Proceedings of the Untangled symposium: - WSPA

Proceedings of theUntangled symposium:Exploring the impact of marinedebris on animal welfare andseeking animal-focused solutions4-6 December 2012Miami, Florida, US© Brandon Cole / naturepl.comWorld Society for the Protection of Animals

At the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA),we have protected animals around the globe for more than 30 years.We use our collective skills and knowledge to move individuals,organisations and governments to transform animals’ lives. Our diversework includes ending the mass suffering of industrially farmed animals,preventing the pain of individual animals caught up in disasters,and making rabies-driven dog culls history by proving that a humaneresponse works best for animals and people.Working in more than 50 countries, we create positive change byexposing cruelty and pioneering sustainable solutions to animal suffering.We also act for animals at a global level, using our consultative status atthe United Nations to make sure our message is heard: that the lives ofanimals are inextricably linked to our own, and now more than ever is thetime to stop their suffering.Suggested citation: World Society for the Protection of Animals.(2013). Proceedings of the Untangled symposium: Exploring theimpact of marine debris on animal welfare and seeking animalfocusedsolutions. London: WSPA.

Contents1. Preface 52. Executive summary 63. Overview of the Untangled sessions 84. Summary of problem and 9solution workshop outcomesFishing gear 9Packaging/consumer debris 10Animal rescue/disentanglement 125. Acknowledgements 13Annex 1: Untangled Declaration 15Annex 2: Priority problems and solutions 16Table 1: Communication exercise – 23key messages and target audiencesAnnex 3: Knowledge gaps 25Annex 4: Submitted abstracts 30accompanying poster presentationsAnnex 5: Delegate contact details 61

1PrefaceUntangled was the first ever global symposium dedicatedto identifying the major problems that marine debrispresents to the welfare of animals and to seekinganimal-focused solutions. Held from 4-6 December2012 at the Marriott Biscayne Bay hotel in Miami,Florida, the symposium was organised and hosted bythe World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA)with the support and endorsement of the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP). Untangled wasattended by over 60 experts from 20 countries, includingparticipants from governments, inter-governmentalorganisations, non-profit organisations, academiaand the fishing and plastics industries.These proceedings include: a summary of the topic,event and top level conclusions; an overview of thesessions; an outline of workshop outcomes anddiscussions; and speakers’ abstracts. This documentintends to provide delegates and other interested partieswith details of the analysis which took place at thesymposium in order to identify the key animal welfareproblems caused by marine debris, and which alloweddelegates to share and explore some of the mostpractical and positive solutions to these problems.WSPA wishes to thank all symposium delegates fortheir attendance, their enthusiasm and for contributingtheir valuable knowledge and expertise to create aproductive and successful action-orientated event.One of WSPA’s primary objectives in hosting Untangledwas to understand and prioritise the animal-focusedproblems of, and solutions to, marine debris in orderto inform plans for a new campaign on this issue, andthis objective was certainly achieved. It is WSPA’s hopeand belief that the event and these proceedings willalso prove useful for delegates and other stakeholdersinvolved in tackling the complex global problem ofmarine debris, and seeking to protect the animalsaffected by it.5

2Executive summaryThe issueMarine debris (also known as marine litter) is a trulyglobal problem gaining increasing attention and concernaround the world. Perhaps more commonly described asan environmental issue, the littering of our oceans alsohas disastrous consequences for the individual animalsliving there, debilitating, mutilating and killing millions ofbirds, whales, dolphins, turtles and other marine wildlifeevery year.Defined by the Honolulu Strategy as ‘any anthropogenic,manufactured, or processed solid material (regardlessof size) discarded, disposed of, or abandoned thatends up in the marine environment’ 1 , marine debriscan describe items as small as micro-plastic granulesor as large as shipping containers. From the scientificand grey literature summarised in WSPA’s Untangledreport (2012), it is clear that certain types of marinedebris cause significant welfare problems for marineanimals. Fishing rope, nets and line, packing bandsand straps and plastic packaging can all entangleanimals, causing a range of problems including injuryand restricted movement and reduced feeding ability.These problems may persist for months or even years,in many cases eventually causing death due to infection,drowning or starvation. Other types of litter, suchas plastic bags and cigarette lighters, are ingested,suffocating animals, preventing them from feedingand causing internal injuries. This animal suffering issignificant, large-scale and avoidable.WSPA is developing a global campaign which aims tomake the oceans a safer home for animals – one in whichthey are no longer at risk of being killed or injured byour dangerous debris. At a time when the environmentalimpacts of marine debris are gaining increasing globalinterest, WSPA believes it is also important to bringanimal welfare to the forefront of solution-focuseddiscussions. This goal was a primary motivation behindholding the symposium, providing its theme.1 A global framework for the prevention and management of marine debris,United Nations Environment Programme and National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration of the United States. http://5imdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/honolulustrategy.pdf(accessed February 2013).The symposiumUntangled brought together over 60 experts from a rangeof backgrounds. The rich diversity of delegates meantthat knowledge and experience was shared acrossregions, cultures and sectors, resulting in an impressivedegree of information exchange from many perspectives.The symposium hosted posters and ‘lightning talk’presentations by 40 experts. The talks highlighted veryclearly the magnitude, global scope and complexitiesof the marine debris problem and the threat it poses tothe welfare of animals. Through presentations under thethemes of (1) reducing debris, (2) removing debris and(3) rescuing animals caught in debris, delegates learnedabout the animal welfare impacts of different types ofmarine debris and the solutions being implemented insome parts of the world.In group sessions delegates were able to define priorityproblems (Annex 2), focusing on fishing-related debris,consumer/packaging-related debris, and rescue efforts.In further group sessions delegates then discussedand presented solutions (Annex 2), many of whichwere based on effective work already underway insome countries. Delegates with a scientific backgroundensured that discussions were scientifically robust,while delegates working at a policy level were able tohighlight the challenges presented by implementingpolicy changes on such a complex issue, but were alsoable to provide examples of policy changes already inplace and case studies of success. Representatives ofkey industries such as plastics and fishing were ableto convey both positive and realistic feedback to someof the solutions that were suggested, as well as sharesome of the solutions that these industries are alreadysupporting. Delegates with rescue response experienceshared the unique challenges they face, some practicaland pragmatic solutions and the successes that theyhave had.Delegates approached the workshops and discussionswith optimism and energy, united by a sense of hopethat with co-ordinated action this problem can be solved.While knowledge gaps exist for some of the issuesthere was a clear determination that the internationalcommunity and all relevant stakeholders must takeresponsibility and urgent action. Some common themeswere apparent throughout all of the issues discussed,including the need for greater political and industry6

2Executive summarycommitment on a global scale, increased co-ordinationbetween stakeholders, successful prevention/mitigation/rescue strategies to be implemented more widely,and better/more appropriate regulations, legislationand protocols to be put in place. Although delegatescame from diverse backgrounds, there was a sharedrecognition that the animal welfare impacts of marinedebris are an issue of significance and importance. Acommitment to take action was demonstrated by thesigning of a declaration (Annex 1).Key outcomes of the Untangled symposium:1. The Untangled Declaration (Annex 1)2. Identification and clear definition of the priority animalwelfare problems caused by marine debris (Annex 2)3. Proposed innovative and practical solutions for eachof the priority animal welfare problems caused bymarine debris (Annex 2)4. Suggested key messages for communicating thepriority problems to identified stakeholders andpersuading them to action the proposed solutions(Table 1)5. Identification of existing knowledge gaps that shouldbe addressed to enable effective delivery of theproposed solutions (Annex 3).7

3Overview of the Untangled sessionsThe symposium was opened by Lyndall Stein, WSPAInternational Director of Campaigns, and Claire Bass,WSPA Oceans Campaign Leader, who welcomedand thanked delegates before providing an overviewof WSPA’s interest and involvement in the globalmarine debris problem from an organisationalperspective, and set the animal welfare context forthe rest of the symposium.Vincent Sweeney of UNEP delivered an inspiringkeynote speech, providing the international context ofthe problem and an overview of the work that UNEPis currently involved in, including the development oftheir Global Partnership for Marine Litter (GPML). Laterin the evening, participants were treated to an upliftingpresentation from Holly Lohuis, Director of Jean-MichelCousteau’s Ocean Futures Society.During the first morning, presentations were structuredaround three solution-based themes:• Reducing the amount of entangling or animal-harmingdebris entering the marine environment• Removing marine debris which is already in the marineenvironment• Rescuing the number of animals already entangled inor affected by marine debris.During these concurrent group sessions, 40 participantsgave poster presentations based on the above themes,highlighting the animal welfare problems causedby marine debris in different parts of the world, thechallenges faced in solving them, and examples ofsolution-orientated research and work. It was clear fromthese sessions and the accompanying abstracts (Annex4) that there are a significant number of organisationsand agencies, of all sizes, working hard to address themarine debris issue.Delegates were then split again into three differentgroups, reflecting the two main types of debris in themarine environment that cause problems for animals andthe need to respond to, and rescue, animals which havealready been affected by it:• Fishing gear – abandoned, lost or discardedfishing gear•Packaging/consumer litter – any form of packagingor consumer litter which ends up in the marineenvironment and causes animal welfare problems• Animal rescue/disentanglement – the actions ofdetecting, responding and rescuing animals injuredor entangled in any form of marine debris.Within these groups delegates formed sub-groups andtook part in facilitated discussions to identify and definewhat they felt were the priority animal welfare problemscaused by marine debris (Annex 2). Having defined theproblems, the same sub-groups were asked to identifyappropriate and viable solutions to these problems(Annex 2), including which key stakeholders would beresponsible and need to be involved, and the challengesthat would be encountered.A plenary session was convened to allow each groupto report back to the rest of the symposium delegates,giving an overview of their prioritised problems andsolutions. Delegates in the audience were asked toplace themselves in the mind-set of the identified keystakeholders and ask questions to constructively critiquethe proposed solutions. The presentations promptedlively discussion, with many important points beingraised and relevant information exchanged by all.On the final day of the symposium all delegatesattended a plenary session in which they were taskedwith identifying key knowledge gaps that exist inrelation to the solutions that had been identified in theprevious sessions. This resulted in a summary accountof what is known and what is not, including suggestionsfor where missing knowledge might be obtained.Subsequently, a session on communication was heldin which the discussion focused on how key messagesabout the marine debris problem and its solutionscould be communicated effectively to differentaudiences. Delegates then split into smaller groups,each tasked with a particular marine debris problem/solution and a stakeholder for whom they had toidentify key messages.At the close of the symposium, delegates stated theirshared concern for the animal welfare problems causedby marine debris and a commitment to take action bysigning up to a declaration which had been drafted by asmall group of delegates, from different sectors, over thethree days (Annex 1).8

4Summary of problem and solutionworkshop outcomesFishing gearAbandoned, lost or discarded fishing nets, particularlygill/drift nets, were identified as a priority problemrequiring urgent action due to the extent of the problemsthey cause for animals (i.e. number of animals affected)and the type of injuries they cause. Excess pot traps thatare lost and indiscriminately entrap or entangle wildlifewere also identified as a significant problem.A global ban on gill nets was proposed as the ultimatesolution to the problem, although the substantialchallenges that would arise in trying to achieve this banwere acknowledged. Despite these challenges, many feltthat given the significant difference a ban would make,it was worth aiming for. The United Nations has banneddrift nets in international waters (although this ban isoften circumvented) and there are also moves by somenational governments, such as Argentina, to ban therecreational use of gill nets in their own territorial waters,meaning there are precedents that could be built upon.A key source of concern is that there are currently norealistic alternatives to gill nets and a ban is not likelyto stop people from using them due to their efficacyfor catching fish. It was acknowledged that the level ofenforcement required to maintain the ban would be highall over the world.Other solutions focused on a variety of means toenable and incentivise fishermen 2 to safely disposeof their nets on land (for example, an increase in portwaste disposal and recycling facilities for nets) andintroducing better technology to make nets less likely toharm marine animals. Innovative solutions around therecovery of ‘ghost nets’ were put forward, emulatingschemes in places such as Norway, South Korea andHawaii where regular trawls take place to retrieve lostor discarded nets. The potential to recycle ‘end of life’nets (either disposed of in dedicated port waste facilitiesor recovered from the sea via trawls) into energy orother materials was agreed to be a compelling factorin creating both economic and green incentives for netrecycling schemes.A lot of discussion was held about the potentialchallenges of implementing different types of incentiveschemes to prevent fishermen discarding their nets,in particular the fact that it may be difficult to securegovernment funding in many countries, althoughcorporate sponsorship may play a role in this solution.It was emphasised that it would be unlikely to be a ‘onesize fits all’ approach as solutions would have to becatered to the particular markets and circumstancesin different countries. One suggestion was that it couldbe a fisheries-driven process, using a governmentadministrated‘pay to play’ system, linking the costof a license and possible rebates to a fisherman’s abilityto demonstrate that s/he has maintained their gear ingood condition. Within this system penalties wouldbe incurred for the loss of gear. The situation forartisanal fishers would need to be looked at in greatdetail as in many cases they are unlikely to be able toafford to pay extra fees and in such cases the idea ofnet ‘buy-back’ schemes was discussed as a potentialway of encouraging fishermen to maintain gear in agood state of repair, rather than using it until it fallsapart and is lost.With regard to traps, discussion centred on existing newtechnologies that can help make traps less of a danger tomarine animals; these ranged from traps that require onlyone line to traps that have rings or panels that degradeafter a period of time. The use of stiffened line was alsodiscussed and it was noted that this only reduces welfareproblems for some species; it would for example notprevent all whale entanglements. Regulatory measuresto reduce fishing effort with particular regard to thenumber of traps that are set each year were alsodefined as necessary.2In this document the term ‘fishermen’ will be used to refer to people ofboth genders who fish either commercially or recreationally.9

4Summary of problem and solutionworkshop outcomesPackaging/consumer debrisThis group identified that many countries lack basicwaste infrastructure, legislation and education, resultingin waste/debris entering the marine environment. Fourkey debris types were identified as priority problemscausing severe suffering to animals: plastic bags;plastic packing bands; plastic six-pack rings andplastic bottle caps.Solutions were quite specific to each debris type,but all required industry and consumer buy-in andsome additionally needed policy changes to introduceparticular legislation.There was discussion about whether the ultimate aimshould be the responsible disposal of plastic and otherdebris or a substantial reduction of plastic use by societyoverall. Industry representatives in the group felt that itwas much more realistic to find disposal and recyclingfocusedsolutions, while others emphasised that thisshould still go hand in hand with an effort to encouragepeople to live a less consumerist lifestyle and reduce oreliminate certain types of packaging altogether.Although plastic was clearly identified as a cause ofmany animal welfare problems in the oceans, it wasacknowledged that alternative materials often comewith their own set of problems (i.e. other environmentalimpacts, unsustainable sources etc.).There was considerable positive discussion aboutinitiatives to reduce or ban plastic bags, especially asthis is an issue that both the public and retailers arealready increasingly aware of. Examples were providedof countries, regions and cities banning plastic bagsaltogether whereas in others a tax on the bags isimposed at the point of sale. Many delegates felt thatsuch initiatives can and should be replicated on a globalscale. Several important lessons have been learnedfrom existing schemes such as the fact that the initialsuccess in reducing plastic bag use by charging a feecan plateau; and in order to prevent this the fee needs toincrease incrementally over time. Although governmentshave a responsibility to enforce and administer legislationthat restricts or bans plastic bags, this has proven, atleast in some places, to be low cost compared to whatthey have had to pay previously to clean up their waterways of plastic bags. One delegate reported that inIreland, where plastic bags have been banned, fishermenhave reported that they no longer ‘catch’ plastic bagsin their nets, compared to Northern Irish waters wherethere is a very apparent problem – evidence that bansreally do reduce the presence of these items in themarine environment.The six-pack ring problem and solution discussion raisedcomments about how the use of this type of packaginghas been reduced or even eliminated in some places,meaning it would not be a relevant issue to focus on inevery country.10

4Summary of problem and solutionworkshop outcomesSolutions which engaged industry in a positive way,such as the ‘Coca Cola Cap Challenge’ and ‘CorporateCoastline’, were generally viewed as potentiallyvery good initiatives with great public engagementopportunities. Some people questioned whether childrenare still interested in collecting things like bottle caps, butthere were also suggestions of ways to make them morecollectable, such as putting a marine-related fact on theinside of the bottle cap. It was mentioned that companiessuch as Apple, Schweppes and Shell have sponsoredbeaches and conducted beach clean-ups which theypaid for themselves (a model which could be replicated),and that the US-based Adopt a Highway initiative couldalso be used as a model given that it is a similar idea.Hotels situated on coastlines could also be asked toprovide funds for beach clean-ups.The group positively reviewed a campaign idea inwhich users of plastic packing bands are asked tocut them after use via a ‘Cut if you Care’ logo printedon each band by the manufacturer. It would cost themanufacturers money to print on the band but in returntheir CSR reputation would be improved. The groupnoted that the message would either need to be printedin different languages or be represented by symbolsto make it language neutral. It was highlighted thatan educational campaign focused on the problemsassociated with packing bands would need to runalongside the messaging that appeared on thebands themselves.11

4Summary of problem and solutionworkshop outcomesAnimal rescue/disentanglementThe problems prioritised by the rescue groups werepredominantly centred on the lack of capacity that theexisting rescue community has, as a whole, to respondto animals affected by marine litter. Rescue networks donot exist in all areas where they are needed and wherethey do exist, people likely to come into contact withentangled animals do not always know about them orhow to contact them. Legislation was also raised as anissue – either a lack of it or too much of it in some caseswhich hampers rescue attempts.Solutions were focused on building the capacity ofexisting networks, both in terms of increasing the numberof people actively working to respond to entanglementcases in parts of the world where it is needed, and also interms of introducing internationally agreed best practice/protocols to improve the efficiency of rescue efforts andprotect both animal and human welfare.During the plenary discussion delegates queried how thecapacity-building of rescue networks would be funded,emphasising that it probably is not high priority for mostgovernments. Examples that can be used as persuasivecase studies were given, such as the successfulgovernment-funded whale disentanglement networksand training in the US. It was acknowledged that bestpractice for whale disentanglement already exists andwork at the International Whaling Commission (IWC)and within the US government is building upon this andtraining is starting to become available in other countries.However, for other species it was apparent that there isa lack of agreed best practice and that a standing expertgroup would be beneficial in this regard. It is unfortunatethat there is no intergovernmental body that focuses onthe welfare of marine animals aside from whales (coveredby the IWC) as the involvement of a relevant IGO wouldbe useful in establishing and disseminating best practicefor disentanglement and rescue.12

5AcknowledgementsWSPA would like to thank and acknowledge the followingpeople: all delegates who attended the Untangledsymposium and all those who submitted abstracts andother information relevant to the event; Andy Butterworthand Isabella Clegg, author and co-author of WSPA’sUntangled report; and Bernard Ross, Alice Hopkinsonand Alex Hamlin from The Management Centre for theirexcellent facilitation.13

Annex 1Untangled DeclarationWe are all concerned that marine litter is increasinglypolluting our oceans and killing millions of animalsevery year. Animals are ingesting and becomingentangled in debris originating from fisheries andconsumer-related waste, such as plastic packaging.These animals may suffer, sometimes for longperiods, and can experience painful deaths.Recognising our shared responsibility to protectanimals from unnecessary suffering, we urgeour governments, industry, intergovernmentalbodies and agencies, and the public worldwide,to commit to actions to: prevent our dangerouswaste, including that derived from fishing gear, fromreaching the oceans; to remove that which is alreadythere; and to rescue those animals caught in itsdeadly grip.In tackling the problem of marine litter we all committo take action to protect marine animals fromneedless suffering.15

Annex 2Priority problems and solutionsSolution 3: A global ban on gill nets.• Target stakeholders: UN; governments• Motivation (of targets): would save millions of animalsworldwide – decreased by-catch and marine debrisrelatedanimal suffering; level the playing field forall fishermen worldwide; would protect endangeredspecies (conservation incentive); increased health ofglobal ocean ecosystem• Challenges: would have to be done globally so thereis no advantage to those who continue to use gillnets; huge economic impact on fisheries and fishingcommunities; lack of political will; impact on foodsupply and no alternative food sources in some areas;fishing industry revolt; lack of alternatives to gill nets;insufficient organisation of multiple stakeholders;financial resources to fight this fight; historical andcultural barriers• Time frame: 20 years.Packaging/consumer litterProblem 1: Single-use carrier bags (whetherintentionally or accidently improperly disposedof by consumers) enter the waterways and oceanswhere they are ingested by marine mammalsand turtles, causing gut blockage and internalcomplications resulting in decreased health ofthe animal and/or death.Solution: Local to centralised governments impose afee for single-use plastic bags which would discourageexcessive use by retailers and consumers.• Target stakeholders: central government (municipal/state/federal)• Motivation (of targets): revenue generated by thefee could subsidise government funded clean-upof waterways; compensate retailers for programmeparticipation; once in place this policy will make anear-immediate impact; good precedents are already inplace in some places, i.e. Washington DC – where thebag fee has raised $2 million towards cleaning up theriver and a significant reduction in plastic bag waste;success in Maryland has been aided by consumers’ability to identify with the piece of water aimed at beingcleaned up; an analysis could be done to show theeconomic benefits of reduced use; increased marketingof reusable bags would get these companies on side• Challenges: ingrained consumer behaviour/convenience lifestyle; lack of political will; resistancefrom plastics industry; easier to pass this legislation insome areas than in others• Time frame: 1-2 years to introduce and pass legislation;1 year to require retailer compliance.18

Annex 2Priority problems and solutionsProblem 2: Plastic packing bands used by industrythat enter the marine ecosystem and threatento entangle marine animals including pinnipeds,cetaceans, turtles and large fish.Solution: ‘Cut after Use’, ‘Cut if you Care’campaigns – printing a logo/slogan on packingbands that highlights the need to the cut thebands prior to disposal.• Target stakeholders: fishing industry and other usersof packing bands• Motivation (of targets): better corporate image forcompanies who invest in printing the logo/slogan;consumers can be made aware that taking thissimple action will result in a tangible positive impacton animalsProblem 3: Plastic six-pack rings used for beveragecontainers may end up in oceans when eitherintentionally or accidently improperly disposed ofby consumers, injuring or strangling marine wildlife,causing suffering and/or death.Solution: Motivate consumers and retailers to collectand recycle six-pack rings at the point of sale to helplocal causes.• Target stakeholders: retailers and consumers• Motivation (of targets): ‘recycling for a reason’(i.e. providing a strong motivator) will reduce thenumber of injuries to and incidences of stranglingof sea-birds, turtles and fish by six-pack rings.• Challenges: will not work without industry involvementand investment.19

Annex 2Priority problems and solutionsProblem 4: Bottle caps and rings that end up in themarine environment can potentially cause digestionproblems when swallowed by animals, as well asresulting in death and toxin transfer further up thefood chain.Solution 1: ‘(Coca Cola) Cap Challenge’ – for everycap collected, industry would donate $X, so that fiftyper cent of the funds goes to the school for educationalor sporting supplies and fifty per cent goes to aninternational NGO for marine animal welfare.• Target stakeholders: industry, educators and students• Motivation (of targets): a fun and global collectioncompetition to increase recycling; caps could becomea ‘cool’ collectable item for kids; possible to makethis viral, using social media, idea of competition viaschool/community/country tallies or a competitionto use caps creatively – geographical mapping usingonline tools; CSR appeals to industry, a way to getindustry name in schools; some similar programmesalready exist (proven to be popular, potential partners)• Challenges: dependent on the appropriate corporatesupport; some kind of infrastructure will need to bein place to recycle the caps so need alignment withexisting operations or need to invest in new ones;some similar programmes already exist (not novel);demonstrating the scale of the animal welfare impact ofthese items is difficult (i.e. requires data demonstratingconsumption of caps by animals)• Time frame: consideration would be around initial smallscale pilot project then roll out globallySolution 3: ‘Keep Caps On’ – build upon North AmericanTrade Association efforts to strongly encourage recyclingfacilities to accept and adopt technology to properlyrecycle caps with bottles, so that consumers can placeboth in the recycling bins, and so reduce the amount ofbottle caps littered.• Target stakeholders: recycling companies• Motivation (of targets): NATA project already beingimplemented – industry is recognising that caps needto be recycled; can cut top off bottle and ring quicklyand easily with new technology; caps are one of themost highly littered items• Challenges: value of plastic caps is not as high asthe bottle.Solution 4: Extended producer responsibilityprogramme: building on the UNEP/NOAA HonoluluStrategy, governments could regulate industry to pay forthe collection of litter products, change design of theseproducts, or improve the existing bottle bill legislation toinclude caps, so that less are littered.• Target stakeholders: governments and other policymakers; industry• Challenges: requires companies to pay a fee for thecollection of their material and improved recyclingefforts – may not be popular with industry so theymay try and block it; not all areas will implement thiskind of regulation.Solution 2: ‘Corporate Coastline’ – Corporationswould sponsor or adopt beaches/sections of coastlineglobally so that they take pride in and responsibility forthem, engaging their staff to work with local communitiesto keep the area clean and free of bottle caps (and otherdebris, e.g. nets).20

Annex 2Priority problems and solutionsAnimal rescue/disentanglementProblem 1: A lack of capacity in terms of training,infrastructure, responder networks and monitoringin the rescue community is hampering animalwelfare efforts.Solution 1: An international animal welfare NGO tocreate a standing expert group to develop, monitor andshare international protocols describing best practice inrescue training, infrastructure and evaluation with keyinfluential governments and relevant inter-governmentalorganisations, lobbying for official adoption of bestpracticeprotocols into law. These protocols could alsobe disseminated to stakeholders and would enable aneffective approach to the successful rescue of millions ofentangled marine animals around the world.• Target stakeholders: key influential governments andIGOs, i.e. US government, EU, CMS, IWC, UNEP, etc.Solution 3: The existing regional networks will identify,recruit and train new potential rescue organisations toincrease the coverage and the number of entangledanimals that can be detected and saved.• Target stakeholders: rescue organisations that arewilling and able to participate• Motivation (of targets): the greater number of entangledanimals that could be detected and saved by having awider network• Challenges: regional networks not yet established at allin some places• Time frame: 2 years.• Motivation (of targets): public opinion demandingeffective response to entangled wildlife; majority/influential government positions that other governmentsare likely to follow; case studies that demonstrate theprotocols work• Challenges: competing priority issues; funds requiredto set up working groups within IGOs; lack of anexisting IGO with a remit for all marine wildlife andanimal welfare; conservation and development focusrather than animal welfare• Time frame: 2-3 years.Solution 2: An international animal welfare NGO shouldestablish an expert group to identify best practice fortraining, infrastructure and monitoring.• Target stakeholders: an international animalwelfare NGO• Motivation (of targets): current lack of, and need for, aninternational cohesive and fully informed standardisedresponse to entangled animals• Challenges: competition between rescue groups,conflicting priorities, lack of funds to bringpeople together• Time frame: 1 year.21

Annex 2Priority problems and solutionsProblem 2: A lack of adequate protocol infrastructureand knowledge to enable fishermen, coastalcommunities, workers and other ocean users totell the people equipped to take action about anentangled animal requiring rescue.Solution 1: Better awareness and understanding ofmarine animals and their role in the fisheries ecosystemwill better motivate fishermen to report incidences ofmarine animal entanglement.Solution 2: Joint initiatives linking detectors andresponders – perhaps mediated by NGOs and/or research organisations – will improve the trustrelationship and mutual benefit to all parties involved.Solution 3: The existence and awareness of a globalnetwork for reporting and monitoring marine animalrescue needs would increase the ability of respondersto reach more animals requiring rescue at the local andregional level, and would increase public engagementand motivation on the issue.Solution 4: Best practice for successful detection,response and rescue should be shared morewidely and effectively between government agenciesand responders.• Target stakeholders: agencies directly involved inanimal rescue/disentanglement, possibly academics• Time frame: 3 years.Problem 3: Marine animal rescues can becomplicated by a lack of efficient, appropriate andeffective government engagements (regulation/legislation etc.).Solution 1: To motivate governments to changelegislation with the aim of improving response toentangled animals. An international animal welfare NGO(or a working group of several of them) should provide areview of current response/rescues. This would provideexamples of good and bad practice and compliance.Solution 2: In order to ensure human safety andanimal welfare in response efforts to entangled marineanimals, UNEP, FAO, IWC, CMS and other internationalgovernment entities should encourage member states tocreate effective regulations by convening a task force attheir next meeting to review best practice (human safetyand animal welfare should be the guiding priorities ingovernment regulation).Solution 3: Country X should create legislation for thesafe and effective rescue of entangled whales by seekingadvice and capacity building from international experts.This would demonstrate leadership on a regional issueand recognition of animal welfare as a topic of growingglobal concern.Solution 4: The US (or other countries where laws areimpeding or compromising effective response) shouldreview and modify outdated existing regulations whichprevent the effective response to entangled seals (orother species where relevant).22

Table 1Communication exercise – key messagesand target audiencesPriority problem Stakeholder Key messages to communicate Method/s Actions to ask them to takeSingle-use carrier bags (whetherintentionally or accidentlyimproperly disposed of byconsumers) enter the waterwaysand oceans where they areingested by marine mammalsand turtles, causing gut blockageand internal complicationsresulting in decreased health ofthe animal and/or deathPlastic packing bands usedby industry that enter themarine ecosystem and threatento entangle marine animalsincluding pinnipeds, cetaceans,turtles and large fishA lack of capacity in terms oftraining, infrastructure, respondernetworks and monitoring in therescue community is hamperinganimal welfare effortsA lack of adequate protocolinfrastructure and knowledgeto enable fishermen, coastalcommunities, workers andother ocean users to tell thepeople equipped to take actionabout an entangled animalrequiring rescueA ten-yearoldPlasticindustryThegovernmentofficialConsumerGarbage in the oceans killsmillions of animals. The numberone item is plastic bags. Yourparents use plastic bags – this iskilling turtlesAre you aware of the problem?Are there any advancesin technology to minimisethe problem?Ensure that the problemstatement is stated at‘consumer level’The economic impact,e.g. tourismNegative impact for human/animal lifeMarine animals becomeentangled in debris and fishinggear and people that find themdo not know what to do/ whoto informIn some places there is no oneto call even though there arean increasing number of rescuegroups around the worldThere needs to be more publicityabout problems and solutionsFace-to-faceconversationsEstablishingconstructivedialogue andrelationshipProtocols/facts/statisticsCase studieson the negativeimpactsCreate socialmedia network(Twitter,Facebook etc.)to inform public• It is really easy to fix this:Just say no! (in the shop)• Plastic bags become futuregarbage – let’s stop thistogether• Find out whether the industrybelieves any of the potentialsuggested solutions are viable• Find out what the barriers areto overcome from the industryperspective• Establish whether thecompany would be interestedin participating in extendedproducer responsibility• Set regulations• Set the local protocols• Organise the strandingnetworks• Funding the preventativeprogrammes• Establish a select committee• Benchmarks to highlightsuccess• Local participation andawarenessYou can help by finding out whatis being done locally and who isin chargeHuman safetyMarine animal rescues canbe complicated by a lackof efficient, appropriateand effective governmentengagements (regulation/legislation etc.)ThegovernmentofficialProvide solutionsto the problemsPlan programmesfor them• Protocol/monitoring• Facilities• Enforcement agencies• Training and capacity-building• Institutional legislature24

Annex 3Knowledge gapsDelegates were provided with a random selectionof the prioritised problems and proposed solutionsand asked to think about (1) what knowledge we, asan international community, already have to enableus to tackle this problem and (2) what necessaryinformation is unknown and who/where the sourcesof this kind of information might be.Problem: Ghost fishing nets are responsible for theentanglement of unacceptably large numbers ofmarine animals.Solution: Governments and fishing industry to cometogether to develop a regulatory framework based oneconomic incentives to reduce gear loss to decreaseunintended entanglement/mortality of wildlife.What do we know?• Nets get lost in marine environment, both intentionallyand accidently – causing entanglement• Nets can be re-used (for other purposes) or recycled• Locally illegal but no enforcement• Broad range of species affected• Countries are opposed to regulationsWhat is unknown?• How much is lost?• How long do these ghost nets ‘keep fishing’• Where in the world are the biggest problems?• What would prevent intentional disposal• Baseline data – monitoringWho knows it?• Fishing industry• Gear technology manufacturers• Coastal clean-up people• Enforcement agencies/governmentsWho might know?• Fishing community• Scientific community• Some government agencies• Some NGOs• Net owners (identification)Problem: Excess traps are used at a number offisheries across the globe. Millions of these trapsare lost at sea every year and continue to fishindiscriminately for periods of months to years.They entangle and suffocate marine wildlifeincluding turtles and seabirds.Solution: Reduce the number of derelict traps byreducing the number of traps used.What do we know?• Impacts many species of animal on a global scale• Some key geographic locations• Trap limits exist in some areas• Effects of habitat on trap loss• There is local awareness of issue in some areasWhat is unknown?• Numbers of traps• How to prevent traps being lost• Impact on animal populations (conservation issues)• Long term datasets• Level of fisherman engagement – likely success• Relationship between number of pots used and thenumber lost• Mechanisms of entanglement• Level of reporting and enforcement• What species• Economic impact• What the best alternative technology available isWho knows it?• Fishermen, scientists, specialists• UK – IFCA• Some government agencies• Some NGOs• Development agenciesWho might know?• Fishermen, public, divers• Scientists• Government – fishing authorities• Fishing community• Some NGOs• Maritime authorities• Modellers, marine biologists• Trap manufacturers25

Annex 3Knowledge gapsProblem: A lack of capacity in terms of training,infrastructure, responder networks and monitoringin the rescue community is hampering animalwelfare efforts.Solution: An international animal welfare NGO shouldcreate a standing expert group to develop, monitor andshare international protocols describing best practice inrescue training, infrastructure and evaluation with keyinfluential governments and relevant intergovernmentalorganisations, lobbying for official adoption of bestpracticeprotocols into law. These protocols could alsobe disseminated to stakeholders and would enable aneffective approach to the successful rescue of entangledmarine animals around the world.What do we know?• Local protocols exist• Protocols exist for whales• There is a lack of authority for this in some locationsWhat is unknown?• Who the key influential governments are• Whether there is a key international veterinary organisation whocould endorse protocols once they exist• Whether there are any suitable coordinating bodies• What an expert panel should consist of and who shouldbe on it. Whether there should be an expert panel per speciesor per group• Whether it is possible to create a best practice for all species• Euthanasia options for all species• Where the areas of greatest need are, and where lacks a rescuenetwork that needs one• Whether it is better to have localised best practice as opposedto globalWho knows it?• Response and rescue networks, BDMLR (UK), MARK (UK)• Law enforcement agencies• Marine Mammal Conservancy• Marine Mammal Stranding Network• IWC (whales)• Sea Turtles Restoration ProjectWho might know?• Existing rescue organisations/networks• Coast-guards• Veterinary associations may be able to advise on euthanasia• Local rescue organisations and networks should be able toadvise on their local conditionsProblem: A lack of adequate protocol, infrastructureand knowledge to enable fishermen, coastalcommunities, workers and other ocean users totell the people equipped to take action about anentangled animal requiring rescue.Solution: Best practice for successful detection,response and rescue should be shared more widelyand more effectively between government agenciesand responders.What do we know?• New and existing protocols• Contact details/numbers if an entangled animal is seen – insome places• That we need a no-blame culture on this issue• In water, humans risk deathWhat is unknown?• Who else is willing and able to participate• Reporting methods – not everyone has access to telephones• Unknown scale of entanglement over the world• What different protocols exist in different parts of the world• Whether the existing protocols are the sameWho knows it?• NOAA, IWC, CWT, MSN (UK)• NOAA, PCCS, FWC, Coast Guard, NSRI, BDMLR, ONDB• Fishing representatives• New partners in the developing world, e.g. Brazil,the Philippines• UNEPWho might know?• Existing rescue networks• Stranding networks/databases: NOAA; Environment Agency(Argentina); SAWDN (South Africa)• Probably isn’t known without a review process28

Annex 3Knowledge gapsProblem: Marine animal rescues can becomplicated by a lack of efficient, appropriateand effective government engagements(regulation/legislation etc.).Solution: To motivate governments to change legislationwith the aim of improving response to entangled animals.An international animal welfare NGO (or a working groupof several of them) should provide a review of currentresponse/rescues. This would provide examples of goodand bad practice and compliance.What do we know?• Lack of regulation through to too much bureaucracy canhamper rescue efforts• There is a need for a global review of existing regulations• Rescue efforts do take place outside of existing protocols• Compliance is difficult• Compliance is unlikely in developing countriesWhat is unknown?• Existing regulations and protocols worldwide• Existing regulations and protocols worldwide• Actual number of entanglement cases• What the best practice guidelines are• Who would be best placed to undertake a review• What sort of legislation is needed in each place• Whether animal welfare is going to be a priority forany governments• Best practice for some species• What examples of best compliance are there and what lessonscan be learnedWho knows it?• IWC, NOAA• NGOs and rescue groups• Government agenciesWho might know?• Fishing industry and fishermen• Coastal authorities• Holders of stranding databases• Public29

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsAbstracts are presented under the themes of reduce,remove, and rescue.Please note: all abstracts in Annex 4 are the intellectualproperty of the author and are presented here assubmitted. This annex does not contain content byWSPA; please contact individual authors for furtherinformation or requests to quote.ReduceThe following abstracts are those submitted under thetheme of reducing the amount of marine litter enteringthe oceans and harming animals.Regional cooperation and intergovernmentalagreements: key elements addressing marine debrisissues in the Wider Caribbean RegionAlessandra Vanzella-KhouriUnited Nations Environment Programme –Caribbean Environment Programme (UNEP-CEP)14-20 Port Royal Street, Kingston, Jamaicaavk@cep.unep.orgThe Convention for the Protection and Development ofthe Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region(Cartagena Convention, 1983) and its Protocols are theonly legally binding environmental treaties for the WiderCaribbean Region and constitute a legal commitment bythe participating governments to protect, develop andmanage their marine resources individually or jointly.Through the Protocol Concerning Specially ProtectedAreas and Wildlife (SPAW Protocol, 1990), coastal andmarine biodiversity issues are managed through anecosystem-based and integrated precautionary approachand supported through a comprehensive programme.Through the Protocol Concerning Land-based Pollutionand Activities (LBS Protocol, 1999), both point andnon-point sources of pollution, including marine debris,are addressed through an integrated environmentalprogramme, which also interacts with the GlobalProgramme of Action (GPA) on land-based pollution.The SPAW Protocol grants total protection to hundredsof species, including all species of sea turtles and marinemammals that inhabit the Wider Caribbeanand which are being affected by marine debris.A marine mammal Action Plan developed under SPAWhighlights entanglements and fisheries interactions asmajor threats to marine mammals. In this context, theUNEP administered Cartagena Convention and SPAWand LBS Protocols promote and facilitate regionalcooperation to address these issues within a holisticframework developed and executed in partnership withgovernments, other UN agencies and initiatives, NGOs,the scientific community, the private sector and donorsand which supports assessments, capacity building,and management interventions.Private sector efforts to create effective,collaborative partnerships to reduce litterAshley Carlson, ConsultantAmerican Chemistry Council115 Chase Rd, Londonderry, NH 03053, USAAshley@ashleycarlsonconsulting.comOver the years numerous programs and approacheshave been developed by government agencies,industry groups and NGOs to increase public awarenessregarding marine debris, and to establish litter abatementand other programs to change behaviors that ultimatelylead to marine debris impacting coastal areas andthe ocean.As producers of materials that have found their wayinto the marine environment, plastic makers are activelyinvolved in marine debris and litter prevention programsand are working with governments, scientists, retailers,anti-litter groups and consumers to devise solutions tohelp prevent marine debris.This presentation will highlight examples of severalsuccessful programs through the Declaration ofGlobal Plastics Associations for Solutions on MarineLitter. With over 50 plastics organizations from30 countries signed on to the Declaration, thispresentation will explore global projects and partnershipsthat work to help reduce plastic from entering ourenvironment, such as the American Chemistry Council’spartnership to place nearly 700 recycling bins andeducational signage in 19 communities along theCalifornia coast; and a global industry stewardship30

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsImpacts of marine debris on manatees, sea turtles anddolphins in FloridaAdimey, N.M., Hudak, C., Powell, J., Bassos-Hull, K.and Minch, K.3915 Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville,Florida 32256, USANicole_Adimey@fws.govMarine debris is a global problem that has been anongoing concern for animal conservation. Entanglementin and ingestion of marine debris has been documentedin numerous marine mammal and sea turtle species(Laist, 1996). Marine debris in general can: restrictfeeding, cause starvation, restrict movement, drown orexhaust the animal, cause amputation, wounds and/or infection, decrease predator avoidance or introducetoxic chemicals into tissues (Laist, 1997). Although thereis a growing concern to mitigate the effects of marinedebris on marine mammals and sea turtle populations(Johnson et al 2005), the true extent to which thesecause morbidity, mortality, or population effects israrely known (Williams et al 2011). This study compiledand analyzed entanglement and ingestion data of bothactive and derelict fishing gear from dolphins, manateesand six species of sea turtles, using stranding recordsfrom Florida (1997-2009). Fishery-related gear wascategorized as follows: hook and line (HL) (fishing line,hooks, lures, etc.); trap pot gear (TPG) (any part of a trappot including buoy and line) and other known fishing gear(OG) not separated into the previous two categories (e.g.,net, rope). A combined total of 27323 cases among thethree major groups were reported, of which 2412 wereT. truncatus, 4962 T. manatus, and 19949 Chelonioideaspp. From these, a total of 1958 gear-on entanglementcases were analyzed; 132 T. truncatus, 433 T. manatus,and 1393 Chelonioidea spp. For all species, the majorityof entanglements were either ingested (I) (28.0%, n=548),occurred on the flipper (F) region (27.1% n=530) oroccurred in multiple body locations (ML) (16.3%, n=320).Overall, comparing gear versus location, 78.6% of theAtlantic cases were HL (n=915) and 7.1% TPG (n=83),while in the Gulf region, 56.4% were HL (n=448) and27.1%TPG (n=215). Locations with the highest numberof entanglement cases were grouped by watershedboundaries and termed “hotspots”. The overall hotspotsof the multi-species entanglements occurred in the IndianRiver / Mosquito Lagoon Complex (n=675), the FloridaKeys (n=218), and the Charlotte Harbor / Pine IslandSound Complex (n=146). The stranding data representedis a minimum estimate, as entanglement cases cango unreported or animals may be inaccessible.Management recommendations include: (1) increasededucation on impacts of fishing gear and appropriatedisposal practices, targeted especially on recreationalfishers that may not know impacts, rules and regulations;(2) coordination with industry to develop feasible gearmodification solutions such as stiffened line on crabtraps that will not allow coiling around animals (or parts);(3) the creation of a statewide entanglement coordinatorto actively work with conservation organizations toreduce entanglement hazards, assist agencies withreporting and response, and increase awareness;(4) active and regular surveillance and debris removalefforts in hotspots areas; and (5) a statewide outreachcampaign focused on the impacts and hazards offishery-related debris on Florida wildlife, the environmentand the public.Entanglement along the Brazilian coastline:thousands of kilometers of impacts and threatsJuliana A. Ivar do Sul, Monica F. Costa andLuis Henrique B. AlvesDepartamento de Oceanografia,Universidade Federal de PernambucoAv. Arquitetura s/n Cidade Universitária,Recife, PE, Brazil. CEP 50.740-550julianasul@gmail.comStudies related to the occurrence of marine debrison beaches and coastal waters are been developedin Brazil, the largest country of South America (4°latN - 34°lat S) with more than 7,000km of a continuouscoastline, since the 1970’s. Since then, scientists andconservationists observed and reported interactionsbetween plastics and marine animals. The most obviousis the entanglement of marine mammals, sea turtles,seabirds and fishes in nylon nets, ropes and otherfishing-related debris. In the south region, from thefrontier with Uruguay to the Peixes Lagoon, carcasses ofseabirds (including albatrosses, petrels, gulls and terns,and the penguin Spheniscus magellanicus) as well asgreen sea turtles Chelonia mydas are often observedentangled mainly in plastic bags, ropes and nets32

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsdiscarded, abandoned or missed by fishery and ordinaryactivities. Individuals are also reported with plastics intheir gastrointestinal content. In the continental platformof Rio Grande do Sul state and behind, blue sharksPrionace glauca are particularly affected by plasticrings discarded by the commercial fishing fleet. Aroundgills and/or mouth, rings hamper normal feeding andventilation, leaving animals to death. Fishing ropes andnets with several meters in length are reported at theArvoredo Marine Biological Reserve (27°S). The Reserve,and the southern coast of Santa Catarina state, areimportant breeding areas to right whales Eubalaenaglacialis that are been reported entangled on mega(sized) debris mainly from fishing activities (includingartisanal fishery). In the southeast region of Brazil (SãoPaulo state), rings identified as detachable lid partsfrom plastic bottles entangle carcharhinid shark species(Rhizoprionodon lalandii) and are probably related to theirdeath. In the northeast region, marine invertebrates arebeing reported entangled at Todos os Santos Bay (13° S),Bahia state. Hard corals (Millepora spp.) are covered (andbroken) by nylon nets, fishing lines and other fishingrelateddebris. Benthic invertebrates (mollusks andcrustaceans) are also observed entangled in ordinaryobjects such as aluminum cans, glass bottles andplastic containers discarded mainly by beach users.One hundred kilometers to the north, sea turtlesEretmochelys imbricata have their nesting beachescontaminated by marine debris from land- and marinebasedsources. Females may become entangled onthe beach during spawning. In Pernambuco state, theestuarine biota is also threatened by plastic pollution.In a small estuary (Goiana Estuary, 7°S) included in aMarine Extractive Reserve, catfishes and sea turtles areobserved entangled in nylon net fragments. Plastic bagsare observed on mangrove forests sealing of holes andobstructing crab’s passage. Since large areas of theNortheast (and North) coasts in Brazil are covered bymangrove forests, this pattern is probably spread overthese coasts. In Fernando de Noronha Archipelago (3°S,32°W), spinner dolphins Stenella longirostris interactwith plastic supermarket bags. Animals may not becomeentangled but registers are important evidences thatplastics are available to the marine biota in this protectedinsular environment. Finally, in the north region of Brazil,marine debris are already reported on beaches andriverine environments. The accidental fishery capturemarine manatees (Trichechus inunguis) and estuarinedolphins; since fishing-related debris are available theymay entangle marine mammals on coasts and rivers,including the Amazon River. Plastic pollution along theBrazilian coastline is threating hard corals, crustaceans,mollusks, fishes, sea turtles, seabirds and marinemammals. Nowadays, few initiatives exist to reduceentanglement rates. These are almost restricted toindependent non-governmental organizations. Fishingrelateddebris are frequently pointed by researches asthe main responsible for entanglements; consequently,initiatives to reduce amounts of fishing nets and nylonlines are urgently necessary and must include longlastingcampaigns and educational programs. To theaccidental capture of sea turtles, seabirds and dolphinsalthough, more structured initiatives exist.Marine mammal entanglements along theUnited States West Coast: a reference guidefor gear identificationLauren Saez, D. Lawson, M. DeAngelis, E. Petras, S.Wilkin, and C. FahyContractor with Ocean Associates Inc. for NationalMarine Fisheries ServiceSouthwest Regional Office, Long Beach, CA 90802, USALauren.Saez@noaa.govMarine mammal, specifically large whale entanglementin commercial fishing gear off the U.S. West Coast hasbeen identified as an issue of concern by the NationalMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) because of the potentialimpacts to both marine mammals (individually and ata stock/population level) and the commercial fishingindustry. An average of 10 large whale entanglementswere reported per year (2000 to 2012) along the U.S.west coast, with humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae)and gray (Eschrichtius robustus) whales being themost frequently identified species. For many confirmedreports, an on-water response is not possible anda photograph or description of the entanglement isall that can be obtained. For this reason, the originof the entangling gear (active or marine debris) israrely identified for these large whales. Therefore,NMFS created a Fixed Gear Guide to characterize thecommercial fixed gear fisheries off California, Oregon,and Washington to assist responders and managerswith identification of the entangling gear. Each fishery isthoroughly described using photos, diagrams, maps, and33

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationswritten explanations of the gear, gear configurations, andthe applicable management measures and regulations.Keys were created for trap and gillnet fisheries to assistin the visual identification of gear. There is also a sectiondescribing the shape, size, and color of common buoysand lines used off the coast. Information included inthe Gear Guide was collected from a variety of sourcesincluding direct interviews with fishermen, federal andstate fishery managers, evaluation of current laws andregulations, and published literature. It is extremelydifficult to determine whether the entangling gear wasactively fished or if it was marine debris because thereis usually little data available about exactly when andhow a large whale acquired its entanglement. However,the Gear Guide has improved our ability to identifylikely sources of entanglements by providing a betterunderstanding of the similarities and differences betweenfishing gear used by various fisheries. Knowledge ofgear types involved in entanglements has informed andcontinues to be important to management decisions atthe state and federal level such as gear modifications,gear reductions, and gear removal programs. The GearGuide is an important supplement to other analyticaltools being developed by NMFS to improve theability to minimize or mitigate the risk of large whaleand other marine mammal entanglements. Sincethe online publication of the Gear Guide in January2012, it has been downloaded and used by a varietyof groups including members of the marine mammalstranding network, derelict gear removal programs, lawenforcement agencies, recreational boaters, fisheryobservers, and the whale watching industry. The formatof the gear guide, data gathering and characterizationtechniques described, can be used as a template forfuture editions characterizing other fisheries, fisheriesfrom other regions, or fisheries from other parts of theworld to improve knowledge and inform managementof active fisheries and marine debris that may entanglelarge whales.Design-based surveys of marine debris distribution,abundance, and entanglement of benthic coral reeforganisms in the Florida KeysMark ChiapponeNova Southeastern University, OceanographicScience Center8000 N. Ocean Drive, Dania Beach, FL 33030, USAand Miami Dade College, Homestead Campus,500 College Terrace, Homestead, FL 33030, USAmc191@nova.eduFishing and other human activities in the coastal andmarine environment constitute significant threats tomarine biodiversity and ecosystem function, documentedby a growing body of information on the numerousimpacts to populations, community structure, andhabitats. Besides the more obvious effects on speciespopulation structure, human activities in the coastalzone may also reduce the structural complexity ofhabitats or cause corresponding changes in ecologicalprocesses. These patterns are most obvious in areaswhere explosives, poisons, or other destructive fishingmethods are used, but impacts to organisms can beexpected in any area where traps, mobile fishing gearsuch as trawls, and potentially, even large numbers ofrecreational fishers operate. Marine debris, especiallylost fishing gear, can destroy benthic organisms andentangle both benthic and mobile fauna, and the lossand disposal of fishing gear is internationally recognizedas a major environmental issue. The Florida Keys havea long history of commercial and recreational fisheriesthat target a great diversity of fish and invertebratespecies using a multitude of gears. There are alsosignificant, but largely undocumented effects of tens ofthousands of recreational fishers, who target hundredsof species using mostly hook-and-line and spear guns.The sheer crush of humanity in the coastal zone of southFlorida, including large-scale coastal developments andexponential increases in water-based activities such asboating, continue to exacerbate and act synergisticallywith other human-related and natural stressors. Inaddition to marine debris that ends up along shorelines,the ecological effects caused by marine debris that islost when cut or broken after snagging on the bottom isa continual concern of resource managers and scientists.As part of the zone monitoring program for the FloridaKeys National Marine Sanctuary, we have conducted34

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationslarge-scale assessments of the distribution, abundance,and condition of benthic coral reef organisms in a varietyof subtidal, ocean-side habitats from south of Miamito Key West since 1999. A stratified random samplingdesign that incorporates multiple habitat types and areasinside and outside of no-fishing zones is used to partitionthe Florida Keys study area. Included in this programare surveys of the type, length, weight, and impacts ofmarine debris to benthic organisms, as well as removal ofencountered debris. The purpose of these surveys is notto remove as much marine debris as possible, but ratherto document the spatial distribution and amount of marinedebris and to use the stratified survey design that allowsfor estimation of the total amount of debris on the seabedfor the habitats sampled. Results from several large-scalesampling missions during the past decade indicate thatlost angling gear and lobster/crab trap gear are the mostcommon items encountered, but that marine debris ingeneral is ubiquitous throughout the ecosystem. Effortsto reduce lost fishing gear are challenging and it is likelythat entangled debris on the seabed will continue to be achronic, low-level stressor in the Florida Keys.Addressing the threat posed by marine debris towildlife in the deep oceansMark Peter SimmondsSenior Associate Marine ScientistHumane Society Internationalmark.simmonds@sciencegyre.co.ukEntanglement in marine debris raises very severe animalwelfare issues. For example, entangled marine mammalsmay struggle in discarded fishing nets for long periodsof time before they finally succumb. Efforts related toentanglement of wildlife in debris is largely focused closeinshore and on land, for example in nesting and hauloutsites. Clean-ups have focused primarily on the seashore and shallow areas accessible to snorkelers andscuba divers. However, there is evidence of the buildupof debris in some deeper offshore areas. This raisesquestions about how significant deeper accumulationsmay be, where deep sea entanglement ‘hot spots’ areand how they might be best addressed, especially giventhe difficulties posed by offshore conditions.Sampling of debris found offshore at the surface andon the deep seabed will yield evidence about sources.This would potentially allow targeting of sources, suchas certain fisheries with high levels of discards. A recentstudy in the Gulf of California using a submersible atdepths of 20-365m, found that fishing activities were thedominant contributor to debris, which was densest closeto fishing ports and consisted mainly of monofilamentfishing line. Elsewhere, bottom trawling has been usedto sample debris but this cannot be used where thebenthos is rocky or where there are wrecks, whichare both features where lost fishing gear is likely toaccumulate. Acoustic techniques (e.g. side scan sonar)might be used to examine the deep sea benthos and,although plastics are relatively transparent to acoustictechniques, imaging abilities are improving and soliddebris-ensnaring features can certainly be identified.(As sonars introduce sound into the marine environment,the cost-benefit of such approaches would need to becarefully weighed.)Efforts are also being made to model the dispersal of lostnets, although these appear to be at an early stage ofdevelopment. In addition, certain marine animal speciesmay act as indicators of what is happening in the deepseas, potentially including the deep-diving whales.Sampling and mapping of debris at the surface of theoceans is better developed and studies focused onmapping and assessing wildlife at the surface are alsoincreasingly systematically recording and mappingfloating debris. Such information could be usefullycompiled, along with reports of debris from other marineusers, into regional or international databases that mayhelp to identify offshore areas where interactions withwildlife may be concentrated.This review will explore these topics further – drawingtogether information about approaches that mightlead to the improved identification of concentrationsof entangling debris and thereby facilitating discussionaround this topic and, ultimately, remedial action.Debris in the deep seas is largely out of human sight,but the old adage of ‘out of sight and out of mind’ mustnot be allowed to apply to this cruel threat to wildlife anymore than it should relate to any other.35

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsA review on marine debris impact on cetaceansin ArgentinaMiguel Iñíguez-BessegaFundación Cethus and Whale and Dolphin ConservationPotosi 2087, (B1636BUA), Olivos,Prov Buenos Aires, Argentinamiguel.iniguez@cethus.orgThe aim of this paper is to review the effects of marinedebris on cetaceans in Argentina. The main causesaffecting cetaceans are fishing gear and marine litter,however in the case of fishing gear is difficult toknow when cetaceans are affected by fishing gear ordiscarded gears. Cetacean species most affected wouldbe Franciscana dolphin, Commerson’s dolphins andSouthern right whale, being Franciscana dolphins themost affected. The total number of cetaceans affectedby marine debris has not been estimated in Argentinaand more studies are necessary to estimate the realimpact of marine debris on cetaceans. This paperpresents a detailed analysis on Franciscana andCommerson’s dolphins. In order to solve this threatit is necessary to develop an educational campaignin maritime coastal cities and to launch a multimediacampaign in the country.Marine debris and megafauna in Costa Rica:next steps?Damián Martínez-Fernández 1 , Natalie Ortiz 2,3 & AndreaMontero-Cordero 41Proyecto Consolidación de Áreas Marinas ProtegidasSINAC-PNUD-GEF2Fundación Keto3Proyecto Abriendo Mentes4Asociación Costa Rica por SiempreAbout 34 species of marine mammals have beenreported in Costa Rican waters, representingapproximately 26% of all marine mammalsworldwide. Six species of marine turtles are presentin both Caribbean and Pacific waters of Costa Rica.Unfortunately, the proximity of the main urban centersof the country generates significant impacts on thesecoasts. In 2011, Terra Nostra Association under theframework of the XXV International Coastal Cleanupcollected (21 beaches): 69,100 plastic bottles and lids,15,815 straws and 3,737 plastic bags were reported for21 beaches in Costa Rica. Between 2004-2011, 80% ofdead or injured marine turtles sighted during marine fieldtrips were entangled with fishing lines (long lines), fishingnets, jutes bags and ropes. Additionally, three casesof cetaceans’ entanglement were reported with fishingnets. Plastic ingestion has been determined to be thecause of death for one case of a stranded dwarf spermwhale (Kogia sima) after the necropsy was performed.It showed buoyancy problems and received assistancefor floatation for 24 hours before its death. The necropsydiscarded infectious diseases as cause of death but aplastic bag was found in its gastrointestinal tract. Thepresence compromised the digestion and absorptionof food and predisposed to intestinal obstructionand torsion. Hepatic lipidosis was identified, which isassociated with starvation. According to our generalfindings to address this kind of problems, action shouldbe taken to 1) reduce interaction with fisheries and 2)reduce plastic litter that ends up in the sea. We haveselected to work on plastic reduction in order to createa cultural change, shifting the current consumptionculture into a smart reduced consumption, providing asolid base for conducting a comprehensive managementof plastic waste. Based on the psychodynamic modelof the persuasion process, we aimed to characterize apersuasive message to generate an attitude change andinfluence on the psychological functioning of people.We designed a strong communication campaign to raiseawareness on plastic direct consequences over marinemegafauna, such as plastic bags. It integrates aspectssuch as visual/graphic advertising for mass media(newspaper ads, billboards, Internet) active educationalon the spot signage (for rubbish collectors near thecoastal areas), beach clean-ups days, and an exhibitionof sculptures made up from the rubbish recovered fromdiverse national beaches. The campaign has beenvery well received by potential donors and has wonsome awards in a national level although it hasn’t beenpublished because is not a corporate social responsibilitytopic yet in Costa Rica. It is necessary to place theissue in multilateral forums as a way for governmentsand NGOs to pay attention to invest in reducing marinedebris and their impact on marine life.36

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsThe role of ocean industries in reducing marine debrisPaul HolthusExecutive Director3035 Hibiscus Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA 96815paul.holthus@oceancouncil.orgThe marine environment is not only home to a major partof the world’s biodiversity, it is also home to a diverseand growing array of ocean use and activities: shipping,fishing, offshore oil and gas, aquaculture, offshorerenewable energy, tourism, etc. Because the ocean is aninterconnected global ecosystem supporting a wide rangeof uses, the single most important factor determiningthe health of the ocean is the way business is done inthe marine environment. Many companies are trying toreduce their ocean footprint. However, the best efforts bya single company or an entire industry will not be enoughto address cumulative impacts in the inter-connectedmarine “commons”. Multi-sectoral industry leadership andcollaboration is essential to addressing cross-cutting andcumulative impacts to marine biodiversity, such as theeffects of marine debris. There is a need and opportunityto bring together ocean industry leaders in “CorporateOcean Responsibility” to change the way industrysectors interact with each other and with other oceanstakeholders in a changing ocean world to address majorthreats. The private sector must be a partner in developingand implementing the solutions to reduce the volume ofmarine debris that entangles marine animals and removingdebris that is already in the marine environment.Vida marina: marine debris reduction in Puerto Ricousing an innovative university-based/communityoutreachmodelRobert J. Mayer and Tamara Trinidad-GonzálezCenter for Coastal Restoration and ConservationUniversity of Puerto Rico at Aguadilla, P.O. Box 6150,Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (USA), 00662robert.mayer@upr.eduThe excessive production of solid waste in Puerto Rico isa serious problem that is not being properly addressed.Approximately 80%, of the abundant, marine debrisfound on the coast of PR enters the environment throughrivers and streams. As a result of this, entangled animals(e.g. sea turtles, marine mammals, shorebirds etc.) arevery commonly seen in this area.The University of Puerto Rico at Aguadilla (UPRAg)has developed the first systematic initiative of marinedebris monitoring and reduction on the Archipelagoof Puerto Rico.The UPRAg’s Center for Coastal Restoration andConservation (CCRC) began operations in 2007 andis operated by undergraduate student volunteers froma wide range of academic disciplines. This program isoperated from the UPRAg but has groups of well-trainedvolunteers in 9 other UPR campuses. All the volunteersreceive training on the sources, impacts and possiblesolutions to the problem of aquatic debris, environmentaleducation and marine debris recovery techniques.The main goal of the CCRC is to reduce the amount ofmarine debris on the coast of PR and it is funded byFederal and State Government agencies as well as theprivate sector.It operates a network of 80 monofilament-recyclingcontainers on the main fishing hot spots of theArchipelago. Volunteers monitor and maintain them, offertalks on aquatic debris, have organized cleanup eventsand have recovered and recycled approximately 2,900lbs. of used monofilament line from the environmentsince 2007. The program received an U.S. EPAEnvironmental Quality Award in 2008.The CCRC has also involved commercial anglers insolving this problem by operating an incentive program,for local commercial anglers, which consists of acompetition of marine debris removal that focuses onderelict fishing gear. Participants were trained on thecorrect techniques of marine debris removal and workedand removed debris during a 10-month period. Staffmembers scored and classified the recovered materialon a regular basis. A total of 18,351 lbs of marine debris(mainly derelict fishing gear) were removed from theenvironment! The competitors were awarded three prizesbased on the total amount of debris collected.A significant increase in public awareness and instewardship, has been observed as a result ofthese initiatives.Undergraduate student participation on these projectshas contributed to the creation of a group of studentswith excellent planning, communication, grantsmanshipand other skills while at the same time creating a new37

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationskind of environmental professional, one that can translatevery complex environmental problems into effectivepublic policy and other practical solutions. Participationin this project has also improved first year studentretention at UPRAg.The increase in the awareness of the community on thisproblem, student and volunteer involvement, the amountof marine debris recovered and recycled, the levels ofstewardship and government cooperation achievedwith these projects have been significant and are worthemulating in other parts of the world especially in otherCaribbean Islands.Too little, too late? Tackling marine litterDr Susan KinseyMarine Conservation SocietyUnit 3, Wolf Business Park, Alton Road, Ross-on-Wye,HR9 5NB, UKMCS have been carrying out beach litter surveys inthe UK since 1993 and along with a number of otherorganisations around the world have been runningpromotional and educational campaigns to highlight theproblems of litter on social, economic and environmentallevels. Despite this, the amount of litter on our beacheshas increased. Fishing litter, one of the most hazardousfor wildlife has remained constant and plastic litter ingeneral, which poses problems of entanglement andingestion, has increased by over 100%. Have we all beendoing too little, too late to stop the flow of litter into themarine environment?MCS suggest that far from too little happening, a lot isactually taking place but in an uncoordinated fashionand in ways that often do not seem to be relevant to ourdecision makers or the general public. 0nly now are wereally seeing efforts to coordinate campaigns and thinkabout new ways of working, and only now is litter in themarine environment being recognised as a real problem.We believe it is vital that these trends continue if we arefinally going to start making a difference and stop litterentering our rivers, seas and oceans.In this context we look at some trends of beach litter inthe UK and explore some MCS campaigns to see whichapproaches have been successful and which less so.We also look at the changing attitudes to marine litter inthe UK and explore some new ways of working and hopeto foster discussion on the best way forward to tacklethis seemingly ever-growing problem.Marine litter in the Caribbean: raising awareness,improving infrastructure, and encouraging actionThomas R. Matthews 1 and Emma Doyle 21Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries InstituteTom.Matthews@GCFI.org2Caribbean Marine Protected Areas ManagementNetwork and ForumEmma.Doyle@GCFI.orgThe Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (GCFI),Caribbean Marine Protected Areas ManagementNetwork and Forum (CaMPAM), and the U.S. StateDepartment collaborated with marine protected area(MPA) programs in The Bahamas, Belize, Jamaica,Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines to increaseawareness of marine litter and identify issues to promotemarine litter reduction. The project was grounded in therecommendations of the UNEP Caribbean EnvironmentalProgramme Action Plan for Marine Litter. Our local MPApartners identified marine litter issues particular to thesocial and environmental conditions of their area. Withthe broad goal of developing greater appreciation andpersonal responsibility for waste management for litterthat would likely end up as marine debris, the projectenabled MPA managers to launch the strongest and mostinnovative of their ideas on litter prevention and reduction.Through a combination of public education, teachertraining, the development of litter warden programs andthe establishment of well-placed waste and recyclingstations, the project provides for a number of visible andpractical pilot marine litter control programs. In Jamaicaand St. Vincent and the Grenadines waste managementefforts resulted in the long term reduction of householdand ship borne waste entering the ocean. Much of thismaterial was plastic bags and plastic containers whichpose a risk for ingestion by sea turtles and marinemammals. In Belize, The Bahamas, and Grenada beachcleanups removed large amounts of derelict rope fromturtle nesting beaches easing access to nesting sites.Although it occurred at a much lower frequency thanhousehold debris at all project sites, derelict fishing gearlikely posed a greater risk for entanglement to marine life.38

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsRemoveThe following abstracts are those submitted underthe theme of removing marine litter that is alreadyin the oceans.Removing derelict fishing gear in the East SeaDong-Oh ChoKorea Maritime University1 Dongsam-Dong, Yeondo-Gu, Busan,606-791, Koreaoceancho@gmail.comThe East Sea is about one million square kilometersin area and has an average depth of 1700 meters.The deep basin area is rich fishing grounds for variouscrabs and other fish. Usually, snow crabs live at200-400 meters and red king crabs live at deeperthan 600 meters. Also there are various kinds of fishon the bottom of the deep basin, such as whelk,shrimp, and octopus.The East Sea has long been subject to heavy fishingpressure, resulting in derelict fishing gear. Most derelictfishing gear, such as fishing nets, fishing ropes, and crabpots, sink to the seabed and do not degrade. Althoughthe quantities of those fishing gear have not beensurveyed scientifically, they result in “ghost fishing” andfishing inefficiency through entanglement with gill nets,traps, and trawl nets.Since 2007 Korean government has started to removederelict fishing gear from the deep seabed of theEast Sea by bottom trawling with hooks and ropes.The hooks are heavy (50-80kg) in order to reach thedepths of the seabed. The diameter of ropes is around3.2 cm. The length of rope is about two times the depth,so the vessel is able to trawl the hook and rope at a45° angle. Some of the seabed is flat, but other areasare rocky and uneven, where wires of 2.4 cm in diameter,instead of ropes, are also used for trawling vertically.The hooks and ropes are trawled by fishing vessels at aconstant speed of two to three knots. When the speedof the vessel is reduced to less than two knots, the crewcan recognize that the hooks have caught the derelictfishing gear, which is hoisted using winches onto thefishing vessel. However, if the bundle of derelict gearis too heavy to hoist, then a special vessel with greaterhoisting power is used to remove it.Each zone for bottom trawling is divided by longitudeand latitude, numbered, and grouped by type of fishingground. Each zone is usually 100 square miles (10 milesx 10 miles). Usually five to seven fishing vessels, standingabreast two to three miles apart, run to transect a zone.Generally the fishing in the East Sea is closed from Julythrough October, so bottom trawling was conductedduring this time. However, there often come typhoonsin this season. On the 18th October, 2009, a vesselencountered a typhoon and sank about 35 miles north ofDokdo and 5 crew members were lost.Since 2007 through 2011 a total of 196 fishing vesselswere mobilized for bottom trawling and a total of 1814fishermen participated. A total of 703.5 tons of derelictfishing gear were removed from the seabed, mostof which were derelict fishing gear, such as fishingropes, fishing nets, and traps. A total of 389.1 tons and314.4 tons of derelict fishing gear were recycled andincinerated, respectively.GEAR GRAB: removal of derelict fishing gear in theGulf of MaineErin Pelletier and Lynda DoughtyGulf of Maine Lobster FoundationPO Box 523, Kennebunk, ME 04043, USAerin@gomlf.orgThis project seeks to address the growing concern ofderelict lobster gear and related marine debris in theMaine lobster fishery, the largest fishery in the northeast(over 100 million pounds landed in 2011 with 6,000licensed fishermen). It’s estimated that over 50,000traps are lost each year in the Gulf of Maine along withassociated fishing gear (rope, buoys, and nets). Thesederelict traps are known as “ghost traps” and cancause unintentional mortality for both lobster and otherby-catch species for several years. Lobster traps areequipped with escape vents designed to release overtime if the trap becomes lost at sea, allowing lobsters39

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsand other marine life to escape. These vents, however,do not always open correctly or completely thusensnaring certain species (lobsters, crabs, and finfish)and increasing the risk of injury or death to theseanimals. Derelict fishing gear not only poses a threatto smaller marine species, it can become a risk ofentanglement to marine mammals everywhere.We have joined together with Maine lobstermen toestablish “GEAR GRAB” which addresses the ongoingproblem of derelict fishing gear at-sea, as wellas, along the shores of the Maine coast. As of today,over 120 fishermen (for a total of 208 days at sea) havevolunteered their time to successfully remove over 4,800lobster traps and 20 tons of related marine debris fromthe Gulf of Maine. They use their vessels to “grapple”the bottom for abandoned fishing gear and haul thecollected gear on board their boat. Data is collectedabout by-catch, “ghost fishing”, and condition of theescape vents to assess the impact of derelict gear onmarine species. Any traps that are salvageable arereturned to their owners with assistance from the MaineBureau of Marine Patrol and any remaining gear issorted into unusable traps which are recycled or generalmarine debris which is sent to a waste-to energy facility.In addition to at-sea collections fishermen are givenopportunities to dispose of their retired or unwanted gearin an effort to increase proper disposal and/or recycling.The final approach to removal of derelict fishing gearthrough our GEAR GRAB program is community shoreline cleanups. Through outreach in local communitieswe engage fishing families, schools, local businessesand volunteers to work together in collecting any marinedebris (whether it be fishing related or not) from beaches,inlets and islands, preventing this waste from entering orreturning into the sea. Continuing efforts revolve aroundusing different approaches such as divers and side scansonar to identify large balls of gear that are too heavyfor a single lobster boat to haul safely on board. We willbe using larger vessels and/or barges to increase ourability to handle these dangerous hazards that continueto grow over time. The GEAR GRAB program has provento be effective in removing dangerous debris from marinehabitats and is encouraged to be implemented in coastalcommunities around the world.Terns, gulls and marine debris: cleaning up seabirdsanctuaries five miles out at seaGabriela M. Bradt and Jennifer KennedyNH Sea Grant/ UNH Cooperative Extension131 Main Street, Durham NH 03885, USAgabriela.bradt@unh.eduDuring the summer of 2012, New Hampshire Sea Grantand Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservation alongwith local volunteers, state agencies and fishermen,collaborated on a series of coastal surveys andclean-ups of marine debris and derelict fishing gear on5 of the 9 Isles of Shoals, 5 miles off the coast of NewHampshire and Maine. On all of the islands surveyed,there were significant accumulations of marine debris,derelict lobster gear and associated ropes. The twomost successful clean-ups took place on AppledoreIsland and White Island both of which are sanctuariesfor sea birds (gulls and terns). Over 3000 lbs of derelictgear and marine debris were removed from Appledore(550lbs) and White (2600 lbs) in two days. AppledoreIsland, the largest of the Isles of Shoals is the home ofthe Cornell/ University of New Hampshire Shoals MarineLab while White Island houses the Tern RestorationProject. Because of their relative remoteness and theirefforts to protect gulls and endangered terns, theywere excellent case studies of the effects and impactsof marine debris and derelict fishing gear (abandonedlobster traps, rope and monofilament) accumulating onthem. During clean-up efforts in June and July 2012, theheight of nesting season for black backed gulls, herringgulls, common, arctic and roseate terns, the impacts ofplastic and other debris could be seen in the areas wherethe gulls and terns made their nests and the material theyused to make them. Although no actual entanglementof birds was witnessed, the presence and the amountof fishing gear, ropes, monofilament in their immediateenvironment was of concern. However, members of theTern Restoration Project on White have witnessed terns,gulls and cormorants entangled in monofilament line orhooked on fishing gear. Additionally, gull fecal pellets onAppledore island contain evidence of plastic, rubber andother man-made garbage which indicates that potentialingestion by young gull chicks of numerous plastic bitsand monofilament is a legitimate concern.40

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsThe Isles of Shoals coastal clean-up efforts from June-September 2012 was successful especially with respectto the amount of debris and derelict gear that was legallyremoved. Future coastal clean-ups at the Isles of Shoalsor other remote islands will entail earlier coordinationand notification of partners, marine patrol/conservationofficers and island managers.National cleanup: Costa Rica Green and CleanGiovanna Longhi501 Blackberry, Austin, Texas 78745, USAglonghi@terranostra-cr.orgIn 2009 we initiated the program “National Cleanup” thatwas carried out during the month of September in theframework of the International Coastal Cleanup of OceanConservancy. The objective of the program is to make thepopulation aware of the negative impact of solid waste onhuman health and on ecosystems, and the urgency withwhich we must take action to solve this problem.During the 4 year history of the program, we have carriedout cleanups in communities, rivers and beaches and withthe aid of near 13,000 volunteers we have collected morethan 166 metric tons of solid waste.To realize these campaigns, we recruited the sponsorshipof private enterprises and we make alliances withsome of the main media outlets, in order to delivereducational messages on waste management to thegeneral population and as a way to recruit volunteers.Additionally, each City Hall played a very importantrole. They became responsible for removing the wastecollected during the cleaning effort. The program dependsand counts on the endorsement of the National Ministryof Environment, Energy and Telecommunication.lines and can die or their ability to move can becomecompromised which affects their capacity for capturingfood and/or escape from predators. Additionally, thisdebris can cause wounds and mutilate the limbs of theturtles. Furthermore, the smallest residues affect mainlyseabirds as albatrosses and fulmars, that confuse thiswaste for food. Upon consuming large quantities, the birdscan die of starvation since they feel full or they are notable to absorb the nutrients of the food. Also they candie of suffocation because of being blocked. Additionally,the plastic releases Bisphenol A, a toxic subtance thatcontaminates the water and causes negative effects tothe marine animals.In our opinion, there are two key factors leading to thesuccess of this program. One it is the education andawareness of the population through mass media.The other it is the participation of the volunteers in thecleanups. This leads the population to participate inrecycling programs and the volunteers to take personallythe magnitude of the problem making changes in theirfamily, community and working life.The main challenge that we face is to obtain theeconomic resources to give continuity to the project.This limitation does not permit us to includepermanent qualified personnel, assuring itscontinuity over time.In order to replicate this effort we recommend threemain solutions:1. Build a strong relationship with media outlets.2. Garner oficial government support for both educationaland the physical effort3. Build a bridge to local volunteer organizationsDuring the cleaning, up until now we have not foundanimals injured, entangled or suffocated by waste.Nevertheless, 80% of the items that we encounter duringthe clean up are made of plastic (chiefly bottles andplastic caps and plastic bags). Different investigationsreveal that plastic is one element of the debris that isaffecting more marine species. In the case of the turtles,they can become entangled in plastic ropes or fishing41

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsGhost Nets Australia: saltwater peopleworking togetherGrace HeathcoteGhostNets AustraliaPO Box 1178, Smithfield 4878, Queensland, Australiagrace.ghostnets@northerngulf.com.auMarine debris is a serious problem across much ofnorthern Australia. Ghost nets are a particular problemin the region, with the nature of oceanic currents north ofAustralia and the proximity of the coastline to intensivelyused fishing grounds combining to deliver large numbersof ghost nets to Australian shores each year.Ghost nets can drift with currents and tides for manyyears, continuing to fish indiscriminately, smotheringreef systems and posing a safety hazard to passingmaritime traffic. In north Australia, a wide variety of marinespecies have been recorded entangled in ghost netsincluding turtles, sharks, dugong, fish, crabs, sea snakesand crocodiles. Once entangled, animals often sufferdebilitating injuries, are unable to dive and feed, or drown.Of particular concern are the numbers of sea turtlescaught in nets each year. North Australian waters supportimportant foraging, breeding and nesting grounds for sixof the world’s seven sea turtle species, most of which arelisted as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangeredby international and Australian legislation.In response to the problem, GhostNets Australia(GNA) was established in 2004. GNA is an alliance ofindigenous communities stretching across northernAustralia from the Kimberleys in the west to the Gulf ofCarpentaria and the Torres Strait in the east.The indigenous rangers involved in the program seekto find, remove and record ghost nets, as well asrehabilitate any entangled wildlife that they come across.Since 2004, the program has achieved the removalof over 12,000 ghost nets of varying sizes from over3,000km of coastline. In these nets the rangers recordhundreds of animals each year, most of which are seaturtles and sharks.Much of this monitoring is carried out in challengingconditions including very remote locations, a tropicalmonsoon environment and a lack of heavy equipment.The data collected by GNA assists in understanding theorigins, impacts and types of nets washing ashore innorth Australia. Most of the nets recorded are trawl nets,and originate from south-east Asian countries such asTaiwan, Indonesia and Thailand.This information is essential to the design andimplementation of effective policy measures andmanagement initiatives. The multi-national originof the nets arriving on Australian shores illustratesthe complexity of the problem and highlights that acooperative approach with a variety of stakeholders isneeded if we are to find effective solutions.GNA has been able to successfully clean and monitorsome of the most isolated coastline in Australia throughthe dedication and hard work of the indigenous rangersthat underpin the program. The community-driven,grassroots approach of the organisation allows rangersfrom geographically and culturally distinct regions towork together on a common problem. This has been acore strength of the program and continues to facilitatecommunication between groups on a wide varietyof issues.Norsk Fiskeriretur: resources astrayHeidi RuudNorsk Fiskeriretur ASPb 6094, 8031 Bodø, Norwayheidi@nofir.noNorsk Fiskeriretur AS (Nofir) has established a nationwidesystem for collecting discarded plastic equipment fromthe fishing and fish farming sector in Norway to preventdumping and landfilling. In 2011 Nofir collected 2800metric tons, almost a triple increase from 2010 and weare still growing.The problem has been well known for many years. Theorganization of Norwegian fishing vessel owners hasaddressed the issue through projects; the same has theorganization of Norwegian fish farmers. Nevertheless theproblem still continued until Nofir was established.The company was a result of a joint venture between afish net producer and a waste management company in2008. The two parties had then for about a year been42

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationslooking into the problem of discarded equipment fromthe fishing and the fish farming industry.Traditionally the Norwegian oceans have been known tobe a place to dump waste, and it magically disappears.Norway has a 25150 km coastline with an active fishingfleet of 6500 vessels which constitutes 0,7 % of GDP.Rough weather, long distances and high landfill pricescombined leads to big amounts of fishing gear finding itsway to sea each year, adding to the continuously growingproblem of ghost fishing and entanglement of marinewildlife. The high quality of the equipment used in theNorwegian Sea and North Sea, the low temperature anddepths let the equipment continue to fish for decadesbefore it ends up at the sea floor. The Greenland Halibutespecially is in some areas threatened by extinction dueto lost gillnets.All equipment collected through Nofir is dismantled,packed and sold to European plastic recyclers. Plasticcomes in various types and has different values.While some equipment is easily traded, others arenot considered resources in the market today. Sellingthe most valuable fractions, makes us able to financecollecting the discarded equipment for free, look forsolutions for the less valuable and participate in the workfor an attitude change in the Norwegian fisheries.Even though we experience a growth in theenvironmental consciousness of the fishermen andfish farmers in Norway, still there is a long way to goto achieve zero dumping. This is best shown by thevast amounts of equipment The Norwegian Directorateof Fisheries collects when they arranges the yearlytrawling mission for lost and abandoned equipment.All equipment pulled out of the sea is recycled throughthe Nofir system.It is estimated that 64 000 tons of fishing equipment islost or dumped at sea each year on a European leveland this creates the need to coordinate a recycling effortacross Europe. Nofir aims to solve this challenge and hasin September 2012 launched EUfir. As the first Norwegiancompany we have been accepted by the European UnionCommission and will receive funding through the EcoInnovation program to make Nofir European.The role of state policy on cleanup of lobster trapsin Maine and New Hampshire, and a case study of asuccessful cleanupJennifer L. Kennedy 1 ; Gabriela Bradt 21Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservation143 Pleasant Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801, USAjen@blueoceansociety.org2New Hampshire Sea Grant/UNH Cooperative ExtensionSince 2007, Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservationhas worked with New Hampshire Sea Grant andUniversity of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension tocharacterize and mitigate marine debris from southernMaine to northern Massachusetts, and in the Gulf ofMaine. This involves shoreline cleanups, underwatersurveys, and a derelict gear collection bin program.Lobster traps provide a significant portion of thedebris found during shoreline and underwater surveys.Potential impacts include entanglement and entrapmentof marine life (e.g., cetaceans, pinnipeds, fish andinvertebrates) in ropes and traps, use as habitat fornative or invasive species, and loss of fishing time dueto interactions with derelict gear. In a study of theimpacts of derelict lobster traps in 2010 and 2011,Glenn, et. al (2012) documented 23 different species(including lobsters, 3 crab species, fish and invertebrates)in abandoned traps in Cape Cod Bay and BuzzardsBay, MA. Mattila and Lyman (2010) stated that, regardinglarge whales, “ghost gear can complicate an existingentanglement,” and noted a case where a humpbackin New England had become entangled in a net - anentanglement that was complicated by several derelictlobster traps that had become attached. They alsoremarked upon previous studies that stated that it isdifficult to determine whether gear retrieved from anentangled whale was active or “ghost” gear when thewhale encountered it. Consistent with this, we havewitnessed entangled whales in our area of the Gulf ofMaine, but usually only see rope or monofilament fishingline, with no obvious indication as to the type of gear andwhether the gear was active, or ghost gear.Cleanups of derelict fishing gear such as lobster trapscould reduce the potential for entanglement. However,the laws regarding cleanup of lobster traps differ slightlyin Maine and New Hampshire. In Maine, lobster trapscan be removed with written permission of Maine43

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsMarine Patrol. In New Hampshire, the trap can betouched only by a conservation officer or the lobsterman.Annually, we involve thousands of volunteers in cleanups,and many are frustrated by the prevalence of traps onthe beach and their inability to help clean them up due tothese private property laws.In 2012, we surveyed and cleaned-up several of theIsles of Shoals, nine islands located 5 miles offshore onthe border of Maine and New Hampshire. Initial surveysof four of the nine islands revealed a large amount ofdebris, including lobster traps and rope. In June 2012,we conducted a cleanup at Appledore Island, Maine, withassistance from a local fisherman and a Maine MarinePatrol officer. Of the 12 traps found on the island, 10were deemed unfishable, and 2 were left on the island fortheir owners to retrieve. In August 2012, we cleaned StarIsland and White Island with the help of a fisherman, NHMarine Patrol and several volunteers. NH Marine Patrolsent an officer to inspect traps on White Island. Seventyninetraps were collected, and 3 were returned to theirowner. The White Island cleanup required the presenceof the marine patrol officer, while the Star Island cleanupoccurred with permission granted via phone.Key factors to project success: the fortuitous availabilityof marine patrol officers on 2 of our cleanup days.We attempted another cleanup of Appledore Island inSeptember, but the Maine Marine Patrol officer wasunreachable. Timing seemed to be everything with thesecleanups, and building relationships and a rapportwith these agencies is essential for a successfulcleanup effort.Challenges: While it is admirable that laws exist toprotect private property, there is no law requiringfishermen to retrieve lost gear or that determines whentraps can be considered abandoned. There are no closedseasons in Maine or New Hampshire, so there is no timewhen traps in the water can automatically assume tobe abandoned. Limited funding and staffing for marinepatrol means that while we feel cleanups are a priority,they are not always a possibility.Recommendations: Establish connections with relevantagencies early in the project and continue to developthose relationships.Literature CitedGlenn, R. P., Whitmore, K. A., & Perry, D. N. (2012).Impacts of ghost fishing from American lobster traps.Presentation to the 2012 New England Derelict FishingGear Workshop, Portland, ME, February 28, 2012.Mattila, D. K. & Lyman, E. (2010). A note on theentanglement of large whales in marine debris. Workshopon welfare issues associated with the entanglementof large whales, April 13-15, 2010, Hawaiian IslandsHumpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, Maui,Hawaii, USA. Retrieved 12/02/2013 from: http://www.iwcoffice.org/disentanglementsReduction and Impacts of Plastic litter in NigeriaCoastal Communities.Oshisanya, K. I. and Adegbile, O. M.Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine ResearchP.M.B 12729 Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeriakharphioshi@yahoo.comThe problem of marine litter is a common problem forcoastal local communities and other organizationsthroughout the world, studies and surveys employingmany different methodologies have been undertaken overthe years to assess the problem. Collecting data on thevolumes, types, origin, weight and other factors relatingto plastic litter and its impact on marine organisms is arather novel research in Nigeria. A survey of Folu andMagbon Alade in 2010 and 2008, both coastal fishingcommunities, located on the Western flank of Lagos,Nigeria revealed that waste disposal practice is very pooras refuse is disposed indiscriminately in the community.The beachfront is used as a waste dump sites for litterand rotten fish because waste collectors do not cometo these communities. Ingested plastic litter is quitecommon in samples of dead and captured seabirdsand turtles, The known effects of ingestion of plasticlitter by birds and sea turtles include reduction in theabsorption of nutrients in the gut, reducing the amountof space for food in the gizzard and stomach, ulcerationof tissue and blockage of the digestive processes.Cases of entanglement of sea turtles by discardedfishing gears rendering them unable to feed or swim arequite common. Unfortunately the marine litter menace is44

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsnot peculiar to the above mentioned communities alonebut typifies most coastal communities in Lagos exceptionof few privately owned beaches.The Lagos Waste Management Authority (LAWMA)has commenced a new initiative at the Bar-beach byproviding large bags to their staff stationed on theBar-beach for waste collection, when these bags arefull they are deposited safely on the beach barrierfor onward collection by LAWMA trucks. Though thisreduces the volume of litter on this particular beachhowever lots of debris is still washed up on our beachesduring storm surges which is becoming more commonwith Climate change.Though LAWMA’s initiative is quite laudable however theinitiative should be extended to include other beachesalong the Lagos Coast. There is need for concertedefforts to tackle marine litter menace by Increasinglyupdating information on the significance of the problemamongst coastal communities, beach users, maritimeorganizations, government and shipping industriesthrough research, awareness campaigns and beachclean ups.Key words: Plastic litter, sea birds, Marine turtles,LAWMAMonitoring and reducing the impact of ‘ghost’ fishingby derelict fishing trapscrabs during the winter months was closed affectingcommercial fishers who held current dredge licenses.A program involving cooperation between regulatoryagency personnel, commercial fishers, and scientistswas developed to provide supplemental income forfishers and help in restoring the stressed fishery.Commercial fishers were trained on the use of side-scanimaging units and employed to remove derelict fishinggear, mostly lost crab pots, during the winter. Integratingthe commercial fishers into the planning and adaptivemanagement component of the plan helped boostfishers’ trust of the regulatory agency and the scientiststo overcome the inherent reluctance of the regulatedcommunity to productively engage. Commercial fisherswere able to earn income and removed over 32,000items of derelict fishing gear that directly affects the bluecrab fishery. By-catch was recorded for every piece ofremoved fishing gear, providing data on the winter catchof crabs, fish, terrapins, and several other organisms inderelict fishing gear and over 30,000 entrapped animalswere recorded over the project period. The resulting datahas been useful for various research projects, includinga Diamondback Terrapin habitat study. Through thispartnership, scientists were able to develop and testa biodegradable component to the crab pot, whichreduces the amount of by-catch from future lost orabandoned pots. Early engagement of stakeholders andcontinual dialog are important for natural resourceco-management success.Kirk J. Havens, Donna Marie Bilkovic, David Stanhope,Kory AngstadtCenter for Coastal Resources ManagementVirginia Institute of Marine Science, College of Williamand Mary, Post Office Box 1346, Gloucester Point,Virginia 23062, USAkirk@vims.eduThe blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, is a significanteconomic and ecologic driver in estuarine systems. In therecent years, harvest of blue crabs has dipped to historiclows. Virginia and Maryland responded to low harvestsby enacting a number of conservation measures. In theCommonwealth of Virginia, the practice of dredging for45

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsReducing by-catch mortality in trap fisheries withbiodegradable componentsKirk J. Havens, Donna Marie Bilkovic, David Stanhope,Kory AngstadtCenter for Coastal Resources ManagementVirginia Institute of Marine Science, College of Williamand Mary, Post Office Box 1346, Gloucester Point,Virginia 23062, USstanhope@vims.eduFishing traps are designed to catch fish or crustaceansand are used globally. In the United States, trapfisheries lose an estimated 20% of their deployed trapsannually; world-wide loss estimates are between 10%-70% annually. Most of these traps are constructed ofplastic coated wire, stainless steel wire or are entirelyconstructed of plastic allowing the traps to catch targetand non-target species for several years when lost.Continual removal of derelict traps is expensive andimpractical over large spatial areas; modifications areneeded to disarm the gear once it is lost. Many Statesin the U.S.A. have had escape methods in regulationsfor years and have found them to be ineffective dueto the design and/ or the material used. With new fullydegradable, marine safe polymers available we havetested biodegradable panels that allow traps, oncelost, to become disarmed and, in some cases, providepotential habitat. The panels are inexpensive, designedto last variable time periods, and degrade into carbondioxide and water leaving no harmful microplastics. Wehave developed and tested bio panels in the blue crabfishery, which have been shown to have no effect onthe blue crab catch rates. During the four year winterBlue crab trap removal program in the Chesapeake Bayover 32,000 traps were removed, in addition to crabs,by-catch included muskrats, turtles, diving ducks andover 30 species of fish. We are currently developing andtesting panels for the Stone and Dungeness crab andSpiny and American lobster fisheries.Removal of derelict blue crab, stone crab, and spinylobster traps in FloridaKyle P. MillerFlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionDivision of Marine Fisheries Management, 2590Executive Center Circle E. Suite 201, Tallahassee,Florida 32301, USAKyle.Miller@MyFWC.comDerelict traps and their associated buoy lines arepotential entanglement hazards for marine animalsin Florida, and entanglements of marine turtles andcorals have been observed during derelict trap removaloperations. Efforts to remove derelict blue crab,stone crab, and spiny lobster traps in Florida includeannual state supervised trap retrieval programs, andauthorized volunteer derelict trap cleanup events. Understate supervised trap retrieval programs, commercialfishermen are compensated to find, remove, and disposeof traps that are left in the water during the closed fishingseason(s). Owners of commercial traps removed bythese trap retrieval programs are assessed a $10 retrievalfee for each trap removed, which must be paid in fullbefore the owner may renew their commercial saltwaterfishing licenses. The trap retrieval programs are fundedby a dedicated portion of license fees paid on eachcommercial blue crab, stone crab, and spiny lobstertrapping license issued, as well as retrieval fees collectedfrom the prior year. Volunteer derelict trap cleanup eventsremove derelict traps and trap debris from shallowestuaries, bays, and other coastal waterways during theopen or closed fishing season(s) with prior authorizationfrom the state. These events are typically locallyorganized and promoted, and focus on specific areas. Onaverage, approximately 5,000 derelict traps are removedannually, and approximately 20,000 traps have beenremoved since 2009, when the first blue crab trap fisheryclosures were implemented.46

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsResults and conclusions of the first “National CoastalCleanup Report Chile - 2011”. Aquatic EnvironmentDepartment, Directorate of Maritime Territory andMerchant Marine (DIRECTEMAR), Chilean NavyMichelle ManleyDirección de Intereses Marítimos y Medio AmbienteAcuático (DIRINMAR)Subida Cementerio #300, Playa Ancha, Valparaíso, Chilemmanley@directemar.cl; michellemanley@hotmail.comWe analyzed the statistics of the marine debriscollected by volunteers during the “International CoastalCleanup Chile 2011”, an initiative of the NGO “OceanConservancy” led by the Chilean Navy through theAquatic Environment Department of DIRECTEMARsince 2007.The objectives of this Coastal Cleanup were to:1. Raise awareness of marine debris problem.2. Prevent marine debris entering ecosystems.3. Obtain statistical records (classification and quantity)of litter collected. 4.- Achieve information that can beuseful as a tool for environmental education and fordecision-making as well as administrative policies.The 5,221 volunteers cleaned 77 beaches from thenorthern tip of Chile (Arica -18° 28’ 43” S, 70° 18’ 19”W) to Punta Arenas in the south (53° 10’ 1” S, 70° 56’1” W), collecting a total of approximately 34,8 tons oftrash along 98.7 km (61,3 miles) of coastline, between30 September and 30 October 2011. Taking intoconsideration the nature of the data, this analysis isessentially qualitative.The five main types of debris collected were cigarettebutts: 32,333 units (32.4%), plastic bags: 9,035 units(9%), food wrappers: 6,904 units (6.9%), bottle caps:6,374 units (6.4%) and plastic bottles: 5,478 units (5.5%).This pattern is repeated on most of the beaches cleaned,and is very similar to the statistics collected during the2009 and 2010 coastal clean-up activities.However, some beaches presented variations,particularly the Coquimbo area (29° 54’ 28” S, 71° 15’15” W), which showed significant amounts of fisheriesand aquaculture related litter. It must be noted that thistype of debris has the potential to generate entanglementof marine fauna, generating lacerations and wounds(Clark, 2011).In the Coquimbo area, a total of 673 volunteers cleaned6 beaches, and the most common type of garbagecollected were cigarette butts (39.3%), plastic bags(11.1%), ropes (6.6%), bottle caps (6%), and nets (4.7%).68.6% of the garbage originating from fisheries oraquaculture in Coquimbo was from “Playa Grandede Tongoy”, which had the highest number of nets(400 units) and ropes (300 units), followed byGuanaqueros that had 200 ropes (no nets). The beachcleanup coordinator of the Coquimbo area (conv pers)clarified that the nets found in Tongoy where “lanterntype nets” commonly used for aquaculture of scallops,an important commercial activity in the region.In conclusion, cigarette butts were the main type ofmarine debris collected on most Chilean beaches,followed by plastic (bags, wrappers, bottles and caps).From this we can deduce that recreational activities onbeaches are the main source of this type of pollution onthe beaches cleaned during the International CoastalCleanup in Chile (2011). The problem with plastic is thatit has a low degradation rate and can be accidentallyingested by marine animals (birds, fish, turtles, etc.).On the other hand, the large amounts of garbagefrom fisheries or aquaculture activities collected on“Playa Grande de Tongoy” in Coquimbo, could posea potential threat of entanglement.In Chile we do not have significant statistics onentanglement of marine fauna caused by nets, ropes, oringestion of garbage, nevertheless this does not meanthat it does not occur and may not always be officiallyreported. In 2003, Gonzalez et al reported a strandedturtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), found in “Caleta Lenga”(36°47’S, 73°07’W) near the coast near Concepciónin central Chile the year 2000, with a fish hook in theesophagus, which was probably the cause of death.The Scientific Advisory Panel of the UNEP report titled“Marine Debris as a Global Environmental Problem”(November, 2011), where a series of papers related toentanglement, were gathered. It was noted that 260species are already known to be affected by plasticdebris through entanglement or ingestion, which can befatal. The report highlights that of 120 marine mammal47

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsspecies listed on the IUCN Red List, 54% are known tohave been entangled or have ingested plastic debris.After analyzing the debris statistics of the 2011International Coastal Cleanup in Chile, ideas ofwhere to focus further researches arise, for examplecarrying out studies in river mouths (where garbageis swept into the ocean), and in areas of the countrywhere intensive aquaculture activities are carried out,such as the beaches of Coquimbo (related to scallopaquaculture), and the south of Chile where salmonare grown intensively. Hence, the garbage related tothis last activity (cages, buoys, ropes) may also be arisk of entanglement.It is suggested that environmental education campaignsin Chile, related to marine debris, should be orientedto the segment of the population that use beachesfor recreational activities; and to the segment ofthe population related to aquaculture and/orfisheries activities.BibliographyAngélica González, Leyla Miranda, and Juan Carlos Ortiz.First Record of a Gravid Marine Turtle from Chile. (2003).Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 4, 716-717.Richard C. Thompson, Bruce E. La Belle, HindrikBouwman, and Lev Neretin. (2011). Marine Debris asa Global Environmental Problem: Introducing asolutions-based framework focused on plastic.Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP-GEF)document, United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP). November 2011.R.B. Clark, in collaboration with Chris Frid andMartin Attrill. (2011). Marine Pollution. Fifth Edition.Oxford University Press.NOAA’s marine debris program: efforts to reducederelict fishing gear including the fishing forenergy partnershipNancy Wallace1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USANancy.Wallace@noaa.govMarine debris is everyone’s problem. It affects everythingfrom the environment to the economy; from fishing andnavigation to human health and safety; from the tiniestcoral polyps to giant blue whales. The National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Marine DebrisProgram (MDP) leads national and international effortsto research, prevent, and reduce the impacts of marinedebris. Derelict fishing gear is one of the major types ofdebris impacting the marine environment today. It cancontinue to fish, known as “ghostfishing,” entanglingand potentially killing marine life, smother habitat, andact as a hazard to navigation. Begun in 2008, Fishingfor Energy is a partnership between NOAA, the NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation and Covanta Energy toprovide fishermen a place to dispose of fishing gear freeof charge. The goal of this program is to reduce derelictfishing gear through prevention activities, and to workwith the fishing community and related industries to findpositive solutions to address derelict fishing gear. Thepartnership provides a place for the fishing communityto dispose of old or derelict fishing gear they recoverwhile at sea at no cost. Partnerships are formed withports, cities, marinas, and fishermen’s cooperativesto reach out to fishermen, provide disposal facilitiesand to advertise the project. Once removed from theenvironment, the gear is transported to the nearestCovanta Energy-from-Waste facility and convertedinto energy. There are currently 31 bins in 9 states and750 tons of gear has been collected to date. The MDPengages in many other research and removal projectsto remove derelict fishing gear from the oceanenvironment to reduce the threat of wildlifeentanglement. These projects occur in areas acrossthe United States including the Northwestern HawaiianIslands, Puget Sound, New England and the Caribbean.This talk will outline the projects underway and how theycan be expanded to other areas to decrease the threat ofwildlife entanglement.48

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentations3Rs for eliminating ocean trash: reduce, removeand researchNicholas Mallos1300 19th Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036,USAMarine debris is a ubiquitous and significant threat tomarine animals and ecosystems. All anthropogenicdebris endangers marine animals, but plastic debris isconsistently noted to negatively impact marine species—particularly derelict fishing gear and packaging materials.Entanglement in or ingestion of plastic debris has beenreported in more than 260 marine species, includingfish, turtles, seabirds and marine mammals. Marinedebris is not new though, and Ocean Conservancyhas been engaged in the issue for more than a quartercentury. Since 1986, citizen scientists around theworld have assembled on a single day in Septemberto participate in Ocean Conservancy’s InternationalCoastal Cleanup for the purpose of ridding our beaches,waterways and ocean of marine debris. Over the past26 years, 9,361,453 volunteers have removed almost153,790,918 pounds of debris from more than 312,000miles of coastline and waterways in 153 countries.Volunteers record every item of debris they collect ona standardized data form and document any entangledanimals—dead or alive. Year after year fishing line,fishing nets, ribbon and string are listed as the mostcommon types of entanglement debris. Collectively,more than 4,400 entangled animals have been foundby volunteers including a diverse range of sea turtle,shark, porpoise and seabird species. These data havebeen utilized around the world in seminal publicationson marine debris and have led to greater awarenessby stakeholders such as product manufacturers,consumers and government officials; data were alsocritical in informing marine debris legislation. These data,combined with entanglement data from the literature,show that marine species are negatively affected bymarine debris; however, large-scale ecosystem impactsremain essentially unknown. Responding to this need,Ocean Conservancy conceptualized a proposal to one ofthe world’s foremost ecological think tanks, the NationalCenter for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS),to host a working group on the ecological impactsof marine debris. The working group will synthesizeexisting data to quantify the amount of plastic in themarine environment and construct a scientific theory ofmarine debris. This first of its kind analysis will identifydemonstrable impacts of plastic debris on the oceanat all tiers of ecological organization such as species,population and ecosystem levels. On paper, it may seemlogical to equate a single cigarette butt to a fishing netor a bottle, but these items pose very different ecologicalperils to marine animals and habitats. Therefore,understanding better the relationship between impacts/risks and size, volume and mass of debris will underlinedebris types most dangerous to marine animals. Thesefindings will ultimately inform real world decision-makingthat address plastics’ end-of-life ecological impacts inthe marine environment. There is no silver bullet to stopmarine debris, but the International Coastal Cleanupand NCEAS Working Group provide practical andcomprehensive approaches to remove dangerous debrisfrom marine environments and reduce the threat ofentanglement for marine animals.Campaign to prevent waste and cleaning of coastalbeaches involving students, tourists and thecommunity. “Take care of your waste and 3 others.”García Píngaro, Rodrigo; Blengini, MarianaBalneario La Paloma, Rocha, Uruguayrodrigo@occ.org.uyTwo local institutions, with the aim of contributing toraising awareness of the garbage impact in our coastalenvironment, merged to involve the community in theprevention and cleaning of the beaches. In the frameworkof Responsible Tourism by the Organization for theConservation of Cetaceans (OCC) in Uruguay, andSeaside English Center (SEC), Beach Cleanup Days havebeen conducted in coastal communities since 2008,such as: La Paloma, Valizas, Punta del Diablo and Puntadel Este. We involved students from two perspectives:EDUCATIONAL, where the goal is to educate about thecare of our beaches and the classification of waste; andFUNCTIONAL, by providing the tools and the technicallanguage necessary for activities related to wastemanagement anywhere in the world (through the Englishlanguage). Part of this is the initiative conducted duringthe summer, when tourists come and beaches49

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsare harassed. The support of children is essential, theyencourage people to collaborate in gathering trashalong the beach. Last summer, the presence of Clown“Gingko Biloba” was key to reaching more children andadults, making the cleaning amusing, more fun andsymbolic. Among the challenges faced are reaching asmany beaches as possible; cleaning all the area andpromoting awareness, including beach hostels in thecampaign with their customers and their own waste.Also recruiting more volunteers who have previouslybeen trained. The enormous impact that waste hason the coast and later on marine animals has beenshown by a sample collected on one of the beachesby 6 volunteers during 3 hours; what predominatedwere: plastic bags, fishing nets, and also cigarette ends(totalling 3.284), micro waste like popsicle sticks, bottlecaps and straws, bottles, plastic cups, string, wireand plastic coated paper,. We collected about 70kg ofgarbage in a single morning. The marine animals mainlyaffected are 5 species of turtles and some seabirdsbecause of plastics. Local stakeholders are: La PalomaCouncil, Local Board of Punta del Diablo, Las BoyasHostel, Point G Artisan Gelato, CLEAN UP OCEANCONSERVANCY-ECOPLATADINAMA-MVOTMA*. As forcleanup recommendations: begin the campaign ahead,through all means possible; during the summer, start inthe morning or late in the day due to the sun’s intensity;require participants to bring sunscreen and hat; provideplenty of fresh water (one person must be responsible forits distribution); have a protocol for volunteers on wastecollection and materials; enable them to manage thepayroll and data collection, including group organization(team leader and collectors). As the waste counting isreported by the collector to the person who takes data,it is vital that each data collector scorer is very wellacquainted with the form. Coordination with the localcouncil is important for the removal of the bags anddisposal. Participation and commitment of the localauthorities is essential for the public policies incidenceon this topic.Marine Debris Management and Recycling Project:Watamu, KenyaSteve TrottWatamu Marine AssociationWatamu, Kenyastevetrott@watamu.bizwww.watamu.bizThe PlaceThe Project area is part of Kenya’s first National MarinePark and a UNESCO recognised Biosphere Reserve.The Park and Reserve harbour rich marine habitatsincluding: coral reefs, sea grass meadows, mangroveforest and more than 600 species of fish. Five species ofendangered sea turtle are found in the local waters alongwith Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins, spinner dolphinsand humpback whales that are resident in the area ormigrate through its waters.The ProblemA serious problem related to both solid and soft plasticwaste is the threat to marine life. Plastic bags andmaterials are ingested by sea turtles mistaking them forjellyfish which are part of their natural diet. Each yearendangered sea turtles are washed ashore in Watamusuffering from plastic ingestion. Most of the turtleseventually die due to internal problems and starvationthrough gut blockage. Discarded and lost fishing gearspose a further threat through entanglement not just tosea turtles but to dolphins, whales and other marine life.The SolutionTo tackle the problem of plastic and other marinedebris the Project was set up in 2009 as a communityenterprise and is substantially reducing the amount ofwaste that impacts directly on the health and biodiversityof the marine environment. This is made possible bycarrying out weekly beach clean ups which stops there-entry of these waste materials into the sea. Thisnot only has measurable conservation results but alsoencourages tourists to visit the beaches and therebyboosting the local economy. All plastic waste collectedfrom the beaches is recycled and sold and the incomegenerated helps the initiative to remain operational andsustainable. Rubber waste, ropes, fishing nets and otherentanglement materials collected are used by local artiststo create unique marine debris artwork which is marketedin local hotel boutiques.50

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsPartnershipsThe Watamu Marine Association manages andcoordinates all Project operations and provides in kindsupport for Project activities. Project partners includelocal community women and youth groups and privatehotels and resorts. These partners provide wastecollectors to clean the beaches, vehicles for wasteremoval, sponsorship and fundraising support for theProject. This support provides part time employment for40 local community members to carry out weekly beachclean ups.Project SuccessThe main key to success of the Project is the cooperationbetween community organisations and the localmarine tourism industry in creating a plastic recyclingvalue chain. The results are cleaned-up beaches andemployment opportunities in poor communities. Byturning plastic pollution into profit creates a win winsituation for marine life, coastal communities and thetourism industry.The FutureIn 2011 the Project was recognised by UNEP andreceived a SEED Award for entrepreneurship and thepotential of the Project to inspire other communities.By combining environmental welfare and conservationefforts with community empowerment, employmentand alternative income generation, the initiative setsan example for successful community based marinedebris management.Fishing For Litter: The voluntary removal of marinedebris by the fishing fleetTom PiperKommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon (KIMO)www.fishingforlitter.orgtom.piper@kimo.shetland.orgFishing for Litter is an environmental project, undertakenby KIMO in Scotland, The Netherlands, South WestEngland, Isle of Man, Sweden and the Faeroe Islands,designed to engage the fishing industry to reducethe amount of marine litter in our seas by physicallyremoving it and improve waste management practicesin the fishing industry.Fishing for litter is a simple idea, participating vesselsare given hardwearing bags to collect marine litterthat is caught in their nets as part of their normalfishing activity. Full bags are deposited on the quaysidewhere the participating harbours move the bag to adedicated skip for disposal. The project provides thebags and covers the waste costs and the fishermen andharbours volunteer their time.There have been two big challenges to the project i)securing enough funding on tough economic times. Thecost of waste collection and disposal is high and in theEurope the associated taxes are always increasing todeter the generation of waste. The project is unfairly hitby these taxes as we do not generate waste we cleanup other peoples waste. KIMO continues to lobby foran exemption. And ii) In the first years of the projectit took patience to gain the endorsement of fisheriesorganisations. Harbours always saw the benefits of theproject and they helped validate the project. A healthy PRbudget at the beginning of the project helped the projectestablish as normal practice in the industry and now allaspects of the sector recognise the importance of theproject and support its development.While monitoring has always been a secondary aspect ofthe project it is one of the few activities that gives an ideaof the types of litter that end up on the seabed (morethan 50% plastic) and we are currently piloting improveddata collection procedures with some vessels to seeif we can provide information that can be fed intoscientific models.51

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsKIMO has been successful in gaining a OSPARRecommendation (2010/19), it asks all OSPAR memberstates to facilitate a Fishing For Litter project in theirports. There is now a lot of interest from others who arekeen to replicate the project’s success in their areas andacceptance amongst the fleet that bringing litter ashoreis the right course of action.The talk will look at the implementation of the fishingfor litter programme in the North Sea looking at thechallenges, learnings and successful outcomes.52

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsRescueThe following abstracts are those submitted under thetheme of rescuing animals already entangled in (orotherwise affected by) marine litter.Saving humpback whales entangled in gillnetsin EcuadorCristina Castro Ayala and Gregory KaufmanPacific Whale Foundation (PWF) – EcuadorAsunción 529 y Av. América. Edificio Cajiao. 4to piso.Quito – Ecuadorcristinacastro@pacificwhale.orgCetacean bycatch in fishing gear is recognized as oneof the largest marine conservation issues worldwide.Interactions with fisheries occur mainly with artisanaland industrial fishing gillnets and both small and largecetaceans are involved. Ecuador is a major breedingarea for East Pacific humpback whales that migrate fromtheir feeding grounds in Antarctica. Off the Ecuadorianmainland, humpback whales are found in the marine areaof the Machalilla National Park from June to October.The whale watching tourism and fishing are the maineconomic activities of the Ecuadorian coastal towns.Overfishing has reduced fish stocks that producecommercial fishermen increase the effort (number ofnets) and fishing time (No. of days of netting) in searchof higher returns. In Ecuador the main gear is the gillnets surface. This gear has become marine debris thatis often lost or the charges for several days. The gill netsis plastic material and polyester fibers. They also containplastic ropes and buoys that flow from the fishing net.Since 2009 the PWF started a study to assess thelevel of interaction of cetaceans with fishing nets inMachalilla National Park. The project is based on directdata collection through field research trips in whalewatching boats. Recording and analysis of cetaceanstrandings. And awareness campaigns with fishermenand local community.From 2009 to August 2012 were 200 research trips whichfifteen humpback whales were seen towing gear or ropearound their body and these are referred to as ‘entangledanimals’. In 60% (n=9) of cases were involved in fishingnets, were exhausted and swam slowly. The fishing netwas in pectoral fins, head and tail. Another 40% (n = 6)were cases of humpback whales stranded dead withevidence of fishing gear in his mouth and body parts. Theevidence and analysis indicate that possibly stranding ofcetaceans tangled in loose pieces of trammel nets at seaWe documented six cases (40%) successful rescue ofhumpback whales, 4 adults and 2 calves. Various actorswere rescue from fishermen, coastal communities,scientists, NGOs, divers and government staff. In allcases we used knives, machetes, clippers and hooks. Allanimals had a high degree of tiredness. In most casesthe animals were rescued with direct approach.A preliminary estimate of 0,075 averaged entangledwhales/ trip. 89% of cases evidenced gillnets or trammelnets with mesh size of 5 inches, of which 10% wereelectronic (plastic mesh), 5% seines (different fibertypes), 6% undefined.The workshops with fishermen revealed the lack ofgovernment policies for the conservation of cetaceansand especially the lack of support to the fisheries sectorto find more environmentally friendly work alternatives.It requires better coordination between fisheries andenvironmental authorities, NGOs and fishing communitiesto address the problem in a comprehensive manner. Theworkshops showed that fishermen are willing to changetheir fishing gear, and try other methods that reduce theimpact on cetacean populations and improve the qualityof surface gillnets, avoiding network losses and damagecausing marine pollution problems.53

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsLarge whale entanglement in marine debris:what do we know and what can be done?David MattilaTechnical adviser ‐ International Whaling Commission343 Bradford St., Provincetown, MA, USA 02657David.Mattila@IWC.intEntanglement in man-made ropes and net is consideredto be one of the single greatest human threats to manylarge whale populations. It has been estimated thatapproximately 308,000 whales, dolphins and porpoisesglobally die from entanglement in fishing gear each year(Read et al., 2006). How many more become entangledin derelict gear and marine debris is not known. However,it has been estimated that in some areas “ghost fishing”by derelict fishing gear may represent 30% of thetotal “catch” of the target species (Laist, D. W., 1996).Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that bycatch ofcetaceans by derelict gear may also approach 30% ofthat estimated for actively fished gear in some areas(Mattila and Lyman, 2006). In addition, derelict gear maydrift to other regions, joining other types of manmaderopes and net, creating an entanglement problem ina region with no known “high risk” active fishing (e.g.Central North Pacific). One of the ways to understandthe relative risk of large whale entanglement in derelictfishing gear and marine debris is to remove and fullydocument the gear on the whale, and then trace it backto its origin, if possible. A formal whale disentanglementnetwork was established in Hawaii in 2002, and itcurrently uses internationally recognized tools andtechniques to safely remove manmade materials fromlarge whales. The principles and guidelines used weredeveloped through consensus by representatives from allcurrent national whale disentanglement programs, andsubsequently endorsed by the 89 member countries ofthe International Whaling Commission. Gear removedfrom entangled whales in Hawaii using these techniques,has come from several sources, including gear fishedin Alaska (2,500 nm away) and marine debris. The IWCinitiative to expand this research and mitigation effortusing the strategy and curriculum developed by its expertadvisory panel is discussed.Entangled and fish-hooked seals, stranded in theNetherlands during the period 1985-2010D.W. van Liere, R. Hekman & N. OsingaSeal Rehabilitation and Research CentreHoofdstraat 94a, 9968 AG, Pieterburen, The Netherlandsdiederik@zeehondencreche.nlThe Seal Rehabilitation and Research Centre Lenie ’tHart rehabilitates orphaned, sick or injured seals. Theseare mostly common seals (Phoca vitulina) and grey seals(Halichoerus grypus) stranded along the coast of theNetherlands. All cases, including dead stranded seals,are recorded in a database. The centre currently treats/rescues between 400 and 700 common seals and 50 to150 grey seals stranded per year.For the period 1985-2010, there were 54 entangledseals, of which 89% stranded in the last ten years (2001- 2010). Entanglements were recorded significantlymore often for grey seals (n=39) than for common seals(n=15). All entanglements were around the neck andhead. In some animals, other parts of the body, mostlythe front flippers, were also entangled. Traumatic injuriesof the skin or blubber layer, up to muscles (lacerationsand penetrating wounds), were common as a result ofnet entanglement. In most cases, secondary infectionsdeveloped as a result of wound contamination. Admittedseals manifested pain and stressed behavior. Usuallyentangled seals were in poor body condition whencaught. After removal of the net, the lesions werecleaned, and disinfected. The seals were given accessto a pool with salt water, and the lesion usually healedwithin several weeks. After healing of the wound, anindentation around the neck was still visible in mostcases. Seals were released once they had gainedsufficient weight.For 31 seals, the type of net could be identified: 18 weretrawl nets and 13 were gillnets. Trawl net mesh sizevaried between 10 and 20 cm. Weights varied between500 and 1500 gram, with the exception of one trawl netthat weighed 11 kilogram. Mesh size of the gillnets variedbetween 9 and 26 cm and weights were between 1-500gram. One of the gillnets had three filaments twistedtogether, all others were monofilament.54

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsOver the same period we also found 8 common and5 grey seals stranded with ingested fish hooks. Ofthese, 8 were dead already, 2 died soon after arrival atthe centre and 3 were successfully rehabilitated. Postmortem examination showed that death was caused byperforations of the oesophagus, stomach or intestines.One rehabilitated seal had hooks in the mouth that couldbe removed. Two rehabilitated seals had a hook in thestomach did not have perforations yet, and survived byfeeding the seal cotton wool. Cotton wool encapsulatedthe hook, preventing it from perforating the intestines.The cotton wool was defecated together with the hook.This procedure was also successful when applied to therescue of seals elsewhere.Cetacean entanglements and strandings in theBolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 2000-2012Jaime Bolaños-Jiménez 1 , Clemente Balladares 2 ,Luis Bermúdez-Villapol 3 , Leonardo Sánchez-Criollo 41Sociedad Ecológica Venezolana Vida Marina (Sea Vida)A.P. 162, Cagua, Estado Aragua, Venezuela, 2122bolanos.jimenez@gmail.com2Oficina Nacional de Diversidad Biológica, Ministerio delPoder Popular para el Ambiente, Caracas3Dirección Estadal Ambiental Nueva Esparta, Ministeriodel Poder Popular para el Ambiente (MINAMB), LaAsuncion, Isla de Margarita4Centro de Investigación de Cetáceos (CIC), CapítuloZulia, MaracaiboCetacean strandings are an important source ofinformation on mortality, threats, distribution and naturalhistory of these species. 368 cetacean strandings wererecorded in Venezuela between years 2000-2012. Datawere obtained from our field books, technical reports,local newspapers and social networks and integratedinto a single database for descriptive analysis. Here wepresent a review of mortality causes, with emphasisin entanglement in fishing gear. Causes of stranding/death include biological interactions (13,9%), ship strikes(3,3%), direct captures (3,3%), disease (2,2%), predation(1,9%), unknown (56,8%), other (1,9%). Evidencesof entanglement were obtained in 62 cases (16,8%).Species involved in entanglements were the Bryde’swhale (Balaenoptera edeni, 1,6%), common dolphin(Delphinus sp., 64,5%), Guiana dolphin (Sotaliaguianensis, 11,3%), common bottlenose dolphin(Tursiops truncatus, 3,2%), striped dolphin (Stenellacoeruleoalba, 1,6%), Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenellafrontalis, 1,6%) and unidentified dolphins (16,1%). Morethan 90% of the cases occurred in the States of NuevaEsparta (61,3%), Sucre (19,4%) and Zulia (12,9%).These areas represent the most important fisherygrounds in Venezuela and count on organized strandingresponse teams. As many strandings get unnoticed,these numbers might be an underestimation of currentcetacean deaths. As a first step, implementation ofscientific observer programs aboard artisanal fleetsare required in order to quantify the magnitude ofentanglements and propose mitigative measures.In the short-medium term, mitigation measures shouldbe discussed jointly by authorities, stakeholders andinterested parties.Behavioral impacts of disentanglement of aright whale under sedation and the energeticcost of entanglementJulie van der Hoop, Michael Moore, Andreas Fahlman,Alessandro Bocconcelli, Clay George, Katharine Jackson,Carolyn Miller, David Morin, Tom Pitchford, Teri Rowles,Jamison Smith, Barb ZoodsmaBiology Department, Woods HoleOceanographic Institution266 Woods Hole Rd, MS 50, Woods Hole,MA 02543, USAjvanderhoop@whoi.eduEntanglement in fishing gear is the leading causeof detected mortalities of large whales along theeastern coasts of Canada and the USA. Upon initialentanglement, a number of outcomes are possible:individuals may die anchored in gear, or may break free,either cleanly or carrying all or a portion of the entanglinggear. Large whales swimming entangled in fishing gearare often subject to emaciation through reduced mobilityand foraging ability, and energy budget depletion fromthe added drag of towing accessory gear for monthsor years. Disentanglement techniques have beenadapted to remove entangling gear from free-swimmingindividuals by adding buoys or floats to trailing gearto increase a whale’s drag through the water and slow55

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsits movement. Administering a light sedative hasfurther reduced boat aversion by the target individual.We examined changes in kinematics of a taggedentangled North Atlantic right whale (Eg 3911), before,during and after disentanglement on 15 Jan 2011 offFlorida, USA. To calculate the additional drag forcesand energetic demand associated with various gearconfigurations, we towed three sets of gear attached toa load-cell tensiometer at multiple speeds. Tag analysesreveal significant increases in dive depth, duration, andascent, descent and fluke stroke rates, and decreasesin root mean square fluke amplitude (a proxy for thrust)following disentanglement. Drag coefficients whileentangled in all gear configurations were significantlygreater than in the non-entangled case. Increases intotal power input (including standard metabolism) overthe non-entangled condition ranged 1.6-53.9% atspeeds of 0.75-2.9 m s-1 for all gear configurationstested; locomotory power requirements increased61.1-103.3%. These results provide the first descriptionof significant alteration to whale swimming patternsassociated with entanglement. The integrated impactover time of such behavioral changes likely affectforaging ability at a preferred prey depth, increasedrisk to vessel strike, and reduced swimming speed/delayed arrival to foraging grounds. Understanding themajor behavioral and energetic implications of towingaccessory gear is crucial in considering the sublethaleffects of persistent entanglement in a criticallyendangered population. Future research to developminimally invasive, long-term, low-drag satellite trackingmethods, and to understand the potential for survivalfollowing disentanglement are crucial in our addressingthe increasingly global problem of chronic entanglementin large whales.Lessons learned by the Philippine Marine MammalStranding Network from rescued marine mammals andsea turtles related to marine debrisLemnuel V. Aragones, Mariel B. Flores, Leo A. Suarez,Bianca G. Espinos, Faith M. Paran, Christine M. Obusan,Jonathan Apurado, Gail E. LauleInstitute of Environmental Science and MeteorologyCSRC Bldg, National Science Complex, University of thePhilippines, Diliman, Quezon City PHILIPPINES 1101lemaragones@gmail.comIn the Philippine archipelago of more than 7,000 islands,impacts of marine debris such as plastics, and fishingnets and hooks littered in the marine environment havebeen recorded in several cases of entanglement andstrandings of marine mammals and sea turtles. ThePhilippine Marine Mammal Stranding Database (PMMSD,www.pmmsndatabase.upd.edu.ph) has recorded 15separate cases of entanglement in fishing nets relatedcases of strandings in the last three years involvingvarious species:• three common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus,March & July 2011, and May 2010)• two Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus, April 2009& June 2010)• two spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris, May &July 2010)• two spotted dolphins (S. attenuata, April 2009 & 2012)• two melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra,February 2009 and April 2010)• one Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei, March 2010)• one Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus,June 2012)• one rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis,December 2010)• one short-finned pilot whale (Globicephalamacrorhynchus, March 2012).Among the common bottlenose dolphins, two adultfemales were released immediately, while a calfeventually died. One of the melon-headed whales diedafter a very long rehabilitation (59 days), while the otherwas successfully rehabilitated and released. The shortfinnedpilot whale and one of the spotted dolphinswere sub-adults that eventually died. The other spotteddolphin and the rough-toothed dolphin were56

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsboth immediately rehabilitated and released. All casesinvolved live individuals except for the Indo-Pacificbottlenose dolphin, which was dead upon recovery.Further, the PMMSD has recorded compaction ofplastics in the GIT in 3 of 44 cases of marine mammalshandled by the Stranding Team of Ocean Adventure(OAST), an openwater marine park in Subic. The casesinclude Fraser’s (Lagenodelphis hosei, May 2004),Risso’s (Grampus griseus, June 2008) and spotted(Stenella attenuata, April 2009) dolphins – all ultimatelydied due to starvation and other complications. Of the40 rescued sea turtles by OAST, x-ray images showedcompaction of plastics in the GITof two hawksbill(Eretmochelys imbricata, July 2003 & 2005) andanother two cases involving green turtles (Cheloniamydas), one with a fishing hook embedded in theesophagus (May 2011) and the other entangled in anold net (September 2010). Incidents of unreported andundocumented deaths due to net entanglement andGIT compaction are likely to be much higher as fishingefforts as well as the large volume of plastics collectedduring the annual coastal cleanups, respectively,have been increasing throughout the Philippines. Thisreport presents some important findings based onour monitoring and research, rescue and rehabilitationefforts, and highlights the value of an organizedstranding network. All of the live stranders showedsigns of lethargy, dehydration and inappetance. In thecompaction cases, ulcerations in the stomach developedmost likely from a variety of plastic bags and wrappersrubbing against the stomach walls resulting in irritation,bleeding and eventual blood loss (anaemia). In all thesecases, the animals ultimately died.The Philippine Marine Mammal Stranding Network(PMMSN), established in 2005, has resulted in a growingnumber of stranded animals being reported, andresponded to. The core member institutions of PMMSNinclude the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,the mandated agencies for cetaceans, and sea turtlesand dugongs, respectively; Ocean Adventure, whichis the main source of experienced first respondersand veterinarians; Wildlife In Need, an NGO leadingthe animal welfare advocacy, and the University of thePhilippines’ Institute of Environmental Science andMeteorology, focusing on research. To date, the PMMSNhas trained more than 2,400 government staff and localstakeholders throughout the Philippines on how toproperly respond to stranded marine mammals, and hasbeen the main advocate for systematically collectingdata from every case. The results of this report have wideimplications to the understanding of marine debris andits impacts on marine life.Marine Mammals of Maine: rescue efforts forentangled marine mammalsLynda Doughty and Erin PelletierMarine Mammals of MainePO Box 757, Portland, ME 04104, USAldoughty@mmome.orgMarine Mammals of Maine’s mission as a non-profit501(c)(3) is to provide response and assistance forinjured, stranded, sick, orphaned, and entangledmarine animals and to work collaboratively with similarorganizations to aid in the protection and support ofmarine animals as defined by the Marine MammalProtection Act. To provide public education aboutmarine animals and the environment. We createdour organization in the fall of 2011, since no otherorganization was responsible for responding to marinemammals and this posed a huge void for Mid-Coast andSouthern, Maine. In the spring of 2012 we were grantedauthorization from National Marine Fisheries Service torespond to marine mammals.There are many factors that affect marine mammals inthis area; one of them is entanglements from marinedebris. We primarily see pinnipeds affected. Historicallyin this area Gray Seals (Halichoerus grypus) have beenreported but recently seeing more Harbor Seals (Phocavitulina) with entanglements, mostly of monofilament.With an increase in reporting through a statewide hotlinewe have been able to provide a high level of response foranimals that show up on our immediate coast line. Wehave successfully been able to disentangle half a dozenanimals. Through this process we have also becomeaware through more efforts and outreach that there areother more remote areas such as off shore islands thatapproximately 50 entangled animals both Gray andHarbor seals have been reported and documented.Our next goal would be to develop a protocol for the57

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsresponse to these entanglements cases as they pose acomplex logistical and safety planning process in orderto successfully carry out the disentanglement of theseanimals followed up with a prevention mechanism formarine debris.Whale Shark Conservation Project along the GujaratCoast of IndiaManoj Matwal, Prof. B.C. Choudhary, Dr. Rahul KaulWildlife Trust of IndiaB-13 Sector 8 , Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh, Indiamanojmatwal@gmail.comThe Whale Shark Conservation Project in India is aninitiative of the Wildlife Trust of India in collaboration withthe Gujarat Forest and Wildlife Department supported bythe corporate Tata Chemicals. In the largest congregatingcoast of Gujarat the whale sharks were a victim ofnon-targeted incidental catch in the marine fisheriesand a targeted export oriented hunting. Placement ofthe species under Wildlife Protection Act of India, anda fisherman targeted Awareness Campaign broughtthe hunting level to zero. Implementing a net damagecompensation scheme based on a rescue programfrom December 2006, a total of 306 whale sharks hasbeen rescued till March 2012.The research experienceand lessons during these rescue operations includesunderstanding the physiological requirements such asram ventilation osmoregulation and stress factors ofthe species. Based on this a new self-documented andrescue protocol has been developed to minimize thedelay in rescues, giving better chances of survival toWhale sharks.Lack of scientific information, and some resilience fromthe authorities came as a hurdle but continuous effortsby a dedicated team managed to turn the situation infavor of whale shark. Such kind of marine related rescueprograms should be conducted under proper scientificknowledge, timely reviewed by the experts.Welfare aspects of marine mammal entanglementin fishing gearMichael MooreBiology Department, Woods Hole OceanographicInstitutionWoods Hole, MA 02543, USAmmoore@whoi.eduOn the eastern seaboard of the United States andCanada, large whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals allget entangled in fishing gear. An annual average of 2773whales, dolphins and seals died in fishing gear in the NWAtlantic waters of the United States for the period 2005to 2009. Our goal has been to document the extent andnature of the problem from a welfare perspective. Theprimary marine mammal entanglement scenario involvesactively fished gear. Where such gear is torn away bythe power of the animal, or the entangled animal is cutout from the gear by the fisher it could be defined at thatpoint as debris. Such material includes: rope, traps andfloats from fixed trap fisheries, especially lobster gear,gillnet and its associated ropes and floats, monofilamentand braided hook and line fishing gear, and mobile trawlgear. Such materials can also all entangle after beingdiscarded as primary debris. Harm inflicted can include:asphyxiation through subsurface entrapment; or if theanimal can surface, it can remain anchored in place;or if it is cut free, or can break away, the result may bechronic entanglement, with resultant laceration, incision,constriction, feeding impairment, increased drag, loss ofbody condition, bony proliferation, infection and ultimatedeath. Time from first entanglement to death can rangefrom minutes to years. Symptoms likely include acutedistress in cases that cannot surface and thereforedrown at some time after the normal dive duration,which ranges from minutes to more than an hour inthe case of some whales. Chronic cases presumablysuffer from severe and chronic pain, similar to thatseen in compartment syndrome in terrestrial mammals.Diagnosis of acute drowning entanglement oftendepends on subtle surface markings formthe gear, airway froth and systemic congestion,suggestive of a terminal struggle. Chronic entanglementcases often show resultant wounds and emaciation.Management attempts to prevent these entanglementsinclude seasonal closures, gear modification, such asweak links and sinking groundlines, and acoustic deviceson gillnets. Efforts to ameliorate the effects post facto58

Annex 4Submitted abstracts accompanyingposter presentationsEntanglement as a welfare issue for grey seals(Halichoerus grypus) in North Cornwall, UK.Allen, Rebecca 1 , Sayer, Sue 2 ; Hockley, Kate 2 ;Jarvis, Dan 2 ; Mills, Cheryl 31Cornwall College Newquay, Trenance Gardens,Newquay, Cornwall, TR7 2LZ, UK2Cornwall Seal Group, c/o Copperleaf Cottage, PhillackHill, Hayle, Cornwall, TR27 5AD, UK3University of Exeter, Tremough, Falmouth, Cornwall,TR10 9EZ, UKAverage entanglement rates of grey seals Halichoerusgrypus at a haul out site in North Cornwall rangefrom 2-5% of sightings. Entanglement rates an orderof magnitude lower than this have been implicatedin population declines of other pinniped species. Inaddition a long-term photo identification study of greyseals Halichoerus grypus visiting this haul out site foundthat the maximum recapture interval of entangled sealscompared to paired control seals was significantly less(p = 0.045) suggesting an increased mortality rate foraffected seals.Of the 58 entangled cases in the catalogue, 64%had injuries that were deemed serious (either open,constricted or both.) Where identifiable the source ofentangled material was fisheries related materials.Whilst the focus of many studies has been the populationlevel effects on species, this study found that evenseriously impacted seals are capable of surviving for upto ten years. This raises welfare concerns for the affectedanimals that are spending months to years of time withdeep constrictions and persistent open wounds.To date British Divers Marine Life Rescue (BDMLR)has carried out approximately 20 successful rescuesof entangled seals, most of which were taken to theNational Seal Sanctuary at Gweek, Cornwallfor rehabilitation.60

Annex 5Delegate contact detailsName Organisation EmailAllen, Rebecca Cornwall Seal Group rebecca.allen@cornwall.ac.ukAngstadt, Kory Virginia Institute of Marine Science kory@vims.eduAragones, Lemnuel University of the Philippines lemaragones@gmail.comBass, Claire WSPA ClaireBass@wspa-international.orgBassos-Hull, Kim Mote Marine Lab kbhull@mote.orgBolanos-Jimenez, Jaime Sea Vida bolanos.jimenez@gmail.comBradt, GabrielaNew Hampshire Sea Grant and UNH Cooperative gabriela.bradt@unh.eduExtensionCarlson, Ashley American Chemistry Council ashley@ashleycarlsonconsulting.comCastro Ayala, Cristina Ballenas del Pacífico cristinacastro@pacificwhale.orgChiappone, Mark Nova Southeastern University mc191@nova.eduCho, Dong-Oh Korea Maritime University oceancho@gmail.comCivelek, Cylia RSMAS University of Miami cyliavc@gmail.comClegg, Isabella RSMAS, University of Miami izziclegg@hotmail.co.ukCorrales, Juliana Fundacion Keto juls.corrales@gmail.comDoughty, Lynda Marine Mammals of Maine ldoughty@mmome.orgFrey, Silvia OceanCare sfrey@oceancare.orgHardesty, Britta DeniseThe Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research denise.hardesty@csiro.auOrganisation (CSIRO)Heathcote, Grace GhostNets Australia grace.ghostnets@northerngulf.com.auHogan, Elizabeth WSPA ehogan@wspausa.orgHolthus, Paul World Ocean Council paul.holthus@oceancouncil.orgHudak, Christy Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies chudak@coastalstudies.orgIniguez-Bessega, Miguel Fundacion Cethus miguel.iniguez@cethus.orgIvar do Sul, Juliana Federal University of Pernambuco julianasul@gmail.comJan Verdonk, Dirk WSPA djverdonk@wspa.nlKennedy, Jennifer Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservation jen@blueoceansociety.orgKennedy, Mark WSPA MarkKennedy@wspa-international.orgKinsey, Sue Marine Conservation Society sue.kinsey@mcsuk.orgLandrum, JasonNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, jason.landrum@noaa.govMarine Debris ProgramLieberman, Anne WSPA alieberman@wspausa.orgLohuis, Holly S. Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society Hlohuis@oceanfutures.orgLonghi, Giovanna Asociacion Terra Nostra glonghi@terranostra-cr.orgMallos, Nicholas Ocean Conservancy nmallos@oceanconservancy.orgMalloy, Carmel WSPA carmelmolloy@wspa.org.auManley, Michelle Chilean Navy (DIRECTEMAR) mmanley@directemar.clMartin, Christina Independent christina_martin1@live.comMatthews, Thomas Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission tom.matthews@myfwc.comMattila, David IWC (and NOAA) david.mattila@iwcoffice.orgMatwal, Manoj Wildlife Trust of India manojmatwal@gmail.comMayer, Robert J. University of Puerto Rico at Aguadilla robert.mayer@upr.eduMeẏ . er, Michael Oceans & Coasts, Department of Environmental Affairs mmeyer@environment.gov.zaMiller, Kyle Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission kyle.miller@myfwc.com61

Annex 5Delegate contact detailsName Organisation EmailMoore, Michael Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution mmoore@whoi.eduMottishaw, Petra The Marine Mammal Center mottishaw@hotmail.comO'Connor, ShannonUniversity of Michigan - Flint Biology Department - Grad shoconno@umflint.eduStudentOrtiz, Natalie Fundacion Keto washan@hotmail.comOshisanya, Khaphilah Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine research kioshisanya@gmail.comPelletier, Erin Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation erin@gomlf.orgPiper, Tom KIMO UK tom.piper@kimo.shetland.orgPittenger, Dave Ocean Conservancy dpittenger@oceanconservancy.orgRitchie, Graham WSPA GrahamRitchie@wspa-international.orgRuud, Heidi Norsk Fiskeriretur AS heidi@nofir.noSaez, Lauren National Marine Fisheries Service Lauren.Saez@noaa.govSarmiento, Luis Carlos WSPA luiscarlossarmiento@wspa-suramerica.orgSawyer, James WSPA JamesSawyer@wspa-international.orgSayer, Sue Cornwall Seal Group sue@cornwallsealgroup.co.ukSchmidt-Burbach, Jan WSPA J.Schmidt-Burbach@wspa-international.orgSette, Lisa Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies sette@coastalstudies.orgSimmonds, Mark Peter Humane Society International mark.simmonds@sciencegyre.co.ukSivack, Marcelo Organizacion para la Conservacion de Cetaceos (OCC) marcelo.sivack@gmail.comStanhope, David Virginia Institute of Marine Science stanhope@vims.eduStein, Lyndall WSPA LyndallStein@wspa-international.orgSweeney, Vincent UNEP/GPA vincent.sweeney@unep.orgTaylor, Stacy WSPA StacyTaylor@wspa-international.orgThompson, Jessica Independent Biologist jessicajthompson@gmail.comToole, Joanna WSPA JoannaToole@wspa-international.orgTrott, Steve Watamu Marine Association stevetrott@watamu.bizVahvelainen, Paivi WSPA PaiviVahvelainen@wspa.org.ukvan der Hoop, Julie Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution jvanderhoop@whoi.eduvan Liere, Diederik Seal Rehabilitation and Research Centre Lenie 't Hart diederik@zeehondencreche.nlVanzella-Khouri, Alessandra UNEP-Caribbean Environment Programme avk@cep.unep.orgVargas, Marcela WSPA mvargas@wspala.orgVeen, Jadira Sint Maarten PRIDE foundation bernveen@yahoo.comWallace, Nancy NOAA Marine Debris Program Nancy.Wallace@noaa.govWeisberg, Lisa WSPA lweisberg@wspausa.org62

© WSPA 2013; except Annex 4 where original authorsretain all rights.WSPA International5th Floor222 Grays Inn RoadLondon WC1X 8HBUKT: +44 (0)20 7239 0500F: +44 (0)20 7239 0653E: wspa@wspa-international.orgW: www.wspa-international.orgFront cover image: Juvenile grey whale entangled in fishing gear,off Mexico, Pacific Ocean