Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil:Economic and Social Costs to Coastal Communities

The problem of marine litter and oil deposited on coasts is a common problem for coastallocal communities and other organisations throughout the world. A wide range of studiesand surveys employing many different methodologies have been undertaken over the years

to assess the problem. These have attempted to address the problems of collecting data on thevolumes, types, origin and other factors relating to marine litter and oil. There is much less researchand data available about the economic and social impacts of these substances. The purpose of theproject was to undertake a pilot study to investigate the cost of marine debris and oil to coastalcommunities and organisations. Examples include: death or injury of commercial marine life,interference with maritime traffic by damage to ships propulsion, and the costs of cleaning, collectionand disposal of marine debris and oil. The project undertook to look at these and other factors andto produce a report which would attempt to identify the financial and social cost of the problem.

For more information please contact:

Karen Hall or Rick Nickerson at:KIMO,

SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, GRANTFIELD,LERWICK, SHETLAND, ZE1 0NT

TEL: +44 (0)1595 744800 FAX: +44 (0)1595 695887EMAIL: kimo@zetnet.co.uk

Impacts of Marine Debris andOil

Economic and Social Costs to Coastal Communities

Karen HallBSc (HONS) MSc

Published By

Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon (KIMO),c/o Shetland Islands Council, Environment & Transportation Department, Grantfield,

Lerwick, Shetland, ZE1 0NT

© 2000 Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon (KIMO)

ISBN 0904562891

i

FOREWORD

The practice of sealing a message in a bottle, or other type of container, and castingit into the sea in the hope that someone will find it has a long history. Over theyears a surprising number of messages have been conveyed in this way. A message

barrel released by Admiral Melville near Cape Barrow in Alaska in September 1899 waseventually recovered on the north coast of Iceland 6 years later, travelling approximately4,000 km in 2,092 days. Eastward journey times for bottle messages launched in thecoastal waters of New York, and later recovered on the coasts of France and the IberianPeninsula, were on average only 550 days.

The documented movements of bottle messages, andother human artefacts, contributed greatly to ourknowledge of ocean currents. However, the movementsalso provided a timely warning of the likelyconsequences of uncontrolled discharges of certaintypes of human wastes to the marine environment. Inthe early 1970�s the flux of litter to the world�s oceanswas estimated at 6.4 million tonnes per annum. By theend of the 1980�s plastics litter was identified as apossible new addition to the primary list of marinepollutants, and one of six areas of immediate concernfor the marine environment on a global scale. Plasticsare now the most common man-made items sighted atsea and on beaches in all geographical areas.

In seeking effective preventive and control managementstrategies to address the marine litter issue, policymakers and marine managers have recognised theimportance of high quality research. The author�sfindings have made a significant contribution in thisrespect because we now have a more completeunderstanding of the �true economic costs� of the effectsof marine litter. These include costs incurred in periodicor systematic beach cleaning operations and subsequentdisposal of wastes to landfill on a north-west European

scale. Data have also been provided on recovery anddisposal of floating and submerged items of litter orrefuse in ports and harbours. Incidents involvingpropeller entanglements and similar damage sustainedby vessels have also been examined.

The research findings also provide additional evidenceof the economic and environmental benefits to begained from improved control, reduction andminimisation of vessel and land-sources of marine litter.In the United Kingdom The Department of theEnvironment, Transport and The Regions has adopteda three-fold strategy to reduce pollution from all typesof shipping. This consists of making controls moreeffective through improving regulations and theirenforcement, improving the facilities for the legaldisposal of waste in ports and increasing the penaltiesfor illegal discharge.

Moreover, the recently revised Code of Practice onLitter and Refuse defines standards of cleanliness indifferent types of location, including beaches. It alsooffers practical advice and information on goodpractice methods and steps which might be taken tostrengthen public commitment to cleanliness.

Trevor Dixon, The Tidy Britain Group16 June 1999.

ii

iii

Executive Summary

Despite international legislation outlawing littering or dumping both on land and atsea, beaches are still getting covered by debris. Marine debris affects all local

authorities throughout the study area to varying degrees. Due to resource shortages,priority for local authority funds may not be given to cleaning beaches and in some areaslittle or no cleaning is carried out.

The study received responses from 56 LocalAuthorities in the UK, 4 Kommunes in Denmark,3 Kommunes in Sweden and 1 Kommune inNorway which all stated that they cleaned areasof the coastline. Local Authorities throughoutthe project area agreed that beach cleaning wasgenerally done to gain and keep Beach Awardsand to promote coastal tourism.

Over half of the beaches cleaned in the UK aresandy and used by large numbers of people. Allof the beaches cleaned by the DanishKommunes are sandy and also well used by thegeneral public. In contrast, the areas of the coastcleaned in Sweden and Norway arepredominantly rocky but nevertheless used byhigh numbers of visitors. All of the LocalAuthorities reported that most of their beachcleaning was done during the summer monthsto coincide with the tourist season.

Although there are over 150 reported incidencesof small oil spillages in the UK, only 49responding Local Authorities have an oil spillcontingency plan. On the West coast of Swedenthe removal of marine debris is made moredifficult as a lot of it may be heavilycontaminated in oil.

The total cost reported by Local Authoritiesthroughout the study area for beach cleaning is

£2,913,795 and is divided between countries asshown.

Scotland £ 496,400England £1,306,419Wales £ 150,419Channel Isles £ 248,100Ireland £ 129,800Denmark £ 144,500Germany £ 17,500Norway £ 1,100Sweden £ 419,976

Despite the concerns from Local Authoritiesand other organisations that marine debrisdamages the tourist industry, coastal tourismremains a profitable business in many areas.

The UK Tourist Boards responding to this surveyreported that over 34.3 million people werespecifically visiting the coast each year. Anestimated £1.4 billion is spent by these visitorseach year visiting coastal attractions. Incomparison with the high numbers of touristsvisiting the coast each year, the number ofcomplaints about the state of the beach receivedby tourist boards remains low, with less than 200being reported annually. These complaints aregenerally about dog fouling, sewage or brokenglass. Tourist Boards also stated that theyreceived few reports of actual injuries occurringon the beach or due to marine debris.

iv

UK Health Authorities also reported fewoccurrences of injuries due to marine debris.However they stated that it was very difficult toidentify from records if injuries happened at thecoast or if marine debris was the cause of this.They also reported that many minor injuries maybe self treated.

The fishing industry has long been associatedwith being a main contributor of marinepollution but little work has been done on theeffects of marine debris and other pollution onthe industry. Shetland fishermen werequestioned about the effects of marine debrison their fishing activities. They responded that92% had recurring problems with accumulateddebris in nets, 69% had had their catchcontaminated by debris and that 92% hadsnagged their nets on debris on the seabed. Manyalso experienced fouled propellers and blockedintake pipes.

On average 1-2 hours per week is spent clearingdebris from nets. The debris could cause arestricted catch and many boats avoidedparticular fishing areas altogether due to the highconcentrations of debris. The catch, net andother equipment could be contaminated by oilcontainers, paint tins, oil filters and otherchemicals. This may cost up to £2,000 in lostrevenue each time. Large items such as wiresand old nets may be collected off the seabedand may damage the nets. A fouled propellercould cost up to £300 for the hire of a diver todisentangle it. A substantial amount of fishingtime could also be lost.

It is estimated that each boat could lose between£6,000 and £30,000 per year due to the effectsand presence of marine debris. If 50% of theShetland fishing fleet was affected in the sameway, the cost to the local industry could be

between £492,000 and £2,460,000. The cost ofmarine debris to the fishing community of theBohus region of Sweden was estimated to beover £620,000 each year.

According to reports from fishermen in bothShetland and Esbjerg, small inshore boats appearto be more susceptible to marine debris thanlarge pelagic boats. This may be because thelarger offshore boats are fishing mid-water andare therefore less likely to collect debris on ornear the sea bed. Smaller boats may also noticethe presence of marine debris more than largerboats as they have less crew and a lower profitmargin, so any time or money lost will affectthem more.

In comparison with the commercial fishingindustry, salmon farmers in Shetland were notaffected as much by marine debris. On averageone hour per month was spent removing debrisfrom in or beside the cages. The main problemwas that of propeller fouling and blocked intakepipes. The costs of hiring a diver to disentanglea propeller are similar to those reported by thefishermen. The salmon farmers also stated thatit could cost up to £1,200 to repair or replace adamaged propeller.

Harbour Authorities throughout the UKreported over 180 incidences of propellerfoulings during 1998. The cost of hiring a diverwas between £100-£400. In some cases, thevessel was required to be lifted out by crane toremove the fouled material. Fouled anchorswere also known to have delayed vessels and insome cases, caused safety concerns during badweather. Additional dredging or removal of itemsfrom the seabed was also undertaken by someHarbour Authorities. The removal of floatingdebris may cost a Harbour Authority up to

v

£15,000 per year. Discarded fish boxes were aproblem in many harbours.

Marina managers reported high numbers ofpropeller foulings among recreational vesselsparticularly during the summer months. Somemarinas reported better waste managementpractice by boat owners resulting in reducedmarina cleaning for their staff.

In 1998, the RNLI attended over 200 incidentsto vessels with a fouled propeller. The rescueswere divided equally between fishing vesselsand pleasure craft. As noticed by the marinamanagers, the RNLI data confirmed that thereare more incidences of recreational boatsbecoming fouled in the summer months. It isestimated that the cost to the RNLI to undertakethese rescues is on average £900,000 eachyear.

In many exposed coastal areas and, in particularisland areas, marine debris may be blown fromthe shore onto neighbouring farm land. Forexample, in Shetland, 96% of respondingcrofters had experienced problems with debrisblowing onto their land. They may spend up to 3hours per month removing debris from theirfields. Debris may also collect on fences causingdamage to them, and in drainage ditches. Up tofive animals per croft may become entangled inmarine debris each year. It is estimated thatmarine debris may cost affected crofters £400each year in Shetland.

Power stations reported having to clean theirwater intake screens more often due toaccumulations of marine debris. The amount ofdebris removed from the screens varies between100-10,000 tonnes depending on location eachyear. This may cost the company up to £50,000

Areas affected in Shetland Cost per Year

Beach cleaning budget (Local Authority) £10,000

Da Voar Redd Up* £5,000

Voluntary labour and transport costs £45,000

Power station costs £1,000

Harbour clean-up £1,000

Salmon farmers £51,840

Crofters £600,000

Fishing Industry £4,920,000

Lifeboat launching costs £29,000

TOTAL £5,662,840

* �Da Voar Redd Up� is an annual voluntary clean up of Shetland. It includes removal of debrisfrom beaches, roadsides and other public areas and is undertaken by various community groups

vi

to remove the debris with additional costs forpump maintenance.

In conclusion, this research demonstrates thatmarine debris and oil affects a larger sector ofcoastal communities than previously thought. Forexample, if we assume that every farmer, salmonfarmer and fishermen is affected by marine debrisby the worst degree the cost to the Shetlandcommunity could be substantial. (see previouspage).

In reality, as not everyone is affected equally bymarine debris, if at all, the realistic figure wouldbe closer to £1 million. This represents a fractionof the European coastline. If this approximationwas extended to cover coastal communitiesthroughout the study area the costs could run intobillions.

This study illustrates that MARPOL and otherpollution legislation is not reducing the amountof debris appearing on our shores. Currently theexisting legislation proves difficult to enforceand there are no incentives for polluters toimprove their waste management practices. Akey problem highlighted by this project is theapparent apathy society has towards marinedebris in general. Both the fishing industry andthe agricultural industry have stated that they

have always had to �put up with the problem ofmarine debris� and just accept that they will haveto remove debris from their fields or nets.Tourists seem more concerned about dog foulingthan plastics on the beach. Only when marinedebris actually starts to cost individuals moneydoes the level of concern grow. For example, afisherman who has lost all his catch due tocontamination is less likely to throw oil filtersoverboard as he has experienced a loss.

This study recommends that existing legislationbe strengthened to discourage pollutionoffences; that education about the effects ofmarine debris is introduced to all relevant marinecourses; and that there is an investigation intoother ways to fund beach clean ups. The key tosolving the marine debris issue is to reduce theamount of packaging and other plastics that areentering the sea from ships and other vessels.This report recommends that vessel operatorsand crews reduce the amount of unnecessarypackaging taken to sea and improve their wastemanagement practices at sea. The costs ofmarine debris should be publicised to persuademaritime users and governments to reducedumping at sea.

vii

Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ iExecutive Summary ................................................................................................................................ iiiList of Plates .......................................................................................................................................... xiList of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... xiiiList of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ xvAim ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 31.1. Types & Sources of Marine Debris .............................................................................................. 41.1.1. Ocean-based sources .................................................................................................................. 41.1.2. Land-based sources .................................................................................................................... 51.1.3. Sewage-related debris ................................................................................................................. 51.1.4. Plastics........................................................................................................................................ 51.1.5. Pathways of marine debris ........................................................................................................... 61.2. Impacts of Marine Debris ............................................................................................................ 61.2.1. Impacts on wildlife....................................................................................................................... 61.2.2. Effect on ecosystems ................................................................................................................... 71.2.3. Impact on communities ................................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 2: Legislation and Award Schemes................................................................... 112.1. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) (MARPOL) .............. 112.2. London Dumping Convention .................................................................................................... 112.3. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment, North East Atlantic (OSPAR) ............ 112.4. EC Bathing Waters Directive ..................................................................................................... 122.5. Amenity beaches and award schemes ........................................................................................ 122.6. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) .................................................................................. 13

Chapter 3: Oil Pollution .................................................................................................... 153.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 153.2. Causes of spills.......................................................................................................................... 163.3. Liability and compensation ......................................................................................................... 16

The costs of Marine Debris: Methodology...................................................................... 17

Chapter 4: Local Authorities and Marine Debris ............................................................ 194.1. UK Local Authorities ................................................................................................................ 194.2. UK Voluntary Initiatives ............................................................................................................. 304.3. Land ownership and management responsibilities........................................................................ 32

Contents

viii

4.4. Denmark ................................................................................................................................... 314.5. Germany ................................................................................................................................... 324.6. Sweden..................................................................................................................................... 324.7. Holland ..................................................................................................................................... 354.8. Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................................. 35

Chapter 5: Tourism and Health Related Issues .............................................................. 395.1. UK tourism ............................................................................................................................... 395.2. Swedish tourism ........................................................................................................................ 415.3. Public perception....................................................................................................................... 415.4. Health-related issues.................................................................................................................. 425.5. Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................................. 43

Chapter 6: Fisheries and Marine Debris ......................................................................... 456.1. Commercial Fishing ................................................................................................................... 456.1.1. The Shetland fishing industry ...................................................................................................... 466.1.2. The Esbjerg fishing industry........................................................................................................ 516.1.3. The West coast of Sweden fishing industry ................................................................................. 516.1.4. The Oslofjord fishing industry..................................................................................................... 516.1.5. Other Examples......................................................................................................................... 516.1.6. Waste generated by the fishing industry ...................................................................................... 516.2. Aquaculture/Fish farming ........................................................................................................... 536.2.1. The Shetland fish farming industry .............................................................................................. 536.2.2. Fish farming in the UK and Ireland ............................................................................................. 536.3. Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................................. 55

Chapter 7: The Shipping Industry and Marine Debris .................................................... 577.1. Harbour Authorities ................................................................................................................... 577.1.1. Fouled propellers and anchors ................................................................................................... 577.1.2. Clearance of debris from harbours ............................................................................................. 607.1.3. Other incidents .......................................................................................................................... 607.2. Examples from Specific Ports .................................................................................................... 647.2.1. Lerwick Harbour Trust .............................................................................................................. 647.2.2. Esbjerg Harbour........................................................................................................................ 647.2.3. Göteborg .................................................................................................................................. 647.3. Waste generated by the Shipping industry................................................................................... 647.4. Port Waste Management Planning, UK ...................................................................................... 657.4.1. Peterhead Harbours .................................................................................................................. 657.4.2. Aberdeen Harbour .................................................................................................................... 657.5. Education .................................................................................................................................. 667.6. UK marinas............................................................................................................................... 66

ix

7.7. Rescue Services ........................................................................................................................ 687.7.1. RNLI and UK Coastguard services ........................................................................................... 687.7.2. Stromstad Coastguard ............................................................................................................... 717.8. Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................................. 71

Chapter 8: Agriculture and Marine Debris ...................................................................... 758.1. Shetland Agriculture .................................................................................................................. 75

Chapter 9: Power Generation and Marine Debris .......................................................... 799.1. UK power stations .................................................................................................................... 799.2. Non-electricity seawater intakes ................................................................................................ 809.3. Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................................. 81

Summary of Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 83References ......................................................................................................................................... 87Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... 93Glossary ............................................................................................................................................. 95

x

xi

Plates

Plate 1.1. Examples of marine debris. ................................................................................................................................... 3

Plate 1.2. Plastic containers and other debris washed up on a beach in Sotenäs, Sweden. ................................................ 5

Plate 1.3. Bird entangled in 6 pack holder (photo: Shetland Amenity Trust). ..................................................................... 7

Plate 1.4. Mechanical beach cleaner. ................................................................................................................................... 8

Plate 2.1. An example of a rural beach: Arrochar, Argyll, Scotland. .................................................................................. 13

Plate 2.2. An example of a resort beach: Margate, Kent. ................................................................................................... 13

Plate 3.1. Oil pollution on Shetland beaches following the grounding of the Braer(photo: Shetland Islands Council). .................................................................................................................... 15

Plate 3.2. Removing oil from clothing following a visit to a badly littered beach on the West coast of Sweden. ............. 15

Plate 4.1. Rocky shores are more difficult to clean: Fife, Scotland. ................................................................................... 24

Plate 4.2. Beachcombers retreat: This building is made entirely from debris washed up on the beach, Sotenäs,Sweden. ............................................................................................................................................................. 33

Plate 4.3. Type of boat used on the Swedish west coast to collect debris from the numerous islands and rockyoutcrops. ............................................................................................................................................................ 33

Plate 4.4. Flat bottomed boat used for collecting debris from the shoreline of Oslofjord. ................................................. 37

Plate 5.1. Syringes found on the Shetland coastline following the grounding of a klondyker.(photo: Shetland Islands Council) ..................................................................................................................... 42

Plate 6.1. Metal oil drum: This could cause contamination if caught in a fishing net. ....................................................... 49

Plate 6.2. Plastic strapping bands: These regularly foul propellers. .................................................................................. 49

Plate 7.1. Environmental recycling station, Göteborg Harbour, Sweden. .......................................................................... 64

Plate 7.2. Marina in Oslofjord, Norway. ............................................................................................................................. 66

Plate 8.1. Marine debris collecting at a fence on farmland adjacent to the sea in Shetland. .............................................. 75

Plate 8.2. Cows on the beach, Oslofjord, Norway. ............................................................................................................. 77

(unless otherwise stated, all photographs taken by the author © KIMO)

xii

xiii

FiguresFigure 1.1. Schematic diagram of general circulation in the North Sea. The width of arrows is indicative of

the magnitude of volume transport. Source after Turrell et al. (1992). ................................................................ 6

Figure 4.1. Schematic diagram indicating the possible areas where marine debris may affect. ............................................18

Figure 4.2. Map of UK showing which Local Authorities clean beaches and the associated costs (£) ineach area if known. ............................................................................................................................................21

Figure 4.3. Graph outlining the main reasons why Local Authorities in the UK undertake beach cleaning. .......................24

Figure 4.4. Graph showing the percentages of beaches of various types that are cleaned byLocal Authorities in the UK. ..............................................................................................................................24

Figure 4.5. Graph showing the percentages of beaches with particular usage, that are cleaned by UKLocal Authorities. ..............................................................................................................................................25

Figure 4.6. Graph showing the percentage of beaches that are cleaned manually or mechanically by UKLocal Authorities. ..............................................................................................................................................25

Figure 4.7. Graph showing how often beaches are cleaned by UK Local Authorities. .......................................................25

Figure 4.8. Graph showing the breakdown of the beach cleaning budget spent by UK Local Authorities(where known). ..................................................................................................................................................26

Figure 4.9. Graph showing the method of debris disposal undertaken by UK Local Authorities. ......................................27

Figure 4.10. Graph showing the main users of the beaches cleaned in the UK. ....................................................................27

Figure 4.11. Map showing the incidences of small oil spills, tar balls and oiled debris occurring on the UKcoastline as reported by UK Local Authorities, 1997-1998. ...............................................................................29

Figure 6.1. Map of Shetland, showing the problem areas for marine debris as reported by Shetlandfishermen and the occurrences of oil, fouled propellers and other floating objects as reportedin the Shetland Times, 1997-1999 .......................................................................................................................47

Figure 6.2. Map of Shetland showing the locations of salmon farms which have been affected by marine debris. ............54

Figure 7.1. Map of UK showing the locations of harbours that have reported occurrences of fouled propellers. .............58

Figure 7.2. Map of UK showing the types of debris that are repeated found in various UK harbours. ..............................62

Figure 7.3. Map of UK showing the amount spent by various UK harbours to remove marine debris. ..............................63

Figure 7.4. Map of UK showing the locations of incidences of propeller fouling as reported by UK marinas. ..................67

Figure 7.5. Map of UK showing the locations of vessels attended to by the RNLI suffering a fouled propeller,1998 (source: RNLI). ..........................................................................................................................................69

Figure 7.6. Graph showing the type of vessel affected by a fouled propeller that were rescued by the RNLIduring 1998. .......................................................................................................................................................70

Figure 7.7. Graph showing the number of RNLI rescues to various vessel types each month in 1998. ..............................70

Figure 7.8. Graph showing the percentages of rescues undertaken by the RNLI to vessels with fouledpropellers that were life threatening, in danger or in no danger, 1998. ...............................................................71

Figure 8.1. Map of Shetland showing the areas of farmland that are affected by marine debris and thenumber of hours required to remove the debris. ................................................................................................76

xiv

xv

Tables

Table 4.1. Beach cleaning responses from Local Authorities in the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Germany andNorway. The table shows the length of beach cleaned, the weight of debris removed and theoverall beach cleaning cost (£) ..........................................................................................................................22

Table 4.2. Table showing the expenditure per head of population. ....................................................................................28

Table 4.3. Table showing the expenditure per km of beach cleaned. ..................................................................................28

Table 4.4. Comparisons of beach cleaning costs in Danish Kommunes in 1987 and 1997. ................................................32

Table 4.5. Table showing some of the beach cleaning costs encountered by Local Authorities in theregion of Bohuslän, Sweden. .............................................................................................................................34

Table 4.6. Summary of beach cleaning statistics in Bohuslän, Sweden between 1992-1997. .............................................34

Table 4.7. Expenditure per tonne of debris removed from beaches. ...................................................................................37

Table 4.8. Comparison of beach cleaning costs spent by Scottish Local Authorities in 1994 and in 1997/98. ..................38

Table 5.1. Summary of responses obtained from UK tourist boards. .................................................................................40

Table 6.1. Summary of results from Shetland fishermen showing the types of debris accumulating intheir nets, 1998. ..................................................................................................................................................48

Table 6.2. Table showing the costs of contamination of fish from marine debris as reported byShetland fishermen, 1998. ..................................................................................................................................48

Table 6.3. Table showing the types of debris collected from the seabed as reported by theShetland fishermen, 1998. ..................................................................................................................................50

Table 6.4. Table showing the costs of fouled propellers as reported by Shetland fishermen, 1998. ..................................50

Table 6.5. The estimated amounts of waste generated by Faroese fishing vessels as compiled byNORD , 1996. ......................................................................................................................................................52

Table 7.1. Table showing details of the occurrences of fouled propellers in UK Harbours, 1999. .....................................59

Table 7.2. Table showing details of the removal of marine debris from UK Harbours, 1999. ..............................................61

Table 7.3. Table showing details of the occurrences of marine debris in UK marinas, 1999. ..............................................68

xvi

1

AimOver the past decade, public awareness of coastal and marine debris has increased dramatically.The main reasons for this are:

! Legislation on bathing water quality and waste water treatment

! Blue Flags, best beach guides and the like have influenced users’ choices as to where to batheetc. have informed and empowered the public choice

! Increasing campaigns by pressure groups have kept the subject in the public eye

! An increase in recreational maritime activities has drawn the attention of more people to thequality of local coasts and sea

! An increase in contamination stories – whether it be cancerous fish, oiled seabirds,dying seals, washed up munitions or debris on beaches – has demonstrated that,despite Government legislation, the problem of marine pollution is a growing one.

Awareness is being increasingly translated into action. There has been an increase in the number oflocal coastal and estuarine networks, marine nature reserves, shoreline management plans, thesetting up of national coastal forums and pressure groups such as the Marine Conservation Society(UK) and Surfers Against Sewage (UK) have focused attention on the issue of clean coasts andseas.

The problem of marine litter and oil deposited on coasts is a common problem for coastal localcommunities and other organisations throughout the world. A wide range of studies and surveysemploying many different methologies have been undertaken over the years to assess the problem.These have attempted to address the problems of collecting data on the volumes, types, origin andother factors relating to marine litter and oil. There is much less research and data available aboutthe economic and social impacts of these substances. Although data is collected by local authoritieson the physical clean up costs, there has been little research undertaken on collecting this dataaround Northern Seas. Little information is available on the costs to industry, tourism, fishing,agriculture, emergency services and other sectors of the community.

The purpose of the project was to undertake a pilot study to investigate the cost of marine debrisand oil to coastal communities and organisations. Examples include: death or injury of commercialmarine life, interference with maritime traffic by damage to ships’ propulsion, and the costs ofcleaning, collection and disposal of marine debris and oil. Indirect costs include aestheticdegradation and the protection and prevention of pollution. The full environmental costs of disposalare not known.

The project undertook to look at these and other factors and to produce a report which wouldattempt to identify the financial and social cost of the problem. This pilot project has developedmethologies to collect information and data that could be used as a model for other organisationsin other areas of the EU.

2

3

Human use of the oceans is extensive and varied. One of the by-products is ship-borne garbage.For centuries, vessel-generated garbage was discharged overboard - to do otherwise was to

transport unnecessary weight and to invite the ever present vermin to prosper. Part of the problem,was the changing composition of garbage, which increasingly contained durable synthetic materialssuch as plastic packaging, cargo nets and synthetic fishing nets (Recht, 1998; Alig et al., 1990).

Plate 1.1. Example of marine debris

Definition of marine debrisMarine litter has been defined as ‘solid materials of human origin that are discarded at sea or reachthe sea through waterways or domestic and industrial outfalls’ (Nat. Acad. of Sci., 1975). Marinedebris is a broader term and includes impacts that are not primarily aesthetic (Ribic et al., 1992).

A broad definition of the generic term marine debris was adopted for the purposes of this study, assuggested by the Tidy Britain Group (1995):! Garbage discharged to sea during the normal operations of ships or other sea-

based activities, as defined by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO, 1988).

! Dumping at sea of solid wastes originating from land-based sources (Lentz, 1987).! Sewage related debris (SRD) and other types of litter discharged to the marine

environment directly through domestic outfalls and combined sewer outfalls (CSOs)or indirectly via rivers or other water courses.

! Litter from beach users, including anglers.! Municipal or industrial solid wastes fly-tipped directly to sea, or indirectly via rivers

and other watercourses.

! Municipal solid wastes lost to the marine environment from improperly managedcoastal landfill sites (Dixon, 1990).

1. Introduction

4

1.1 Types and Sources of Marine DebrisThe direct and indirect costs of marine debris(including the costs of beach cleaning, losttourism, damage to vessels, lost fishing time)can not be appraised without an assessment ofthe quantities and types of marine debris.

High concentrations of marine debris are foundnear shipping lanes (Vauk and Schrey, 1987),around fishing areas (Pruter, 1987) and inoceanic current convergence zones. Thedistance of a beach away from a populationcentre is one of the factors which control thequantity of litter (Gabrielides, 1991). Forexample, a high abundance of debris was foundaround Marseille, where 924 items werecollected during a 30 minute tow (Galgani etal., 1995).

The summary record of the October 1995meeting in Stockholm of the Oslo and ParisCommission (OSPAR) for the Prevention ofMarine Pollution Working Group on Impacts onthe Marine Environment (IMPACT), noted thatapproximately 20,000 tonnes of waste arediscarded into the North Sea each year.

Previous surveys, including Beachwatch and theInternational Coastal Cleanup, have identifiedfour main sources of litter: recreational visitorsto the coast, shipping, fishing and sewageoutfalls. The proportion of litter on an individualbeach that can be attributed to each of thesesources varies according to local inputs, e.g.large tourist resorts, busy shipping lanes orfishing areas. Even beaches that are remote fromany such inputs can be affected by large levelsof litter carried by prevailing winds and currents.

1.1.1. Ocean-Based SourcesOcean based sources of litter include:commercial shipping, fishing vessels, fishfarming, cruise liners, military fleets, researchvessels, passenger ferries, offshore oil and gasplatforms and service vessels and recreationalboats.

Due to the increased use of non-biodegradableproducts, such as plastics, larger quantities ofwaste are being washed up on shore where it ishighly visible. Plastics are now used in themajority of fishing gear and make up a largepercentage of ships’ operational and galleywastes. Even in the most remote locations,accumulations of debris have been found thatcould only come from maritime sources (Ryanand Moloney, 1993).

Of 8,437 items (1,360 kg) found over a year(1983-84) on beaches in the German Bight,75% consisted of plastic. 99.2% were identifiedas ships’ waste. Most items were depositedduring SE to SW winds (i.e. from the directionof the main shipping routes)(Vauk and Schrey,1987). Horsman (1982) estimated that eachcrew member on a trading vessel generates anddumps 0.2 cardboard boxes; 0.3 plastic items;0.2 bottles and 3.2 tins per day.

The loss of cargo at sea due to accidents andgroundings can also add large quantities of wasteto the seas. The MV Cita ran aground off theIsles of Scilly in March 1997 with the loss ofcontainers carrying clothes, toys, batteries,polythene bags and plastic film. Much of theplastic film and bags was spread around theislands and smothered marine life on theseafloor. The Green Lily ran aground offBressay, Shetland during severe gales inNovember 1997. The costs of removing largequantities of plastic amounted to £25,000 withan additional £25,000 spent removing hatchcovers etc.

Despite national and international legislationprohibiting the dumping of plastic at sea since1973 (see MARPOL 73/78), large quantitiesof operational and galley wastes are stilldumped at sea instead of being discharged toshore reception facilities. Discarded fishinggear, also represents a major source of debrison many beaches especially in areas wherecommercial fishing is intensive (Jones, 1995;Walker et al., 1997; Johnson, 1994).

5

1.1.2. Land-Based SourcesLitter may be carried out to sea or deposited onbeaches from inland sources via drains, riversand storm water systems. Coastal sources alsoinclude recreational beach users, flytipping,agriculture, local businesses and unprotectedwaste disposal sites. Despite laws in somecountries prohibiting the dropping of litter in apublic place (for example, see EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990 (UK), Section 7.3),recreational beach users are responsible for alarge proportion of beach litter. However, it issometimes difficult to distinguish betweendebris left by beach users and that from boatsor waterways.

1.1.3. Sewage-Related DebrisSewage-related debris (SRD), consists of debristhat has entered the marine environment viasewage outfalls and includes cotton buds,tampons, condoms and faeces. SRD representedover 7% of all items recorded in BeachwatchSurveys carried out from 1994-1996(Beachwatch, 1998). Around 25% of all coastaloutfalls in the UK do not even have preliminarytreatment (screens to remove the larger items),in contrast with Denmark which has no untreateddischarges (Beachwatch, 1998).

1.1.4. PlasticsUntil recently the problem of plastic debris inthe oceans was generally considered minorcompared with other pollution issues (e.g. heavymetals, oil). As plastic floats, discarded plastic

Plate 1.2. Plastic containers and other debriswashed up on a beach in Sotenäs, Sweden

items are a highly visible and over representedconstituent of beach litter (Pruter, 1987). It isestimated that disposal of discarded plasticinvolves 140,000 tonnes entering the wastestream each year in the UK, of which as little as3% ends up as litter (Min. for Env., 1987).

Plastics cause concern because of theirwidespread use and intrinsic properties. Theyhave lower specific gravity than sea water whichcauses them to float and are not biodegradableand only slowly photo-degradable. Plastics aremade of long chains of hydrocarbons that areso tightly bound that micro organisms with theability to break down paper, for example, cannotpenetrate them. The slow breakdown of plasticsresults in the formation of smaller fragmentsand fibres. A study of the quantities ofmicroscopic plastic fibres in sand samples fromNorthumberland beaches (UK) showed that allcontained fibres, some with more than 10,000fibres per litre of sand (Thompson and Hoare,1997).

Plastics have been shown to be the predominanttype of litter found in the marine environment.For example on the Mediterranean coastline(Gabrielides et al., 1991) the North Sea (Dixonand Dixon, 1983), the North Atlantic (60%)(Colton et al., 1974), beaches in North Franceand Denmark (44%) (Dixon and Dixon, 1981).This prevalence coincides with a dramaticincrease in the production of plastic. Totalplastic production in the US increased from 2.9million tons in 1960 to 47.9 million tons in1985 (Robards et al., 1997).

Sea bed trawls have reported increased amountsof plastic waste. In 1997, a trawl across the floorof the Mediterranean between France andCorsica collected over 300 million pieces ofplastic rubbish from depths of up to 2,550m(Anon, 1997).

The United Nations Environmental Programme(1990) estimates that an aluminium drinks canmay persist for 200-500 years in the marine

6

environment, a plastic bottle for 450 years anda bus ticket for 2-4 weeks. These studies takeno account of the harsh mechanical environmentof the sea and may be regarded as worst caseestimates.

1.1.5. Pathways of Marine DebrisOnce in the sea, the pathways through whichlitter items circulate can be dependent upon theinfluence of the wind, tide and current. It is wellknown that material floating at the surface isprimarily influenced by wind and onlysecondarily by currents (Neumann, 1966).

According to results of a study carried out inPanama, the time frames for the movements ofplastics into and out of beach areas appear to bein the order of months or a year (Garrity andLevings, 1993). The resident time of markeditems on beaches appeared to be about a year.Beaches that were cleared completelyaccumulated about 50% of the original plasticin 3 months and 61% in 6 months. However thepersistence of debris on beaches of Padre Island(Texas), appears to be days, judging by dailycollections and observations of marked debris(Miller, 1993).

Ocean DriftExtensive oceanic drift has been demonstratedby the occurrence of coded and dated multi-coloured plastic bracelets from Canadian lobsterfisheries which have been recorded on the coastsof Ireland, Western Scotland and even theEastern coasts of Shetland. In 1990,approximately 80,000 athletic shoes incontainers were lost overboard in a storm in theNorth Pacific; at least 1,300 shoes weretransported more that 2,000 km in 7-9 months(Ebbesmeyer and Ingraham, 1992; Swanson etal., 1994). Fish boxes from UK ports regularlyend up on the Swedish West Coast along withother traceable debris from Britain.

SinksLitter sinks include beaches and offshoredeposits of material, generally on the seabed(Williams et al., 1993); these sinks may or may

Figure 1.1. Schematic diagram of generalcirculation in the North Sea. The width of the

arrows is indicative of the magnitude of volumetransport. Source: after Turrell et al. (1992)

not be permanent. Consequently beach clearanceoperations such as the removal of litter at atemporary sink may, in the long term beineffective.

1.2. Impacts of Marine DebrisThe presence of marine debris on beaches andin the water has a wide range of impacts on anumber of interests. Damage to wildlife, marineecosystems, the aesthetic quality of beaches,recreational and fishing interests and risks tohealth and property are all part of the price thatis paid for the irresponsible and accidentaldisposal of debris.

1.2.1. Impacts on Wildlife

The full impact of marine debris on marinespecies is difficult to assess because of limitedresearch in this area and the fact that samplingis largely restricted to land-based observations.Marine debris can directly harm wildlife because

7

of entanglement, ingestion, smothering andtoxicity. It is estimated that over one millionbirds and 100,000 marine mammals and seaturtles die each year from entanglement in, oringestion of, plastics (Laist, 1997).

EntanglementFishing nets, fishing line, plastic bags, strappingbands and 6-pack carriers are the most commoncause of entanglement, reducing movement andpotentially resulting in serious injury and deathby starvation, drowning or suffocation. At least135 species of marine vertebrates and 8 spe-

Plate 1.3. Bird entangled in 6 pack holder(photo: Shetland Amenity Trust)

cies of marine invertebrate have been reportedentangled in marine litter (Laist, 1997).The impact of entangling marine debris can bedivided into 4 main categories:

! Large debris items which trap animals mayresult in the drowning of air breathingspecies, asphyxiation of fish species thatrequire constant movement for respirationor death by starvation or predation whilsttrapped.

! Smaller debris items greatly increase thedrag coefficient of animals in water, whichincreases the energy needed for movementand may affect the ability to forage andavoid predators. This generally results indeath within months, from eitherstarvation or predation, unless theindividual can escape the entangling item.

! Small debris items become snagged on thesea floor, trapping fish and crustaceans or,on land, entangling seabirds and seals.

! Debris items become tightly bound aroundthe organism, restricting growth or cuttingoff circulation to appendages.

This an emotive issue and has, for example, beenused to discourage littering in the Maritime andCoastguard Agency’s anti-litter campaign, ‘SeaSense’ in the UK.

IngestionA total of 177 marine species have beenreported to ingest litter items and 111 of theworld’s 312 species of seabird are knownaccidentally to eat plastic (Laist, 1997).

The impacts of ingested debris can be dividedinto four main categories:

! Physical damage to the digestive tract,which can lead to infections, starvation andoccasionally, death.

! Mechanical blockage of the passage offood which leads to starvation and deathunless the blockage is cleared.

! Impaired foraging efficiency resultingfrom a false sense of satiation fromimpaired digestive functioning.

! Release of toxic pollutants from withinthe debris or from the absorption ofcontaminant adhering to the surface of theingested debris (3rd InternationalConference on Marine Debris, 1994).

1.2.2. Effect on EcosystemsOnly a few surveys have estimated thedistribution and abundance of debris on theseafloor. Information detailing the impacts ofdebris on benthic ecosystems is sparse, butsmothering of benthic and beach faunas affectsnatural systems at the species and possiblyecosystem level (Laist, 1997).

8

1.2.3. Impact on CommunitiesApart from the environmental harm attributedto garbage discarded from vessels, numerousaccounts have reported direct damage tohumans(Debenham and Younger, 1991; Hodgeand Glen, 1993) and described the loss of theaesthetic and recreational value of beachesaccumulating substantial amounts of debris(Roehl and Ditton, 1993). Most studies havefocused on the impacts of marine debris on thetourism and fisheries sectors whilst no knownwork has been done in other areas.

Smothering

Sheets of plastic on the sea floor may preventoxygen and light reaching benthic organisms. Ifmarine debris continues to accumulate, it couldaffect many productive areas on the seabed.Similar smothering can occur along coastlinesas debris becomes buried and may harmorganisms living beneath the beach surface.Abrasion of debris against hard substratum mayalso cause damage (Laist, 1997). Thissmothering may also affect the viability ofspawning grounds (Nilsson, 1998, pers comm.).Debris may also smother benthic communitieson soft and hard bottoms (Parker, 1990).

ToxicityThe accumulation of microscopic plastic fibresin sand substrates (Thompson and Hoare, 1997)may leach out toxins such as polychlorinatedbiphenyls and heavy metals. These can beabsorbed by microalgae, which are importantfood sources for many marine creatures and maybe bioaccumulated. The suspension of thesefibres in the water column could also potentiallyclog the feeding apparatus of small invertebrates.

Transport of SpeciesFloating items of debris, including seaweed andlitter items, in midwater may provide shelter andfood for small fish and migrating animals as wellas a method of transport for colonisation.Biologically encrusted plastic debris items havealready been found at sites ranging from the sub-Antarctic to the Equator (Gregory et al., 1984;Gregory 1990). A study of the stalked barnacleDosimia Fasicularis, on Irish North Atlanticshores, found that tar pellets <25mm diameterand angular plastic fragments were the mainattachment materials, representing 88% ofsubstrata over the period 1986 to 1988 (Minchin,1996). A number of studies have shown thatinsects, snails and plants can survive transportfor example, on rafts of vegetation or logs

(Haetwole and Levins, 1972). Such transport ofspecies can affect whole ecosystems of someoceanic islands, if alien species carried to theisland have a detrimental effect on native species(Laist, 1997).

Beach CleaningA further indirect impact of litter on the coastalenvironment is the ecological impact ofmechanical cleaning of beaches carried out bylocal authorities to keep popular beaches freeof litter throughout the summer season. The useof mechanical beach cleaners may threaten thestability of some beaches, through the removalof organic matter which forms glue-holdingsand grains together. Such equipment may alsodisrupt food chains though the removal ofimportant components of the beach fauna(Llewelyn, 1998).

Plate 1.4. Mechanical beach cleaner

9

TourismTourism is now one of the world’s top threeeconomic activities, accounting for an estimated10-12 percent of the world GNP and, directlyor indirectly, at least 200 million jobs world-wide (Tapper, 1997). A large proportion oftourism is concentrated in coastal regions, andcaters for the demand for ‘sun, sea and sand’vacations. For example, the Mediterraneanregion accounts for around a third of all tourismworld wide, while nearly another quarter oftourism is to the Asia-Pacific region where it ismainly based on coastal resorts. Theconsequence of this is that tourism activitieshave significant impacts on the marineenvironment while at the same time, it is oftenthe quality of the marine environment thatattracts tourists to such destinations in the firstplace. Environmental damage due to pollutionhas high costs for the environment and humanhealth, as well as for tourism development.Clean-up costs and efforts are often tooexpensive and ineffective, compared with action

to prevent damage in the first place.Althoughcertain categories of litter may actually behazardous or represent a health risk, moresignificant is the fact that much current mediareporting tends to link beach litter in the mindsof public with the wider issues of bathing waterquality and sewage disposal. This can create incertain areas a general perception of ‘dirtybeaches’ which is difficult to dislodge.

Fishing InterestsMost studies enumerate only such problems aspropeller entanglements and damage to coolingsystems, while other problems such as gearfouling are rarely mentioned. A few studies havereviewed the economic cost of such incidentsas propeller entanglement (Takehama, 1990).Yet knowing the cost of marine debris to fishingoperations might give a better incentive tovarious industries and governments to correctthe problem than would the knowledge ofdamage to wildlife or the soiling of beaches.

10

11

Early international efforts to control disposal of vessel garbage and oil consisted of theInternational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) and its 1978Protocol known collectively as MARPOL 73/78. The Convention was developed underthe auspices of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), a specialised multilateralUN Agency, that serves as the principal global forum for negotiated treaties and conveningdiplomatic conferences related to maritime safety and pollution control.

2. Legislation and Beach Awards

2.1. MARPOL 73/78MARPOL currently includes five Annexes eachaddressing the control of a different type ofpollutant.

Annex I OilII Noxious Liquid SubstancesIII Packaged GoodsIV SewageV Garbage

All parties to MARPOL must adhere to Annex Iand II but have the option of ratifying the otherannexes. Annex V addresses solid wastegenerated during normal vessel operations at sea,on fixed/floating platforms and in port, as wellas the solid waste generated by economicactivities such as fishing and oil and gasproduction. Annex V (MARPOL) restrictsdischarge of garbage etc except for safety, dueto damage of ship or accidental loss of nets. Inaddition, the North Sea became an effectiveSpecial Area for the purpose of MARPOLAnnex V on the 18th February 1991.Consequently, the disposal of all plastics and allother garbage is prohibited in this area.

By 31st January 1998, 104 parties or 93% ofthe world’s shipping tonnage, ratifiedMARPOL.Of these, 87 Parties, 82% haveratified Annex V. The North Sea also became aSpecial Area for the purpose of Annex I as of 1st

August 1999.

2.2. Convention on the Prevention of MarinePollution by dumping of wastes and othermatter - The London Dumping Convention1972The London Dumping Convention entered intoforce on 30 August 1975 on a global scale andprohibits under Annex I the dumping of plasticsand other persistent synthetic materials, forexample, netting and ropes at sea.

2.3.Convention for the Protection of theMarine Environment, North East Atlantic– OSPAR ConventionThis convention was adopted at the MinisterialMeeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions inSeptember 1992. This replaces both the Osloand Paris Conventions and will obligeContracting Parties to apply both theprecautionary and polluter pays principles andensure that the programmes and measures theytake are in accordance with the best availabletechnology (BAT). The OSPAR Conventionadopts the principles of the Oslo and ParisConventions as shown below and came intoforce in March 1998.

Convention for the Prevention of MarinePollution by Dumping from Ships andAircraft - The Oslo ConventionIn Europe, a regional regime, the Convention forthe Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumpingfrom Ships and Aircraft, 1972 (OsloConvention) entered into force in April 1974.The Convention regulates within the Northeast

12

Atlantic area, including the British Isles, dumpingoperations of industrial wastes, sewage sludge,dredged materials and other wastes disposed ofat sea. It does so by prohibiting the dumping ofcertain categories of waste, which are dangerousto the marine environment because of theirtoxicity, persistence and bio-accumulation.Annex I to the Convention lists thosesubstances, the dumping of which is prohibited,which includes persistent plastics that may floatand seriously interfere with fishing and otherlegitimate users of the sea.

Convention for the Prevention of Marinepollution from Land-based sources –ParisConventionThe Convention for the Prevention of MarinePollution from Land Based Sources, 1974,entered into force in May 1978 and regulatesdischarges to sea from rivers, directly from thecoast, via pipelines, platforms and from theatmosphere.

2.4. EC Bathing Waters Directive (76/160/EEC)The Bathing Waters Directive (76/160/EEC) hasthe objective of protecting the quality ofidentified bathing waters by specifyingmicrobiological, physio-chemical and othercharacteristics to which they should conform(CEC, 1976). The Directive defines a bathingwater as fresh or seawater where either bathingis explicitly authorised or bathing is notprohibited and is traditionally practised by alarge number of bathers. A guideline or G valueparameter in category 13 of the Directive’sAnnex requires an absence of tarry materials andfloating materials, such as wood, plastic articles,bottles, containers of glass, plastic, rubber orany other substance. Member States shouldendeavour to observe G values as guidelines. InFebruary 1994, the EC published proposals forrevision of the Bathing Water Directive, whichretain the current guide value for tarry residuesetc, but also include a mandatory requirementthat ‘sewage solids’ be absent

2.5. Amenity Beaches and Award SchemesFollowing the introduction of the EC BathingWaters Directive (5.3.1), amenity beaches havebeen designated throughout Europe. In the UK,the Environmental Protection Act (1990), Codeof Practice for Litter and Refuse, states that:“ Local Authorities should identify thosebeaches in their ownership or control whichmight reasonably be described as amenitybeaches.” No explicit definition is howevergiven, but the Code goes on to say: “Anyassessment should take into account the levelof use of the beach for recreational purposes.”

European Blue Flags for BeachesThe Blue Flag Campaign was introduced in 1987by the Foundation of Environmental Educationin Europe (FEEE) and is administered in the UKby the Tidy Britain Group. The beaches whichpassed the ‘mandatory’ water quality standardsas defined in the EC Bathing Waters Directivewere eligible, but in 1992 the criterion waschanged to the higher ‘guideline’ water qualitystandard. In addition to water quality, beachesare currently judged on a further twenty-ninemanagement criteria. Beaches which meet thesecriteria are likely to be major resorts.

European Blue Flag for MarinasAll licensed marinas are in principle eligible fora Blue Flag. A marina is described within thecriteria as including pontoons or jetties for themooring of pleasure craft. It should offer basicfacilities such as toilets and be supervised by alocal Harbour Master. In 1998, 1926 beachesand 571 marinas were awarded the Blue Flag.Nineteen countries participate (Belgium,Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia,Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain,Sweden, Turkey and the UK).

Seaside Awards (Yellow Flag)With the introduction of the more stringent waterquality criteria for the Blue Flag in 1992, manyUK beaches no longer qualified for entry. Under

13

the Tidy Britain Group, a new award system wasintroduced, known as the Seaside Award whichuses the lower mandatory water quality standardsas its basic criterion for entry. The awards areseparated into two separate categories: Rural andResort.

Rural candidates must fulfil thirteen land-basedcriteria and Resorts twenty-nine. If, in additionto these criteria, the ‘guideline’ water qualitystandard has been achieved, a resort or ruralbeach may receive the Premier Seaside Award.

The chief drawback of award schemes for ruralareas is their focus on the requirement forspecific facilities and services. As they exist atpresent, it appears at first glance there is noappropriate incentive or measure of value forthe overwhelming majority of rural and remotebeaches without facilities, and a way ofpromoting their quality is required.

Award schemes may be used by LocalAuthorities to promote the quality of their areaand thus increase tourism. Awards may alsoincrease recognition of the managing agent todeflect criticism and apply pressure towardsother authorities to implement remedial action(e.g. the water authorities). Local authoritiesmay not decide to apply for Seaside Awards asthey may know they may fail and do not wantthe bad publicity associated with failing. Theremay be misinterpretation of the criteria or areluctance to incur the funding commitments ofthe scheme.

Plate 2.1. An example of a rural beach:Arrochar, Argyll, Scotland

2.6. Non Governmental Organisations andCampaigns

The Tidy Britain Group and Keep ScotlandBeautifulThe Tidy Britain Group (TBG) is a charitablecompany limited by guananteed that receivescore funding from the UK Department of theEnvironment, The Regions and Transport(DETR). It campaigns to eliminate litter byraising awareness and changing people’sattitudes. The Marine Litter ResearchProgramme, the Seaside Awards and the BlueFlag Schemes are all administered by the Group.

Keep Scotland Beautiful is the ScottishDirectorate of the TBG, administering theimplementation in Scotland of the TBG’snational programmes, whilst in Wales this isimplemented by Keep Wales Tidy.

The Marine Conservation Society (MSC)The Marine Conservation Society is one of themain UK charities solely devoted to theconservation of the marine environment. Thesociety believes in working through persuasionand effecting change based on sound factualevidence. Since its formation in 1983, theSociety has become a recognised authority onmarine and coastal conservation and is regularlyconsulted by Government for its views on arange of marine issues.

Plate 2.2. An example of a resort beach:Margate, Kent

14

Pollution from sewage, litter and toxicchemicals has always been a major focus andthe Society compiles the Reader’s Digest GoodBeach Guide on an annual basis. In 1986, thecampaign to ‘Clean Britain’s beaches’ firstbrought the state of Britain’s beaches to publicattention. The Beachwatch campaign, sponsoredby Reader’s Digest, was launched in 1993 toraise public awareness about marine pollutionand establish an effective database on marinedebris on Britain’s beaches. In 1996 the MCSlaunched the ‘Adopt a Beach’ initiative. Theinitiative is aimed at encouraging anyone whohas an interest in the environment to form agroup from their local community and register,quite literally, to Adopt-a-Beach. As guardiansfor their piece of coastline, they will be expectedto carry out beach cleans whilst alsocategorising the nature of the debris they find.

Bag it and Bin it CampaignThe National ‘Bag It and Bin It’ Group,responsible for the campaign, was establishedin 1994 and launched the following year inrecognition of the pressing need for action onsewage related debris. The aim of the group isto explain the problem associated with SRD andto discourage the general public from using theirtoilet systems as a wet dustbin. The group alsoencourages manufacturers to use biodegradablematerials in their products.

Norwich Union Coastwatch UKCoastwatch UK is part of the wider CoastwatchEurope initiative, established in 1987, which hascollected data and raised the awareness ofcoastal zone issues at regional, national andinternational levels. Since 1989, a nationalsurvey has been undertaken to collectinformation on litter, sewage pollution, land useand biotic components.

15

Any community near the sea will be aware of the possibility of oil pollution. Usually itis only the large spills that hit the headlines and it is true that incidents involving oil

tankers such as the Braer or Sea Empress, release large amounts of oil in fairly restrictedareas causing considerable damage. However, there is also a chronic problem with oilpollution around coastal waters where relatively small amounts of oil come ashore, perhapsover a large area.

Plate 3.1. Oil pollution on Shetland beachesfollowing the grounding of the ‘Braer’

(photo: Shetland Islands Council)

Plate 3.2. Removing oil from clothing followinga visit to a badly littered beach on the

West coast of Sweden

3. Oil Pollution

3.1. IntroductionFrequently tar balls, specks of oil or oiled debriscome ashore on beaches. For example, theauthorities researching marine debris on theWest Coast of Sweden, observed that most itemsof debris were contaminated with oil. This lowlevel contamination can be a great annoyance tobeach users, is still capable of killing wildlifeand can tarnish the good environmental imageof an area. This chronic low level pollution isoften under circumstances where it is notpractical to mount a clean-up operation. Mostof this type of pollution is not accidental andoccurs from operational discharges fromvessels such as washing out their tanks or bilges.These acts are for the most part illegal and alsounnecessary as nearly all ports have waste oilfacilities which can be used by vessels todischarge unwanted oil or tank washings.

One of the reasons for the continuing problemis the difficulty of detection and prosecution ofoffending masters. It is all too easy for vessels

in the open sea to discharge oil (e.g. during roughweather or under the cover of darkness) with nochance of detection. It was estimated in 1981that 3.2 million tonnes of oil reached the seaannually and that about 46% of this was derivedfrom marine transportation, including tankeroperations, other shipping activities andaccidental spills from ships. There are alsosome releases of oil from offshore oilinstallations.

Oil spills from oil tankers have damagedresources in the past, and continue to pose athreat. While spills affect entire naturalcommunities, spill damage is often measuredin bird mortality, which is more easilyquantified. In addition to the threat of largespills, small oil spills are an ongoing problem.The California Oil Spill Prevention andResponse Agency reports that in 1993 alone,39 lesser spills, mostly less than 1 barrel,

16

occurred between Bodega Bay and Cambria,mostly from fishing vessels and recreationalboats.

Two miles of state beaches were closed aftertar balls were spotted washing ashore along theLong Beach peninsula. The balls are acombination of ship fuel, sand and seaweed thatmost likely came from a passing ship. Thephenomenon is typically caused by seas churningoil dumped from passing vessels. During 1994-95, Shetland Islands Council collected samplesof oil from various areas of the coastline andsent them away for analysis. As each type ofcrude oil contains different proportions ofhydrocarbons, it is possible to ‘fingerprint’ thedifferent crude oils. The samples are thencompared against a database of known crude oilsand the origin may be identified. 94% of thesamples contained crude oil which was almostcertainly from tankers involved in thetransportation of crude oil which had dischargedoil at sea. Six percent of the samples were bilgetype oil which comes from vessels pumping outtheir bilges or from waste oil tanks.

3.2. Causes of spills

Most incidents are the result of a combinationof actions and circumstances, all of whichcontribute in varying degrees to the finaloutcome. The following analysis by IMOexplores the incidence of spills of differentsizes in terms of the primary event or operationin progress at the time of the spill. These“causes” have been grouped into “Operations”and “Accidents”. Spills for which the relevantinformation is not available or where the causewas not one of those given are listed under“Other”. It is apparent that:

! most spills from tankers result fromroutine operations such as loading,discharging and bunkering, whichnormally occur in ports or at oil terminals;

! the majority of those operational spills arerelatively small, with some 92% involvingquantities of less than 7 tonnes;

! accidents involving collisions andgroundings generally give rise to muchlarger spills, with a fifth involvingquantities in excess of 700 tonnes.

3.3. Liability and CompensationInternational Conventions on Civil Liabilityfor Oil Pollution Damage (1969)International Conventions on theEstablishment of an International Fund forCompensation for Oil Pollution Damage(1971)

These two Conventions make provisions forcompensating those who suffer loss as a resultof pollution caused by laden tankers carryingpersistent oil in bulk. The first imposes a liabilityon the ship owner to pay compensationregardless of whether the pollution was causedby his fault. The second establishes aninternational compensation fund. Substantialrevisions to these Conventions were adopted inNovember 1992. Claims for compensation foroil pollution damage (including clean-up costs)may be brought against the owner of the tankerwhich caused the damage or directly against theowner’s P&I insurer. The tanker owner isnormally entitled to limit his liability to anamount which is linked to the tonnage of thetanker causing the pollution.

17

Methodology

The aim of this study was to investigate the economic and social impacts of marinedebris on coastal communities. To do this, firstly a list was drawn up of individual

sectors that could be affected by marine debris.Local AuthoritiesTourismShippingFishingAgriculturePower generation

Each sector was assessed individually to see firstly how they could be affected by marinedebris and secondly where the possible areas for costs could be found. See Figure 4.1for a schematic representation of some of the areas covered.

Initial enquires were carried out with the variousorganisations which represent each differentsector. For example, Shetland Fishermen’sAssociation was contacted to discuss theproblems of marine debris and the Shetlandfishing fleet and Lerwick Harbour Trust werecontacted for details about the problems ofdebris in the harbour.

At these initial interviews, the possible effectsof marine debris to the various sectors werediscussed, as was the best way to approachindividual member or similar organisations inother countries. Initial questionnaires weredrafted following these discussions, primarilyto assess the extent of the problem. These weredistributed to the respective individuals ororganisations, firstly within Shetland and thenthroughout the UK and other KIMO membercountries. Responses indicating a problem withmarine debris were followed up with additionalquestionnaires asking specific questions aboutthe nature of the incident and the costs incurred.

The questionnaires were then amended asnecessary and sent to other areas of the UK usingShetland contacts, KIMO members and other

recommendations. In some sectors (e.g.Harbour Authorities), research was extended toKIMO member countries (Denmark, Sweden,Norway, Netherlands and Germany). Followingresponses to questionnaires, meetings with therepresentatives of the relevant authorities werearranged and undertaken throughout the UK andalso in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Ireland.During these meetings the problems of marinedebris and oil in a particular area were viewedpersonally and area-specific problems werediscussed.

As the results came in, they were logged into andatabase or a spreadsheet. Using these computerpackages allowed checking on the response ratefor the return of the questionnaires so thatreminders could be issued. It also allowed datato be easily separated into relevant groups foranalysis. Examples of some of thequestionnaires used and sample responses arepresent in the Appendix.

18

Figure 4.1. Schematic diagram indicating the possible areas which may be affected by marine debris

19

Councils, local communities, environmental groups and statutory bodies have beenfighting the problem of marine debris, through beach clean-ups, surveys and national

campaigns for decades. For many beach-goers, a prime environmental quality indicator isthe general state of cleanliness of the beach with particular reference to litter. It is clear thatin the case of marine debris, sewage and oil pollution, the ‘polluter is not paying’. LocalAuthorities and their communities are paying for the failures of others.

4. Local Authorities and Marine Debris

4.1. UK Local AuthoritiesLocal Authorities in the UK do not have anydirect authority over many of the pollutionissues. However they do have duties to clean-up pollution under the EnvironmentalProtection Act on designated amenity beaches.

Environmental Protection Act 1990:

Parts II and IV of the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 (EPA) contain statutory requirementswhich apply to some constituents and sourcesof marine litter. Section 34 of the EPA, whichbecame effective on 1 April 1992, introduced aduty of care for waste management forproducers, holders and carriers of controlledwaste (i.e. industrial, commercial or domesticwaste). The duty does not apply to householderswith regard to their own domestic waste. It istherefore expected that duty holders will bediscouraged from fly-tipping controlled wastesdirectly to beaches or indirectly by tipping torivers and estuaries discharging to the sea.

Part IV of EPA requires local authorities orother owners of land to which the public haveaccess, and which is in full view of the public,to keep this land clear of litter and refuse. In theassociated statutory code of practise on litterand refuse, issued under Section 89(7) of EPA,amenity beaches are identified as one of elevenbroad categories of land-use zones whererequired standards of cleanliness are clearlydefined. As a minimum standard, all beachesidentified by local authorities as amenity

beaches, should generally be clear of all typesof litter between May and September inclusive(HMSO, 1990).

Under section 87 of the EPA, it is an offence todrop litter in any public place, including beaches.The fixed penalty for littering is £10 and noproceedings will be taken if the fixed penalty ispaid within 14 days. The maximum fine forlittering is £2,500, but unless caught in the acton film or by a person of a recognised authority,enforcement is difficult.

It should be noted that the Local Authorities’sduty to clear litter, under section 89 of the EPA,only refers to beaches identified as bathingwaters. In England and Wales the length ofcoastline is 7062km on which there are 448identified bathing waters. Even assuming anaverage of 1/2 km per beach, these bathingwaters equate to only 224km or 3.1% of theEnglish and Welsh coastline.

UK Local Authority SurveyThe most obvious and direct consequence ofmarine debris to local authorities is the cost ofcleaning and removing debris from beaches andcoastlines. A survey of local authorities wasundertaken in the form of questionnaires weresent to 157 coastal local authorities around theUK and Ireland. The questionnaire asked fordetails on any clean-up operations that wereundertaken to remove marine debris or oil froman authority’s coastline.

20

Examples of Questions! Do you undertake clean-up operations of

the coastline within your constituency?! For what reasons were coastal clean-up

operations undertaken?

! What type were the beaches that werecleaned?

! At what frequency do the clean-upoperations occur?

! How is the cleansing carried out?

! What is the length of coastline that iscleaned?

! Who are the other users of this area ofcoastline?

! Which department is responsible forbeach cleansing?

! What is the total economic cost of theclean-up operation?

! How much of the council budget isallocated for beach cleaning?

! What anti-litter measures are present nearthe affected beaches?

Responses were received from 72 UK coastalLocal Authorities (figure 4.2). Of these 56Local Authorities clean areas of their coastlineand 16 do not. The reasons given for notundertaking cleaning were: lack of finance, theclean up is organised by other groups or thecoastline doesn’t have a marine debris problem.Approximately 905 km or 6% of coastline iscleaned around the UK. A further 5,546 km ofcoastline is reported as not cleaned by localauthorities which leaves an additional 8,098 kmof coastline of which the cleansing routine isunknown (Table 4.1).

The main reasons reported for Local Authoritiesto clean beaches are (figure 4.3.):

! Popular tourist areaIn 1996, 24.8 million seaside holidayswere taken in the UK bringing in arevenue of £4.2 billion. In addition there

were in excess of 110 million day visitsmade to the UK coast which generated afurther £1.2 billion (Hampson, 1997).

! Public Health RiskThe Public Health Laboratory Service forthe South West Region of Englandreported that 4% of needle stick injurieswere sustained on the beach during theperiod 1988-91.

! Statutory RequirementTo conform with the EC Bathing WatersDirective and the EnvironmentalProtection Act, there is a requirement forLocal Authorities to remove litter frombeaches classified as bathing waters. In1998, 11 out of the 23 identified bathingwaters in Scotland failed to meet theDirective’s mandatory standards for totaland faecal coliforms. There have beencalls for additional bathing waters to beidentified in Scotland. The UKGovernment has announced a review ofbathing waters in Scotland.

! Blue Flag BeachIn 1997, 224 UK beaches were awardedSeaside Awards by the Tidy Britain Group.In addition 38 resort beaches flew theEuropean Blue Flag

! Nature or Wildlife Reserves.

Of the beaches cleaned, 57% are sandy; this isnot surprising as this type of beach is most oftenused by tourists. A third of the beaches cleanedwere shingle (33%), rocky coastline accountedfor 9% of areas cleaned, and other types ofcoastline including mudflats and salt marshesconstituted 1% of the beaches cleaned (figure4.4.).

Overleaf : Table 4.1. Beach cleaning responsesfrom Local Authorities in the UK, Denmark,

Sweden, Germany and Norway. The table showsthe length of beach cleaned, the weight of debrisremoved and the overall beach cleaning cost (£).

21

Figure 4.2. Map of UK showing which Local Authorities clean beaches and the associated costs(£) ineach area if known. (1997-1998)

22

Table 4.1.

Area Council Cleanup? Length (km) weight (tonnes) Cost (£)Scotland Aberdeen City yes 6.4 NK NKScotland Aberdeenshire yes 16 NK £30,000Scotland Angus yes 10 NK NKScotland Argyll & Bute yes NK NK £40,000Scotland Borders yes 10 NK £2,000Scotland Dumfries & Galloway yes varies NK NKScotland East Lothian yes 40 NK £100,000Scotland Edinburgh, City of yes 4.7 NK £92,000Scotland Falkirk yes 1 NK £2,000Scotland Fife yes 43 50 £38,400Scotland Glasgow, City of noScotland Highland yes NK NK £15,500Scotland Moray noScotland Orkney noScotland Renfrewshire noScotland Shetland yes £10,000Scotland South Ayrshire yes 38 5000 £165,000Scotland West Dunbartonshire yes 100 NK £1,500Scotland Total 269.1 5050 £496,400England Babergh District noEngland Berwick-upon-Tweed yes 32 NK NKEngland Blackpool Borough yes 11.2 2800 NKEngland Boston noEngland Bournemouth yes 11.3 NK £328,900England Brighton & Hove yes 11.3 NK NKEngland Carrick yes 4.8 NK £31,000England Castle Morpeth noEngland Cornwall County yes 200 250 £13,500England Christchurch yes 5.2 NK £10,500England Dartford noEngland Devon County yes 6.4 NK NKEngland Dorset County yes 90 7.7 £3,320England Dover yes 8 NK NKEngland East Devon yes 8 1 NKEngland Eastleigh yes 4.8 NK £5,000England Essex County noEngland Gravesham yes NK NK NKEngland Lincolnshire yes 1 1 NKEngland Middlesborough noEngland New Forest yes NK 40 £25,000England Newcastle noEngland North Cornwall yes 25 NK £106,935England North Devon yes 1 NK £15,000England North Lincolnshire noEngland North Norfolk yes NK NK NKEngland North Yorkshire noEngland Penwith yes NK NK £36,500England Restormel yes NK NK £35,000England Rochford noEngland Sedgemoor yes 11.3 NK £41,944England Southend-on-Sea yes NK £130,000England Suffolk Coastal yes 32 NK £61,400England Suffolk County no

23

Table 4.1Area Council Cleanup? Length(km) Weight(tonnes) Cost(£)England Teignbridge yes 2.4 NK NKEngland Tendring yes NK NK NKEngland Torridge yes 2 NK NKEngland Waveney yes 20 1430 £84,420England West Lancashire noEngland Weymouth & Portland yes 3 NK £118,000England Wight, Isle of yes NK NK £30,000England Wirral yes 19 NK £30,000England Wyre yes 4 500 £200,000

England Total 513.7 5029.7 £1,306,419

Wales Anglesey, Isle of yes NK NK £150,000Wales Total 0 0 £150,000Channel Isles Guernsey yes 32.2 NK £128,100Channel Isles Jersey yes 24.1 NK £120,000Channel Isles Total 56.3 0 £248,100

Ireland Ards yes 20 NK NKIreland Coleraine yes 10 NK £71,800Ireland Down yes 2 NK NKIreland North Down yes 16 NK £23,000Ireland Wexford yes 10 NK £35,000

Ireland Total 58 0 £129,800

Grand Total 897.1 10079.7 £2,330,719

Area Kommune Cleanup? Length (km) Weight (tonnes) Cost(£)Denmark Blavandshuk yes 40 NK £65,000Denmark Lemvig yes 19 NK NKDenmark Hanstholm yes 10 NK £5,000Denmark Holmsland yes 10 101 £33,000Denmark Sydthy yes 24 NK £10,500Denmark Thyboron-Harboore yes 19 9 £31,000Denmark Total 122 110 £144,500

Germany S.D.N yes 255 450 £17,500

Germany Total 255 450 £17,500

Norway Alesund noNorway Fjell yes 1 10 £1,100Norway Total 1 10 £1,100Sweden Goteburg yes 85 1 £134,300Sweden BOSAM yes 3400 84 £150,416Sweden Sotenas yes 120 NK £135,260Sweden Munkedals noSweden Total 3605 85 £419,976

Grand Total 3983 655 £583,076

Total for all Countries 4880.1 km 10734.7 tonnes £2,913,795

NK = details not known by the respondant

24

Reasons for Clean-up Operations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

StatutoryRequirement

Blue FlagBeach

Tourist Area Health Risk Easy Access FisheriesArea

AffectingBusiness

KnownProblem Area

NatureReserve

Other

Reasons

Num

ber

of C

ounc

il

Type of Beach Cleaned

Sandy57%

Shingle33%

Rocky9%

Other1%

Most of the areas cleaned were of high (40%)to medium (34%) public usage, although somebeaches that are cleaned may be isolated (6%)or inaccessible to the general public (1%)(figure 4.5). The majority of the beaches arecleaned using manual and mechanical methods(57%) with the remainder (43%) being cleanedusing only manual litter-picking (figure 4.6).During the summer season, 41% of beaches arecleaned daily, 22% weekly, 8% monthly and 2%annually. Many other beaches are cleaned asnecessary. For example, for a specific event,after bad weather, or if there is a complaint aboutthe state of the beach (figure 4.7).

Figure 4.3. Graph outlining the main reasons why Local Authorities in the UK undertake beachcleaning.

The total cost for the 56 UK Local Authoritiesto clean up beaches is £2,197,138. The budgetallocated for beach cleaning is only £1,675,155.This is because many councils do not have abeach cleaning budget and instead use theiremergency funds or street cleaning account. Asexpected with the majority of beaches beingcleaned manually, the main cost is for the wagesfor the work force (£201,500). Collection ofrubbish from the affected sites and transport ofworkforce to the site cost £87,000 and £47,800

Plate 4.1. Rocky shores are more difficult toclean: Fife, Scotland

Figure 4.4. Graph showing the percentagesof beaches of various types that are cleaned

by Local Authorities in the UK.

25

Percentage of Councils Cleaning Beaches by Manual or Manual & Mechanical Means

Manually only43%

Manually & Mechanically57%

Cleaning Schedule

Daily41%

Weekly22%

Monthly8%

Yearly2%

Seasonally27%

Figure 4.5. Graph showing the percentage ofbeaches with particular usage, that are cleaned

by UK Local Authorities

Figure 4.6. Graph showingthe percentage ofbeaches that are cleaned manually ormechanically by UK Local Authorities

Figure 4.7. Graph showing how often beachesare cleaned by UK Local Authorities

respectively. The cost of providing materialssuch as refuse sacks and gloves amounted to£18,800. The cost of administering beachcleansing operations was £13,300 (figure 4.8).

All of the councils use landfill as their mainmeans of disposal of rubbish from beaches.Twelve councils also use recycling methods and

two councils use incineration to dispose ofrubbish. Over 10,000 tonnes of debris frombeaches is removed and disposed of each year.The cost of disposal of rubbish is over£114,200. Landfill charges vary from £13-£30 per tonne. Two councils are undertakingtrials of seaweed composting (figure 4.9 -overleaf).

Beach Usage

High39%

Medium34%

Low19%

Isolated6%

Inaccessable2%

26

All councils have litter bins near the beachesthat are cleaned, 29 councils also have notices.The cost of servicing and maintenance of theseanti-litter devices is £127,276.

All 56 councils report that the beaches cleanedare used by tourists and recreational users.Thirty-two Local Authorities report that thefishing industry also use the beach or areas nearthe coastline that is cleaned (figure 4.10 -overleaf).

Expenditure per head of population for beachcleaning varies between £1.45-£2.18 per personin tourist areas (e.g. Guernsey, Cornwall,Ayrshire); to £0.01-£0.11 in remote areas orareas with heavy industry (E.g. Highland,Borders, Wirral) (table 4.2 - overleaf). Theexpenditure spent per km of coast cleanedranges from £50,000 per km in Wyre where asmall area is cleaned repeatedly; to £15 per km

Breakdown of Costs for Beach cleaning

£201,500

£114,200

£87,000

£47,800

£18,800£13,300

£0

£50,000

£100,000

£150,000

£200,000

£250,000

Workforce Disposal Collection of debris Transport to site Materials Administration

Figure 4.8. Graph showing the break down of the beach cleaning budget spent by UK LocalAuthorities (where known).

in Dunbartonshire where a large area is onlycleaned once or twice a year (table 4.3).

Oil PollutionOf the 72 UK councils responding, 49 have anoil spill contingency plan, however only 12councils have an oil spill contingency fund. Thevalue of the fund ranges from £1,000 to £10,000with a total fund for UK councils of £24,610.Thirty-two councils have had a problem withsmall, unattributable amounts of oil appearingon their coastline. Those local authoritiesreported over 176 incidences of small oilspillages in 1997. Over £71,000 is spentcleaning up these spillages, three times the valueof the fund available. The money comes eitherfrom the street/beach cleaning budget or fromthe individual local authority’s general reserves(figure 4.11).

27

Method of Disposal

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Landfill Recycling Incineration

Type of Disposal

Num

ber

of C

ounc

il

Figure 4.9. Graph showing the method of debris disposal undertaken by UK Local Authorities.

Figure 4.10. Graph showing the main users of the beaches cleaned in the UK.

Users of the Beaches that are Cleaned

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fisheries Business Tourists Industry Recreation Other

Users

Num

ber

of C

ounc

ils R

epor

ting

the

se U

s

28

Expenditure per Head of Population

UK

Guernsey £2.18Anglesey £2.15Bournemouth £2.14Weymouth & Portland £1.83North Cornwall £1.46South Ayrshire £1.45Coleraine £1.32East Lothian £1.20Waveney £0.79Southend on Sea £0.78Wight, Isle of £0.67Penwith £0.58Sufflolk Coastal £0.54Sedgemoor £0.43Restormel £0.40Carrick £0.39Argyll & Bute £0.38Wexford £0.34Down £0.32Christchurch £0.27Edinburgh £0.22Wyre £0.19North Devon £0.17New Forest £0.15Aberdeenshire £0.14Fife £0.11Wirral £0.09Highland £0.07Eastleigh £0.05Cornwall £0.03Borders £0.02West Dunbartonshire £0.02Falkirk £0.01

Sweden

Sotenas £13.97Göteborg £0.29

Norway

Fjell £0.06

Denmark

Holmsland £6.16Thyboron-Harboore £5.96Sydthy £0.90Hantsholm £0.81

Table 4.2. Table showing the expenditure perhead of population.

Expenditure per km cleaned

UK

Wyre £50,000Weymouth £39,333Bournemouth £29,106Edinburgh £19,574North Devon £15,000Southend-on-Sea £13,402Coleraine £7,180Carrick £6,458Jersey £5,000South Ayrshire £4,342North Cornwall £4,277Waveney £4,221Guernsey £4,003Sedgemoor £3,712Wexford £3,500East Lothian £2,500Christchurch £2,019Falkirk £2,000Suffolk Coastal £1,919Aberdeenshire £1,875Wirral £1,579North Down £1,438Eastleigh £1,042Fife £893Borders £200Cornwall County £68Dorset County £37West Dunbartonshire £15

Denmark

Sydthy £4,375Holmsland £3,300Thyboron-Harboore £1,632Blavandshuk £1,625Hanstholm £500

GermanySDN £69

Norway

Fjell £1,100

Sweden

Göteburg £1,580Sotenas £1,127BOSAM £44

Table 4.3. Table showing the expenditure per kmof beach cleaned.

29

Figure 4.11. Map showing the incidences of small oil spills, tar balls and oiled debris occurring on theUK coastline as reported by UK Local Authorities, 1997-1998.

30

DiscussionThere are many inaccuracies associated with thefinal figure received for local authorities in theUK. Firstly, money is taken out of other budgetsto cover the costs of beach cleaning. Thepercentage taken from, for example, a streetcleaning budget for beaches may not berecorded. Money is also used out of the beachcleaning account for other marine incidents, forexample, the disposal and removal of deadwhales or the cleanup of oil spills. Finally thecosts for cleaning beaches include removal anddisposal of all litter on the beach includingsewage, tourist dropped items and seaweed.

A survey by ASH Consultants in 1994 alsoinvestigated the problems of marine debris andcoastal local authorities in Scotland. Theyreported that many of the District Councilsreferred to particular problems occurring attimes of highest Spring Tides combined withstorms, commonest in late Winter and earlyAutumn.

4.2. UK Voluntary InitiativesMany councils do not have the additional fundsto clean beaches which they are not required todo so by law. Instead, many have set up partlyfunded organisations within the council thatoversee and organise volunteer cleanups of thelocal area. A high proportion of authoritiesacknowledged the need for voluntary assistanceand this was always reflected in support by thecouncils in kind. For example by the provisionof skips, gloves and bags (See ASH, 1994).

Da Voar Redd UpThe Shetland Amenity Trust started the ‘Da VoarRedd Up’ in 1988 to combat the increasingproblem of marine debris and the bad publicityassociated with it. In 1997, 2,450 volunteers(about 10% of the islands population) removed9,000 bags (equivalent to 45 tonnes) of rubbishfrom Shetland’s beaches and roadsides. Thirtybeaches were cleaned over this time. The Trustreceives £5,000 from the Council’s ReserveFund to run this cleanup. The estimated cost to

pay manual workers to do the same job wouldbe at least £13,752.

Fife Rubbish Free ZonesFife Rubbish Free Zones was set up in 1991, toencourage local communities to monitor, cleanand protect certain areas from rubbish andflytipping. One third of these sites are coastaland these are cleaned by volunteer groups atspecial events throughout the year. In 1997, 50tonnes of debris were removed. The groupreceives £6,000 a year to organise the clean ups.

The Great Dorset Beach CleanThe Great Dorset Beach Clean is co-ordinatedby the ‘Dorset Countryside’ ranger team ofDorset County Council. Its aims are to raiseawareness of the on-going problem of coastalpollution, enable local people to becomeinvolved in positive action along their coast, andto remove as much rubbish as possible from thebeaches along the Dorset Coast. Each yearapproximately 7 tonnes of rubbish is removedfrom beaches by volunteers. The DistrictCouncils arrange the collection and disposal ofthe rubbish.

Viking Shore TrustThe Viking Shore Trust was established in 1993by a group of local people concerned by the largevolume of litter accumulating at the head ofLoch Long in Argyll. Arrochar shore wasbecoming a litter black spot viewed by localsand visitors from around the world. The Trustexists to effect solutions to this problem and toincrease general awareness of the marine litterissue. The Trust sponsors community-basedgroups, environmental organisations and othergroups to undertake shore clean-ups.

4.3. Land Ownership and ManagementResponsibilityMany sites of natural heritage interest existaround the UK and these are designated andsafeguarded through mechanisms operated byScottish Natural Heritage, CountrysideCommission for Wales and English Nature.

31

Other sites are often owned or managed by avariety of organisations (National Trust, RSPB,etc.) who afford their sites custodial protectionand management.

Management responsibility for these sites is notalways straightforward, especially whenaddressing the complex range of interactionsbetween activities and the environment and themanaging body themselves. A prime example ofthis is the removal of marine debris frombeaches and the provision of facilities (such aslitter bins) on certain stretches of coastline,which might be considered the responsibility ofsite managing bodies or land owners, and notnecessarily the local council.

The National Trust for ScotlandThe National Trust for Scotland is Scotland’ssecond largest voluntary conservationorganisation and cares for a great diversity ofproperties. Although no surveys on marinedebris have been undertaken by the Trust, beachcleans are occasionally undertaken by Trustvolunteers. While accepting that marine debrisis a problem on some sites, the Trust agrees thatthe best approach to litter control in generalshould be preventative.

The National Trust in the Isle of Wight cleans1.5 miles of sandy coastline daily during thesummer season at a cost of £1,600 per annum.They receive a few complaints about rubbish onthe beach outwith the season but do not have theresources to continue cleaning throughout theyear. In East Anglia, the Trust is dependent uponthe availability of volunteers to clean up debris.In Wales, Trust staff undertake cleaning ofbeaches alongside their other duties and are alsohelped by volunteers. The shore at the WhiteCliffs of Dover is cleaned by the National Trustas necessary. This is generally weekly during thetourist season at an average cost of £40 perweek.

Local Authorities in Other CountriesThe initial survey was extended to include localauthorities from Denmark, Sweden, Norway,

Germany and Holland. Members of theorganisation, KIMO, were contacted and sent thesame questionnaire as used in the UK.

4.4. DenmarkBlavandshuk, Lemvig, Hanstholm and Thyboron-Harboore Kommunes spend 782,000 dkr(approximately £78,200) each year on beachcleaning. Blavandshuk Kommune also enlistsschools to help clean ups and pays each class£600 per day. The beaches that are cleaned areall sandy and of high to medium use by the public.They are all owned by the State of Denmark. Theyare cleaned daily or weekly on a seasonal basisby manual means. Blavandshuk and HanstholmKommunes stated that they used manual meansto prevent the removal of excess sand. Thesefour Kommunes clean 88 km of beach each year.

After discussions with Esbjerg and HanstholmKommunes, it was apparent that oil spills weremore of a problem than marine debris. This isbecause the predominant wind and currents willsend any debris further north into the Skagerrakand onto the West Coast of Sweden. AllKommunes reported no occurrences of anysewage debris appearing on their beaches. Acomparison with beach cleaning costs in 1987and 1997 show that the costs of cleaning thesame length of beach have increased and in somecases doubled (table 4.4).

4.5. GermanyThe Municipalities which were contactedthrough Schutzgemeinschaft DeutscheNordseekutse, spend approximately £17,500 peryear cleaning 255 km of dyked area using bothmanual and mechanical means. They remove 450tonnes of debris from medium to low use areaswhich are cleaned seasonally as necessary (seetable 4.1).

4.6. SwedenThe West Coast of Sweden, particularly thesection between Göteborg and the Norwegianborder, suffers severely from marine debris andoil. Every summer since 1992, the coast has beencleaned up as a result of co-ordination between

32

the coastal municipalities, the CountyEmployment Board and the CountyAdministration Board. The beach cleanups havebeen financially possible due to the involvementof the County Employment Board. Beachcleaning is significantly more difficult and moreexpensive because of the jaggedness of thiscoastline and wealth of islands. With thereluctance displayed by the SwedishGovernment when it comes to contributing topaying for beach cleaning; the local authorities,with the help of volunteers and support from theKeep Sweden Tidy Foundation have beenobliged to accept responsibility for verysubstantial costs.

LegislationThe Swedish law which regulates litter fromships is in the first instance the “Law on ActionsAgainst Water Pollution from Ships”. This lawapplies to pollution that has to do with therunning of the ship. Although the legislation was

Comparisons of Beach Cleaning costs in Denmark in 1987 and 1997

Kommune Length(km) Cost (Dkr)

1987 1997 1987 1997Skagen 62 498,000Hirtshals 40 232,000Hjorring 9 147,000Lokken-Vra 12 147,000Pandrup 23 361,489Hantsholm 43 10 37,825 50,000Thisted 15 200,229Sydthy 24 24 54,685 105,000Thyboron-Harboore 20 19 26,950 310,000Lemvig 19 19 158,000Ulfborg-Vemb 13 25,000Holmsland 40 40 178,475 330,000Blabjerg 12 200,000Blavandshuk 40 40 300,000 650,000Fano 11 46,000Skarebaek 10 65,000

Totals 393km 152km 2,677,653 1,445,000£267,765 £144,500

Table 4.4. Comparisons of beach cleaning costs in DanishKommunes in 1987 and 1997

adopted to regulate discharges of ballast water,the law is nevertheless applicable to the conceptof ‘dangerous substance’ by which is meant‘oil, and other substances which if arereleased into the sea or any other water areaare likely to give rise to harmful effects onhuman health, be harmful to the marine faunaor flora, damage recreational values ordisrupt other legitimate utilisation of the seaor other water areas”.

The 1985 proclamation from the NationalMaritime Administration contains regulationson solid waste. It is stipulated that dischargesof solid waste are prohibited from Swedish orforeign vessels within Sweden’s maritimeterritory. For the purpose of this proclamation,solid waste is defined as:

! All waste of plastic: for instance ropes,fishing nets of synthetic material andplastic refuse sacks.

33

Plate 4.2. Beachcomber’s retreat: This building ismade entirely from debris washed up on the

beach, Sotenäs, Sweden.

Plate 4.3. Type of boat used on the Swedish westcoast to collect debris from the numerous islands

and rocky outcrops.In 1992, a complete clean-up of the coast ofBoshulän was carried out for the first time. Fromnorth to south, around 200 people, over a periodof 6 months, gathered more than 15,000 cubicmetres of rubbish at a cost of 21 million Sek(£2.1 million) (table 4.5 overleaf). Between1992-1997 over 8,000 fish boxes, 7,430 oilcans and enough rubbish to fill 250,000 sackswas removed from the coast of Bohuslän (table4.6 - overleaf).

The City of Göteborg, Sotenäs and MunkedalsKommunes and the local authority organisationBOSAM spent 4,197,419 Sek (approximately£419,741) cleaning 3,605 km of the West Coastof Sweden. They removed 11,464 bags manuallythroughout the season. The areas cleaned arepredominantly rocky and may be highly used orisolated. The Kommunes pay unemployedpeople money to clean the coastline for theseason

4.7. HollandIn areas of high tourism, the costs of coastalcleaning tend to be high and must be paid out ofmunicipal funds. In the Hague Municipality, theyget approximately 15 million tourists each yearand spend as much as 1.5-2 million guilders(£500,000) per year on coastal cleaning. In DenHelder, with approximately 1.5 million touristsper year, around 60,000 guilders (£20,000) isspent on cleaning beaches per annum.

! Other solid waste: including paperproducts, rags, glass, metal, bottles, china,battens, boards, clothing, and packagingmaterials.

“The Law on Prohibition of Dumping of Wastein Water” regulates waste other than that whichrelates to the running of the ship. Dischargingof waste, whether it be in solid, liquid or gaseousform, from ship or other means of transport isprohibited within Sweden’s territorial waters.Such dumping is also prohibited from Swedishships in open sea.

Costs to Swedish KommunesThe total costs for cleanup operation of beacheson the Bohuslän coast in 1997 were estimatedto be at least 10 million Sek (£1,000,000). Thecosts for the municipalities amounted to 2-3million Sek (£200,000) (for boat hire,transportation, equipment, disposal). The costfor the County Employment Board to provide8,000 man working days is approximately 8million Sek (£800,000). Wage costs forsupervision, planning and organisation are notaccounted for, since beach cleaning is seen as aintegral part of the work done by personnelemployed by the municipality or otherorganisations. From 1998, beach cleaning willbe organised by the district councils affected(BOSAM), Vastkuststiftelsen (Foundation forManaging Nature Reserves in West Sweden) andthe County Employment Board

34

Beach Cleaning in Bohuslän 1997

Municipalities Number of Number of Number of Number of Costs (Sek)Days Sacks Fish Boxes Oil Cans

Stromstad 1,000 4,510 500 136 272,826Tanum 530 3,647 232 476 163,400Sotenäs 800 4,899 139 261 247,157Lysekil 893 6,330 237 35 330,600Uddevalla 560 1,911 9 42 165,000Munkedal 56 83 15 5,865Orust 589 2,314 299 575 308,988Tjorn 279 1,535 100 197 102,477Stenungsund 761 1,383 19 20 125,474Kungalv 892 3,000 187 398 200,000Ockero 749 2,458 178 18 181,000Göteborg 776 4,136 120 119 200,000

Total 7,885 36,206 2,020 2,292 2,302,787

£230,000

Table 4.5. Table showing some of the beach cleaning costsincured by Local Authorities in the region of Bohuslän,

Sweden.

Results from 6 years of beach cleaning in Bohuslän

Year Estimated Number of Number of Number of Costs perVolume Sacks Fish Boxes Oilcans Sack (Sek)(Cubic Metres)

1992 15,500 89,200 2,410 2251993 5,500 36,071 1,412 2,500 2501994 6,000 36,210 1,231 733 3001995 6,000 34,427 1,229 589 3201996 4,000 22,607 575 1,316 4201997 6,000 36,206 2,020 2,292 360Total 43,000 254,721 8,877 7,430

Table 4.6. Summary of beach cleaning statistics inBohuslän, Sweden between 1992-1997.

35

The placement of rubbish bins and the erectionof notices is perhaps the most obvious step takenby the Dutch municipalities to control marinedebris on tourist beaches. In crowded areas,waste bins are placed as close as 25 metres. Thissaturation approach works to a certain extent butdoes not solve the problem. Waste bins fill upin no time and litter ends up dumped under themor nearby. Once a beach is littered, anotherproblem arises as the threshold to littering isreduced. Regular cleaning during the day isusually not possible as access is hampered bythe sheer volume of people. In contrast with whatyou would expect, deposit bottles are discardedin large numbers. In one municipality, wastecollectors are reported to have made an extra2,000 guilders (£670) per person each yearfrom separating out deposit bottles from the restof the litter (Hutjes and Supit, 1994).

4.8. Conclusions and RecommendationsMarine debris affects all coastal local authoritiesthroughout the study area. However in manycases, marine debris is not seen as an immediateproblem and due to lack of resources is oftenuntouched and forgotten about. LocalAuthorities agree that much of their beachcleaning budget is dedicated towards removingdebris from high profile tourist beaches and forkeeping any award beaches at a satisfactorystandard. Other less popular places, especiallyrocky shores, are frequently ignored due to thehigh cost associated with clearing these areas.

Recommendation 1: Prioritisation in theallocation of available resources has beenidentified as a key issue for most if not all ofthe local authorities. This should be improvedby defining appropriate litter managementstandards for individual beaches within theavailable resource constraints based onconsideration of the major factors (statutorydesignation, level of use, type of use, location,landscape and conservation value, visualsensitivity, public or political expectation etc).

Returned questionnaires to this study had oftenbeen filled in by several different departments.In many cases questions were not answered asit ‘was dealt with by another department’ ordifferent answers were given for the samequestion. Many local authorities were unsure ofwhich department was actually responsible forbeach cleaning. According to this survey, thedepartment involved could be anything fromleisure and recreation, commercial services,environmental services or planning.

Recommendation 2: One key officer should beallocated the subject of coastal pollutioncontact. This would be a secretariat role ofkeeping all interested staff within theauthority informed of what is happening andalso act as a point of contact.

Recommendation 3: There is a requirement fornew mechanisms for funding beach cleaningprogrammes which should be related to the‘polluter pays principle’. For example usingcar park fees, charging waterfront businesses,or tourist taxes.

All the local authorities questioned stated thatthey had litter bins present near the beaches thatthey clean. However councils are still removingover 10,000 tonnes of debris from these areaseach year that has not been deposited in the bins.According to Beachwatch 1998, direct litteringby recreational beach users contributed to36.7% of all beach litter. Using this figure,approximately 3,670 tonnes may have been leftby tourists or other beach users who had notdisposed of their rubbish in the litter binsprovided. This suggests that there are

a) too few litter bins available

b) the bins are not emptied often enoughc) the bins are not in easy to find locations, ord) the general public are not using these bins

Recommendation 4: There should be aninvestigation into the use of litter bins fordisposal of rubbish. In many areas people are

36

encouraged to take their rubbish home withthem and issued with bags with which to placetheir rubbish. This practice should beencouraged.

Recommendation 5: Information noticesshould include education material about thepossible environmental harm that marinedebris does and how it affects humanactivities.

Recommendation 6: There should be furtherresearch done into the sources of marine debrisin particular areas and sources of regularlyoccurring debris items should be trackeddown.

The manufacturer and sellers of locally solditems (e.g. milk cartons) should be informed ofthe occurrence of their product as a debris itemand can then modify the design to promoterecycling or biodegradability.

Recommendation 7: Local manufacturers andsuppliers should be encouraged to promoterecycling and responsible disposal. They maybe able to include educational slogans on thecartons or encourage wholesalers who sell alot to the shipping industries to encourageresponsible disposal.

Only half of the UK councils responding havean oil spill contingency plan. Many of theDistrict and Borough councils report that an oilspill would be co-ordinated by the CountyCouncil.

Recommendation 8: All councils should drawup an oil spill contingency plan as part of theiremergency plans. The plan should identify keypersonnel who would be responsible fordealing with any spills. Any oil spillcontingency plans held by County Councilsshould be circulated to the relevant personnelat District level.

Recommendation 9: All councils shouldidentify funds for use for dealing with oil spills.

Although mechanical beach cleaning machinesare initially expensive to buy, many localauthorities report that they are cheaper andquicker to use on long straight areas of sandybeach. However, there has been researchshowing how mechanical cleaning can alter thelong term dynamics of the beach and may leadto coastal erosion if too much sand is taken away.

Recommendation 10: There should be ananalysis of the economic costs of mechanicalbeach cleaning versus the environmentaldamage that it causes.

The use of volunteer partnerships with councilshas encouraged greater pride by local people fortheir area. One-off cleanups can be veryeducational and especially popular with children.Schemes such as Da Voar Redd Up in Shetlandand the Fife Rubbish Free Zones have helped tocombat flytipping as a source of marine debris.

Recommendation 11: That other councilsinvestigate the possibility of establishingvolunteer partnerships as a way of combatingmarine debris and litter. Not only are volunteergroups able to clean areas that are not cleanedby the council, but they also educate the localpopulation and encourage responsible wastedisposal.

If we compare the expenditure per tonne ofdebris we see that places which have to cleanrocky shores or that have a lot of islands, haveto pay substantially more. For example Thyborn-Harboore (Denmark) and Göteborg (Sweden)pay £3,444 and £1,429 respectively, comparedto £33 per tonne spent clearing sandy beachesin South Ayrshire (Scotland) (table 4.7).

A large amount of money was spent cleaningbeaches in Scotland in 1994 and 1998. Figurestaken by Ash 1994 show that East Lothian,Aberdeenshire, Highland and South Ayrshire allspend less on beach cleaning now than in 1994(table 4.8). Given that standards are now higherand many councils report that the marine debrisproblem is getting worse, it would seem that less

37

Expenditure per tonne removed

UK

Fife £660New Forest £625Dorset £415Aberdeenshire £150Waveney £59Cornwall £54Wyre £40South Ayrshire £33

Denmark

Thyboron-Harboore £3,444Holmsland £327

Sweden

BOSAM £1,791Goteburg £1,429

Norway

Fjell £110

Germany

SDN £39

is done. This decrease in budget is due to thegeneral increase in budget constraints whichLocal Authorities have to face. They prioritisetheir total budget available to support keyservices, of which beach cleaning is low on thelist.

There is a failure of the existing beach awardschemes to accommodate more rural or remotebeaches. In these areas, the provision of facilities(e.g. toilets, car parks) and services specifiedin the award criteria may be neither appropriatenor desirable. Local Authorities in the North ofScotland, and other similar rural locations, donot have the funds to undertake the requiredwater sampling to detect coliforms. They feelthat sampling that is often unnecessary as thenumber of people entering the sea is low due tothe colder climate. Although rural communitiesmay not want to advertise their beaches as beingaward status, they feel that their area may beunintentionally be given a bad reputation as aresult of having no beach awards. In reality thearea may have several clean and safe beacheswhich just don’t match the infrastructurerequired by the award schemes.

Recommendation 12: There should bequantification of the effect of beach awardstatus in influencing choice of destination andoverall tourism value.

Recommendation 13: Award schemes shouldbe extended to accomodate areas that are

Plate 4.4. Flat bottomed boat used for collectingdebris from the shoreline of Oslofjord

Table 4.7. Expenditure per tonne of debrisremoved from beaches.

rural with no supporting infrastructure. Thepromotional literature could clearly statewhat amenities are present at each beach andthe rate of sampling.

38

Comparison of Costs of Beach Cleaning between 1994 and 1997/98

Old Council New Council Cleaning Cost Cleaning Cost ChangeBoundary Boundary in 1994 in 1997/98

East Lothian East Lothian £120,000 £100,000

Banff & Bucan Aberdeenshire £65,000 £30,000

North East Fife Fife £20,000 £33,000

Ross & Cromarty Highland £20,000 £15,500

Argyll & Bute Argyll & Bute £30,000 £40,000

Kyle & Carrick South Ayrshire £220,000 £165,000

Comparison of Beach Cleaning Schedule between 1994 and 1997/98

Old Council New Council Cleaning Cost Cleaning Cost ChangeBoundary Boundary in 1994 in 1997/98

Aberdeen Aberdeen Daily Daily

Angus Angus Weekly Weekly

Argyll & Bute Argyll & Bute Daily Not known ?Banff & Buchan Aberdeenshire Weekly Not known ?Caithness Highland As necessary As necessary

East Lothian East Lothian Seasonally Weekly

Edinburgh Edinburgh Daily Daily

Falkirk Falkirk Daily Daily/Weekly

Kyle & Carrick South Ayrshire Daily Daily/Weekly

Nairn Highland Daily As necessary

North East Fife Fife Weekly Weekly

Ross & Cromarty Highland As necessary As necessary

Skye & Lochalsh Highland As necessary As necessary

Stewartry Dumfries & Galloway Weekly Weekly

KEY

Decrease Increase Same

Table 4.8 Comparison of beach cleaning costs spent by Scottish Local Authoritiesin 1994 and 1997/1998

39

Coastal recreation and tourism takes many forms, including camping, surfing, angling,diving, sailing and wildlife tourism, amongst others. Tourism is a major source of

income and may dominate the local economy in certain regions such as the South WestPeninsula of England, West Wales and the West coasts of Scotland, Denmark Swedenand Norway. For example, Weston-Super-Mare in Somerset (UK) has 2.5 million visitorsper year and this tourist trade is worth £14 million per annum to the local economy. Sincethe recreational quality of its two beaches is so important to the local community, thebeaches are cleaned at least once a day in the summer at a cost of £100,000 (Acland,1995).

5. Tourism and Health Related Issues

The British Tourist Authority has identified theeconomic importance of clean beachesestimating that 18 million British people and 3million overseas tourists take holidays in Britishseaside resorts (House of CommonsEnvironment Committee, 1990). Annually theUK seaside and maritime leisure industry isworth £8 billion, £6 billion of this relates toseaside holidays with the rest mainly arisingfrom boating (Maritime Technology ForesightPanel, 1996). In 1996, the British public took24.8 million UK seaside holidays and made over110 million day visits to the UK coast.

It is generally accepted that Scotland’s naturalenvironment is recognised as its most importanttourism resource. The coastline is a key part ofthis resource. Sandy beaches cover 760 km oraround 6% of the total coastline length (Ritchieand Mather, 1984). While past visitors toScotland hold these beaches in high esteem, ithas been recognised that there is a lack ofawareness in potential visitors of their existenceand quality (ASH, 1994).

5.1. UK TourismAs part of this project, Tourist Authoritiesthroughout the UK and Ireland were askedvarious questions regarding coastal tourism intheir areas.

The questions asked were:! How many tourists do you get to your area

each year?

! Of these, approximately what percentagecome specifically to visit the beach orcoastline?

! Approximately what income does tourismprovide to the local community each year?

! Do any of your beaches have awards? (e.g.Blue flag, seaside awards)

! How many complaints (if any) do youreceive each year about the beach/coastline? (e.g. sewage, glass, dog fouling,rubbish)

! Are you aware of any accidents that havebeen caused by rubbish on the beach? (e.g.cuts from glass)

Responses were received from 20 tourist boardsthroughout the British Isles. They reported over140 million visitors to their areas, of which 34.3million were visiting the area specifically to seethe beach or coastline. The percentage visitingthe coastline specifically varied from only 4%in Orkney to over 80% in the Isle of Wight,Thanet, North Cornwall and Conwy. Over £5.5billion is generating from tourism into these

40

Table 5.1. Summary of responses obtained from UK Tourist Boards

41

local economies annually. If we assume that eachvisitor spends the same regardless of whatattraction they are visiting then approximately£1.4 billion is spent whilst visiting coastalattractions. The number of complaints about dogfouling or broken glass or debris on the beaches,is relatively few, with less than 200 beingreported annually. There are also few recordingsof accidents resulting from marine debris. Mostaccidents that do occur tend to be glass related(table 5.1f).

A recent survey in association with the MarineConservation Society (MCS) and SurfersAgainst Sewage (SAS) carried outquestionnaires on water users on location (at abeach) and on the Internet (On linequestionnaire) to establish the extent of publicawareness of sewage. Over 87% (both beachgoers and internet users) believed there was agenuine danger from exposure to sewage. Over80% believed that the public were beingmisguided by the Blue Flag and Tidy BritainBeach Awards scheme of beach designation.However over 58% of respondents stated thatthe knowledge of a favourite area being heavilypolluted with sewage has not deterred them fromsurfing it. When asked if they would pay an extra£30 a year on their water bill to remedy theproblem of untreated sewage, over 80% said no.

Out of 76 official complaints registered withthe Ayrshire Tourist Board in 1993, six relatedspecifically to beach cleanliness and a furtherthree to the deterioration in the quality of oneof the beaches. Research in England on theimportance of various beach and seafrontcharacteristics in the visitors’ decision to visita particular site, has shown that beach cleanlinessscores highly (Turnstall and Coker, 1992).

People tend to avoid littered beaches (Rees andPond, 1995) and in extreme cases littering canlead to beach closures. A study of beach userson the Glamorgan Heritage Coast (Morgan etal., 1993) questioned about their opinions andperceptions of the beach environment indicated

great concern about perceived bathing waterquality and levels of pollution and litter foundon the beaches.

5.2. Swedish TourismSotenäs is a small Swedish municipality with apopulation of only 10,000. However over94,000 people visit the area producing over £24million in tourist and business income.Following an oil spill in 1993, it was calculatedthat this lost the municipality 20% of the touristincome. Due to this substantial loss, themunicipality has continued to clean the coastline to prevent a similar decline in tourism dueto the presence of marine debris. They calculatedthat if the decrease in tourism income was only6-7% then it would not be economically viableto continue cleaning the beaches.

5.3. Public PerceptionMany local authorities assert that an area’sreputation will be lost through bad press aboutbathing water quality, littered beaches or inshoreoil spills. It is for this reason that some coastaldistricts choose not to enter beach awardsschemes for fear of failing. However it is notknown whether a resort’s image is dented in itsentirety or for any length of time. For example,it has been reported that Blackpool’s problemswith the quality of its bathing waters has had noapparent impact on the number of visitors to thearea (Gilbert, 1995).

A study by Kent County Council (Gilbert,1995), found some evidence that expectationsvary with the public’s perception of the locality.

Twelve percent of visitors to the port ofBoulogne thought the beach to be unacceptablydirty, but at Wimereux, an upmarket resort tothe north, the figure rose to 28% even thoughthe beaches there were far cleaner than atBoulogne. Similarly, visitors to Kent were askedto rank five resorts in terms of bathing waterquality. The responses showed that elegantRamsgate was ranked first whereas downmarketMargate scored fifth, even though Margate’swater was far cleaner than that at Ramsgate.

42

5.4. Health Related IssuesSewage related debris, medical waste and otherpotential hazards are reported as being ofpotential danger to human health, either whenstranded on beaches or circulating in coastalwaters (Rees and Pond, 1994). In particular,medical waste has caused particular problemswhich has given rise to expensive beach closuresin the USA. In the UK, Phillipp (1993), reportsthat during the period 1988-91, 4% of theneedlestick injuries reported to the PublicHealth Laboratory Service in the South WestRegion of England were sustained on the beach.

Entanglement is also problematic, andparticularly the entanglement of sports SCUBAdivers in mono-filament gill nets. Entanglementincidents are recorded by the British Sub-AquaClub and there are typically one or two incidentsof this nature recorded every year. All shouldbe considered as potentially life threatening.

As part of the study into the economic costs ofmarine debris, several health authoritiesthroughout the UK were contacted andquestioned about the numbers of injuriesoccurring in their area that were caused by marinedebris.

Many of the health authorities contactedreported considerable difficulty in identifyingthat the illness or injury recorded was causedby marine debris or that it occurred at the coast.Lothian Health Board reported that very

Plate 5.1. Syringes found on the Shetlandcoastline following the grounding of a klondyker.

occasionally an accident (e.g. needlestickinjury) may be discussed with one of the medicalstaff but that this was rare. Similarly the WesternIsles were not aware of any incidents involvingmarine debris, however they were aware ofcanisters and other containers coming ashorethat had the potential to cause human accidents.

Ayrshire and Arran Health Board reported thatminor injuries (e.g. cuts from glass, brokencans) may be self-treated or dealt with byprimary care and not recorded. There had beenno reported needlestick injuries occurring onthe coastline during the year. Likewise, HighlandHealth Authority was also unaware of anyincidents occurring along its coastline duringthe past two years.

Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) run a uniquemedical database of incidents of illness believedto be caused by sewage contaminated seawater.They believe that providing evidence thatindividuals suffer illness due to the sewage and/or debris being present in the water willseriously tip the scales towards more stringentdirectives. These will be aimed at protecting theenvironment and the health of the beach and seauser, rather than at ease of compliance.

They currently hold references to about 862cases of reported illness which, for ease ofpresentation have been separated into a numberof categories:

1. Ear, nose and throat2. Gastrointestinal infections

3. Wound infections4. Eye irritations5. Skin irritations6. Chest/respiratory

7. Specific viral (hepatitis, meningitis etc.)8. Non-specific viral9. Other

They further analysed these cases by locationand split this into 3 categories which are:

43

1. Designated Bathing Water that “passed” i.e.complied with the mandatory standards fortotal and faecal coliforms.

2. Designated Bathing Water that “failed” i.e.does not comply with the mandatorystandards for total and faecal coliforms.

3. Non-designated beach or bathing water.

72% of the cases on the SAS Medical Databaseare from beaches that pass the MandatoryStandard for Total and Faecal Coliforms.

5.5. Conclusions and RecommendationsThe complaints received from tourists aremainly about dog fouling, glass or sewagerelated debris. Tourists appear less concernedabout general debris. It is difficult to quantifythe actual numbers of visitors going specificallyto beaches each year.

Recommendation 14: Further research shouldbe undertaken into the actual numbers oftourists visiting beaches each year.

Recommendation 15: Research should beundertaken into the public perception ofmaritime debris and what the tolerable levelsare.

Recommendation 16: Designated areasshould be dog free and / or dog waste facilitiesshould be readily available.

Recommendation 17: Responsible dogownership should be encouraged.

Recommendation 18: Tourist Boards shouldinclude responsible waste disposal messagesin their brochures.

Recommendation 19: In areas of high touristactivity bottle banks should be made available.Notices showing the location of bottle banksshould be placed in all local shops and hotelswhich sell bottled drinks.

44

45

The North Sea and Atlantic coastal waters offer a rich resource for fishermen,many coastal communities around this region having been dependent on fishing for

centuries. Fishing remains one of the primary uses of the coastal zone and continues to bean important source of income and employment, especially in areas where other economicopportunities are scarce.

6. Fisheries and Marine Debris

6.1. Commercial FishingFishing vessels, along with the fish farmingindustry are perhaps the main sources ofdiscarded fishing net, line, rope, crab pots,floats, fish feed bags, polystyrene blocks andfish boxes (Dixon and Dixon, 1983). In turn, thefishermen are finding an increasing amount ofplastic debris amongst their catch, which notonly takes time to remove, but plastic bottlesand old net can themselves damage freshlycaught fish and therefore are not welcome.Moreover, there have been cases whereby plastichas blocked cooling systems causing engines tooverheat. In some areas around the UK, such asthe Bristol Channel, the problem has reachedsuch a state whereby fishermen, when removingplastic items entangled in their nets, voluntarilyplace them in plastic bin liners for disposal bythe local council at their base ports (Earll andGilbert, 1996).

Lart (1995) notes that much of what is knownabout the impact of litter on fishing activities isbased on anecdotal evidence. His reportrecognised that the two major types of litterinterfering with fishing gear were plastics andsewage related debris. Williams et al (1993)state that litter found in an offshore fishing bankcaused a serious economic loss to fishermen inSwansea Bay, although no figures are quoted.The National Federation of Fishermen’sOrganisation have confirmed that marine litteris a cause of concern around Britain’s coasts butno attempts have been made to quantify theextent of the problem.Olin et al (1995) claim that dumping of

chemicals, including mustard gas, routinelyaffects local fishermen off the coast ofBohuslän in West Sweden and that catches haveto be discarded when ordnance gets stuck in nets.Similarly there is anecdotal evidence suggestingthat fishermen in the Firth of Clyde and NorthChannel often net munitions (Edwards, 1995).Stevenson (1998) reports there are cases offishermen trawling up incendiary bombs in theirnets from the area around Beaufort’s Dyke whichcaused fires and explosions on board. The UKMinistry of Defence has confirmed that they havepaid compensation to vessel owners whose netswere destroyed due to these munitions.

Problems with propeller foulings, blocked intakepipes and damaged drive shafts have beenreported in the North Sea, Alaska and the EastCoast of North America (Dixon and Dixon,1981; EPA, 1989). Two studies done in theBering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska mention thatbetween 40% and 60% of bottom trawlscollected plastic and metal debris (Feder et al.,1978; Jewett, 1976).

Inshore fishing is particularly important forOrkney, Shetland and the West Coast ofScotland, where the majority of small vesselsare based. Scotland’s fishing industry handled71% of all UK fish landings into the UK in 1994,with a market value of some £279.3 million, andScotland’s major fish market – Peterhead – isthe largest in Western Europe. The fishingindustry is also a vital source of employment inScotland. It is estimated that there are over8,500 people directly employed as fishermen,

46

with a further 13,000 employed onshore infishing related activity. Many of these peoplelive around the coastline of Scotland.

6.1.1. The Shetland Fishing IndustryAfter discussions with the Shetland Fishermen’sAssociation, a questionnaire was designed andmailed to all of its members through theirmonthly mail shot. In this way, the project wasopenly endorsed by the association and thefishermen were more likely to respond. Thefishermen were then sent a covering letterexplaining the project and a simple questionnaireto establish if the fishing industry in Shetlanddid in fact have a problem with marine debris.The initial questions asked were:

“Have you experienced problems withmarine debris accumulating in your netsduring hauls?”

“Has your catch or nets ever beencontaminated with the contents ofcontainers lost at sea? (e.g. oil, pesticides,detergents)”

“Have your nets ever collected or snaggedon rubbish from the seabed? (e.g. wire lines,oil industry debris)”

Of the 25 that responded, 92% had accumulatedmarine debris in their nets; 69% had their catchcontaminated and 92% had snagged their netson debris on the seabed. Many also mentionedproblems with fouled propellers and blockedintake pipes (figure 6.1 - overleaf).

A second, more detailed questionnaire was thendesigned for each individual respondent toassess the cost that each vessel faced due tomarine debris.

“Have you experienced problems withmarine debris accumulating in your netsduring hauls?”

The results indicated that plastics, old nets, wire,paint tins, oil and grease containers werefrequently caught in nets. On average, 1-2 hours

per week were spent clearing this debris fromthe nets (table 6.1 - overleaf). Five boats alsoreported a restricted catch because of debris.Information was also gained on the worst areasfor debris in Shetland. These included theentrances to the two main ports, Lerwick andScalloway, and areas where klondyker activitywas high. In some cases the debris problem isso bad that fishermen change location and avoidsome areas altogether. One fishermen stated‘Certain parts of Ronas Voe…the seabed iscovered in plastic of every variety you care toname and it is a waste of time towing on it forthat reason’. Responsiblity for the dumping ofmarine debris was attributed to klondykers, fishfarming and in particular the oil industry. Onlyone fisherman mentioned that ‘this can notalways be oil related as fishing vessels losegear as well’.

“Has your catch or nets ever beencontaminated with the contents ofcontainers lost at sea? (e.g. oil, pesticides,detergents)”

A catch could be contaminated by oil filters,paint or grease. One fisherman reported “wepicked up a drum with about 4 gallons ofgreen deck paint which destroyed 20 boxes offish and took us about 4 hours to clean theboat winch.” Another commented: “Oil filters:these are about the worst you can get; as whenyou empty the fish out of your gear, there isstill oil coming out of the filters: this has theeffect of contaminating your fish which meansyou have to dump your catch.” The loss ofcontaminated fish was estimated by thefishermen to be worth between £300-£2,000each time (table 6.2 - overleaf). Also associatedwith any contamination is the additional timetaken to clean the boat and equipment of thecontaminant which can take from 4 to 15 hours.For example, one vessel reported that on severaloccasions “a whole shot has had to be dumpeddue to oil, tar or oily rags coming up in thenets. The hoppers and handling system havehad to be scrubbed clean of oil.”

47

Figure 6.1. Map of Shetland, showing the problem areas for marine debris, as reported by Shetlandfishermen and the occurrences of oil, fouled propellers and other floating objects as reported by the

Shetland Times, 1997-1999.

48

Type of marine debris that accumulates in nets How long does it take to clear nets?

Vessel Type of marine debris that How long does Worst time Worst areas Has youraccumulates in nets it take to clear of year catch been

nets? restricted

1 wires 4 hours/month Colgrave Sound yes

2 fishing gear, wires, domestic

debris, polythene, containers 1 hour/week summer North & South

of Lerwick yes

3 wires, nets, paint tins any Oil pipe lines,

Sullom Voe yes

4 2 hours/week winter yes5 2 hours/week Oil areas yes6 nets, wire 1 hour per time any Scalloway yes

7 containers, oil filters, paint tins Colgrave Sound,

Yell Sound

8 plastic Ronas Voe9 paint tins, oil drums

Table 6.1. Summary of results from Shetland fishermen showing the types of debris accumulating intheir nets, 1998.

Value of fish that Loss of fishinghas been contaminated time due to

contamination

1 £2,000 12-15 hours2 £1,0003 £300 4 hours

Table 6.2. Table showing the costs ofcontamination of fish from marine debris as

reported by Shetland fishermen, 1998.

49

“Have your nets ever collected or snaggedon rubbish from the seabed? (e.g. wire lines,oil industry debris)”

Various large items of debris were collected inthe nets from the seabed. These included wire,old nets, shackles, paint tins, oil industry debrisand even fish farm equipment. One vesselcommented that “Heavy wires caught in netcause danger to crew and are difficult toextract from net, thus wasting time. Theyrequire storage on deck until land is reachedto off load making working difficult.” The costsassociated with repairing the nets damaged fromsnagging on debris on the seabed, ranged from£2,000 to over £10,000. The time lost due tothis could be anything from 2 hours to 2 monthsdepending on the severity of the incident. Inextreme cases, the entire gear could be lost dueto snagging on debris on the seabed and thiscould cost over £15,000 to replace. This wouldnot be covered by insurance and only in one casewas any unemployment benefit claimed.

Fouled propellers were generally caused by oldnetting or plastic strapping bands. The cost ofhiring a diver to untangle this was anything from£50 to £300 per incident and up to a day couldbe lost due to this. In one case, an additional£100+ was spent having a vessel’s gearboxinspected to see if any damage had been donedue to the entanglement (table 6.4 - overleaf).

Plate 6.1. Metal oil drum: This could causecontamination if caught in a fishing net.

Plate 6.2. Plastic strapping bands: Theseregularly foul propellers.

Fishermen were also asked to estimate the valueof one hour of their time. Responses indicateda range of £30-£120 per hour (average £67).Using this average figure the figure below showswhat each boat would lose each year:

incur all the costs tabled above)

Using these figures we can estimate the totalcost of marine debris for the Shetland fishingfleet of 164 boats. (Assuming that all the boats

£3,500-£7,000 due to lost timeclearing nets of debris

£250-£1,000 cleaning equipmentand nets ofcontaminants

£100-£10,000+ due to time lost fixingnets

£60-£500 due to time lost withfouled propeller

£2,000-£10,000+ to repair nets£50-£300 to un-foul propeller£100 for gear box

inspection

£6,000-£30,000 assuming only oneincident per year andworking only 40hours per week

50

Type of debris collected Have your nets Cost to Time lost duefrom seabed been damaged repair them to repairs

by snagging

1 Not Known yes Not Known

2 nets,wire,pieces of ships, bits yes £500-£1000 5-6 daysof aeroplanes, coal, flares,tins, wartime shells, metal

3 nets, wire, pieces of ships yes £2,000 6 hours

4 yes £5,000 2 months

5 wires, iron, nets yes £2,000 5 hours/week

6 wire, fish farm items yes 2 hours

7 wire, nets yes Not Known

Table 6.3. Table showing the types of debris collected from the seabed as reported by theShetland fishermen, 1998.

Table 6.4. Table showing the costs of fouled propellers as reported by Shetlandfishermen, 1998.

Cost to unfoul Time lost Claim Claim Cost of one hourpropeller due to insurance? income of lost fishing

fouling support

1 £45

2 £300 1 day no no £80-£120

3 £60 1 day £100

4 no yes £50

5 no no £58

6 £30

51

Percentage of fleet Average Costaffected

10% £ 98,400 - £ 492,00025% £246,000 - £1,230,000

50% £492,000 - £2,460,000100% £984,000 - £4,920,000

6.1.2. The Esbjerg Fishing FleetThe Fishing Association of Esbjerg stated thatits members had very few problems with marinedebris, as the fleet was mostly pelagic andtrawled mid water; whereas marine debrisappears to affect inshore fishermen andtrawlers. Out of 100 boats there was only onereported incidence of a fouled propeller. Furtherinvestigation of this problem is required inDenmark.

6.1.3. The West Coast of Sweden FishingFleetA preliminary survey was conducted on the Westcoast of Sweden by Stahre (1998, pers comm.)which investigated the costs associated withmarine debris and the fishing industry in theBohus region of Sweden. The followingpreliminary results from a small survey samplewere found:

Fouled propeller 2,400,000 Sek £240,000

Blocked intake pipes 280,000 Sek £28,000

Damaged nets 700,000 Sek £70,000

Destroyed catch 2,820,000 Sek £282,000

Reduced catch ? ?

Total Cost 6,200,000+ Sek£620,000+

These results show the estimated total cost tothe fishermen of Bohus over one year.

6.1.4. The Oslofjord Fishing FleetThe Oslo Fjord Fishermen’s Association alsostated problems with fouled propellers andfouled nets. A damaged trawl costs 45-50,000nkr (£5,000) to replace and this is covered byinsurance. Further work is required in this area.

6.1.5. Other ExamplesResults from censuses at four principal harboursalong the Gulf of Mexico showed that there wasconcern that relatively few fishermen werewilling to admit that they disposed of materialat sea. However, most fishermen indicated thatthey had considerable experience with plasticmarine debris, usually observing plasticsfloating about in the ocean (Pearce, 1992).Other damages involve collisions with floatingdebris (Takehama, 1990). Using insurancestatistics, Takehama (1990) showed that, for1985, the total number of accidents were:

69% collisions18% engine trouble13% entanglement

A study by Nash (1992) showed that the impactsof waste on fishing methods were all viewed asnegative by fishermen. All motorboat usersreported waste being caught in their propellers.Twenty-nine percent mentioned changinglocation or not fishing at all if too much wastewas seen floating. Changing location may or maynot entail a smaller fish yield but more time andenergy may be necessary to reach the same yield.Wallace (1990), in her mail survey evaluatingthe awareness of the debris problems off theEastern coast of the USA, found that over 45%of the commercial fishing sector has had itspropellers caught in plastic, 30% has had its gearfouled and 35% has had its cooling systemsclogged by plastic.

6.1.6. Waste generated by the FishingIndustryA report by NORD (1996) investigated the wastehandling practices of Faroese fishing vessels.The waste quantities were determined from crewinterviews and from calculated quantities ofpackings from the domestic waste. The totalquantity of domestic waste is estimated to be0.5kg/person/day. On ships that were at sea forup to two weeks, the waste quantities wereexpected not to exceed 70-90kg (i.e. 7-9 normal

52

Table 6.5. The estimated amounts of waste generated by Faroese fishing vessels as compiled byNORD, 1996

53

garbage bags). On ships whose trips last for upto 4 months, the total waste quantity would reachapproximately 1,500-2000kg, corresponding toa volume of 75-100m3. Such quantities willpresent a storage problem unless compacted, inwhich case the volume will be reduced to amaximum of 15-20m3.

The study found that deep-sea trawlers maypurchase between 1,314–2,848kg of net,12,141-16,000m of wire and 537-641 kg ofnylon yarn to repair nets. There was generalagreement that nets should not be thrown intothe sea. However this was done on a few shipsand the net was weighed down with heavy objectssuch as wire or shackles. There was alsowidespread agreement that wire, shackles andother steel objects would cause no harm ifthrown in the sea. Common statements were‘wire and other steel rust away in no time’ and‘discarded wire is never seen again’.

6.2. Aquaculture / FishfarmingAquaculture has been one of the most significantnew industries to emerge in Scotland,particularly in the Highlands and Islands, overthe past 25 years. The aquaculture industry ismainly concentrated in the sealochs of the westcoast, the Western Isles and the sheltered voesand inlets of Orkney and Shetland. Since the early1980s, Atlantic salmon farm production inScotland has developed rapidly with 119companies, employing a total of 1226 workersand producing a total of 64,066 tonnes of salmonin 1994. The Scottish Industry faces severecompetition particularly from Norway and itseconomic future is of central importance tomany remote coastal communities.

Litter arising from the fishfarming industry hasuntil recently been under direct control ofindividual managers. However, a new incentiveis now in place which may go some way towardscombating this particular source of pollution.This is the Quality Assurance Scheme run byFood Certification, Scotland which will ensure

twice yearly inspection of farm sites andincluded in the quality criteria is the need for aneffective waste disposal system at each site.

6.2.1. The Shetland Fish Farming IndustryUsing the same methodology as for the Shetlandfishermen, Shetland Salmon FarmersAssociation was first approached for initialdiscussions about the project. Following this anintroductory letter and questionnaire was sentout to firms in Shetland. The initial questionsasked were:

! Does marine debris accumulate in yoursalmon cages?

! Have your nets or salmon stock sufferedcontamination from marine pollution?(e.g. oil, pesticides)

! Has there been any damage to your boatsor other equipment due to marine debris?(e.g. anchor fouling, entangled propellers)

In general, salmon farmers agreed that marinedebris was less of a problem to them than to thecommercial fishermen in the area. Of thoseresponding (15), only six firms reported litteraccumulating in cages and three reported stockor net contamination (figure 6.2). Netting, ropeand wood was found inside the cages and onaverage 1 hour per month was spent clearing thisdebris. One firm reported an “ongoing problemof fishing net debris and rope tangling insurface fixtures” and “occasional problemswith wooden spars and pallet fragmentstangling in nets”.

The main problem was that of propellerentanglement or blocked intake pipes. Onesalmon farmer commented that it was difficultto estimate the time lost due to fouledpropellers or blocked intake pipes but there was“much need to be vigilant to avoid plastic bagsand net from fouling intakes as this can becostly”. The average cost of hiring a diver toun-foul a propeller was £150. However up to

54

Figure 6.2. Map of Shetland showing the locations of responding salmon farms which have beenaffected by marine debris.

55

£1200 could be paid if the propeller needed tobe repaired or replaced. For example, one firmreported damaging an outboard motor propelleron a plastic box which was floating in the water.The loss of one hour was estimated to be worthup to£80.

6.2.2. Fish Farming in the UK and IrelandOf the salmon farms that had been contacted inUllapool, Skye and Northern Ireland; only onefarm reported accumulation of debris in theircages. A firm in Northern Ireland noted that“although we get occasional debrisaccumulation at the cages, this is more oftenthat not removed by the strong currents thatprevail”. None of the farms had suffered anycontamination from pollution and had not hadany problems with fouled propellers.

6.3. Conclusions and RecommendationsDiscarded nets and ropes continue to be aproblem both on beaches and to the fishingindustry. There is still a lack of concern aboutmarine debris by the fishing industry. Althoughit is regularly affected by old nets and ropes, itrefuses to admit that the industry itself may bethe cause of this debris. The industry still prefersto blame the oil industry with one fishermanreporting that he could “Cope with discardednets from other fishing boats but somethingshould be done about the oil industry debris”.

Recommendation 20: Education about theeffects of marine debris to the fishing industryand the environment should be included infisheries and seamanship courses. (e.g.skipper’s ticket etc.).

Recommendation 21: Waste managementeducation should be made mandatory in allmaritime courses.

Recommendation 22: The practicalities andcost of net recycling should be investigated.

Recommendation 23: Net reuse should beinvestigated. For example: the secondary use

of nets to cover bin bags to prevent seagullstearing them open. In America nets have beenused as decorations in bars and restaurants.

A year and a half pilot program was conductedin the Port of Newport, Oregon (1987-1988)in an effort to understand the means by whichcompliance with the anticipated marine debrislaws could be accomplished in a fishing port.This program involved an advisory committeemade up of commercial and recreational fishinginterests, the port and marina operators, therefuse company, Coastguard and State and localenforcement officers and other communitymembers. Fishermen’s involvement in theprogram led to peer pressure, industry pride, andcompetition to bring back all their refuse. Theprogram encouraged recycling as a way toincrease the services available to fishermen andto lower recycling costs. Even if items couldnot be recycled, many items were reused byothers. For example, nets were in great demandfor decoration, baseball backstops and gardening,while fishing ‘troll’ line wire made great pictureframing wire. Fishermen also liked the recyclingbins as they often found items that were usefulwhen they were making boat repairs.

Recommendation 24: Fishermen should beencouraged to bring all their rubbish ashoreand any additional rubbish that accumulatesin their nets. This could be promoted byallowing a reduction in port fees for vesselsreturning all their wastes.

Recommendation 25: Fishermen and other seagoers should attempt, where possible, toreduce the amount of packaging taken to sea.

Recommendation 26: Maritime suppliersshould be encouraged to provide supplies thathave minimal packaging.

Fish boxes are still a big problem both discardedon beaches and floating in harbours. Somefishing companies pay a return fee for the returnof discarded fish boxes.

56

Recommendation 27: There should be anuniversal deposit scheme set up to encouragethe return of all fish boxes.

In many areas Klondykers have been seen to bethe cause of substantial amounts of debris.

Recommendation 28: Harbour Authoritiesshould provide literature to these and otherforeign vessels explaining the legislation inforce and resultant penalties when debris isdisposed of improperly and the procedure forthe disposal of various wastes.

Recommendation 29: Fish farmers shouldalso be encouraged to bring in waste seenfloating in their cages.

Recommendation 30: Fish farmers should beencouraged to take additional care when

disposing of their own waste (e.g. feed bags).

Many fishing boats complained ofcontamination from oil filters or oily rags.

Recommendation 31: This problem should bepublicised throughout the industry so thatmore boats are aware of the problem and takebetter care of items used when changing oilthemselves.

Plastic strapping bands are also a severeproblem on beaches and in the water. They arealso a key factor in the entanglement of animalsand birds.

Recommendation 32: An investigation shouldbe made into making plastic strapping bandsbio- or plastic-degradable such as six-packring holders.

57

The waters around the UK coast include some of the world’s busiest sea lanes. At anyone time there are 5,000 ships operating in the North Sea. Indeed, there are few areas

of its coastal waters without significant shipping traffic. Of the pollution incidents that arecaused by shipping, media attention tends to focus on major oil spills such as the Braer(1993) and the Sea Empress (199. However the majority of marine pollution from shippingis actually caused by the day to day operation of merchant ships, fishing vessels andleisure craft.

7.1. Harbour AuthoritiesDespite the regulations prohibiting disposal ofdebris and oil at sea, harbours still suffer fromaccumulation of debris within their boundariesand vessels using these areas are still at risk offouling their propellers or anchors due to debris.In order to assess how marine debris and oilaffects the running of harbours various portauthorities were contacted initially throughoutthe UK and Ireland.

Questionnaires were sent to 95 harbours aroundthe coast of UK and Ireland. The harbours variedin size and use from small fishing harbours tolarge commercial container ports. Of these, 42harbour authorities responded.

Each harbour authority was asked the followingquestions:1. Whether the users of your harbour have

had any incidents with marine debris (e.g.entangled propellers, fouled anchors,blocked intake pipes) and if so, the averagenumber of incidents occurring each year?

2. Any additional costs that you as a harbourauthority have had due to marine debris(e.g. manual removal of debris, hire ofdivers, additional dredging)?

3. Whether you have recurring problemswith a particular type of debris (e.g. fishingnets, paint tins)?

7.1.1. Fouled Propellers and AnchorsFouled propellersOf the harbour authorities responding, 82%

reported incidents of vessels fouling theirpropellers with marine debris (table 7.1). Over180 incidents involving fouled propellers werereported by the harbour authorities to haveoccurred during 1998 (figure 7.1). Mostfoulings were as a result of old fishing nets orrope, although fish boxes and old tyres (whichhave been used for fenders) also caused manyentanglements. Incidents of this type were mostfrequent in busy fishing ports such asPeterhead(SCO) and Macduff(SCO). Removal ofdebris from propellers was usually undertakenusing diving services at a cost of between £100and £400 per incident. Assuming the averagecost per incident as £280, the reported numberof 182 foulings per year costs UK harbour users£50,960. This figure is in reality much higheras many harbours did not have figures for thenumber of propeller entanglements happeningeach year. In other cases the entanglementrequired the vessel to be lifted out by crane. TheHarbour Master of Swansea Port(ENG) reportedthat during lifting operations, vessels can sometimes be damaged, resulting in an associated costof £4,000.

Many harbours reported that their own pilotboats or tugs had been affected by fouledpropellers and noted that there is potentially arisk of delays to vessels entering the harboursdue to a loss of this service while the propelleris cleared. For example, Barry Harbour in Wales,reported that they expected two days downtimea year as a consequence of removing items fromthe propeller shafts of their pilot cutter. As well

7. The Shipping Industry and Marine Debris

(SCO) (ENG) (DEN)Scotland England Denmark

58

Figure 7.1. Map of UK showing the locations of harbours that have reported occurences of fouledpropellers

59

Harbour No. of fouled What are the Clearance Cost ofpropellers propellers fouled method Diver

with? perincident

Aberdeen 10 Net, tyres, fish boxesAnstruther OccasionallyBoston OccasionallyBrightling sea 0Bristol 3 Ropes, plastic bags Diver £400Cardiff Occasionally Rope, net Crane/diverCarrick OccasionallyChichester Occasionally Rope, net, bagsConwy 0Cowes 5Dartmouth 0Douglas 6 Nets DiverFelixstowe 12 Rope £300Gairloch Occasionally NetsGarston 1Gloucester 0Hamble 6Hartlepool 1 WoodHolyhead Occasionally RopeHull Occasionally RopeInvergordon 0King’s Lynn 0Kinlochbervie OccasionallyLarne 0Lerwick 10 Net, rope, fish boxes DiverLittlehampton Occasionally RopeLondonderry 0Macduff 20 Net, rope DiverMontrose 1 DiverPenzance 10Peterhead 52 Net, ropePittenweem OccasionallyPoole 6 Diver £300Port Talbot 3Portsmouth OccasionallyScrabster 2 TyresSeaham 4 Net, tyres CraneSouthampton 24 Net, rope Diver £300Sunderland Occasionally Plastic sheetingSwansea 3 Net, rope CraneTenby Occasionally RopeUig 3 Diver £100Weymouth OccasionallyWhitby Occasionally

TOTAL 182

Table 7.1. Table showing details of the occurrences of fouled propellers in UK Harbours.

60

as the cost of hiring a crane or divers, anadditional cost is incurred as they have to hire areplacement craft to cover .

In Felixstowe(ENG), two companies providingtowage and port operation services, havesuffered propeller damage due to contact withwood. This costs £5,000 every 2 – 3 years forpropeller refurbishment. They also reported thatfishing line can be an extreme nuisance when itwraps itself around the prop shaft and into thestern seal. Several harbour authorities stated thatmany incidents were not reported to them andthat the individual vessels dealt with the problemthemselves.

Fouled AnchorsCaptain Philip McParlin, whilst working as theHarbour Master in Killybegs, County Donegal,illustrated the problem of fouled anchors bydescribing how a 130m reefer ship at anchor wasunable to put to sea when the weather turned badbecause of an anchor fouled with warp. After ananxious night, the weather moderated and thevessel was able to slip the warp. Because of thisdebris, a serious accident was only narrowlyavoided.

7.1.2. Clearance of Debris from HarboursSeabed DebrisIn 1995, Uig Harbour, Isle of Skye(SCO),employed a team of divers to remove debrisfrom the fishing berth. Over 120 tyres, 12lengths of wire and five 1 tonne boulders wereremoved, filling two skips. Additional wasteincluded, clam dredges, trawl doors and creels.Divers are hired annually in ScrabsterHarbour(SCO) to conduct a bottom clearingexercise whereby they recover old tyres fromthe sea bed. This costs the Harbour Trustbetween £1,500-£1,700 each year (table 7.2 -overleaf).

On two occasions Pittenweem Harbour, Fife(SCO)

had to remove a tangle of seaweed and ropesfrom the main channel at a cost of £300 each

occasion. The Hamble Harbour(ENG) has also onoccasion had to hire divers to survey and removedebris. The Port of Invergordon(SCO) removesanchors and industrial units dropped from rigsin port for repair, however the cost of this isborne by the rig owners (figures 7.2 and 7.3 -overleaf).

Floating DebrisAberdeen Harbour(SCO) is patrolled daily by itswork boat and any floating debris is removed. Itreports that plastic fish boxes are a particularproblem as they have a neutral buoyancy andoften lie just below the surface which is the idealheight for fouling propellers or bow thrusters.Its Operations Department collects debris fromthe quaysides or the water and takes it toapproved landfill sites. This costs the Harbourin the region of £15,000 per year. ScrabsterHarbour Trust(SCO) also reported a large problemwith plastic fish boxes being blown ordeliberately dropped overboard. Their pilotlaunch may be away 3 or 4 times a weekcollecting them. The Port of Seaham(ENG)

reported that tyres and fishing nets had to beremoved from the harbour entrance during thesalmon season.

7.1.3. Other IncidentsWhitby(ENG) Harbour Master reported that hisyacht pontoon had been damaged by large debris.King’s Lynn(ENG) Harbour operates encloseddocks that occasionally can be fouled by debris.In some cases divers may be called out toinvestigate. The Port of Sunderland(ENG) alsoreported that debris affects its impounded docksystem. The debris congregates behind the dockgates and the Port spends a considerable amountof time removing and disposing of the debris sothat the gates can be opened at tide time.

Felixstowe(ENG) Port Authority noted that not allincidents were caused by marine debris withsome being caused by the vessel’s own staff andequipment.

61

Harbour Clearance of Debris Cost Type of Debris Other costs

Aberdeen 1x per day Fish Boxes, tyres DredgingAnstruther 90 hours/year Containers, rope, fishboxesBoston UnknownBrightling sea NoneBristol Unknown £2,500Cardiff Unknown Ropes, tyres, netsCarrick UnknownChichester Unknown Wood, litterConwy None Old Boats SinkingCowes UnknownDartmouth NoneDouglas Unknown £1,500 Nets, ropesFelixstowe UnknownGairloch Unknown Oil drumsGarston 50 hours/year £500 Wood, plastic sheetingGloucester NoneHamble Unknown Wood, bagsHartlepool 4x per year WoodHolyhead NoneHull UnknownInvergordon Occasionally £500 WoodKing’s Lynn Unknown Wood Hire of DiversKinlochbervie 1x per month TyresLarne NoneLerwick 20 hours/year £720 Nets, fish boxes DredgingLittlehampton 3 hours/month Wood, trolleysLondonderry NoneMacduff Unknown DredgingMontrose Unknown Rope, nets, plastic sheetingPenzance Annually £1,000 Plastic Hire of DiversPeterhead 3 hours/day £2000+ Nets, ropes, fish boxes Dredging & DiversPittenweem 90 hours/year Containers, rope, fishboxes Hire of DiversPoole 1x per week £7,000 LitterPort Talbot UnknownPortsmouth Occasionally £500 ContainersScrabster 4x per week Fish boxes, nets, bottles Hire of DiversSeaham Unknown Nets, tyresSouthampton UnknownSunderland 3 hours/week Plastic bags, sheetingSwansea UnknownTenby UnknownUig Unknown Strapping bands Hire of DiversWeymouth 3x per yearWhitby Unknown Wood

Table 7.2. Table showing details of the removal of marine debris from UK Harbours, 1999

62

Figure 7.2. Map of UK showing the types of debris that are repeated found in various UK harbours.

63

Figure 7.3. Map of UK showing the amount spent by various UK harbours to remove marine debris.

64

7.2. Examples from Specific Ports

7.2.1. Lerwick Harbour TrustLerwick in Shetland(SCO), is a major North Seaport with 3,700 vessels visiting the harbour in1996. The Harbour Trust cleans the internalharbour manually as necessary with a cost of£720 per year. In addition to this, the harbour isdredged annually to remove old wires and otherdebris that have become a navigation hazard.Problems encountered in the harbour includefouled propellers and anchors and blocked intakepipes. For example, the oil tanker ‘AlandaOrient’ had its propeller fouled by a net and thecruise liner ‘Crystal Harmony’ fouled its anchoron an old wire and was delayed by four hours. Ifa boat is hindered by marine debris, it mayrequire the harbour tugs for a tow or to liftanchors. This can cost between £108-£308 perhour.

7.2.2. Esbjerg HarbourEsbjerg Harbour Authority(DEN) also reportedproblems with fouled propellers and they dredgethe harbour annually to remove old wires. Theharbour separates garbage into recyclables andcollects old nets for incineration. The cost ofremoving the garbage for the fishing area of theport was 573,000dkr (£57,300) in 1996.

7.2.3. Göteborg HarbourGöteborg Harbour has set up 10 ‘environmentstations’ around the port to encourage vesselsto dispose of items such as oil, batteries,fluorescent bulbs and waste rags correctly. They

also separate combustible (e.g. general garbage)from non-combustible (e.g. wire). Waste paperand iron are also recycled. In 1997 the portbegan environmental training for all staff and allemployees were given the opportunity to statetheir view on environmental aspects of the port.

7.3. Waste Generated by the ShippingIndustryA study commissioned by the UK Marine SafetyAgency (now Maritime and Coastguard Agency)assessed the amounts of waste generated byNorth Sea vessels and the disposal proceduresfor such wastes (ERT, 1995). The study foundthat waste handling throughout the shippingindustry of the North Sea tends to vary fromcountry to country and from port to port. Somevessels may operate to fixed schedules and onlyvisit a few major ports during their travels. Someoperators had taken a proactive approach andoperate waste segregation schemes andrecycling of certain wastes. However this is notthe case throughout the entire shipping industryand there are many operators who do not haveprearranged waste disposal facilities for whenthey arrive in port, either because they do notoperate to fixed schedules or may not know theirnext destination.

The study found that galley and domestic wastesfrom the shipping industry in the North Searanged from less than 1kg/person/day to 4kg/person/day. Another study by Norske Veritas(1994) estimates the amount of domestic wasteproduced to be between 1.4kg/person/day forfreighters up to 2.1kg/person/day for passengervessels. The 1kg/day figure is similar to theamounts of domestic waste generated onshorein the UK. It is estimated that plastic materialsconstitute approximately 20% of the waste(ORCA, 1994). In 1995, port facilities werehighly variable both for oils and garbage, withthe onus on vessel operators and managers toensure safe or adequate disposal of operationwastes. Information and awareness relating tothe handling of wastes on vessels is regarded as

Plate 7.1. Environmental recycling station,Göteborg Harbour, Sweden

65

variable, with some companies having highlydetailed systems and others essentially nothing.

7.4. Port Waste Management Planning, UKIn January 1998, a new regime for port wastereception facilities came into force. Its aim isto ensure that ships’ wastes can be dischargedin ports as quickly, simply and cheaply aspossible. This removes any excuse for illegaldischarges at sea. It also will ensure thenecessary change in culture in terms of wastemanagement, away from the users of the port tothe port management to promote a more pro-active approach.

The MARPOL convention simply requiresStates to ensure the provision of waste receptionfacilities which are ‘adequate’ and which do notcause undue delay to the ships that use them.The UK Government believes that the facilitiesshould meet the needs of their users and of theenvironment. Ports should attempt to removeas far as possible any disincentives towards theiruse. In particular, facilities should:! Cater for all types of waste which are

usually landed at the port

! Be conveniently located and easy to find

! Be easy to use

! Be reasonably priced, or preferably notsubject to a direct charge for use

! Be periodically reviewed to ensure thatthey remain adequate

In his report into marine pollution, LordDonaldson (1994) argued that the costs of usingthe facilities should be recovered through anindirect means which could not be evaded, suchas port and harbour dues. This would ensure thatvessels which do not use waste receptionfacilities in order to avoid paying, would beforced, for the first time, to pay for wastereception facilities through general dues.However, research has shown that some shipoperators place much more importance on the

time it takes to use a facility, rather than itsimmediate cost.

7.4.1. Peterhead Harbours(SCO)

The Harbour Authority estimated the followingskip contents:

Vessel waste 10%Wire 5%Fishing nets 25%Plastic 15%Paper 15%Wooden Pallets 5%Paint tins 5%Unauthorised House rubbish 20%

Consideration was given to recycling but it wasdecided to be impractical because of the mixtureof wastes involved. There was initial reluctanceby a minority of fishing vessels to pay perlanding but all agreed after discussions.Costs and provisions of facilities to HarbourAuthority

Costs of skips, including landfill £31,000 paCosts of drum disposal £ 1,000 paCost of waste oil disposal free

Labour 2 men cleaning quays& collecting waste £20,000 paTotal costs of facilities providedby harbour £52,000 paCharge to each fishing vesselper landing £3

(It was considered that the small charge to fishingvessels would be an incentive to land waste.However, the charge does not cover the coststo the Harbour Authority.)

The waste plan was publicised by displaying itaround the harbour and notices were also givento all cargo ships via their agents. Every fishingvessel has tally books with details on the reverseof the correct method for disposal of waste.

7.4.2. Aberdeen Harbour(SCO)

A copy of Aberdeen’s Waste Management Planis given to all regular vessels using the port and

66

to all local agents or owners. As part of this plan,nineteen 8m3 skips are placed at convenient sitesaround the harbour. This service is free to theport user but costs the harbour around £55,000per year to operate. The domestic waste from P& O Ferries is segregated from paper, wood andscrap metal.

7.5. Education and ImprovementsMarine debris, in particular fishing debris, usedto be a serious problem for Kinlochbervie(SCO)

Harbour. Through an education program thelocal fishermen are becoming better at disposingof their waste in the skips provided and only theodd tyre has to be retrieved now.

Since the introduction of skips through thePenzance Harbour(ENG) Waste Management Plan,the harbour has seen a decrease in the amountof plastic that is disposed of improperly.

The estimated net loss in the Bering Sea and theGulf of Alaska during 1980-83 was 35-65 netslost by 300-325 trawlers (Low et al., 1985).Merrel (1980), estimated that 1,635 tonnes offishing gear was lost off Alaska and 135,000tonnes per year lost world-wide.

Disposal of nets is a major problem world wide,in that there are many countries without nationalinfrastructures for recycling them. However,fishermen in Alaska and Washington havedeveloped a regional infrastructure for recyclingtheir nets. Over 680 tonnes of gillnet webbingis recycled annually. It is sold to Taiwan andHong Kong for use in bicycle seats, electronicsand appliances parts, kitchen utensils and otheritems (F.I.S.H. Habitat Education Program,1994).

7.6. UK MarinasIn general, there appear to be more reports offouled propellers to marina managers than to

harbour masters. This may be because the marinamay directly be asked for assistance to removethe debris whereas in a harbour a boat owner maygo to an outside firm. There is a correspondinglink between the increase of recreational vesselsand the reported increase of propeller foulings.For example, Torquay Marina(ENG) expects 40visiting boats a night in the summer in additionto the 500 boats which are resident there. It hason average 4 incidents of propeller fouling aweek which is actually only a small percentageof the boats using its facilities.

Newhaven Marina(ENG) reported that its usersgenerally fouled their propellers while operatingclose inshore. While Port Edgar Marina(SCO)

noted that there was an ever-present risk ofpropeller fouling on the Firth of Forth, mainlydue to broken plastic sheets, dropped bycontractors working on either of the two ForthBridges. Halcon Marine, Essex(ENG) also reportthat plastic is an ever-increasing hazard for propfouling and blocked intake pipes. TorquayMarina(ENG) report that its cleaning schedule hasbeen reduced due to better waste managementfrom boat owners. In 1985 it used to have toclean the marina daily and now it only requiresweekly cleaning (Figure 7.4 and Table 7.3 -across and overleaf).

Plate 7.2. Marina in Oslofjord, Norway

67

Figure 7.4. Map of UK showing the locations of incidences of propeller fouling as reported by UK marinas.

68

Table 7.3. Table showing details of the occurrences of marine debris in UK marinas, 1999.

Marina No. of Clearance Cost Type of Debris

Propellers of

Fouled Debris

Barry Yacht Club occasional Plastic Bags, Wood, Seaweed

Cowes Yacht Haven 12 Ropes, nets and wood

Halcon Marine, Essex 12 1hour/week wood, litter

Maryport Marina, Cumbria 6hours/day Containers, litter

Newhaven Marina, E. Sussex occasional Nets

Port Edgar, Edinburgh occasional Plastic, wood, nets

Suffolk Yacht Harbour 10 50hours/year

Swansea Marina occasional daily £10,000 Containers, litter, wood

Torquay 200+ weekly Fishing Debris

7.7. Rescue services7.7.1. RNLI and UK Coastguard servicesThe Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI)is a registered charity which exists to save livesat sea. It provides, on call, the 24-hour servicenecessary to cover search and rescuerequirements out to 50 miles from the coast ofthe United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.There are 219 lifeboat stations and an active fleetof 296 lifeboats.

In 1998, RNLI lifeboats attended over 200incidents around the British Isles where thecasualty suffered a fouled propeller (figure 7.5).The rescues were divided equally betweencommercial fishing vessels and pleasure craft(figure 7.6 - overleaf). HM Coastguard, whichco-ordinates the rescues, recorded that thehighest numbers of all incidents were recordedin the south east and south west during thesummer months, and the majority of thoserelated to maritime leisure activities. This isverified by data from the RNLI which showsincreases in rescues to recreational vessels with

fouled propellers during the summer months(figure 7.7 - overleaf).

Eleven percent of fouled propeller rescues wereto vessels in life threatening situations and 53lives were saved (figure 7.8). Other rescues wereundertaken to people and vessels in danger, butwere not life-threatening (22%), and to vesselsthat were in no danger but in order to preventfuture additional incidents (67%).

In 1999, it will cost £81 million to run the RNLI.The direct costs of launching a lifeboat arerelatively small and consist of crew allowancesand fuel. The average cost of launching a lifeboatis about £5,800 for an all weather lifeboat and£2,200 for an inflatable inshore lifeboat. Thisincludes the running costs of a lifeboat stationi.e. stores, lifeboat maintenance, and stationmaintenance, but does not include the substantialcost of depreciation of the lifeboat. Thereforeto undertake 230 rescues a year to vessels withfouled propellers costs between £506,000 to£1,334,000 each year.

69

Figure 7.5. Map of UK showing the locations of vessels attended to by the RNLI suffering a fouledpropeller, 1998 (source: RNLI).

70

Fishing52%

Recreational46%

Other2%

RNLI rescues during 1998 to various vessel types

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

January March May July September November

Num

ber

of r

ecue

s

Fishing RecreationalOther

Figure 7.6. Graph showing the type of vessel affected by a fouled propeller that wererescued by the RNLI during 1998.

Figure 7.7. Graph showing the number of RNLI rescues to various vessel types each month in 1998.

71

Life Threatening11%

In danger but not life threatening

22%

No danger67%

Shetland Coastguard currently rescues at least5 vessels a year with fouled propellers. However,there are other reports that appear in the localnewspaper, of vessels being towed into harbourby fellow mariners because of fouled propellers(see table). For example, a fishing boat with afouled propeller may be towed for several hoursby a fellow fishing boat. This costs both vesselslost fishing time. There are no figures availableto define what percentage of propeller foulingson fishing vessels are from their own gear orfrom marine debris.

7.7.2. Stromstad CoastguardStromstad Coastguard, Sweden also reportedrescuing vessels with fouled propellers. In onecase, a fishing boat had become entangled intowing cables which took two divers one hour’slabour to cut through the wire before untanglingit. The launching of rescue services to deal withan incident caused by marine debris could put atrisk other more severe casualties.

7.8. Conclusions and Recommendations

HarboursSummary of costs:£100-£400 to clear each fouled

propeller

£4,000 potential vesseldamage

£5,000 propeller refurbishment£300-£1,700 additional dredgingup to £15,000 removal of debris

up to £26,100 PER HARBOUR

Harbour Authorities reported over 180incidences of fouled propellers. This figuredoes not include incidences that occur outsidethe harbour limits of many of the foulings that

Fig 7.8. Graph showing the percentages of rescues undertaken by the RNLI to vessels with fouledpropellers that were: life threatening, in danger or in no danger, 1998

72

occur to the smaller vessels that may contactdiving firms directly. As with foulings to fishingvessels, the main items causing propellerfoulings in harbours are: old nets, ropes, fishboxes and tyres. The presence of these itemsfloating within a busy harbour area can causeconsiderable problems to navigation.

Recommendation 33: Harbour Authoritiesshould encourage vessel owners to dispose ofold nets, ropes and other rubbish at thequayside.

Recommendation 34: A new campaign, suchas the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s‘Sea Sense’, should be launched to highlightthe harm marine debris can do to theenvironment and the shipping industry.

Recommendation 35: Recycling areas shouldbe set up in each port (if practical), withadditional collection points as necessary.Göteborg Harbour Authority has set up anumber of recycling points in old transportcontainers. These are used to collect oldbatteries, oil, tyres and fluorescent light tubes.Many harbours do not publicise their facilitieswidely enough. They also do not promote theproblems of marine debris in their area or waysto prevent this.

Recommendation 36: Information boardsshould be present in all harbours. Theseboards could not only provide informationabout reception facilities, but could show thenumber of propeller foulings that occur locally.This, along with information showing thenumber of times the local lifeboat has had torescue boats with fouled propellers wouldensure that marine debris was continuallyseen as a local problem as opposed tosomeone else’s problem. In many cases, vesselowners only stop irresponsible rubbishdisposal at sea when it affects them or someonethey know.

With a high percentage of plastics washing upon beaches, an effort should be made to reduce

the amount of plastics, in particular packagingmaterials, from going on to vessels.

Recommendation 37: Harbour Authoritiesshould work together with local wholesalersto minimise packaging on ships’ stores.

Recommendation 38: Vessel operators shouldattempt to minimise the amount of waste theyproduce through source reduction. Theyshould dispose of any waste produced incompliance with MARPOL and localregulations. They should make the necessaryalterations to their on-board waste storageareas to allow for garbage separation ifpractical.

Recommendation 39: Owners should petitiontheir local Harbour Authorities for betterwaste reception facilities. Vessels shouldadvise ports in advance if they need assistancewith disposal of larger items such as nets orwires.

Recommendation 40: National Governmentsshould make port waste management plansmandatory if they have not already done so.

Recommendation 41: Shipyards should ensurethat all new vessels are designed toincorporate convenient garbage storagespaces and, where appropriate, garbagetreatment technologies such as compactors.

Recommendation 42: Governments shouldhelp ports establish and maintain garbagereception facilities.

US Coastguard data suggests than on average,there is an 80% chance of not having to pay afine if you are caught disposing of rubbishillegally.

Recommendation 43: Governments shouldstrengthen the powers of MARPOL and otheranti-polluting legislation by insisting that aminimum fine is enforced on every offender.

73

One Harbour Master replying to this survey,stated that he had traced oil containers that werecontinually being found on a local beach, to bethose that had been purchased locally by localboats.

Recommendation 44: Investigation should bemade into the possibility of tagging andtracing larger items. Therefore an illegallydisposed tagged oil drum could be traced backto the vessel that bought it and the vessel fined.

Recommendation 45: Marinas should alsoencourage their users to practise better wastemanagement techniques. They should alsopublicise their facilities and try to promotewaste recycling.

Many of their users may not be able to separatetheir waste due to space constrictions.

Recommendation 46: Consideration should begiven when designing waste receptionfacilities at marinas to encourage recycling.For example, day-or weekend sailors shouldbe encouraged to separate out their glass andaluminium for recycling.

74

75

8.1. Shetland Agriculture

In Shetland, marine debris littering fields and coastal roadsides is common due to theprevalance of strong winds. There are over 1,500 crofters and farmers in Shetlandand it was deemed impossible to contact them all. Instead, after discussions with the

National Farmers Union, Shetland Agricultural Association and the farming developmentofficer of the Shetland Islands Council, it was decided to target a smaller select group.The sample was drawn up by the Shetland Agricultural Association to represent all locationsin Shetland, different sizes of farms and by willingness of response of the individuals.Again, each crofter was asked five initial questions to ascertain whether they had experienceda problem with marine debris. The questions were:

! Is any of your land adjacent to the coast?! Does marine debris get blown onto your

land? (E.g. plastic bags, sheeting)

! Have any of your animals becomeentangled with marine debris?

! Have any of your animals become ill dueto ingestion of marine debris?

! Has any of your machinery been damagedby marine debris?

The 30 that responded 86% had land adjacent tothe coast. Of these, 96% had experienced marinedebris, such as nets, plastic bags and containersblowing onto their land, 36% had incurredproblems with their animals becoming entangledin net, rope or plastic strapping, and 20% hadanimals which had become ill due to ingestingplastic. Only one crofter had incurred problemswith marine debris damaging farm machinery(figure 8.1).

The crofters who did have marine debris blowingonto their land spent from 1 hour per year to 3hours a month removing it. One crofter whospent an hour a month removing marine debriscommented that he “would need to spend muchmore time if we were to keep the place clean”.A range of 1-16 bags of rubbish were removedand in one case 3 trailer loads. The debrisgenerally blown onto agricultural land included

plastic containers, plastic bags, polystyrene,nets and rope. One crofter on the east coast ofShetland, reported that his croft was“vulnerable to debris from shipwrecksbecause of our location”. Another commentedthat they “try to pick up any rubbish wheneverwe are at the shore” to prevent it blowing ontohis land.

Plate 8.1. Marine debris collecting at a fence onfarmland adjacent to the sea in Shetland.

The debris also collected on fences, which weredamaged due to extra strain on them. One croftercommented that his fences had not neededrepairing so far “but rubbish is slowlyweakening them”. The damaged fences couldcost £50 a time to repair each section. Therubbish also collects in drainage ditches which

8. Agriculture and Marine Debris

76

Figure 8.1. Map of Shetland showing the areas of farmland that are affected by marine debris and thenumber of hours required to remove the debris.

77

require clearance more often costing £8-45 permetre.

Between 1 and 5 animals from each croft maybe entangled in debris a year. They are generallyentangled in netting, rope or plastic strappingbands. It may take up to 30 minutes to free theanimal and can in some cases lead to a cut legor even the loss of a foot. One crofter notedthat the injury was not normally serious butdepended on how soon the entanglement wasnoticed. Another crofter had incurred additionalvets bills as a result of this entanglement at acost of £30. One of the local veterinarypractices reported no problems associated withmarine debris and the farm livestock they hadtreated.

The crofters estimated an hour of their time tobe between £4-£12 per hour (average £7.40 perhour). The UK Agricultural Wages Boardsuggests an hourly rate of between £4.26 forstandard workers to £7.35 for those withqualifications. Given that reponses were fromthe croft owners themselves we will assume thattheir average wage is £7.40 per hour. Using thisfigure, each croft would lose approximately eachyear:£7 - £260 due to time spent clearing land£1 - £20 due to time spent freeing

entangled animals

£8 - £45 due to time spent clearingdebris from ditches

£ 30 additional vets bills£ 50 to replace damaged fences

£400 Max. total for each croft£600,000 Max. total for all crofts in

Shetland

Other problems that are faced by the agriculturalcommunity, are the loss of seaweed as afertiliser due to the increased levels of plasticsentangled in them. This also restricts the feeding

area for animals put onto beaches during thewinter to gain extra nutrition from the seaweed.An assessment of costs was not possible. Apotential problem, highlighted by the surveywhich requires further investigation, is thepossibility of small pieces of plastic becomingstuck in the fleece of sheep. Toxins from theplastic may leach into the wool and affect thequality of the wool. Another problem that washighlighted, was glass containers blown intofields containing grass that is subsequently cutfor silage. The crofter that mentioned it wasfortunate to notice the glass in time anddisposed of the contaminated trailer loads ofsilage.

Plate 8.2. Cattle on the beach, Oslofjord,Norway.

RecommendationsCoastal farmers, particularly in exposed areas,can be adversely affected by marine debris. Inmany areas, this requires continual removal ofdebris from their land to protect their livestock.

Recommendation 47: Farmers should beencouraged to take additional care whendisposing of silage bags etc when near thecoast.

Recommendation 48: Farmers should reportto local authorities, other land owners or therelevant regulating body, occurrences of badlylittered beaches.

78

79

The intakes of coastal power stations are covered with screens as a matter of routine.There are usually two levels of screening: coarse outer screens and finer inner screens.

9. Power Generation

The coarse outer screens provide primaryprotection for the intake, and remove gross litteritems. Typical gross litter items trapped bycoarse screens include trees, pallets, driftwood,tyres, discarded bicycles and oil drums(Environment Agency, 1998). These screens arecleared as necessary usually by hand.

Finer inner screens are usually either rack ordrum screens, and these are normally cleanedautomatically. Biofouling is rarely a problem asthe screens are self-cleaning and water velocitiesare usually high. A typical 2,000 megawattpower station usually comprises four turbineswhich are each serviced by a drum filter. Themajor items trapped are fish and seaweed, andthe siting of the intake is usually carefullyconsidered at the design stage to minimiseimpacts from marine outfalls. At certain timesof the year, sprat and herring shoals can causeparticular problems, as can detached seaweed.In additional to fish and seaweed, anthropogeniclitter also gets caught by the fine screens andtypical litter items include plastics, sewagerelated debris and other litter items similar tothose found on beaches. Obviously the high flowrates entering power station intakes concentratethis litter.

Given the need for smooth continuousoperation, power stations’ intakes are fitted withsophisticated litter control mechanisms, and aroutine maintenance schedule is assumed.According to an investigation by theEnvironment Agency 1998, litter clearance fromintakes can vary from one skip load per day to askip load per hour, depending upon season andrecent weather conditions. When loads of litterare particularly high, it may be necessary to

supplement the automated clearance mechanismwith forks and rakes. In exceptionalcircumstances, it may be necessary to closedown the turbine or entire power station toremove blockages. Closures, though rare, areextremely expensive to power generators dueto loss of production.

9.1. UK Power StationsAs part of this study into the economic costs ofmarine debris, a sample survey was conductedand several power stations throughout the UKwere contacted and questioned about the effectsof debris with their operations.

Aberthaw, a coastal power station in the BristolChannel(ENG), has three units which circulate220,000 gallons per minute through a staticdrum screen filter fitted to the discharges of thepumps. The screens, operating under full load,require cleaning every six weeks, at which timethey contain sufficient debris to fill a 9 tonneskip. This debris consists of plastic, polytheneand small quantities of wood. Occasionally,polythene gets into the pump glands and causesthem to leak.

Over the cleaning interval, with the screensgradually blocking, deterioration is observed inthe pump’s performance which costs the stationapproximately £500 per week (£26,000 peryear). Cleaning of the screens costs £5,000 perunit. Pump gland problems cost £800 to repairand £1,400 in increased works per event. It isestimated that this would occur twice a year.

Longannet power station on the Firth ofForth(SCO), reports that the quantities of debrisremoved varies with time of year and the tides.

80

The outer screens are cleared monthly, while theinner screens are continually cleaned by waterjets that wash the debris into a basketarrangement. The annual quantity of waste fromthe screens in 1997/98 was approximately 456tonnes. The debris included natural items suchas leaves, seaweed and fish as well as debrisfrom human activities. It is estimated thatapproximately 20-25% of this waste is from thelatter source (114 tonnes). Debris from humanactivities takes the form of barrels of variousindustrial liquids (part full or empty), materialfrom sewer discharges, plastic bottles and othergeneral litter.

Waste disposal for the above quantity wasapproximately £14,000, therefore between£2,800 and £3,500 was due to ‘unnatural’ debris.The station manager commented that they wouldbe required to clean and maintain these screenswhether there was such debris present or not,since they need to prevent fish, seaweed etcblocking the intake or entering their coolingwater system. The station may find small savingson manpower time if less of the larger‘unnatural’ items were present.

Torness Power Station near Dunbar(SCO), has hadto remove debris from the outer and innerscreens three times each day. Thirty tonnes ofdebris is removed each day at a cost of £50,000per year. Fawley Power Station,Southampton(ENG) rarely has to clear debris fromthe outer screens and only has to clean the innerscreens once per day if the sea water pumps arerunning. For a run during the day, a basket ofdebris equal to approximately one cubic metrewould be collected. Most of this debris consistsof floating weed and costs £100 to dispose offive days’ worth of debris.

Wylfa power station, Anglesey(WAL), alsoreported that the clearance of the drum screenswas very dependent on the prevailing weatherconditions. Experience has shown that the worstcombination is a north or north-westerly wind,low water and an incoming tide. In extreme

circumstances, there could be station personnelclearing debris (usually seaweed) from the drumscreens continuously for 24 hours. Undernormal conditions the daily volume of debris isnot large and is approximately less than 1 cubicmetre. Wylfa does not have a problem with anyparticular item of debris with seaweed being themajor difficulty.

The power station in Lerwick, Shetland(SCO), hastwo sets of screens in the power station whichrun for approximately one hour each day. Thedebris is cleared at this time and takes 10minutes for each screen (122 hours per year).On average the quantity of debris amounts to onetonne annually. The debris consists of seaweed,mussels, plastic, fishing ropes, nets and bottles.They also report that it would be difficult toassociate a cost with this debris as they arerequired to remove the seaweed and musselseven if there was no debris.

Chapelcross Nuclear Power Station nearDumfries(SCO) takes its cooling water from theRiver Annan and thus the amount of debrisappearing is less than at more coastal sites. Thescreens are inspected on a weekly basis and anyaccumulated weed or algae is removed ifnecessary. Debris from man’s activities on theriver does not appear to be a problem. SizewellA Nuclear Power Station, Suffolk(ENG) draws itswater supply from just above the sea bed andthus rarely experiences large amounts of debris.Nevertheless, the inner screens are cleanedcontinually by a spray of water and the outerscreens are cleaned every six months unlessthere is a specific requirement to clean moreoften. The debris that is found consists offragments of rope and other plastic items. Thepower station at Killingholme, nearImmingham(ENG), abstracts its water viasubmerged pipelines and does not suffer fromsurface debris. They are also not aware of anylosses or costs as a result of submerged debris.

9.2. Non-Electricity Seawater IntakesIt is generally assumed that the problems

81

experienced by non-power generation sectorsof industry are similar to those experienced bypower station intakes. However many sectorsof industry may be sited with close proximityto ports and therefore abstract water containinga higher concentration of litter. They may notbe fitted with such sophisticated litter trappingmechanisms and abstract water at substantiallylower velocities than power stations.

A questionnaire survey of marine abstractorslisted on National Rivers Authority Publicregisters (now the Environment Agency) foundthat 5 out of 22 respondents encountered noproblems with marine litter, 10 considered thatlitter caused problems rarely (less than 25% ofthe time), and 6 considered it as an occasionalproblem (25-50% of the time) (see EnvironmentAgency, 1998). Only one considered marinelitter a very regular problem (more than 75% ofthe time). General litter (e.g. cans, bottles,packaging) was found in all cases, with grosslitter (e.g. items larger than 30cm) beingreported in addition by 7 respondents. Onerespondent, who abstracts continuously, collectsapproximately 10 kg of general litter every dayfrom automatic screens. The perceived sourcein this case is mainly from ships berthed in thedock.

The financial implications to abstractors ofmarine litter range from minimal labour coststo clear blockages on an irregular basis, throughto approximately £50,000 per year for majordamage and blockage problems (including

contractor costs, in-house staff time and down-time). One of the abstractors surveyed normallybudgets for an additional 80 shifts per year forlitter-related clearance activities.

9.3. Conclusions and RecommendationsPower stations may have problems with marinedebris blocking their inner and outer screens oftheir cooling water systems. The extent to whichthey are affected is determined by their location,the location of their water inlets and in somecases, by the weather. In general, power stationswith water inlets far out on the sea bed are lessaffected by marine debris that those with inletsin shallower water or near the water surface.Having water inlets on the sea bed reduces theamount of floating debris that may get drawn intothe system.

The amount of debris removed from screensranges from less than 100 tonnes annually toover 10,000 tonnes. The debris consists mainlyof plastic and rope fragments although in somecases large containers may be present. All thepower stations reported large amounts ofseaweed and other natural substances becomingcaught in the screens. Clearance of debris maycost up to £50,000 per year with additional costsfor pump gland problems and deterioration inpump performance.

Recommendation 49: Electricity companieswhose water intake pipes are affected by marinedebris should pressure governments to reducethe amount of marine debris in the sea.

82

83

Local Authorities

1. Local authorities should define appropriate litter management standards for individualbeaches.

2. Local Authorities should allocate a key officer within the Authority to oversee andplan beach cleaning issues.

3. Local Authorities should investigate new mechanisms to finance beach cleaning.

4. There should be an investigation into the use of litter bins for disposal of rubbish atbeaches and other alternatives should be considered.

5. Tourist information notices should also contain environmental information for thearea with reference to the problems ofmarine debris and the locations of litter binsetc.

6. There should be an investigation into the types and sources of marine debris for theparticular area so that preventive measures can be aimed at the main polluters.

7. Local manufacturers and suppliers should be encouraged to promote recycling and responsibledisposal.

8. All Local Authorities should have in place an Oil Spill Contingency Plan.

9. All Local Authorities should identify funds in advance that could be used for emergencycleaning up of oil and other substances.

10. There should be further research into the environmental costs of mechanical beach cleaningversus its cleaning efficiency.

11. All Local Authorities should investigate the practicality of establishing volunteer partnershipswithin the community that can assist with beach cleaning, promote responsible waste disposaland widen environmental education.

12. There should be quantification of the effect of beach award status in influencing choice ofdestination and overall tourism value.

13. Award schemes should be redesigned to take into account the nature of remote natural beachesfound in rural areas.

Recommendations

84

Tourism and Health

14. Further research should be undertaken into the actual numbers of tourists visiting beacheseach year.

15. Further research should be undertaken into the public perception of marine debris and theacceptable levels of litter on beaches.

16. Dogs should not be banned from beaches but instead designated areas should be set up.

17. Responsible dog ownership should be encouraged

18. Tourist Boards should include responsible waste disposal messages in their brochures.

19. Locations of recycling areas and litter bins should be publicised through local shops,amusements and accommodation.

Fishing

20. There should be more education about the effects of marine debris to the fishing industry.

21. Waste management education should be made mandatory in all maritime courses.

22. The practicalities and cost efficiency of net recycling should be investigated.

23. Net and rope reuse should be investigated.

24. There should be incentives to encourage fishermen to bring all rubbish ashore.

25. The amount of packaging taken out to sea should be reduced.

26. Maritime suppliers should be encouraged to provide supplies with minimal packaging forvessels.

27. There should be an universal deposit scheme set up to encourage the return of all fish boxes.

28. Harbour Authorities should provide literature for foreign fishing vessels which explains thelegislation and location of waste disposal areas.

29. Fish farmers should be encouraged to bring in waste floating in or near their cages.

30. Fish farmers should be encouraged to take additional care when disposing of their wastes.

31. Vessel crews and owners should take particular care when changing oil filters.

32. There should be investigation into whether plastic strapping bands can be made degradableto reduce the numbers of animals and propellers becoming entangled each year.

85

Harbours/ marinas

33. Harbour Authorities should encourage vessel owners to dispose of old nets, rope and otherrubbish properly.

34. A new international maritime anti-littering campaign should be launched and should focuson the potential problems that marine debris causes the shipping industry.

35. Recycling should be encouraged within the harbour area with the provision of recyclingareas for bottles, batteries, cans, tyres, etc.

36. Information boards containing locations of disposal areas, incidences of propeller foulingsand other maritime information should be present in all harbours.

37. Harbour Authorities should encourage vessel operators to minimise the amount of packagingtaken on board.

38. Vessel operators should reduce the amount of waste produced through source reduction.

39. Vessel owners should petition Harbour Authorities, if necessary, to provide better wastereception facilities.

40. National governments should make Port Waste Management Plans mandatory if they havenot already done so.

41. Shipyards should ensure that all new vessels are designed to incorporate convenient garbagestorage spaces and, if practical, garbage compactors or incinerators.

42. Governments should help ports establish and maintain garbage reception facilities.

43. Governments should strengthen the powers of MARPOL by insisting that a minimum fine isenforced on all offenders.

44. There should be an investigation into the tagging and tracking of larger items such as oildrums.

45. Marinas should also encourage their users to practise better waste management techniques.

46. Consideration should be given when designing waste reception facilities at marinas toencourage recycling.

86

Agriculture

47. Farmers should be encouraged to take additional care when disposing of silage bags etcwhen near the coast.

48. Farmers should report to local authorities, other land owners or the relevant regulating body,occurrences of badly littered beaches.

Power Generation

49. Electricity companies whose water intake pipes are affected by marine debris should pressuregovernments to reduce the amount of marine debris in the sea.

87

References

Acland, R. (1995). Resort Management. In: Proceedings of the workshop on coastal and marine litter: Problemsand effective solutions. (ed. R.C.Earll). Pp18-20, Marine Environmental Management and Training,Kempley, UK.

Alig, C.S.; Koss, L.; Scarano, T. and Chitty, F. (1990). Control of plastic wastes aboard naval ships atsea. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu,Hawaii. (R.S Shomura & M.L. Godfrey Eds.), pp879-894. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

Anon 1997. Sea of Garbage. New Scientist 18th October 1997

ASH Consulting Group (1994). Beach Litter Management in Scotland:An assessment of current proceedingsand recommendations for best practice.

Centre of the Marine Entanglement Research Program (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration),

Seattle, Washington, July.

Colton, J.B., Knapp, F.D. and Burns, B.R. (1974). Plastic particles in surface waters of the North WesternAtlantic. Science 185: 491-497.

Debenham, P. & Younger, L.K. (1991). Cleaning North America’s beaches: 1990 Beach cleanup results,Washington DC. Centre for Marine Conservation.

Dixon, T.R. (1990). Shoreline litter, Inverness Main Drainage Scheme Environmental Assessment. Vol. IIAppendix 9, 1-8. Watson Hawksley, University of Strathclyde and Environmental Management Ltd.

Dixon, T.R. and Dixon, T.J. (1981). Marine litter surveillance. Marine Pollution Bulletin 12: 289-295.

Dixon, T.R. and Dixon, T. J. (1983). Marine litter distribution and composition in the North Sea. MarinePollution Research 14:145-148.

Donaldson, (1994). Safer ships, Cleaner seas. HMSO. May 1994.

Earll, R.C. and Gilbert, C. (Editors) (1996). Local Authorities and coastal and estuarine pollution. MarineEnvironmental Management and Training, Kempley, UK.

Ebbesmeyer, C.C. and Ingraham, W. J. Jr (1992). Shoe spill in North Pacific. EOS, Transactions AmericanGeophysical Union 73 (34): 361,365 Aug 25

88

Edwards, R. (1995). Danger from the deep. New Scientist p16-17 15th November

Environment Agency (UK) (1998). The impacts of marine litter. Marine Pollution Monitoring Group. WorkingDraft Consultation report of the Marine Litter Task Team (MaLiTT): In press.

Environment & Resource Technology Ltd. (ERT) (1995). Quantifying waste generated by ships and platformsoperating in the North Sea. Research project 365, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.

Feder, H. M.; Jewett, S.C., and Hisinger, J.R. (1978). Man-made debris on the Bering Sea floor. MarinePollution Bulletin 9: 52-53.

F.I.S.H Habitat Education Program (1994). Net recycling Program summary. Fact sheet prepared by thefishermen involved in Saving Habitual Education Programme, Gladstone, Ore.

Gabrielides, G.P., Golik, A.; Loizides, L., Marinos, M.G., Bingel, F. and Torregrossa, M.V. (1991).Man-made garbage pollution on the Mediterranean coastline. Marine Pollution Bulletin 23: 437-441.

Galgani, F., Burgeot,T., Bocquene, G., Vincent, F., Leaute, J.P., Labastie, K., Forest, A. and Guichet, R.(1995). Distribution and abundance of debris on the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay and inSeine Bay. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30: 58-62.

Garrity, S.D. and Levings S.C. (1993). Marine debris along the Caribbean Coast of Panama. MarinePollution Bulletin 26: 317-324.

Gilbert, C. (1995). The cost to Local Authorities of coastal and marine pollution: A preliminary appraisal.Recent Policy developments and the Management of Coastal Pollution Conference Proceedings (ed.R.C. Earll). Marine Environmental Management and Training, Kempley, UK pp12-14.

Gregory, M.R. (1990) Plastics: Accumulation, distribution and environmental effects of meso-macro andmegalitter in surface waters and on shores of the Southwest Pacific. In: Proceedings of the 2nd InternationalConference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. (R.S Shomura and M.L. GodfreyEds.), pp55-84. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154.

Gregory, M.R., Kirk, R.M. and Mabin, M.C.G. (1984). Pelagic Tar, oil, plastics and other litter in thesurface waters of the New Zealand sector of the Southern Ocean, and on Ross Dependency shores.New Zealand Antarctic Record 6: 12-28.

Hampton, P. (1997). Tourism and images faced by Local Authorities. In: Coastal and Riverine Litter - DevelopingEffective Solutions. (Ed. R.C. Earll) Marine Environmental Management and Training, Kempley, UK.Heatwole, H. and Levins, R. (1972). Biogeography of the Puerto Rican Bank; Flotsam transport ofterrestrial animals. Ecology 53: 112-117.

89

Hodge, K.L. and Glen, J. (1993). National coastal cleanup report. Washington DC. Centre for MarineConservation. August.

Horsman, P.V.(1982). The amount of garbage pollution from merchant ships. Marine Pollution Bulletin 13:167-169.

House of Commons, Environment Committee. (1990). Pollution of beaches. Volume 1,2 & 3. 4th Report.HMSO, London.

Hutjes, I. And Supit, S. (1994). Beach litter and the Dutch Municipalities: A look at how the problem isperceived and dealt with. North Sea Monitor 12: 14-15.

International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (1988). Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V ofMARPOL 73/78. IMO, London.

Jewett, S.C. (1976). Pollutants of the North East Gulf of Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 7: 169.

Johnston, S.W. (1994). Deposition of trawl web on an Alaskan beach. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 28: 477-481.

Jones, M. (1995). Fishing debris in the Australian marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 30: 25-33.

Laist, D. (1997). Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris, including acomprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Marine Debris: Sources, Impactsand Solutions (J.Coe and D.B. Rodgers, Eds.). Springer Series for Environmental Management 1997.

Lart, W. (1995). Marine litter impacts on fisheries. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Coastal & RiverineLitter: Problems & Effective Solutions (ed. R.C. Earll). Marine Environment Management & Training,Kempley Gloucestershire p4-5

Lentz, S.A. (1987). Plastics in the marine environment: legal approaches for international action. MarinePollution Bulletin. 18(6B): 361-365.

Llewellyn, P. (1998). The role of the strandline as an ecosystem. In: Beach Litter Management Conference,Newquay, Cornwall, UK.

Low, L.L., Nelsen, R.E. and Narita, R.E. (1985). Net loss from trawl fisheries off Alaska. In: Proceedingsof the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris; 26-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI (R.S.Shomura and H.O. Yoshida, eds.), pp130-153. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFS-54

90

Marine Conservation Society. (1998). Beachwatch 1998 Report. MCS

Maritime Technology Foresight Panel (1996). Report of the working group on coastal waters and maritimeleisure. p3-4.

Miller, J. E. (1993). Marine debris investigation: Padre Island National Seashore, Texas. Corpus Christi, tex:National Park Service, December.

Minchin, D. (1996). Tar pellets and plastics as attachment surfaces for lepadid cirripeds in the North AtlanticOcean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32: 855-859.

Nash, A.D. (1992). Impacts of marine debris on subsistence fishermen: an exploratory study. Marine PollutionBulletin 24: 150-156.

National Academy of Sciences (1975). Marine litter. In: Assessing potential ocean pollutants. A report ofthe study panel on assessing potential ocean pollutants to the Oceans Affairs Board, Commission onNatural Resources, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Neumann, H. (1966). Die Beziehun Zwischen Wind und Oberflächenströmung auf Grund vonTriftkartenuntersuchungen. Deut. Hydrograph. Zeitschr. 19: 253-266.

Nilsson, P (1998) Personal communication. Tjärnö Biological Laboratory SE-452 96 Strömstad, Sweden.

NORD (1996). Waste from ships. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. ISBN 92 9120 966X

Norske Veritas Industri NORGE A/S (1993). Mottak av Avfall fra skip (Reception of wastes from ships).Technical Report commissioned by the Norwegian Maritime Directorate. Norske Veritas Industri NorgeA/S. Trondheim.

Olin, R.; Carlsson, B and Stahre, B. (1995). The west coast of Sweden - The Rubbish Tip of The NorthSea. In: Proceedings of a workshop on Coastal and Riverine litter: Problems and effective solutions (ed.R.C. Earll). Marine Environmental Management and Training, Kempley, Gloucestershire. p12-14.

ORCA Marine (1994). The shipboard challenge (vs. the shoreside challenge). Internal note to Norske veritasindustri NORGE A/S, 1993. Cit.: Sjøfartsdirektoratet mottak av avfall fra skip, rapport utarbeidet avSjøfartsdirektoratet påoppdrog fra Miljøverndepartementet (reception of waste from ships; reportprepared by the Norwegian maritime Directorate, commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection). ISBN 82-7243 985 9, Oslo 1994.

Parker, P.A. (1990). Cleaning the oceans of the plastics threat. Sea Frontiers 36: 18-27.

91

Pearce, J.B. (1992). Viewpoint: Marine Vessel Debris: A North American Perspective. Marine PollutionBulletin 24: 586-592.

Phillip, R. (1993). Community needlestick accident data and trends in environmental quality. Public Health107: 363-369.

Pruter, A.T. (1987). Sources, quantities and distribution of persistant plastics in the marine environment. MarinePollution Bulletin 18: 305-310.

Recht, F. (1988). Report on a Port-Based project to reduce marine debris. NWAFC Processed report 88-13. Report prepared for the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Centre of the Marine Entanglement ResearchProgram (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Seattle, Washington, July

Rees, G. and Pond, K. (1994). Impacts: Aesthetics, health and physical appearance. In Proceedings of aworkshop on coastal and riverine litter: Problems and effective solutions (ed. R.C. Earll). MarineEnvironmental Management and Training, Kempley, UK pp5-7.

Ribic, C.A., Dixon, T.R. and Vining, I. (1992). Marine Debris Survey Manual, NOAA Technical ReportNMFS 108, US Department of Commerce, pp91.

Ritchie, W. and Matner, A.S. (1984). The Beaches of Scotland. Countryside Commission for Scotland.

Robards, M.D., Gould, P.J. and Piatt, J.F. (1997). The highest global concentrations and increased abundanceof oceanic plastic debris in the North Pacific: Evidence from seabirds. In: Marine Debris: sources, impactsand solutions (J.M. Coe and D.B. Rogers Eds.). Springer

Roehl, W.S. and Ditton, R. (1993). Impacts of the offshore marine industry on coastal tourism: The case ofPadre Island National Seashore. Coastal Management 21: 77-89.

Ryan, P.G. and Moloney, C.L. (1993). Marine litter keeps increasing. Nature 361: 23 Jan 7th.

Stahre, B. (1998). Personal Communication. BOSAM, Sweden.Stevenson, S. (1998). Beaufort’s Dyke: The Scotland – Northern Ireland electricity interonnector andthe wider implications for pollution of the sea. Paper presented at the 8th KIMO International Conference,Wexford, Ireland. 10th October 1998.

Swanson, R.L., Young, R.R. and Ross, S.S. (1994). An analysis of proposed shipborne waste: Handlingpractices aboard United States Navy Vessels. Paper prepared for the Committee on Shipborne Wastes,Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C.

92

Takehama, S. (1990). Estimation of damages to fishing vessels caused by marine debris, based on insurancestatistics. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu,HI (R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, eds.), pp792-809. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154

Tapper, R. (1997). Tourism, pollution and the marine environment. Synsthesis of issues and recommendationsfor Malaysia and the Mediterranean. A Report for WWF-UK, September 1997.

Third International Conference on Marine Debris, (1994). Draft final working group reports, Miami,Florida, USA.

Thompson, R. and Hoare, C. (1997). Microscopic plastic a shore thing. In: Marine Conservation Vol. 11 No 3.

Tidy Britain Group (1995). Marine Litter Research Programme. Stage 7 Report.

Turrell, W.R., Henderson, E.W., Slesser, G., Payne, R., and Adams, R.D. (1992). Seasonal changes inthe circulation of the Northern North Sea. Continental Shelf Research 12: 257-286.

Tutstall, S.M. and Coker, A . (1992). Survey based valuation methods. In: Valuing the Environment (Ed.Coker, A and Richards, C). Flood Hazard Research Centre.

UNEP (1990). GESAMP: The state of the marine environment. GESAMP Reports and Studies, No. 39.United Nations Environment programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Vauk, G.J.M. and Schrey, E. (1987). Litter pollution from ships in the German Bight. Marine PollutionBulletin 18: 316-319.

Wallace, B. (1990a). How much do commercial and recreational fishermen know about marine debris andentanglement? In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989,Honolulu, HI (R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, eds.), pp792-809. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS,NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154

Wallace, B. (1990b). Shipping industry marine debris education plan. In: Proceedings of the 2nd internationalconference on marine debris; 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI (R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, eds.),pp792-809. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154

Walker, T.R.; Reid, K.; Arnould, J.P.Y. and Croxall, J.P. (1997). Marine debris surveys at Bird Island,South Georgia 1990-95. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34: 61-65.

Williams, A.T., Simmons, S.L. and Fricker, A. (1993). Offshore sinks of marine litter, a new problem.Marine Pollution Bulletin 26: 404-405.

93

Acronyms

DETR Department of the Environment, Transport and The Regions (England and Wales)

EA Environment Agency (England and Wales)

EPA Environmental Protection Act, 1990 (UK)

FEEE Foundation of Environmental Education in Europe

KIMO Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon

KSB Keep Scotland Beautiful (Scotland)

IMO International Maritime Organisation

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973,1978

MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency (UK)

MCS Marine Conservation Society (UK)

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA)

NORD Nordic Council of Ministers

OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment, North-East Atlantic

RNLI Royal National Lifeboat Institution (UK)

SAS Surfers Against Sewage (UK)

SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (Scotland)

TBG Tidy Britain Group

94

95

Glossary

Beach:Whole of the area from the edge of the coast to 10m below water level at the lowest tide. Beaches maybe composed of mud, sand, gravel, boulders and or rock ledges.

Croft:Small farm or agricultural holding found in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland

Fishing Gear:Any physical item or combination of items that is placed in the water for the intended purpose of captur-ing living marine or aquatic organisms.

Marine Debris:Solid materials of human origin that are discarded at sea or reach the sea through waterways or throughdomestic and industrial outfalls (National Academy of Sciences, 1975)

Port/Harbour:Any landing area for vessels; e.g. port, harbour, marina, dock.

Port Reception Facility:Any receptacle maintained by or at a port, to receive garbage generated on vessels; e.g. bins, skips.

Vessel:Any water craft or structure that carries humans; e.g. yacht, ferries, container ships, oil platforms

96

97

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people for their help, advice and support during thisproject.

I am indebted to my supervisor Rick Nickerson, KIMO Secretariat, Shetland IslandsCouncil. Without his patience, support and advice, this research would not have beencompleted. I would also like to thank my long distance supervisor in Napier University,Kathy Velander for her support through phone calls and e-mails.

The members of KIMO for their assistance with this research and for organising tripsto their area for me. In particular, I would like to thank Joan Easten, Shetland; LennartReuterberg, Lars-Erik Knutsson and Bjorn Stahre, Sweden; Lars Anderson, Denmark;Ian Robertson, Aberdeenshire; Anne O’Reilly, Wexford; and Trevor Gibson,Peterborough.

The Director of Environment and Transportation Department, Shetland Islands Council,Graham Spall, for the use of his department’s facilities and for making me feel verywelcome. His staff, in particular, Melanie Chapman, Michelle Goudie, Paula Nicolson,Amanda Hawick, John Leach, Jonathon Emptage, Jim Grant, Mary Lisk, Tracy Saunders,Alastair Hamilton, Austin Taylor and Ian Isbister for their help and advise. Martin Dalzielfor all the time and effort he put into preparing this document for publication. Alsopersonnel from the Marine Operations and Development Departments of the Council.

The organisations within Shetland that assisted with the gathering of results from theirmembers, Shetland Amenity Trust, Shetland Fishermen’s Association, Lerwick PortAuthority, Shetland Agricultural Association, and Shetland Islands Tourism. Also MartinHeubeck and Vic Thomas for their interest and help with this project.

Trevor Dixon, Tim Dixon, Alan Williams, Bob Earll, Sam Pollard and the members ofthe National Aquatic Litter Group for their suggestions and help with this research.Rune Svensson for organising a successful trip to Oslofjord, Norway.

The Hall family, for their tolerance, encouragement and for making Shetland a greatplace to be. Also for introducing me to ‘The Lounge’ and ‘The Lerwick Boating Club’where many a dark winter’s night has been passed.

Susan Hall, Michelle Henderson, Lee Paton and Viv Crerar (The Longland Ladies), forall their encouragement, cocktail parties and the Fetlar Experience.

Tim Ash for being there.

98

99

KOMMUNENES INTERNASJONALE MILJØORGANISASJON

LOCAL AUTHORITY INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATION

KIMO is an international association of Local Authorities and associated organisations whichwas formally founded in Esbjerg, Denmark, in August 1990 to work towards cleaning up pollutionin the North Sea. They realised that any action taken to clean up the North Sea could only beeffective if it was co-ordinated on an international basis and decided to contact some otherlocal authorities to form a nucleus of an international group. In 1994 it changed its remit to alsoinclude the Irish Sea, North East Atlantic and the Arctic Seas.

From a modest localised start KIMO has grown in size and in terms of its aims and objectives.It now has over 100 members in the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Faeroes,The Netherlandsand the Republic of Ireland with associate members in Germany.

“KIMO’s primary objectives are cleaning up of existing pollution in Northern Seas and coastalwaters, preventing future pollution, working to preserve and enhance them and leaving them ina fit and healthy state for the well-being of future generations.”

This Project was based within the offices of Shetland Islands Council and we acknowledge thesupport and facilities provided by them

This Project was supported by the following organisations:

This report forms part of a PhD thesis to be submitted to Napier University in 2001

100

101

Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil:Economic and Social Costs to Coastal Communities

The problem of marine litter and oil deposited on coasts is common for coastal local communities and other organisations throughout the world. A wide range of studies and surveys employingmany different methodologies have been undertaken over the years to assess the problem. These have

attempted to address the problems of collecting data on the volumes, types, origin and other factors relating tomarine litter and oil. There is much less research and data available about the economic and social impacts ofthese substances. The purpose of the project was to undertake a pilot study to investigate the cost of marinedebris and oil to coastal communities and organisations. Examples include: death or injury of commercial marinelife, interference with maritime traffic by damage to ship’s propulsion, and the costs of cleaning, collection anddisposal of marine debris and oil. The project undertook to look at these and other factors and to produce areport which would attempt to identify the financial and social costs.

For more information please contact:

Karen Hall or Rick Nickerson at:KIMO,

SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, GRANTFIELD, LERWICK,SHETLAND, ZE1 0NT

TEL: +44 (0)1595 744800 FAX: +44 (0)1595 695887EMAIL: kimo@zetnet.co.uk

Website: http://www.zetnet.co.uk/coms/kimo

102

Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil:Economic and Social Costs to Coastal Communities

The problem of marine litter and oil deposited on coasts is a common problem for coastallocal communities and other organisations throughout the world. A wide range of studiesand surveys employing many different methodologies have been undertaken over the years

to assess the problem. These have attempted to address the problems of collecting data on thevolumes, types, origin and other factors relating to marine litter and oil. There is much less researchand data available about the economic and social impacts of these substances. The purpose of theproject was to undertake a pilot study to investigate the cost of marine debris and oil to coastalcommunities and organisations. Examples include: death or injury of commercial marine life,interference with maritime traffic by damage to ships propulsion, and the costs of cleaning, collectionand disposal of marine debris and oil. The project undertook to look at these and other factors andto produce a report which would attempt to identify the financial and social cost of the problem.

For more information please contact:

Karen Hall or Rick Nickerson at:KIMO,

SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, GRANTFIELD,LERWICK, SHETLAND, ZE1 0NT

TEL: +44 (0)1595 744800 FAX: +44 (0)1595 695887EMAIL: kimo@zetnet.co.uk