2. How to approach the litter problem?
• Recoverable products are recovered because they represent value
for recycling companies (e.g. recovery of high value PET-bottles)
• Waste products have lost almost all economic value (that is why they
became waste!) and are only collected by subsidized organizations,
when society does not accept the ecological consequences of
dumping.
• Finally end-users determine where they discard their used products:
in the organized system or they litter.
• The resulting ecological impact of litter is now a societal problem
• 80% of marine litter comes from land and rivers play a significant
contributing role in marine pollution
The key question is:
Do we regard river litter as a problem that we have to deal with???
3. Fundamental questions to answer:
1. How big is the (river) litter problem?
(do we know the size and impact of the problem?)
2. How much litter pollution do we accept?
(do we have agreements on standards or limits?)
3. Can we solve the problem?
(what instruments or solutions do we have; technical,
behavioural, economic, else ?)
4. Can we control the system?
(can we design a closed-loop system for materials or
products?)
4. We need a control loop
Standard
(legislation)
sampling
compare to
standard
take action
River litter
transportation
evaluation
litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea
5. 1 st step: sampling river litter
Standard
(legislation)
sampling
compare to
standard
take action
River litter
transportation
evaluation
litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea
6. Sampling river litter in the Meuse
Research question:
How much does a river contribute to the problem of
“plastic soup”?
A first samling attempt in oktober 2012:
• The Meuse near Eijsden (BE-NL border)
• The ship “de Blauwe Reiger”
• The sampling equipment
Oktober 2012: 5 initial trawls for testing the system and the
sampling, sorting and reporting procedures.
7. The Meuse
• A pluvial river, basin area: 36.000 km2
• Flows 925 km through France, Belgium and
the Netherlands to the North Sea
• Big variations in throughput in summer and
winter
• Canalized for a substantial part of it’s length
• Sampling location: Eijsden (NL)
Variations in throughput from 1990 – 2000 (m3/s)
8. The ship
• Sufficient length (15 m)
to sail in fast flowing
river
• Sufficient deck space
for handling the
equipment
• Comfortable and stable
for safe operation, also
in winter
9. The sampling equipment
2 nets ( 3,2 mm):
Surface net
Width: 1 m
Suspension net
Opening: 0,5 m2
X
speed: m/s
X
time: s
=
Sampled m2
Sampled m3
Sampling pontoon:
Results:
• Flexibels per m2 or m3
• Rigids per m2 or m3
• Total in upper part of the watercolumn (0 – 70 cm depth)
11. Sampling conditions
• Mostly macroplastics, size > 3,2 mm
• Sorting:
– flexible and rigid
– Surface and suspension
– Large and small (larger or smaller than 25
mm)
• Categorised with OSPAR list
• Based on 5 trawls
• Low throughput level of the river
12. Found concentration of items/km2
in upper part of the water column (0 – 70 cm)
Items per km2 (surface and suspension together)
0
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
80.000
1 2 3 4 5
totaal
flex
rigid
Suggests a relationship with throughput (298, 125, 0, 113, 113 m3/s)
total
flexible
rigid
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
13. Items larger and smaller than 25 mm
Number of items caught
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
surface suspension
Large and small
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
surface suspension
Majority of items (± 75%) are “small” macroplastics
(between 3,2 mm and 25 mm)
> 25 mm (large)
< 25 mm rigid
< 25 mm flex
surface suspension surface suspension
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100%
0%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
15. Items surface vs. suspension
per km2
0
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
Surface per km2 Suspension per km2/m3
totaal
flex
rigid
More items on surface,
most rigids
Less items in suspension,
most flexibles
total
flexible
rigid
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
surface suspension
16. Number of items transported
towards the sea
Number of items per hour
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
1 2 3 4 5
• Average: 15.127 items/hr
– Flexible: 6.079 items
– Rigid: 9.049 items
• Maximum: 30.387 items/hr
– Flexible: 8.417 items
– Rigid: 21.970 items
• Conditions:
– Water velocity: ± 3 km/hr
– Width river: 150 m
– Only top 70 cm
total
flexible
rigid
10.000
35.000
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
5.000
0
17. 2nd step: evaluation of the results
Standard
(legislation)
sampling
compare to
standard
take action
River litter
transportation
evaluation
litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea
18. Evaluation question:
What is the meaning of this number?
Meuse transports approximately 15.000 items/hr
at relatively low throughput rates.
At sea:
• North Pacific Gyre: > 300.000 floating items/km2
• North Atlantic and Caribbean: > 200.000 floating items/km2
• Mediterranean > 100.000 floating items/km2
• North Sea 528 items/km2 on the sea floor
Which implies that it takes the Meuse,
• less than 24 hrs to enlarge the North Pacific Gyre with 1 km2
• ca. 12 hrs to add 1 km2 to the North Atlantic garbage area
• ca. 6 hrs to add 1 km2 to the Mediterranean garbage area
19. Question: Is this “much”???
• Yes, it is much, even in these relatively
favourable conditions where the Meuse
normally is considered to be “clean”.
• Number of items expected to be higher when
– Throughput increases
– Right after floods
– Later in the season
• To get a more representative number:
– Extra trawls needed during the season
– In more different conditions
20. 3rd step: What do we think is
acceptable?
Standard
(legislation)
sampling
compare to
standard
take action
River litter
transportation
evaluation
litter entering the river litter flowing in the sea
21. To take mitigating action…
• Political processes
must lead to
legislation and
standards to control
the problem
• We need a new
balance between
economy and
ecology
Economy or Ecology?
22. • There is no (numerical) definition of
the allowed concentration of litter in
the MSFD
– Descriptor: Properties and quantities of
marine litter do not cause harm to the
coastal and marine environment.
Marine Strategy Framework
Directive
23. Water Framework Directive
• There is not even a reference for river litter in the WFD,
– possibly: “materials in suspension”
• But directive 76/464/EEC list I mentions as polluting
substance:
– “persistent synthetic substances which may float, remain in
suspension or sink and which may interfere with any use of the
waters”
• But they have never been labelled as priority substances
“The substance-specific directives related to Directive 76/464/EEC are also widely known as ‘daughter’ Directives. However, the term ‘daughter’ directive
is misleading because it suggests that these specific directives are based on another Directive, in this case 76/464/EEC. The specific directives for
list I substances are separate, independent pieces of legislation based on the Treaty. There is no hierarchy between directives. In consequence, the
repeal of Directive 76/464/EEC under the Water Framework Directive does not affect or change the provisions of the specific directives. They remain
entirely into force. In conclusion, we suggest not to use the term ‘daughter’ directives but rather 'specific' directives for list I substances to avoid
misinterpretations.”
• This means that local autorities today have no instruments to
take action on river litter
24. 4 th step: Take action
Standard
(legislation)
sampling
compare to
standard
take action
River litter
transportation
evaluation
litter entering the river litter flowing into the sea
25. It’s all about rest value:
Added Value minus Lost Value
products
in use
post-use
products
physical
products
sorted
materials
end
products
sorted
products
raw
materials
recovered
resources
Sustainable
resources
depletable
resources waste
re-use
recycling
recovery
discard
LOSTVALUE
ADDEDVALUE
economical
framework
ecological
framework
32. The most promising approach for river
litter is aimed at it’s sources
River litter sources:
1. Fly-tipping and illegal dumping in the flood
plain
2. Run-off from streets and roadsides in the
catchment area
3. Sewage overflows to rivers and tributaries
4. Industrial spills (pellets and scrap)
33. But, research on recovery and
cleaning possibilities is necessary
We need to
understand
the problem
better,
find the
sources and
the most
efficient
interceptions
34. Conclusions
• The developed river litter sampling method can be used, since
significant amounts of river litter have been found, but further
scientific research is needed
• The Meuse transports an abundance of macroplastics, rigids
mainly at the surface and flexibles mostly in suspension
• European legislation is critical, otherwise there is no sense of
urgency at local level
• Collection and recovery solutions for low value waste products
must be developed including appropriate funding systems
• Findings for the Meuse should be extended with research
findings in other rivers.
• Funding for further research is needed
