Sediment from coastal development	Sediment disruptions (e.g. dredging and aquaculture)
Nutrient	Nutrients (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorous, iron) from agriculture, forestry, livestock	Nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous) from wastewater, stormwater	Increase in nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous) from aquaculture
Plastics	Plastics from packaging and transport of products	Plastics from urban stormwater, and litter escaped from waste management systems	Abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear from vessels.Plastics from aquaculture, shipping and offshore structures
Pharmaceuticals	Pharmaceuticals used in animal agriculture	Pharmaceuticals in wastewater from household waste, and medical facilities	Pharmaceuticals (e.g. anti-biotics and antiparasitic drugs) from aquaculture
Chemicals	Chemicals, POPs and pesticides from agriculture, mining, industrial wastewater and runoff	Petroleum and household chemicals from wastewater, and stormwater outlets	Petroleum and chemicals from shipping and offshore structures
Sound			Motor noise, seismic devices and sound propagating devices
Light*		Light from coastal development*	Light from offshore structures and marine transport*
Water*		Fresh water/ heated water* (e.g. melted sea ice, shifts in ocean currents)
Nuclear Waste*	Nuclear waste from power stations*

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 11160_2021_9674_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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 (Table1). 1 ). We framed our two contrasting future scenarios (Business-As-Usual and a technically feasible sustainable future), around these pollutants and their sources (Table (Table2). 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 (Table3), 3 ), and the Greenlandic Inuit people (Table (Table4 4 ).

The method resulted in two futures, which focus on pollutants outlined in Table Table1. 1 . The two futures are told here in a narrative format. The Business-As-Usual (BAU) future has been informed by current trends and predictions in marine pollution. The technically feasible sustainable future imagines what the future may be like should we implement the actions outlined in this paper

In lutruwita (Tasmania), Marineer Shell ( Phasianotrochus rutilus ) necklace making is a palawa pakana traditional practice that has continued over thousands of years. Shell-necklaces were once crafted as jewellery and used for trade purposes. King, Queen and standard marineers were not just palawa nicknames handed down through generations, status was allocated to each of the marineer species and the resulting necklaces. Necklaces were reflective of the status allocated to the owner from the creator, and clan as a whole. Here, Elder and shell-necklace maker, Lola Greeno, shares her account of the current impacts of pollution on her art and culture. (Photo credit: Dean Greeno)

Pollution disproportionally impacts first nations people. To the Inuit Greenland peoples, pollution from the Outer World presents a vast array of challenges. Documented here is a firsthand account of some types of pollutants in Greenland and impacts these have on Inuit communities. We have the capacity to influence pollution impacts on a local scale, but we require political efforts, legislation, and global change to make positive impacts in communities and environments in need. (Photo credit: Jonathan Stark)

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 (Table2). 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.

Shifting societal behaviours towards sustainable production and consumption

Equity and access to technologies

Inequitable access to available technologies.

Harnessing technologies for today and the future

Governance and policy

Lack of ocean governance and policy making.

Harnessing ocean governance and policy

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 (Table1), 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)

Actions along the way

Actions at the sinks

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Acknowledgements

Author 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 Table4. 4 . D.G. wrote Table Table3. 3 . All authors provided edits and feedback to earlier drafts.

Declarations

The authors declare no conflict of interest. This work is original and has not been submitted for publication anywhere else.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

P.S. Puskic and K.A. Willis share equal lead authorship on this paper.

Abbott JK, Sumaila UR. Reducing marine plastic pollution: policy insights from economics. Rev Env Econ Policy. 2019; 13 :327–336. doi: 10.1093/reep/rez007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Alario MV, Freudenburg WR. Environmental risks and environmental justice, or how titanic risks are not so titanic after all. Sociol Inquiry. 2010; 80 :500–512. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00344.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
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 10.22541/au.160761569.97952359/v1
Alongi DM, McKinnon AD. The cycling and fate of terrestrially-derived sediments and nutrients in the coastal zone of the Great Barrier Reef shelf. Mar Pollut Bull. 2005; 51 :239–252. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.10.033. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Amunsen CE, Hanssen JE, Semb A, Steinnes E. Long-range atmospheric transport of trace elements to southern Norway. Atmos Environ, Part A. 1992; 26 :1309–1324. doi: 10.1016/0960-1686(92)90391-W. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ando AW, Freitas LPC. Consumer demand for green stormwater management technology in an urban setting: the case of Chicago rain barrels. Water Resour Res. 2011 doi: 10.1029/2011wr011070. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ban NC, Wilson E, Neasloss D. Historical and contemporary indigenous marine conservation strategies in the North Pacific Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for. Conserv Biol. 2020; 34 :5–14. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13432. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Beaumont NJ, et al. Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Marine Pollut Bulletin. 2019; 142 :189–195. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bennett D. Tracking the trends in manufacturing technology management. J Manuf Technol Manag. 2013; 24 :5–8. doi: 10.1108/17410381311287454. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Caraco NF. 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. 2001; 51 :227–234. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0227:HIOEPA]2.0.CO;2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bernhardt ES, Rosi EJ, Gessner MO. Synthetic chemicals as agents of global change. Front Ecol Environ. 2017; 15 :84–90. doi: 10.1002/fee.1450. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brodin T, Piovano S, Fick J, Klaminder J, Heynen M, Jonsson M. Ecological effects of pharmaceuticals in aquatic systems—impacts through behavioural alterations. Phil Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2014; 369 :20130580. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0580. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Buck B, Troell M, Krause G, Angel D, Grote B, Chopin T. State of the art and challenges for offshore integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) Front Mar Sci. 2018; 5 :165. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00165. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bustamante P, Caurant F, Fowler SW, Miramand P. Cephalopods as a vector for the transfer of cadmium to top marine predators in the north-east Atlantic Ocean. Sci Total Environ. 1998; 220 :71–80. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(98)00250-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Capaldo A, et al. Effects of environmental cocaine concentrations on the skeletal muscle of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) Sci Total Environ. 2018; 640–641 :862–873. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.357. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carroll AG, Przeslawski R, Duncan A, Gunning M, Bruce B. A critical review of the potential impacts of marine seismic surveys on fish & invertebrates. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017; 114 :9–24. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.038. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
DeGeorges A, Goreau TJ, Reilly B. 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. 2010; 2 :2919–2949. doi: 10.3390/su2092919. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Depledge MH, Godard-Codding CAJ, Bowen RE. Light pollution in the sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2010; 60 :1383–1385. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.08.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Eagles-Smith CA, Ackerman JT, De La Cruz SE, Takekawa JY. Mercury bioaccumulation and risk to three waterbird foraging guilds is influenced by foraging ecology and breeding stage. Environ Pollut. 2009; 157 :1993–2002. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.03.030. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Elliott JE, Elliott KH. Tracking Marine Pollution. Science. 2013; 340 :556–558. doi: 10.1126/science.1235197. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Englehardt JD. Identifying promising pollution-prevention technologies. J Environ Eng. 1994; 120 :513–526. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1994)120:3(513). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
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 10.22541/au.160391058.89181791/v1
Foltete AS, et al. Environmental impact of sunscreen nanomaterials: ecotoxicity and genotoxicity of altered TiO2 nanocomposites on Vicia faba. Environ Pollut. 2011; 159 :2515–2522. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.06.020. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gaines SE. The polluter-pays principle: from economic equity to environmental ethos. Tex Int'l LJ. 1991; 26 :463. [ Google Scholar ]
Golden CD, et al. Nutrition: fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature. 2016; 534 :317–320. doi: 10.1038/534317a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goodchild A, Toy J. 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. 2018; 61 :58–67. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.02.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Grappi S, Romani S, Barbarossa C. Fashion without pollution: how consumers evaluate brands after an NGO campaign aimed at reducing toxic chemicals in the fashion industry. J Clean Prod. 2017; 149 :1164–1173. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.183. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Haward M. Plastic Pollution of the World’s Seas and Oceans as a Contemporary Challenge in Ocean Governance. Nat Commun. 2018; 9 :1–3. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03104-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Henderson JR. 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. 2001; 42 :584–589. doi: 10.1016/s0025-326x(00)00204-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hildebrand JA. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2009; 395 :5–20. doi: 10.3354/meps08353. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hoffman DJ, Eagles-Smith CA, Ackerman JT, Adelsbach TL, Stebbins KR. 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. 2011; 30 :920–929. doi: 10.1002/etc.459. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hong S, Lee J, Lim S. Navigational threats by derelict fishing gear to navy ships in the Korean seas. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017; 119 :100–105. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
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. Estimation of lost tourism revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in South Korea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2014; 81 :49–54. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jennings S, Revill AS. The role of gear technologists in supporting an ecosystem approach to fisheries. ICES J Mar Sci. 2007; 64 :1525–1534. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsm104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Joakim Larsson DG, Fick J. Transparency throughout the production chain—a way to reduce pollution from the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009; 53 :161–163. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2009.01.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
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. Ecotoxicology in the Anthropocene: are we listening to nature's scream? Environ Sci Technol. 2018; 52 (18):10227–10229. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b04534. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J. Circular Economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol Econ. 2018; 143 :37–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Krass D, Nedorezov T, Ovchinnikov A. Environmental taxes and the choice of green technology. Prod Oper Manag. 2013; 22 :1035–1055. doi: 10.1111/poms.12023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Krushelnytska O. Solving Marine Pollution: Successful models to reduce wastewater, agricultural runoff, and marine litter (English) Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
Landrigan PJ, et al. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet. 2018; 391 :462–512. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lange A, Paull GC, Hamilton PB, Iguchi T, Tyler CR. Implications of persistent exposure to treated wastewater effluent for breeding in wild roach ( Rutilus rutilus ) populations. Environ Sci Technol. 2011; 45 :1673–1679. doi: 10.1021/es103232q. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lebreton L, Andrady A. Future Scenarios of Global Plastic Waste Generation and Disposal. Palgrave Commun. 2019; 5 :6. doi: 10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lebreton LC, van der Zwet J, Damsteeg J-W, Slat B, Andrady A, Reisser J. River plastic emissions to the world's oceans Nature. Communications. 2017; 8 :5611. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15611. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Liu W, Oosterveer P, Spaargaren G. Promoting sustainable consumption in China: a conceptual framework and research review. J Clean Prod. 2016; 134 :13–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.124. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lohmann R, Klanova J, Kukucka P, Yonis S, Bollinger K. 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. 2012; 46 :10471–10479. doi: 10.1021/es203459e. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Longcore T, Rich C. Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ. 2004; 2 :191–198. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0191:Elp]2.0.Co;2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lorek S, Spangenberg JH. Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy – beyond green growth and green economies. J Clean Product. 2014; 63 :33–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Macleod CK, Eriksen RS, Chase Z, Apitz SE. Chemical pollutants in the marine environment: causes, effects, and challenges. In: Solan M, Whiteley N, editors. Stressors in the Marine Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
Mahalik NP, Nambiar AN. Trends in food packaging and manufacturing systems and technology. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2010; 21 :117–128. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2009.12.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Malehmir A, et al. Seismic methods in mineral exploration and mine planning: a general overview of past and present case histories and a look into the future. Geophysics. 2012; 77 :WC173–WC190. doi: 10.1190/geo2012-0028.1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mattson G. MARPOL 73/78 and Annex I: an assessment of it effectiveness. J Int Wildlife Law Policy. 2006; 9 (2):175–194. doi: 10.1080/13880290600728195. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mattsson K, Johnson EV, Malmendal A, Linse S, Hansson LA, Cedervall T. Brain Damage and Behavioural Disorders in Fish Induced by Plastic Nanoparticles Delivered through the Food Chain. Sci Rep. 2017; 7 :11452. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-10813-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCarthy E. International Regulation of Underwater Sound. US, New York: Springer; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
Michael JA. 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. 1998; 30 :217–223. doi: 10.1017/S107407080000818X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moktadir MA, Rahman T, Rahman MH, Ali SM, Paul SK. Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy: a perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. J Clean Prod. 2018; 174 :1366–1380. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mont O, Plepys A. Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proud or alarmed? J Clean Prod. 2008; 16 :531–537. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.01.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
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. Who is the ocean? Preface to the future seas 2030 special issue. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s11160-021-09655-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nash JP, et al. Long-term exposure to environmental concentrations of the pharmaceutical ethynylestradiol causes reproductive failure in fish. Environ Health Perspect. 2004; 112 :1725–1733. doi: 10.1289/ehp.7209. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nash KL, Alexander KA, Melbourne-Thomas J, Novaglio C, Sbrocchi C, Villanueva C, Pecl GT. Developing achievable alternate futures for key challenges during the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s11160-020-09629-5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nichols WJ. Blue Mind Little. London: Brown Book Group; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
Nie P-y. A monopoly with pollution emissions. J Environ Planning Manag. 2012; 55 :705–711. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2011.622742. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
O'Brien AL, Dafforn KA, Chariton AA, Johnston EL, Mayer-Pinto M. 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. 2019; 684 :753–764. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.131. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ofiara DD, Seneca JJ. Biological effects and subsequent economic effects and losses from marine pollution and degradations in marine environments: Implications from the literature. Mar Pollut Bull. 2006; 52 :844–864. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.02.022. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
O'Shea FT, Cundy AB, Spencer KL. The contaminant legacy from historic coastal landfills and their potential as sources of diffuse pollution. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018; 128 :446–455. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.047. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ouardighi FE, Sim JE, Kim B. Pollution accumulation and abatement policy in a supply chain. Eur J Oper Res. 2016; 248 :982–996. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pan S-Y, Du MA, Huang IT, Liu IH, Chang EE, Chiang P-C. Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy system: a review. J Clean Prod. 2015; 108 :409–421. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.124. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
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. Strategies for reducing ocean plastic debris should be diverse and guided by science. Environ Res Lett. 2016; 11 :041001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/041001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ryan PG, Jewitt D. Cleaning beaches: sweeping the rubbish under the carpet. S Afr J Sci. 1996; 92 :275–276. [ Google Scholar ]
Rzymski P, Drewek A, Klimaszyk P (2017) Pharmaceutical pollution of aquatic environment: an emerging and enormous challenge 17:97 10.1515/limre-2017-0010
Saeed BB, Afsar B, Hafeez S, Khan I, Tahir M, Afridi MA. Promoting employee's proenvironmental behavior through green human resource management practices. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 2019; 26 :424–438. doi: 10.1002/csr.1694. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Salamat N, Etemadi-Deylami E, Movahedinia A, Mohammadi Y. 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. 2014; 110 :298–307. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.09.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schnurr REJ, et al. Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): a review. Marine Pollut Bulletin. 2018; 137 :157–171. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.001. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Seitzinger SP, Kroeze C, Bouwman AF, Caraco N, Dentener F, Styles RV. Global patterns of dissolved inorganic and particulate nitrogen inputs to coastal systems: recent conditions and future projections. Estuaries. 2002; 25 :640–655. doi: 10.1007/bf02804897. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
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. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strateg Manag J. 2005; 26 :159–180. doi: 10.1002/smj.439. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sherman P, van Sebille E. Modeling marine surface microplastic transport to assess optimal removal locations. Environ Res Lett. 2016; 11 :014006. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Simmonds MP, Dolman SJ, Jasny M, Parsons ECM, Weilgart L, Wright AJ, Leaper R. Marine noise pollution - increasing recognition but need for more practical action. J Ocean Technol. 2014; 9 :71–90. [ Google Scholar ]
Smith VK, Zhang X, Palmquist RB. Marine debris, beach quality, and non-market values. Environ Resour Econ. 1997; 10 :223–247. doi: 10.1023/A:1026465413899. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sun B, Zhang L, Yang L, Zhang F, Norse D, Zhu Z. Agricultural non-point source pollution in China: causes and mitigation measures. Ambio. 2012; 41 :370–379. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0249-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
The polluter-pays principle. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law , Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. 10.4337/9781785365669.VI.20
Tournadre J. Anthropogenic pressure on the open ocean: the growth of ship traffic revealed by altimeter data analysis. Geophys Res Lett. 2014; 41 :7924–7932. doi: 10.1002/2014gl061786. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Uhrin AV. Tropical cyclones, derelict traps, and the future of the Florida Keys commercial spiny lobster fishery. Marine Policy. 2016; 69 :84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Umeda Y, Fukushige S, Mizuno T, Matsuyama Y. Generating design alternatives for increasing recyclability of products. CIRP Ann. 2013; 62 :135–138. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.060. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
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. The Outlaw Ocean: Crime and Survival in the Last Untames Frontier. London, UK: The Bodley Head & Vintage Publishing; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
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. Transitions to sustainable consumption and production in cities. J Clean Prod. 2016; 134 :1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.050. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
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. Governance solutions to the tragedy of the commons that marine plastics have become. Front Mar Sci. 2018; 5 :214. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00214. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
White AT, Vogt HP, Arin T. Philippine coral reefs under threat: the economic losses caused by reef destruction. Mar Pollut Bull. 2000; 40 :598–605. doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00022-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wilcox C, Hardesty BD, Law KL. Abundance of floating plastic particles is increasing in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Environ Sci Technol. 2020; 54 :790–796. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04812. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Williams R, et al. Impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine life: publication patterns, new discoveries, and future directions in research and management. Ocean Coastal Manag. 2015; 115 :17–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wilson DC et al. (2015) Global Waste Management Outlook. UNEP, Vienna, Austria
Yang Q, Yu S, Jiang D. A modular method of developing an eco-product family considering the reusability and recyclability of customer products. J Clean Prod. 2014; 64 :254–265. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zhu W, Graney J, Salvage K. Land-Use Impact on water pollution: elevated pollutant input and reduced pollutant retention. J Contemp Water Res Edu. 2008; 138 :15–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2008.00004.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 10 June 2021

Ending marine pollution

Nature Sustainability volume 4 , page 459 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

7030 Accesses

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

Environmental impact
Ocean sciences
Scientific community and society
Sustainability

Scientific evidence sheds light on the extent, source and type of litter in the oceans, as well as on the limited efforts to clean it up so far. As we rely on healthy oceans for our future, it’s time to act.

Well into 2021, most countries around the world continue to battle with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 11–13 June, the G7 leading democracies (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom and United States, plus the European Union) are set to meet in Cornwall, United Kingdom, to help win the fight against the pandemic and discuss how to build a more prosperous future for all. A lot has been said about the need to shape sound recovery policies centred on health and sustainability and collaborations have emerged over the course of the past year to inform decision makers on what, and how, to innovate in order to bounce forward sustainably . The G7 countries have a unique opportunity to listen to science and lead the efforts of the global community in pursuit of innovative policies that can build a more sustainable development trajectory across the globe.

Against this backdrop, the International Programme on the State of the Ocean ( IPSO ) virtually convened marine scientists from different countries to work out a plan of action to ensure a sustainable ocean future. The scientists wrote a statement known as ‘Seven asks for the G7’ to request that priority is given to the protection of the oceans in the pandemic recovery plans that are to be discussed at the summit in Cornwall.

Mounting scientific evidence of the severe impacts of human actions on the ocean environment, and the associated societal and economic implications of those impacts, leaves everyone with no doubt about the risk of inaction. Politicians around the world have to step up efforts now.

One of the seven ‘asks’ from the IPSO convening is about ocean pollution. Although public awareness of the problem has grown rapidly over the past years, with several reports in the media , policy makers need comprehensive and reliable data about the actual magnitude and nature of the problem in order to intervene. In an article by Morales-Caselles and colleagues in Nature Sustainability , the authors conduct a substantial effort to harmonize worldwide aquatic litter inventories. The harmonized data show that ocean litter globally is dominated by plastics from take-out food, followed by fishing gear — a stark sign of how human activities, and in particular our food habits, impact the oceans. The experts are also able to show how litter is trapped in near-shore areas with land-sourced plastic reaching the open ocean mostly as small fragments. In another article by González-Fernández and co-authors, using a unique database of riverine floating macrolitter across Europe, the authors estimate that 307–925 million litter items — 82% of which is plastic — are transferred from Europe to the ocean annually. They also find that a major portion of the total litter loading is transferred through small rivers, streams and coastal run-off. This result clearly urges countries in Europe to increase efforts to keep rivers pollution-free. Overall, both papers suggest that waste management alone won’t be enough — consumption habits do play a key role in the fight against ocean litter.

Innovative solutions — to prevent, monitor and clean (PMC) marine litter — are necessary to restore healthy oceans and maintain their well-being over time. And again, little is known about how many of these solutions have been developed and implemented, and to what extent they have been effective as information is scattered across platforms and not easily accessible. In a global analysis by Bellou and colleagues, also in Nature Sustainability , the researchers identify 177 PMC solutions and find that 106 of them address monitoring; 33 address prevention (mostly via wastewater treatment); only 30 address cleaning. They also find an inconsistent use of litter size terms across the various developers, which required a harmonization effort to assess the type of litter addressed — results show that 137 of the solutions targeted macrolitter. Overall, only few solutions reached technical readiness and no solution was validated for efficiency and environmental impacts.

Policy makers alongside industry innovators, non-governmental organizations and citizens have a long way to go to address and reverse the trend of ocean pollution. The G7 summit could set the agenda for change — we expect that those influencing players will not shy away from the scientists’ call for action on the oceans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ending marine pollution. Nat Sustain 4 , 459 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00734-2

Download citation

Published : 10 June 2021

Issue Date : June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00734-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Loading metrics

Open Access

Confronting plastic pollution to protect environmental and public health

* E-mail: [email protected] (LG); [email protected] (JE)

Affiliation Public Library of Science, San Francisco, California, United States of America

Affiliation Center for the Advancement of Public Action, Bennington College; Beyond Plastics, Bennington, Vermont, United States of America

Liza Gross,
Judith Enck

Published: March 30, 2021

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001131
Reader Comments

A new collection of evidence-based commentaries explores critical challenges facing scientists and policymakers working to address the potential environmental and health harms of microplastics. The commentaries reveal a pressing need to develop robust methods to detect, evaluate, and mitigate the impacts of this emerging contaminant, most recently found in human placentas.

Citation: Gross L, Enck J (2021) Confronting plastic pollution to protect environmental and public health. PLoS Biol 19(3): e3001131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001131

Copyright: © 2021 Gross, Enck. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: Liza Gross is a current paid employee of the Public Library of Science.

The explosive production of affordable plastic goods during the 1950s ushered in an era of disposable living, fueled by an addiction to convenience and consumerism, that has created one of the world’s most vexing pollution problems. Plastic, for all its uses, has left a trail of debris from the deepest ocean trenches to the remotest polar reaches. Plastic pollutes throughout its life cycle, from its beginnings as a by-product of greenhouse gas-emitting oil and natural gas refining to its degradation-resistant end as increasingly fragmented shards of micro-and nanoplastics in atmospheric currents, alpine snow, estuaries, lakes, oceans, and soils. Researchers are finding microplastics in the gut or tissue of nearly every living thing they examine, including the placentas of unborn children.

The first sign of this burgeoning crisis came nearly half a century ago, when marine biologists first spotted tiny plastic pellets stuck to tiny marine organisms and seaweed in the North Atlantic’s Sargasso Sea. Describing their discovery in 1972, the scientists predicted, presciently, that “increasing production of plastics, combined with present waste disposal practices, will probably lead to greater concentrations on the sea surface” [ 1 ].

Researchers have struggled to keep tabs on plastic production and waste ever since. The first global assessment of mass-produced plastics, reported in 2017, estimated that manufacturers had produced 8,300 million metric tons of virgin plastics, creating 6,300 million metric tons of plastic waste—with only 9% recycled, 12% incinerated, and the rest either piling up in landfills or entering the environment [ 2 ].

Some 15 million metric tons of plastic enters the oceans every year [ 3 ], choking marine mammals, invading the guts of fish and seabirds, and posing unknown risks to the animals, and people, who eat them. Plastics release toxic chemicals added during manufacturing as they splinter into smaller and smaller fragments, with half-lives ranging from 58 to 1,200 years [ 4 ]. Persistent organic pollutants have a high affinity for plastic particles, which glom on to these contaminants as do pathogens in the ocean, presenting additional risks to marine life and the food web. Scientists once viewed freshwater lakes and rivers as primarily conduits for plastic, delivering trash from land to the sea, but now realize they’re also repositories.

Plastic production increased from 2 million metric tons a year in 1950 to 380 million metric tons by 2015 and is expected to double by 2050 [ 2 ]. Petrochemical companies’ embrace of fracking has exacerbated the crisis by producing large amounts of ethane, a building block for plastic.

Recognizing the scope and urgency of addressing the plastic pollution crisis, PLOS Biology is publishing a special collection of commentaries called “Confronting plastic pollution to protect environmental and public health.”

In commissioning the collection, we aimed to illuminate critical questions about microplastics’ effects on environmental and human health and explore current challenges in addressing those questions. The collection features three evidence-based commentaries that address gaps in understanding while flagging research priorities for improving methods to detect, evaluate, and mitigate threats associated with this emerging contaminant.

Environmental ecotoxicologist Scott Coffin and colleagues address recent government efforts to assess and reduce deleterious effects of microplastics, which challenge traditional risk-based regulatory frameworks due to their particle properties, diverse composition, and persistence. In their Essay, “Addressing the environmental and health impacts of microplastics requires open collaboration between diverse sectors” [ 5 ], the authors use California as a case study to suggest strategies to deal with these uncertainties in designing research, policy, and regulation, drawing on parallels with a similar class of emerging contaminants (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).

In “Tackling the toxics in plastics packaging” [ 6 ], environmental toxicologist Jane Muncke focuses on a major driver of the global plastic pollution crisis: single-use food packaging. Our throwaway culture has led to the widespread use of plastic packaging for storing, transporting, preparing, and serving food, along with efforts to reduce plastic waste by giving it new life as recycled material. But these efforts ignore evidence that chemicals in plastic migrate from plastic, making harmful chemicals an unintentional part of the human diet. Addressing contamination from food packaging is an urgent public health need that requires integrating all existing knowledge, she argues.

Much early research on microplastics focused on ocean pollution. But the ubiquitous particles appear to be interfering with the very fabric of the soil environment itself, by influencing soil bulk density and the stability of the building blocks of soil structure, argue Matthias Rillig and colleagues in their Essay. Microplastics can affect the carbon cycle in numerous ways, for example, by being carbon themselves and by influencing soil microbial processes, plant growth, or litter decomposition, the authors argue in “Microplastic effects on carbon cycling processes in soils” [ 7 ]. They call for “a major concerted effort” to understand the pervasive effects of microplastics on the function of soils and terrestrial ecosystems, a monumental feat given the immense diversity of the particles’ chemistry, aging, size, and shape.

The scope and effects of plastic pollution are too vast to be captured in a few commentaries. Microplastics are everywhere and researchers are just starting to get a handle on how to study the influence of this emerging contaminant on diverse environments and organisms. But as the contributors to this collection make clear, the pervasiveness of microplastics makes them nearly impossible to avoid. And the uncertainty surrounding their potential to harm people, wildlife, and the environment, they show, underscores the urgency of developing robust tools and methods to understand how a material designed to make life easier may be making it increasingly unsustainable.

View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

IMAGES

The major problems of ocean pollution Free Essay Example
⚡ Water pollution research paper. 97 Water Pollution Research Topics
(PDF) Plastic Pollution and its Adverse Impact on Environment and Ecosystem
👍 Research paper ocean pollution. Research Paper on Water Pollution
(PDF) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
(DOC) Research Proposal on Water Pollution.docx

VIDEO

tissue paper ocean Art
Ocean pollution, beached whales. Let's protect our environment
#paper ocean #shorts
Pollution on Ocean Ecosystems
The Devastating Impact of Ocean Pollution Unveiling the Hidden Truth #shortsviral #natural
Unveiling Ocean Pollution What You Must Know!

COMMENTS

Marine Plastic Pollution: Sources, Impacts, and Policy Issues
Abstract Plastics have been instrumental in providing access to clean drinking water, medical applications, and improved hygiene and food safety. However, plastics also cause problems. More than 10 million tons of plastic enter the oceans annually. Marine plastic pollution has documented impacts on marine organisms and ecosystem services. The use of chemical additives in plastics also poses a ...
Human Health and Ocean Pollution
Pollution - unwanted waste released to air, water, and land by human activity - is the largest environmental cause of disease in the world today. It is responsible for an estimated nine million premature deaths per year, enormous economic losses, erosion of human capital, and degradation of ecosystems. Ocean pollution is an important, but ...
Microplastic pollution in seawater and marine organisms across the
Microplastic particles in ocean water. Plastic pollution in the oceans is directly correlated with this material being robust and durable, which is linked to the high amounts of plastics produced ...
Plastic pollutions in the ocean: their sources, causes, effects and
Received: January 20, 2023; Accepted: February 04, 2023; Published online: May 10, 2023. Abstract: Plastic pollution in the ocean is a global concern; concentrations reach 580,000. pieces/km and ...
New study takes comprehensive look at marine pollution
New study appearing in the December 3, 2020, issue of Annals of Global Health finds the marine plastics, one of several forms of ocean pollution worldwide, is increasing at a rate of 10 million metric tons per year. (Photo by Tom Kleindinst, ©Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) December 3, 2020. Paper finds ocean pollution is a complex mix ...
Plastic pollution of the world's seas and oceans as a ...
The problem of plastic pollution in the world's seas and oceans has attracted increasing scientific concern 1, with calls for an international agreement to address this issue.Any such agreement ...
Human Health and Ocean Pollution
Goals: (1) Broadly examine the known and potential impacts of ocean pollution on human health. (2) Inform policy makers, government leaders, international organizations, civil society, and the global public of these threats. (3) Propose priorities for interventions to control and prevent pollution of the seas and safeguard human health.
Plastic Pollution in the World's Oceans: More than 5 Trillion ...
Plastic pollution is ubiquitous throughout the marine environment, yet estimates of the global abundance and weight of floating plastics have lacked data, particularly from the Southern Hemisphere and remote regions. Here we report an estimate of the total number of plastic particles and their weight floating in the world's oceans from 24 expeditions (2007-2013) across all five sub-tropical ...
Ocean science research is key for a sustainable future
Integrated research is needed to assess the human and environmental risks of ongoing and future types of ocean pollution, to generate new ideas to reduce the ocean pressures by promoting recycling ...
Plastic pollution in the marine environment
Hence, this review paper focuses on (I) seeking the sources of plastic pollution, (II) identifying the current status of the effects of plastic debris accumulation with a clear picture over the world ocean basins and coasts, (III) present an overview of the current situation and recommendations of initiatives on controlling plastic pollution at ...
The United States' contribution of plastic waste to land and ocean
Plastic waste contaminates all major ecosystems on the planet, with concern increasing about its potential impacts on wildlife and human health, as smaller and more widespread plastic particles are identified in both the natural (1-4) and built (5-7) environment.For decades, scientists have documented plastic debris in the ocean ().Marine sources of ocean pollutants were addressed in the ...
Frontiers
In this paper, we analyze the combined impacts of ocean warming, overfishing and mercury pollution in European waters by projecting the impacts of climatic and non-climate drivers on marine species in European waters. ... We thank to Fisheries Economics Research Unit and Ocean Pollution Research Unit for invaluable advice on the original draft ...
Impacts of plastic pollution in the oceans on marine species
Therefore, plastic production has caused lots of problems for the natural environment and wildlife, especially the ocean and marine organisms. In this paper, the severity of plastic pollution and ...
Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution
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 ...
The NOAA NCEI marine microplastics database
Identified research papers are then reviewed to ensure they (1) ... Plastic Pollution in the World's Oceans: More than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea.
Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution
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).
MARINE POLLUTION, SOURCES, EFFECT AND MANAGEMENT
Introduction Marine pollution occurs when harmful effects result from the entry into the ocean of chemicals, particles, agricultural and residential waste, noise, or the spread of invasive organisms.
Plastic pollution in the marine environment
Hence, this review paper focuses on (I) seeking the sources of plastic pollution, (II) identifying the current status of the effects of plastic debris accumulation with a clear picture over the world ocean basins and coasts, (III) present an overview of the current situation and recommendations of initiatives on controlling plastic pollution at ...
Plastic pollution solutions: emerging technologies to prevent and
The Inventory created from this review can serve as a streamlined tool that researchers, industry, NGOs, and governments can use to learn about the options available for plastic pollution remediation. A white paper published by the Benioff Ocean Initiative surveyed the broad types of technologies used to reduce river plastic pollution (The ...
Ending marine pollution
Ending marine pollution. Nature Sustainability 4, 459 (2021) Cite this article. Scientific evidence sheds light on the extent, source and type of litter in the oceans, as well as on the limited ...
Marine Plastic Pollution Research
Marine Pollution. The Chesapeake Bay Plastic Survey is intended to assess the necessity and to generate a baseline for a future monitoring effort for plastics pollution trends in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Awarded the Woodward and Curran's Impact Grant, Ocean Research Project will assess bay-wide plastic pollution by exploring plastic ...
PDF Analysis of Global Marine Environmental Pollution and Prevention and
Analysis of Global Marine Environmental Pollution and Prevention and Control of Marine Pollution iv Abstract The ocean, the origin of life, the total area of about 360 million square kilometers, accounting for 71% of the Earth's surface area. Ocean Freight has become the world's most important import and export trade mode of transport.
Confronting plastic pollution to protect environmental and ...
Much early research on microplastics focused on ocean pollution. But the ubiquitous particles appear to be interfering with the very fabric of the soil environment itself, by influencing soil bulk density and the stability of the building blocks of soil structure, argue Matthias Rillig and colleagues in their Essay.

For Immediate Release

Paper finds ocean pollution is a complex mix of chemicals and materials, primarily land-based in origin, with far-reaching consequences for environmental and human health, but there are options available for world leaders

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Human Health and Ocean Pollution

Conflict of interest statement

Similar articles

Publication types

Related information

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Miscellaneous

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Introduction

Overfishing and Fisheries Decline

Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems

Chemical and Biological Pollutants Impact on Marine Ecosystem

Materials and Methods

Fisheries of the Europeans Waters

Temporal Levels of Mercury in Fisheries From European Waters

Conceptual Framework

Results and Discussion

Data Availability Statement

Ethics Statement

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Publisher’s Note

Acknowledgments

Supplementary Material

Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution

Cite this article

Graphic abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

Pollution in Marine Ecosystem: Impact and Prevention

The Oceans and Their Challenge to Conserve Marine Biodiversity

Leveraging Multi-target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean

Introduction

Future narratives

Societal behaviour

Shifting societal behaviours towards sustainable production and consumption

Equity and access to technologies

Harnessing technologies for today and the future

Governance and policy

Harnessing ocean governance and policy

Actions to achieve a more sustainable future

Actions at the source(s)

Actions along the way

Actions at the sinks

Acknowledgements

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 509 kb)

About this article

Share this article

Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution

Catarina Serra-Gonçalves

Kelsey Richardson

Kelli Anderson

Jonathan S. Stark

Joanna Vince

Catriona MacLeod

Peter S. Puskic

Graphic abstract

Supplementary Information

Introduction

Future narratives

Societal behaviour

Shifting societal behaviours towards sustainable production and consumption

Equity and access to technologies

Harnessing technologies for today and the future

Governance and policy

Harnessing ocean governance and policy

Actions to achieve a more sustainable future

Actions at the source(s)

Actions along the way