SDG 14 - Life below water

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development


Data extracted in August 2018

Planned article update: September 2019

Highlights


EU trend of SDG 14 on life below water

This article provides an overview of statistical data on SDG 14 ‘Life below water’ in the European Union (EU). It is based on the set of EU SDG indicators for monitoring of progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in an EU context.

This article is part of a set of statistical articles, which are based on the Eurostat publication ’Sustainable development in the European Union — Monitoring report - 2018 edition’. This report is the second edition of Eurostat’s series of monitoring reports on sustainable development, which provide a quantitative assessment of progress of the EU towards the SDGs in an EU context.

Goal 14 aims to protect and ensure the sustainable use of oceans by implementing international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This includes the safeguarding of marine and coastal ecosystems, conserving marine and coastal areas, reducing marine pollution and the impacts of ocean acidification, and ending overfishing.

Full article

Life below water in the EU: overview and key trends

Monitoring SDG 14 in an EU context looks into developments in the areas of marine conservation, sustainable fisheries and ocean health. As indicated in Table 1, the lack of data or the limited scope of the available indicators makes it difficult to assess whether the EU has made progress in these areas over the past 15 years.

Marine conservation

European citizens depend in many ways on the services that marine ecosystems provide, including fish and seafood, coastal protection, degradation of pollutants and climate regulation. In addition, the marine environment offers recreation and tourism opportunities. The European Commission and Member States have taken multiple steps to combat the loss of aquatic habitats and biodiversity, which poses a serious threat to human livelihoods, food security and climate stability [1]. A crucial step in terms of the protection of habitats and biodiversity has been the designation of a network of marine protected areas (MPAs)  [2], in which human activities are subject to stricter regulation. The degree of protection varies and depends on the management plan regulating the protected area. Management measures range from a strict ban on any type of economic activity, such as fishing, mining or wind power generation, to a more moderate protection regime where only certain types of fishing methods are allowed, and/or any other economic development is handled in a restrictive way. The EU currently has no overview or assessment of the management plans and their effectiveness associated with the MPAs designated in EU regional seas.

The extent of marine protected areas has been increasing in the EU

Figure 2: Surface of marine sites designated under Natura 2000, EU-27 and EU-28, 2008–2017 (km2)
Source: European Commission services, European Environment Agency (sdg_14_10)

In 2016, marine protected areas in the EU were to a large extent formed by the Natura 2000 network (54 %), and complemented by nationally designated marine protected areas that are established under each Member State’s national framework (46 %) [3]. The Natura 2000 network comprises protected areas under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives, which have the goal to maintain or restore a favourable conservation status of the natural habitat types and species for which the area was designated. Current data and trends on the development of the sites declared under Natura 2000 show a clear increase in marine protected areas in the EU. In 2017, the spatial extent of marine sites designated for the Natura 2000 network was five times the size of the designated area in 2008, having increased from 92 894 km2 to 532 417 km2.

The target for the spatial extent of protected areas in the EU is set by the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 and the Aichi Targets in the global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 [4] under the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). By being a signatory partner to the CBD, the EU and individual Member States have agreed to adhere to the Aichi target 11, according to which 10 % of marine and coastal areas have to be conserved by 2020. In 2012, the coverage of marine protected areas in the EU amounted to only 5.9 % of the total marine and coastal surface area [5]. However, considering the increase in the marine protected areas in the EU, it is likely that this share has increased since 2012 and the EU has moved closer to meeting the 10 % target.

Compared to land-based protected areas, there were significant delays in the establishment of marine protected areas in the Natura 2000 network until 2013. Since then, a sharp increase has taken place, as marine protected areas have climbed up political agendas and research efforts have accelerated, including through EU financial support.

The spatial extent of marine protected areas shows strong regional variations

The coverage of marine protected areas varies strongly across regional seas, and there is a clear variation between different countries. In 2012, only the Baltic Sea (13.5 % MPA coverage) had reached the 10 % Aichi target, followed by the Mediterranean Sea with 9.5 %. In contrast, the Black Sea had only designated 4.5 % and in the EU part of the North-East Atlantic ocean, only 4.2 % were designated [6]. Furthermore, significant differences occur between near shore and coastal waters, where MPA coverage can exceed 75 %, and offshore waters, where MPA coverage can be close to zero.

The conservation status of marine habitats and species remains unfavourable

It should be pointed out, however, that the extent of protected areas alone does not provide a good indication on the effectiveness of the protection of species and habitats, without further information on the status and implementation of conservation measures. Scarcity of marine data limits the conclusions that can be drawn in this respect, but the data that are available indicate that in 2012 the conservation status of marine habitats and species was still unfavourable in most cases.

This is illustrated by the latest European Environment Agency (EEA) analysis of the conservation status of marine habitats, carried out in 2016 with data from the 2007 to 2012 reporting period of the Birds and Habitats Directives. Based on a limited number of assessments (six to eight per marine region) in the North-East Atlantic, none of the habitats had a favourable conservation status, while the share of unfavourable but improving marine habitats was relatively high, with 43 %. For 29 % of the assessed habitats the status remained unknown. In the Baltic region, none of the habitats assessed had a favourable status and 71 % had an unfavourable and declining status [7].

Similar to the situation with marine habitats, the data on the status of marine species protected by the Habitats Directive are too scarce to draw any general conclusion. The latest assessment was conducted by the EEA in 2016 and is based on data from the 2007 to 2012 reporting period. The limited number of species assessments per marine region (ranging from three to 48) indicates that the conservation status of the large majority of species was unfavourable or unknown in all marine regions, with the exception of the Baltic region, where, however, only three species assessments were conducted [8].

Sustainable fisheries

The unsustainable use of living resources, next to pollution, is the main threat to marine habitats and species in the EU [9], so the prudent management of the fishing activities of the European fleet also has important implications for biodiversity conservation.

Governance of fisheries in EU waters mainly focuses on fair access and sustainable supply. Management efforts are channelled through the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which limits the total amount of fish catches, controls who is allowed to fish, as well as how, when and where, with a view to preventing damage to vulnerable marine ecosystems and preserving fish stocks. The ambition and implementation of the CFP will have a direct bearing on reaching SDG 14, which includes the aim of ending overfishing, the destructive and/or illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing practices, and the subsidies that incentivise these activities.

Improvements for the sustainability of fisheries in the North-East Atlantic

Figure 3: Assessed fish stocks exceeding fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) in the North-East Atlantic, 2003–2016 (% of stocks exceeding fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (F>FMSY))
Source: Joint Research Centre (JRC) (sdg_14_30)


Figure 4: Estimated trends in fish stock biomass, North-East Atlantic and adjacent seas, 2003–2016 (Index 2003 = 100)
Source: Joint Research Centre (JRC) - Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) 2018 (sdg_14_21)

European fisheries affect fish stock productivity and stock size through catches. A fish stock is a group of fish from the same species that live in the same geographical area and mix enough to breed with each other when mature. Stock size is subject to natural variability that can overwhelm the influence of fishing from one year to the next. Fisheries management cannot directly control stock size; the only variable that can be directly controlled is fishing mortality. Fishing mortality (F) is a measure of fishing pressure that monitors the proportion of fish of a given age that is taken by fisheries during one year. For fisheries to be sustainable, fishing mortality should not exceed the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) — the point at which the largest catch can be taken from a fish stock over an indefinite period without harming it [10]. Thus, MSY is not a target to aim for, but rather a limit to stay well clear of in order for fisheries to be sustainable.

There has been a positive improvement in the number of stocks fished at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) in the North-East Atlantic, where around three-quarters of the EU’s catch originates. In 2003, only about 30 % of stocks in this region were fished at FMSY, whereas in 2016, this figure had risen to 56 % [11].

The model based mean value of all F/FMSY assessments can be used as an additional tool to indicate fishing pressures on fish stocks. Values above 1.0 mean that the current fishing mortality (F) exceeds the estimated maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). The results for the North-East Atlantic mirror the downward trend in overexploited stocks, and show a reduction in pressure from 1.6 to 0.9 between 2003 and 2016. This means that overall stocks are on average fished sustainably in this region.

The EU's approach to sustainable fisheries is not limited to achieving MSY. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)  [12] requires that commercially exploited fish and shellfish populations have a healthy distribution of age and size. Positive reductions in fishing mortality can lead to increases in stock size, and the status of stocks and their reproductive capacity can be measured and described by fish stock biomass as well as by spawning stock biomass (SSB). Biomass estimates are associated with high levels of uncertainty due to the fact that stock biomass can vary substantially from one year to the next. In addition, fish stocks can take considerable time to respond to changes in management measures and results can be masked by other factors, such as environmental conditions and predation [13]. For this reason, analysis of stock biomass trends should always focus on longer term patterns. In the case of the North-East Atlantic and adjacent seas, the reports of reproductive capacity (MSY Btrigger) are currently within policy thresholds, and there has been an estimated 39 % increase in biomass for the North-East Atlantic between the years 2003 and 2016. Furthermore, considering that unsustainable fisheries are identified as a major threat to marine ecosystems [14], additional measures to regulate fisheries are required under the Birds and Habitats Directives. The CFP empowers Members States and the Commission to adopt such measures in order to fulfil obligations under these directives and the MSFD.

Fisheries in the Mediterranean and Black Seas face greater threats to sustainability and have had an insufficient number of assessments

Beyond the North-East Atlantic, the picture is far less positive, with a low likelihood that the 2020 policy objective of attaining good environmental status will be met in the Mediterranean and Black Seas [15]. On average, fishing pressure in the Mediterranean is two and a half times greater than F/FMSY in the North-East Atlantic [16]. The mean values of F/FMSY assessments remained at very high levels during the whole period from 2003 to 2015, with no decreasing trend. The assessments vary around 2.3, indicating that stocks are being exploited on average at rates well above the CFP objective of FMSY. As this objective was to be reached for all stocks by 2015 where possible and at the latest by 2020, efforts need to be increased substantially if the EU is to meet its own targets for sustainable fisheries.

Out of the 47 stocks assessed up to 2016, the majority are overfished; only six stocks (around 13 %) are not overfished [17]. With regards to reproductive capacity, spawning stock biomass (SSB) in the Mediterranean and Black Sea also continues to be chronic, with stocks showing an average biomass decline of 25 % between 2003 and 2015 [18].

However, any apparent trends relating to SSB in the Mediterranean and Black Sea should be viewed with caution. There have been strong variations in the number of stocks for which information is available, which makes it difficult to allow for a robust indication of the true extent of overfishing [19].

Ocean health

Healthy and productive oceans are crucial for achieving SDG 14. For this to be accomplished, ocean acidification will need to be further restrained and marine pollution prevented. Within this context, two different topics are monitored: bathing water quality and ocean acidification.

Bathing water quality is affected by sewage discharge which creates unpleasant and unsafe conditions for bathing. Organic pollutants and excess nutrients from fertilisers on farmland as well as litter, while not directly harmful to humans, also lead to significant pressures on aquatic ecosystems and underwater life.

Ocean acidification occurs where increased levels of CO2 are absorbed by the ocean and reduce sea water pH levels. This problem is a growing threat to ocean health and productivity. Lower pH levels affect the growth of corals and species such as mussels and other shellfishes and can impact processes such as photosynthesis, with knock-on effects for entire ecosystems [20].

The EU is committed to improving water quality in its regional seas and coastal areas through a range of policies. Some positive results are emerging in terms of bathing water quality and reduction of point source pollution through improved wastewater treatment. This article analyses the quality of coastal and transitional waters only. See the article on SDG 6 ‘Clean water and sanitation’ for a more detailed analysis of the quality of inland waters.

Excellent bathing water quality is increasingly being achieved in European coastal waters

Figure 5: Bathing sites with excellent water quality by locality, Europe, 2012–2017 (% of bathing sites with excellent water quality)
Source: European Environment Agency (sdg_14_40)

Under the EU Bathing Water Directive [21], bathing water quality has improved steadily since 2012. Bathing water quality takes into account microbiological and physicochemical parameters to monitor, for example, faecal and chemical contamination. Water quality is analysed during the bathing season and classified as being poor, sufficient, good or excellent based on the previous four years of data. As the classification always takes into account preceding years, bathing water quality does not tend to fluctuate greatly from year to year. Only a small number (1.4 %) of sites failed to meet minimum quality standards in 2017, and the general trend has been towards very high water quality, with the number of European bathing sites with an ‘excellent’ rating growing almost steadily between 2012 and 2017 [22]. In 2017, 86.3 % of marine bathing sites and 82.1 % of inland bathing sites were classified as having ‘excellent’ water quality. It should be noted though that the bathing water indicator provides only a limited representation of the state of European seas because it is limited to bathing sites located on inland, transitional or coastal waters and excludes marine waters beyond one nautical mile of the baseline [23].

In 2017, the five Member States with the highest proportion of ‘excellent’ marine bathing water quality sites were all in the eastern Mediterranean. This may be due to limited rainfall and river flow during summer, greater sunlight and ultraviolet radiation in this region which all contribute to a higher quality of coastal bathing waters. In contrast, in the Baltic Sea and Greater North Sea, a higher proportion of both coastal and transitional water bodies is affected by pollution pressures.

Pollution continues to threaten the marine environment

Despite improvements in bathing water quality, organic and chemical pollutants from human activities as well as marine litter continue to pose a serious threat to Europe’s marine ecosystems. In early 2018, only 58 % of coastal water bodies were reported to have a good chemical status according to the Water Framework Directive [24].

Excessive loads of nutrients from agriculture and municipal wastewater (nitrogen and phosphorus) create eutrophication, a process characterised by increased plant growth, problematic algal blooms, depletion of oxygen, loss of life in bottom water, and an undesirable disturbance to the marine trophic webs [25]. The EEA monitors the levels and trends in winter means of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonium), oxidised nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite) and phosphate concentrations (micromol/l) in Europe’s regional seas [26]. A lack of data for the Black and Mediterranean Seas makes it difficult to assess trends, although the measurements that exist for the Mediterranean generally show low levels of eutrophication. The lack of data for the Black Sea is of greater concern, as this area, like the Baltic Sea, is particularly prone to eutrophication due to low levels of water exchange with connecting seas [27].

In the Baltic Sea, nitrogen concentrations are decreasing but phosphate concentrations show an increase at some stations. In the Atlantic region, a lack of data makes it impossible to analyse overall trends in dissolved nitrogen concentrations, and no significant changes in phosphorus concentrations were observed. For the Greater North Sea, however, long-term (greater than 10 years) time series data show some positive developments in nutrient reductions. In the case of phosphorus, this can be attributed to improved wastewater treatment, which led to a significant reduction of phosphorus loading in most North Sea countries between 1985 and 2005 [28]. However, due to time lags in the marine system, reductions in nutrient loads have not yet resulted in an improvement of the overall eutrophication status in this area [29].

Next to organic pollution, chemical pollution with hazardous substances and marine litter are important threats to the marine environment. Chemical pollution can originate from a number of land-based and marine sources, including agriculture (through the application of pesticides and veterinary medicines), industry, households and the transport sector. The EEA monitors eight hazardous substances in marine organisms, including cadmium, mercury, lead, HCB, lindane, DDT, PCB and BAP. Levels of most of these substances were low or moderate in 2012, apart from PCB, which was found in moderate or high concentrations in marine organisms between 2003 and 2012. A downward trend was observed in the North-East Atlantic for all of the substances except for mercury and HCB. In the Baltic Sea, reductions in lindane and PCB were observed, indicating that the abatement measures for these substances were successful [30]. For the other regional seas, no such trend could be observed. Apart from these eight chemicals, many other substances are released into Europe's seas on a daily basis for which no common monitoring is yet in place. Of particular concern are the persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which degrade slowly and can bio-accumulate in the food chain.

With regards to marine litter, estimations of plastic entering oceans in Europe are highly tentative, due to a lack of data and a strong variability of spatial distribution of litter within the oceans. However, based on scientific studies, the European Commission estimates that 150 000 to 500 000 tonnes of plastic enter the oceans in the EU every year [31]. Marine plastic can come from both land-based sources (for example, rivers or surface water runoff combined with improper disposal) and sea-based sources (ship waste and lost or disposed fishing gear). Single-use plastics pose a particular problem because they account for about 50 % of all marine litter [32]. Research regarding the environmental impact of plastic in the marine environment is still ongoing. Among other impacts, plastic items are known to strangulate and trap marine species. Furthermore, scientific evidence suggests that microplastic can further exacerbate chemical pollution — its absorbent characteristics can attract other contaminants, which may result in further accumulation of these contaminants in the food chain, once microplastic particles are ingested [33]. Furthermore, plastic additives, such as softeners (phtalates) or structural constituents (bisphenol), can leach into the seawater and once ingested can harm species, including through sexual disruption, inhibited locomotion or genotoxic damage [34].

The minimisation of human-induced eutrophication, contaminant concentrations and marine litter each constitute one of the 11 descriptors of good environmental status — the goal that is to be achieved under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). However, targets and thresholds have to be set at the national level; a process which is still ongoing.

Ocean acidification poses a risk to the marine environment and global climate regulation

Figure 6: Mean ocean acidity, 1988–2014 (pH value)
Source: Indicator provider: European Environment Agency (sdg_14_50), Data provider: Laboratory for Microbial Oceanography (Hawaii) (online data: Station Aloha Surface Ocean Carbon Dioxide)

Globally, surface ocean pH has reached an unprecedented low and is declining at a steady rate. Increased acidity affects the ocean’s capacity to act as a carbon sink and to regulate global CO2 emissions and is expected to have severe knock-on effects for marine species and ecosystems. Before industrialisation, pH levels varied between 8.3 and 8.2. These levels are now decreasing at an alarming rate, with surface ocean pH reaching 8.04 by September 2014. Reductions in pH levels are projected as far as 7.75 by the end of the 21st century, depending on future CO2 emission levels [35]. EU leadership to mitigate climate change is of vital importance not only to achieving SDG 13 (climate action) but also for reaching the targets of SDG 14.

Context

EU Member States share four main marine regions: the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the North-East Atlantic ocean. While the specific threats may vary between sea basins, it is clear that habitat alteration, overfishing and pollution are the most important general pressures affecting the environmental status of EU marine waters. At the same time, the livelihood and wellbeing of Europeans are heavily dependent on the productivity and health of marine ecosystems. To combat the loss of biodiversity and ensure sustainable ecosystems, the EU implements measures to conserve marine areas. Through its policies, the EU also promotes sustainable fisheries and addresses pollution to protect the health and productivity of the oceans. Ocean acidification is addressed through climate and energy policies.

Direct access to
Other articles
Tables
Database
Dedicated section
Publications
Methodology
Legislation
Visualisations
External links






More detailed information on EU SDG indicators for monitoring of progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as indicator relevance, definitions, methodological notes, background and potential linkages, can be found in the introduction of the publication ’Sustainable development in the European Union — Monitoring report - 2018 edition’.

Notes

  1. Boelee, E., Chiramba, T., and Khaka, E. (eds) (2011), An ecosystem services approach to water and food security, Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme; Colombo, International Water Management Institute.
  2. European Environment Agency (2015), Marine protected areas in Europe's seas — An overview and perspectives for the future, EEA Report No 3/2015, Copenhagen, EEA.
  3. Agnesi, S., Mo, G., Annunziatellis, A., Chaniotis, P., Korpinen, S., Snoj, L., Globevnik, L., Tunesi, L., Reker, J. (2017), Spatial Analysis of Marine Protected Area Networks in Europe’s Seas II, Volume A, 2017, ed. Künitzer, A., ETC/ICM Technical Report 4/2017, Magdeburg, European Topic Centre on inland, coastal and marine waters.
  4. UNEP (2010), Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2.
  5. European Environment Agency (2015), Marine protected areas in Europe's seas — An overview and perspectives for the future, EEA Report No 3/2015, Copenhagen, EEA; and European Commission (2015), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Progress in Establishing Marine Protected Areas, Brussels.
  6. European Environment Agency (2015), Marine protected areas in Europe's seas — An overview and perspectives for the future, EEA Report No 3/2015, Copenhagen, EEA.
  7. European Environment Agency (2018), Indicator assessment ‘Habitats of European Interest’ (SEBI 005).
  8. European Environment Agency (2017), Indicator assessment ‘Species of European Interest’ (SEBI 003).
  9. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the State of Nature in the European Union, COM(2015) 219 final, Brussels.
  10. European Commission (2006), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield, COM(2006) 360 final, Brussels.
  11. These stocks were considered to be sustainably fished only in terms of fishing mortality, not in terms of reproductive capacity.
  12. European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2008), Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).
  13. Measuring the Effect of Catch Shares. Has the status of fish stocks changed? Biological indicators: Biomass.
  14. European Commission (2015), Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the State of Nature in the European Union COM(2015) 219 final, Brussels.
  15. See the EEA indicator ‘Status of marine fish stocks’ for stock information status in the European regional seas.
  16. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) (2018), Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (STECF-Adhoc-18-01), Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, pp. 8–9.
  17. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) (2018), Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (STECF-Adhoc-18-01), Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, p. 8.
  18. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) (2017), Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (STECF-17-04), Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, p. 9.
  19. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) (2018), Monitoring the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy (STECF-Adhoc-18-01), Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, p. 8; also see the EEA indicator ‘Status of marine fish stocks’ for stock information status in the European regional seas.
  20. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., R. Cai, E.S. Poloczanska, P.G. Brewer, S. Sundby, K. Hilmi, V.J. Fabry, and S. Jung (2014), The Ocean. In: Climate Change (2014), Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1655-1731.
  21. European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2006), Directive 2006/7/EC concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC.
  22. European Environment Agency (2018), European Bathing Water Quality in 2017, EEA Report No /2018, Copenhagen, EEA.
  23. Article 5 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines the normal baseline as the low-water mark as marked on large scale-charts by the coastal State.
  24. As reported in the second River Basin Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive. See European Environment Agency (EEA) 2018 Report No 7/2018 European waters — Assessment of status and pressures 2018 p. 47.
  25. European Environment Agency (2012), European waters — assessment of status and pressures, EEA Report No 8/2012, Copenhagen, EEA.
  26. European Environment Agency (2015), Indicator assessment ‘Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters’
  27. European Environment Agency (2015), Indicator assessment ‘Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters’
  28. OSPAR (2008), Eutrophication Status of the OSPAR Maritime Area, Second OSPAR Integrated Report.
  29. OSPAR (2017), Eutrophication Status of the OSPAR Maritime Area, Third OSPAR Integrated Report.
  30. European Environment Agency (2015), State of Europe’s Seas, EEA Report No 2/2015, Copenhagen, EEA.
  31. European Commission (2018), A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, COM(2018) 28 final, Brussels.
  32. Addamo, A. M., Laroche, P., Hanke, G. (2017), Top Marine Beach Litter Items in Europe, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.
  33. European Environment Agency (2015), State of Europe’s Seas, EEA Report No 2/2015, Copenhagen, EEA.
  34. European Environment Agency (2015), State of Europe’s Seas, EEA Report No 2/2015, Copenhagen, EEA.
  35. European Environment Agency (2016), Ocean acidification.