University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh UNIVERSITY OF GHANA ASSESSMENT OF BEACH LITTER AT THE SAKUMONO AND LA PLEASURE BEACHES BY OBED ADJEI (10703216) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MSC IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT DEGREE JULY, 2019 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DECLARATION I, Obed Adjei hereby declare that this thesis, “Assessment of Beach Litter at the Sakumono and La Pleasure Beaches” consists entirely of my own work produced from research undertaken under supervision of Dr. Angela M. Lamptey; and that no part of it has been published or presented for another degree elsewhere, except for the permissible references from other sources, which have been duly acknowledged. Obed Adjei (Student) Signature:…………………………….. Date:……………………………………. Dr. Angela Manekuor Lamptey (Supervisor) Signature:……………………………… Date:…………………………………… i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my wonderful mother, Agnes Ocansey, my siblings, Jude Adjei and Marigold Adjei. You are such a great family and inspiration. God bless you. ii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My greatest and foremost gratitude goes to God Almighty for His protection and guidance during my entire studies. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to my Supervisor, Dr. Angela Manekuor Lamptey. Her leadership, support, attention to detail and hard work have set an example I hope to match up to someday. Further gratitude goes to Pastor Edmund Ofori and Mr. Romulus Lawer Ocansey for their support, both physically and financially. Thank you for believing so much in me. I also want to thank Professor Denis Worlanyo Aheto of the Center for Coastal Management (CCM-UCC), Mr. Eben Anuwa-Amarh (Deron and Partners) for being such great inspiration to me. Additionally, I want to thank the Head and Staff Members of the Department of Marine and Fisheries Sciences for their unflinching support throughout my graduate studies. Finally, I want to thank all my colleagues for creating a challenging and wonderful experience throughout the entire study period. iii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................ i DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ iii TABLE OF CONTENT ........................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. vii ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 4 1.3 JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 5 1.4 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER TWO ....................................................................................................................... 7 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 HISTORY OF MARINE LITTER ...................................................................................... 7 2.2 SOURCES OF MARINE LITTER ..................................................................................... 9 2.3 TYPES OF MARINE LITTER ......................................................................................... 11 2.4 IMPACTS OF MARINE LITTER IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT ....................... 13 2.4.1 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS MARINE LITTER ......................................................... 13 2.4.1.1 Ingestion .................................................................................................................. 15 2.4.1.2 Ghost fishing ........................................................................................................... 15 2.4.1.3 Introduction of Alien Species .................................................................................. 16 2.4.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................................................................... 16 2.4.2.1 Economic Impacts ................................................................................................... 16 2.4.2.2 Loss of Aesthetic Value ........................................................................................... 17 2.4.2.3 Navigational Hazards .............................................................................................. 17 2.4.2.4 Injuries to Beach Users ............................................................................................ 18 2.4.2.5 Leaching of Poisonous Chemicals ........................................................................... 18 2.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN URBAN COASTAL AREAS .......................................... 20 2.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GHANA ........................................................................... 21 2.7 SOCIAL DRIVERS OF LITTERING ............................................................................... 24 2.8 INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS iv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CONCERNED WITH THE PREVENTION OF MARINE LITTER ................................ 25 2.8.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982 ...................... 25 2.8.2 International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973, As Modified By the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto (MARPOL 73/78) Annex V ....... 26 2.8.3 International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter, 1972 (London Convention, 72) and 1996 Protocol .................... 28 2.8.4 Agenda 21: .................................................................................................................. 29 2.8.5 Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 and the Jakarta Mandate on the Conservation on and Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity 1995 .. 29 2.9 MONITORING MARINE LITTER .................................................................................. 29 2.10 TYPES OF SHORELINE SURVEYS ............................................................................ 30 2.10.1 Standing-stock surveys ............................................................................................. 30 2.10.2 Accumulation surveys .............................................................................................. 30 2.11 BEACH SELECTION ................................................................................................. 31 CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................. 32 MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................ 32 3.1 Study area .......................................................................................................................... 32 3.2 Data collection and analysis .............................................................................................. 34 CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................... 37 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 37 CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................................... 50 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 50 5.1 Types and quantities of marine litter ................................................................................. 50 5.2 SOURCES OF LITTER IDENTIFIED ............................................................................. 52 5.3 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ABUNDANCE OF MARINE LITTER ........................... 53 CHAPTER SIX ....................................................................................................................... 55 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 55 6.1 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 55 6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 55 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 57 v University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Pollution types covered by MARPOL Annexes I-VI ............................................. 27 Table 4.1: List of litter items and numbers .............................................................................. 37 Table 4.2: List of litter items and weights ............................................................................... 39 Table 4.3: Mean weekly weights and number of litter ............................................................ 40 Table 4.4: Sources of litter items (Barr, 2000) ........................................................................ 46 Table 4.5: ANOVA Table for spatial variation in amount of litter at Sakumono and La Pleasure beach.……………………………………………..58 vi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Map of Ghana showing study sites ....................................................................... 33 Figure 3.2: Diagram showing water level for sampling .......................................................... 34 Figure 4.3: Composition of total litter by weight at both beaches .......................................... 41 Figure 4.4: Composition of total litter by number at both beaches ......................................... 41 Figure 4.5: Composition by weight of litter at Sakumono ...................................................... 42 Figure 4.6: Composition by number of litter at Sakumono ..................................................... 42 Figure 4.7: Composition by weight of litter at La ................................................................... 43 Figure 4.8: Composition by number of litter at La .................................................................. 43 Figure 4.9: Numbers of most dominant litter type (Plastics) .................................................. 44 Figure 4.10: Weights of most dominant litter types ................................................................ 45 Figure 4.13: Monthly variation by weight ............................................................................... 48 Figure 4.14: Monthly variation by number ............................................................................. 48 vii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ABSTRACT Ghana faces a major challenge when it comes to waste management, especially in the urban areas. Population growth even makes the situation more exacerbated in the coastal urban areas. Most of the waste that is generated and lost inland end up in the coastal and marine environment when the rains fall and wash the solid wastes downstream. Some of the waste is also produced on the beaches by revelers when they use the beaches for tourist and entertainment purposes. This study was carried out on two beaches in the Greater Accra Region, namely Sakumono and La Pleasure beaches. The main objective of this study was to assess the amount of beach litter at the two beaches. A transect of 1000 m2 was used in the study. A total of 2,697 litter items were collected from the two beaches. The total weight of the litter throughout the survey was 50.07 kg from both sites. Weight of litter collected from Sakumono beach was 31.79 kg accounting for 63.49% of the total weight of litter surveyed whereas the weight of litter collected from La was 18.28 kg, also accounting for 36.51% of total litter surveyed. Plastics were found to be the most abundant both by number as well as weight. For both beaches, plastics made up 72.56% composition by number or quantity at 1975 items and 65.53% by weight at 32.81 kg. Sakumono beach was found to be more littered than La Pleasure beach. This was significant at an alpha value of 0.05 (p value = 0.02). Continuous monitoring, intensive education, and the enforcement of appropriate policy initiatives remain crucial to addressing the beach litter menace along the coasts of Ghana. viii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Coastal areas may commonly be defined as the interface or transition regions between land and sea, including large inland lakes (Masalu, 2000). They are diverse with respect to form and function. Coastal areas cover only 10% of the earth’s land area but they accommodate over 60% of the world’s population (Lakshmi and Rajagopalan, 2000). The coastal area is an area of intense activity. It is an area of interchange within and between physical, biological, social, cultural and economic processes and activities. Changes to any part of the system and at any point of the system can generate chain reactions far from the point of origin and possibly in an entirely different system whose environmental conditions will also be changed subsequently (Masalu, 2000). With the rising populations in coastal areas, there is an intense pressure and demand on the coastal area and coastal resources. A lot of these activities lead to the production of massive waste and litter in the coastal areas. Debris is a problem that affects beaches throughout the world (Derraik, 2002; Gregory and Andrady, 2003; Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2007). In the 21st century, marine litter pollution has emerged as one of the major concerns on ecological disturbances caused by anthropogenic impacts (Barnes et al., 2009; Ryan, 2015). Marine litter is associated with various anthropogenic activities that may have taken place on the beach or far away, and transported via waterways towards the sea. Marine debris or marine litter can be defined as any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed of, or abandoned that enters the coastal or marine environment or Great Lakes (UNEP, 2009). They are also items that are made or used by humans and intentionally or unintentionally lost to the ocean including the transport of these items to the 1 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ocean by rivers, drainage, sewage systems, or even by the wind (Galgani et al., 2010). According to NOAA (2007a), marine debris or litter range from common domestic material to industrial products, to lost or discarded fishing gear. Natural disasters such as floods, landslides, hurricanes, and tidal waves could also cause substantial and large-scale introduction of all manner of litter into the marine environment (Thompson et al., 2005). Marine debris can be found on all kinds of beaches. They can be present at secluded shores as well as recreational beaches that are patronized throughout the world (Jambeck et al., 2001; Sheavly, 2007). Despite efforts made internationally, regionally, and nationally, there are indications that the marine litter problem continues to worsen (UNEP, 2016). Marine debris are not only problematic environmentally, but also economically and aesthetically (Sheavly, 2007; UNEP, 2009; NOAA, 2010; World Ocean Review, 2010). Marine litter could either be categorized as ocean-based or land-based depending on where the litter enters the water (NOAA, 2007a; Sheavly, 2007; UNEP, 2016). The major ocean-based sources include fishing activities, shipping activities, offshore mining and extraction, legal and illegal dumping at sea, abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear and natural catastrophic events (Thompson et. al., 2009). Some major terrestrial or land-based sources include industrial outfalls, wastes from dumpsites, discharges, fishing activities, tourism and also natural storm related events (Allsopp et. al., 2006; Mouat et. al., 2010). About 80% of the world's marine debris pollution is known to be of land-based source whereas the remaining 20% is known to be ocean-based sources (CMC, 2000; World Ocean Review, 2010). Other items are classified as general source items because they cannot be traced to a specific or sole source (Jambeck et al., 2015). Other factors, such as ocean current patterns, climate, tides, and proximity to urban centres, waste disposal sites, industrial and recreational areas, shipping lanes, and commercial fishing grounds, influence the type and amount of marine debris found in open ocean areas or collected along beaches and ocean (UNEP 2016). Beach litter that collects along beautiful 2 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh shorelines and waterways affects the aesthetic beauty and satisfaction of those beaches and negatively affect tourism (Rockefeller, 2003). Aside being an eye-sore, marine debris can pose harm to the other organisms and equipment in the marine environment. Disposed fishing gears, ropes and plastic bags can get wrapped around and damage propellers of boats or they may even get sucked into the engines of the boat (UNEP, 2009). Medical wastes and other used medical equipment lying indiscriminately on beaches can carry diseases even as broken glasses and other sharp objects pose obvious dangers for beachgoers who may be barefooted (NOAA, 2010). Beach litter can also cause destruction of habitat of organisms by affecting water quality and physically damaging the sensitive ecosystems. Sea grass beds, coral reefs and their benthic species are also subject to the effects and impacts of marine litter. Marine litter can also be detrimental to marine biodiversity (NOAA, 2010). Many species mistake the litter for food and accidentally ingest them. Discarded fishing nets, fishing gear and fishing lines and other kinds of litter can entangle marine organisms, maiming or even killing them (Sheavly, 2007). There are two primary international conventions that address waste and pollution in the world’s oceans by ships. These are the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (1972), commonly called London Convention. Ghana has a long and highly productive coastline of about 550 km which faces the Gulf of Guinea (EPA, 2012). Its productive nature is represented by abundant natural resources with immense economic benefit for the country (Amlalo, 2007). Plastics form the most dominant type of litter (Nunoo and Quayson, 2003); a phenomenon which has been consistent with various research findings worldwide (UNEP, 1990; Topping et al., 1994; Hoagland and Kitte- Powell, 1997; CMC, 2000; UNEP, 2009). 3 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT Ghana faces a major challenge when it comes to managing waste, especially solid waste in the metropolitan areas (Obirih-Opareh, 2002; Mariwah, 2012). A lot of effort and resources, including research have been committed to eliminate waste in our cities (Demanya, 2006). The waste, however, keeps piling up with domestic solid waste, industrial waste and construction waste being the predominant wastes. Only a small portion of these wastes are sent to the very few dumpsites, and majority of them end up in drains, streams and open spaces and eventually to the beaches and the seas. There have been many projects that have focused on the provision of improved education on sanitation and hygiene in the coastal areas, however, improper disposal of municipal liquid and solid wastes remains prevalent (Nunoo and Quayson, 2003). This situation has resulted in the persistent sanitation problems where many towns and cities are overwhelmed with municipal solid and liquid wastes management. This is evidenced by the annual epidemics of cholera in the country (Mireku-Gyimah et. al., 2018). It is estimated that Ghana produces an average daily waste of 0.45 kg per capita, which translates to 3.0 million tons of annual solid waste generation (GhIE, 2011). Combined, Accra and Kumasi is said to generate more than 3,000 tons of solid waste daily (GhIE, 2011). Only about 10% of the solid wastes produced is disposed of properly mainly through land fill sites which are also rapidly running over (GhIE, 2011). For instance, the Kpone landfill, which serves majority of the city of Accra and the entire Tema is fast depleting to the point that waste is now dumped along the road to the main landfill. This results in the facilities being danger zones while posing serious public health problems as well as aesthetic problems (GhIE, 2011). If this problem is not given the needed attention that it deserves, the major changes that it will cause in the environmental conditions can cause the failure of marine ecosystems which will also affect the ability of the coastal area to adequately sustain the life that depend on it to survive. 4 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1.3 JUSTIFICATION There is very limited data on continuous litter quantification and monitoring in Ghana. The problem of marine debris still continues and is likely to worsen, in spite of measures in place to reduce and prevent the phenomenon (Van Dyck, Nunoo and Lawson, 2016). Continuous monitoring of the trends and changes in marine litter will provide a lot of insight and understanding of this problem of marine pollution and can function as a benchmark and indicator for management strategies. Continuous monitoring can also help to properly ascertain the change in the types, sources and quantities of marine debris and rate of change. The effectiveness of management strategies, laws and other activities that are put in place to control and curb the issue of marine litter can also be assessed with continuous monitoring (Coe and Rodgers, 1997 and Sheavly, 2005). Data gathered from monitoring litter quantities and changes in marine litter will help provide a strategy for tackling the sources of the litter and can also be used to measure the success of interventions put in place to abate marine debris (Sheavly, 2007). Successful management of the problem of marine litter requires a wholistic understanding of the issue, including identifying the most dominant forms of marine litter, their abundance, their potential sources and the activities that give rise to the litter. Aside the last survey in 2013 (Van Dyck, Nunoo and Lawson, 2016), there hasn’t been any current survey to assess the recent status of the litter on the beaches. This study, therefore, seeks to assess beach litter on the Sakumono and La Pleasure beaches to make available recent data on the litter at the two beaches. Sakumono and La Pleasure beaches were selected because they are among the most patronized beaches in Tema and Accra respectively. Sakumono beach is not managed whereas La Pleasure is managed. Data from the two beaches will help to know the implications of management on the beaches and how it influences the amount of litter on the beaches. 5 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1.4 OBJECTIVES Main objective To assess the litter at the Sakumono and La Pleasure beaches Specific objectives i. Identify sources of the litter at Sakumono and La Pleasure beaches ii. Assess the quantity and the composition of beach litter at Sakumono and La Pleasure beaches iii. Assess spatial variation in amount of litter at Sakumono and La Pleasure beaches 6 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 HISTORY OF MARINE LITTER The natural environment has been altered by anthropogenic activities over the years but the extent, intensity, and rate of the change has increased intensely over the last 75 years (Laist and Liffmann, 2000; Potts and Hastings, 2011). Laist and Liffmann (2000) assert that this alteration is more evident in the coastal areas which is characterized by increasing populations, heightened demand for natural resources, and sophisticated modern technologies. These have combined to bring about widespread changes in the coastal and marine environments. Some marine litter impacts can be traced back to the 1940s where synthetic materials began to replace natural fibers in the manufacture of fishing nets and lines and everyday items. The low cost, light weight, and long life of these new synthetic materials resulted in more of them being discarded and transported to the most remote ocean shorelines and waters, posing a much longer hazardous life for marine species (Laist and Liffmann, 2000). The impacts of marine litter or debris pollution on marine life were not felt until 1984 when the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), hosted the Workshop on the “Fate and Impact of Marine Litter in Honolulu, Hawaii, at the recommendation of the Marine Mammal Commission (Shomura and Yoshida, 1985; Laist and Liffmann, 2000). It was observed from data gathered at the workshop that marine litter was affecting more species in many more areas than had been previously observed (Laist and Liffmann, 2000). The biological impacts of the marine debris were also found to have two main forms which are: 1. Entanglement of organisms in loops and openings of abandoned fishing nets and fishing nets. 7 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2. Ingestion of plastics damaging or blocking the digestive tracts of the organism which are both potentially fatal to marine life. Laist and Liffman (2000) also noted human safety problems which could be caused by fouling and damaging of vessel propulsion systems. Prior to the global recognition of beach litter or marine debris, the issues were handled with minimal importance as the impacts that were observed seemed to be localized or rather regional at most (IOC, 2009). The Workshop on the “Fate and Impact of Marine Litter in Honolulu, Hawaii prompted national and international efforts to investigate, monitor, and mitigate the impacts of marine litter (Laist and Liffmann, 2000). Marine litter becomes more evident at beaches after rainfall and during low tides which exposes the litter. This has a negative effect on the tourism industry of Ghana during the rainy season (Nunoo and Quayson, 2003). The most common types of beach litter along the beaches of Ghana include pieces of foam, fishing nets, cloth, foot wear, charcoal, wood, and husk of sugar cane and coconut (Nunoo and Quayson, 2003; Tsagbey et al., 2009). Also, frequently occurring are faecal deposits especially in areas where the adjacent communities do not have adequate toilet facilities. These deposits of feaces are subsequently washed into the sea with tidal cycles and affect the quality of the water. There is also usually direct disposal of sewage into the sea (Nunoo and Evans, 2007), which poses a health hazard to both the travelers of the beach for tourism and also to the marine biota. Marine benthos are also affected when marine litter cover the sea floor and inhibit growth of marine benthos and smothers them (Nunoo and Quayson, 2003). They may be smothered and even be suffocated. 8 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.2 SOURCES OF MARINE LITTER The presence of marine litter is a problem along shorelines, in coastal waters, estuaries, and oceans throughout the world (Cheshire et al., 2009; USEPA, 2012). It is estimated that about 6.4 million tonnes of litter ends up in the world’s oceans each year, and this is distributed among all the oceans both in densely populated as well as remote areas far from human contact (UNEP, 2009). Originating from both marine- and land-based activities, marine debris sources are numerous and extensive (UNEP, 2016). Marine litter can be found in all the ocean areas of the world. It is not only found in densely populated regions but also in remote areas that are far away from any obvious source (UNEP, 2005; World Ocean Review, 2010). Marine litter or debris travel over long distances with ocean currents and winds and are found everywhere in the marine and coastal environment; from the poles to the equator, from continental coastlines to small remote islands (UNEP, 2005; World Ocean Review, 2010). Marine debris share a common origin, that is humans, although there may be different types. Mishandling of waste items and a host of other materials is the major cause of the problem of marine litter (NOAA, 2007; NOAA, 2012). Some of the litter, usually the smaller pieces, get buried and re-emerge later to worsen the litter problem at beaches (Williams and Tudor, 2001; Nagelkerken et. al., 2001; Kusui and Noda, 2003). Sources of marine litter may be local as well as global (Department of Environmental Conservation, 2012) through the action of currents. Marine debris originates from a diverse array of both land and ocean-based sources (Derraik, 2002; Mouat et al., 2010). 2.2.1 Land-based sources of marine litter Marine debris from land-based sources originate from agricultural, domestic and industrial activities (UNEP, 2009) and may enter the marine environment through various pathways, including public littering, illegal dumping and poor waste management (Hastings and Potts, 9 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2013; UNEP, 2009), transported to the seas by streams and rivers, sewage outflows and wind (Duckett and Repaci, 2015; Galgani et al., 2013; Poeta et al., 2014; Rech et al., 2014). Land- based sources account for approximately 80% of the marine litter found on the beaches and waters and the remaining 20% from ocean-based sources (GESAMP, 1991; NOAA, 2007; Sheavly, 2007; World Ocean Review, 2010; US EPA, 2012), though this may vary from area to area (Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et al., 2010). 2.2.2 Ocean-based sources of marine litter Ocean-based sources are those that come about as a result of activities that take place at sea. Some of these ocean-based sources of marine litter include trash from ships, recreational boaters and fishermen and offshore oil and gas exploration and production facilities (Sheavly, 2007; World Ocean Review, 2010; USEPA, 2012). The sources of marine debris can be further categorized into four major groups (Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et al., 2010): • Coastal tourism-related litter which is litter left by beach goers and revelers such as food and beverage packaging, cigarettes and plastic beach toys. • Fishing-related litter which includes abandoned and damaged fishing lines and nets, fishing pots and strapping bands from bait boxes that were lost unintentionally by commercial fishing boats or dumped deliberately into the sea. • Sewage-related litter which includes water from storm drains and combined sewer outflows which discharge waste water into the sea or rivers directly during heavy downpour of rains. The running waters carry along with them garbage such as street litter and other items such as condoms and syringes 10 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh • Wastes from ships and boats which also includes garbage which may be deliberately or accidentally thrown overboard. There are some litter types whose direct origin may be difficult to distinguish, whether by beach users or from offshore (Hall, 2000; MCS, 2009). The growing populations in the coastal areas also adds to this problem. These factors, coupled with the growing demand for processed and packaged goods, have led to the rise in the amount of non-biodegradable solid wastes in our waterways (USEPA, 2012). 2.3 TYPES OF MARINE LITTER Marine litter or debris by definition, encompasses a wide range of materials, however, most of the items fall into a relatively small number of material types and usage categories (STAP, 2011). Marine litter is made up of a wide range of different types of litter and these can be grouped into several distinct categories which include: • Plastics in the form of molded, styrofoam, ropes, buoys, nets, monofilament lines and other fisheries related equipment, smoking related items such as lighters, and micro plastic particles • Metals in the form of cans of drinks, aerosol cans, foil wrappers and disposable barbeques • Glass in the form of buoys, light bulbs, fluorescent bulbs and bottles • Processed timber in the form of pallets, crates and particle boards • Paper and cardboard in the form of cartons, cups and bags • Rubber in the form of tyres, balloons and gloves • Clothing and textiles in the form of shoes, towels, attires and furnishings 11 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh • Sewage related litter in the form of cotton bud sticks, daipers, condoms and sanitary products (Fanshawe and Everard, 2002; Allsopp et al., 2006; NOAA, 2007; Sheavly and Register, 2007; Cheshire et al., 2009; MCS, 2009; Galgani et al., 2010a; Mouat et al., 2010). It is widely appreciated that plastics make up the major constituents of marine litter (Barnes et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2009; STAP, 2011a), though they vary in types and quantities. Plastic is largely the main constituent of marine litter (Barnes et al., 2009; Derraik, 2002; Poeta et al., 2014; Schulz et al., 2015; UNEP, 2009). This is partly due to the expanding popularity of plastics as a consumer product, and its high durability and persistence within the marine environment (Andrady, 2015; Barnes et al., 2009; Jambeck et al., 2015). Plastics are synthetic materials that do not bio-degrade but only fragment into smaller pieces (Sigler, 2014). There are some other synthetic materials that are similar to plastics in that they are used in a wide range of products, often cheap to produce and lightweight and thus are also common marine litter items. Some of these materials include glass in the form of light bulbs, fluorescent bulbs and bottles; rubber in the form of tyres, balloons and gloves; and metals in the form of cans of drinks, aerosol cans and foil wrappers. These items are able to undergo fragmentation over long periods of time and often do not completely biodegrade (Potts and Hastings, 2011). Processed wood in the form of crates, pallets, and particle board, and paper and cardboard items such as cartons, cups and paper bags, also add to marine litter but they usually found in much smaller amounts than the synthetic materials. This may be due to the shorter residence time of these materials in the marine environment as they are relatively faster to photo- and bio-degrade, and as a result, their collective impact may be much less (Velander and Mocogni, 1998; UNEP, 2005; Potts and Hastings, 2011). Textiles such as clothing, shoes, and furnishings also become marine litter or debris when they enter the marine environment. Specific impacts that these items pose are unknown, but are generally considered of lesser importance than the other 12 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh synthetic materials (Velander and Mocogni, 1998; UNEP, 2005; Potts and Hastings, 2011). Marine litter is present on shorelines, floating on the surface, settled on the seafloor, inside and on marine organisms and as microlitter in the marine environment (Galgani et al., 2013). An estimation of the marine litter distribution shows 15% floating on the sea surface, another 15% remains in the water column and 70% lies on the sea floor (UNEP, 2005). 2.4 IMPACTS OF MARINE LITTER IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT Waste materials or debris in the marine environment pose a wide array of negative impacts environmentally, socially, economically and even to public health and safety (Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et al., 2010). Marine litter negatively affects coastal and marine ecosystems as well as the services they provide, thereby affecting the livelihoods and well-being of people (Oosterhuis et al., 2014; Gall and Thompson, 2015; Veiga et al., 2016a). The impacts of marine litter are diverse; however, they are often interrelated and usually dependent on one another (Mouat et al., 2010). For instance, ghost fishing as a consequence of abandoned fishing gear, can lead to economic losses in terms of fisheries as well as reduced opportunities for recreational fishing (Macfadyen et al., 2009). 2.4.1 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF MARINE LITTER Environmental impacts that marine litter poses are very dire and multidimensional (Valavanidis and Vlachogianni, 2011). They cause a wide range of adverse environmental impacts to individual organisms, species and even entire ecosystems (Mouat et al., 2010; Department of Environmental Conservation, 2012). Numerous scientific works document the threats that marine litter pose to wildlife and ecosystems at large. These impacts vary from entanglement and ingestion, to bio-accumulation and bio-magnification of toxic substances either released from disposed plastic items or adsorbed and accumulated on plastic particles, damages to benthic habitats and communities (Richards and Beger, 2011; Gall and Thompson, 2015; Fossi 13 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh et al., 2018). These have been known to affect individuals of at least 267 species worldwide (Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et al., 2010; NOAA, 2012). 86% of all sea turtle species, 44% of all seabird species and 43% of all marine mammal species including numerous fish and crustacean species have been involved in this tragedy (Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et al., 2010). There is however the possibility that the numbers of species listed is an undervalue because most affected organisms are likely to go undiscovered as they may either sink or get eaten by predators, making the exact magnitude of the problem a bit difficult to quantify (Baird and Hooker, 2000; Derraik, 2002; Allsopp et al., 2006). Marine litter can also impact the benthic environments negatively (Moore, 2008). An accumulation of litter on the seabed may affect the number and type of organisms present by inhibiting gas exchange between overlying waters and the pore waters of the sediments resulting in an oxygen deficit in the sediments (Allsopp et al., 2006). Benthic litter or litter that get to the seafloor tend to become trapped in areas with very minimal circulation and high sediment accumulation in contrast to floating litter, which rather accumulates in frontal areas or the shoreline. Debris that get to the seabed may have already been transported over a considerable distance and only sinking when weighed down by entanglement and fouling. This results in an accumulation of litter on specific seabed locations in response to local sources and oceanographic conditions (Galgani et al., 2000; Keller et al., 2010; Watters et al., 2010; Ramirez-Lolodra et al., 2013; Pham et al., 2013). Benthic organisms are also faced with the risk of being entangled or ingesting the debris that end up on the sea floor (Derraik, 2002) and potentially lead to the loss of ecosystem functions (Mouat et al., 2010). Entanglement results in lacerations from abrasive or cutting action of attached litter that can lead to infections or loss of limbs; death by strangulation, choking, or suffocation; and can also impair organisms’ ability to swim, which may lead to drowning, or make it difficult for the animal to move, find food, and escape from predators (USEPA, 2007; Derraik, 2002; Allsopp et al., 2006). 14 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.4.1.1 Ingestion Marine organisms may mistake litter for food many times and ingest them. Ingestion may sometimes happen accidentally, but generally animals ingest litter because they appear as food to them (Sheavly, 2005; Allsopp et al., 2006; US EPA, 2007). Over 111 species of aquatic birds (Allsopp et al., 2006), 31 species of marine mammal (Allsopp et al., 2006) and 26 species of cetaceans (Derraik, 2002) have been reported to have ingested marine litter. Ingestion of marine litter causes physical damage to the digestive tract of the organisms including wounds, scarring and ulceration which could lead to infections, starvation due to the wounds and potential death. There could also be toxic chemical poisoning of the organisms from contaminated plastics which could lead to reproductive disorders, increased risk of diseases, altered hormonal levels and even death (Derraik, 2002; Gregory, 2009; Mouat et al., 2010; Sheavly, 2005; Allsopp et al.,2006; USEPA, 2007). Hydrophobic contaminants such as heavy metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), from the surrounding seawater (Endo et al., 2005; Rochman et al., 2014). If ingested, these toxic compounds may be released into the tissues, potentially causing cryptic, sub-lethal effects for the organism (Batel et al., 2016; Laing et al., 2016). 2.4.1.2 Ghost fishing Fishing gear that may have been lost or abandoned, either intentionally or unintentionally by fishermen, may continue to trap fishes and other organisms in their path (Allsopp et al., 2006). Fishing gear are made of synthetic materials and therefore do not biodegrade. The process by which they continue to capture marine organisms such as fish and crustaceans and cause their death if they are not able to escape is known as ghost fishing (Sheavly, 2005; Allsopp et al., 2006). By this process a cycle may be established whereby when the organisms are captured, they in turn, attract predators which may also be trapped (Allsopp et al., 2006). As the 15 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh organisms die and decay in the nets they also attract and trap other scavengers (Allsopp et al., 2006). When abandoned in the sea, a single fishing gear may continue to trap marine organisms for decades (Mouat et al., 2010). 2.4.1.3 Introduction of Alien Species Anthropogenic activities cause organisms to be moved from their native habitats to other environments where they are alien through a process known as biological invasion (Allsopp et al., 2006). Litter floating in the oceans serve as a means of transport for certain marine species (Lewis et al., 2005; Allsopp et al., 2006, Mouat et al., 2010). The introduction of large amounts of marine litter, especially plastics, into the marine environment in recent times has massively increased the tendency for the dispersal of marine organisms (Allsopp et al., 2006, Gregory, 2009; Mouat et al., 2010). Due to the slow rate of the transport the alien species are able to adjust to changing environmental conditions (Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et al., 2010). As a result, marine litter could be more effective for the transport and introduction of alien species than ship hulls and ballast water (Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et al., 2010). 2.4.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS 2.4.2.1 Economic Impacts Evidence shows the impacts of marine litter to economic sectors, such as tourism and recreation, fisheries and aquaculture, maritime transport and navigation; as well as to infrastructure and services for individuals, the local coastal communities and enterprises (Mouat et al., 2010; McIlgorm et al., 2011; Leggett et al., 2014, Watkins et al., 2016; Brouwer et al., 2015; Vlachogianni, 2017; Schneider et al., 2018). Marine and coastal ecosystems are economically important, through industries they provide such as fisheries and tourism, and socially, through the benefits to health and well-being (Martínez et al., 2007; White et al., 16 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2014). The presence of marine litter can, however, diminish these benefits. In the United Kingdom (UK) for instance, the economic losses to fisheries is estimated at £10 million per year in the repair of gear damaged by debris, time lost due to removal and other repairs and local authorities also spend about £15 million every year to clean beach litter (Hastings and Potts, 2013; Mouat et al., 2010; Newman et al., 2015) 2.4.2.2 Loss of Aesthetic Value The coastal environment is very often the focus of many of the creative arts activities including paintings, literature and films and a loss of the aesthetics could adversely affect the inspirational quality of the marine environment (Mouat et al., 2010). The aesthetic impact of marine litter has implications for tourism and human well-being. For instance, about 85% of 1000 residents and tourists said they would not visit a beach that has an excess of two litter items per metre (Ballance et al., 2000; Hastings and Potts, 2013). Tudor and Williams (2006) also reported that choice of beach was more strongly determined by clean, litter-free sand and seawater than by safety. Wyles et al. (2015) found that the presence of litter undermined the restorative psychological benefits that was experienced by people visiting the coast. 2.4.2.3 Navigational Hazards Debris in the marine environment can also pose a significant navigational threat to shipping (STAP, 2011). Marine litter can present numerous safety risks for vessels, however, entanglement of propellers by derelict fishing gear such as nets, ropes and lines is a key example (Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et al., 2010). Abandoned fishing gear in the marine environment can be very damaging. An example of such threat was when a Russian submarine reportedly got entangled in a discarded fishing net in about 600 feet of water off the Kamchatka coast making navigation and surfacing challenging and this warranted an international rescue effort to rescue the seven-man crew. (TenBruggencate, 2005; Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et 17 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh al., 2010). Derelict nets, ropes and other gear entangle propellers of vessels and rudders and may even puncture the bottom of boats resulting in costly repairs, loss of time and danger to boaters and crew especially if power is lost in a storm and the vessel cannot return to shore (Sheavly, 2005; Allsopp et al., 2006; USEPA, 2007; NOAA, 2011). According to Cho (2006), derelict fishing gear contributed to the sinking of the Korean passenger ferry M/V Seo-Hae, which resulted in the deaths of 292 of the 362 passengers in 1993. Plastic bags clogging and blocking water intakes is also a common cause of burned-out water pumps with such incidents requiring costly engine repairs (Sheavly, 2005; Allsopp et al., 2006; US EPA, 2007). 2.4.2.4 Injuries to Beach Users Waste items such as broken glass, medical waste, ropes and fishing line pose immediate risks to human health and safety (Sheavly, 2005; US EPA, 2007; Valavanidis and Vlachogianni, 2011). Sharp objects, such as broken glass and rusty metals may cause injuries when people step on them on the beach or sea floor (US EPA, 2007; Cheshire et al., 2009). Improperly discarded syringes, condoms and tampon applicators can present more serious water quality concerns that affect human health. Swimmers, divers and snorkelers may also be entangled in submerged or floating litter (Sheavly, 2005; US EPA, 2007; Mouat et al., 2010;). Medical waste can also indicate the presence of pathogenic pollutants such as feacal coliform and streptococci and other bacterial contamination (Sheavly, 2005; Sheavly, 2007). Consumption or contact with water polluted with these pathogens could result in infectious diseases such as hepatitis, diarrhoea, bacillary dysentery, skin rashes and even typhoid and cholera (Sheavly, 2005; Sheavly, 2007). 2.4.2.5 Leaching of Poisonous Chemicals Aside the adverse physiological effects to marine organisms that arise from the ingestion of pieces of plastics, plastics in the marine environment may also pose an additional chemical 18 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh hazard. This occurs especially with those that may contain known or suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals as additives or contaminants (Gallo et al., 2018). While plastics themselves are believed to be biochemically inert in the marine environment, they could carry toxic compounds that potentially pose health risks to both wildlife and humans (Allsopp et al., 2006; Mouat et al., 2010). Some plastic litter acts as a source of toxic chemicals: substances that were added to the plastic during manufacturing leach from plastic litter (Gallo et al., 2018). The chemicals found in plastic marine litter can be classified in the following four categories of origin: • Chemicals intentionally added during the production process (additives such as flame retardants, plasticizers, antioxidants, UV stabilisers, and pigments); • Unintentional chemicals coming from the production processes, including monomers (e.g. vinyl chloride and BPA.), which may also originate from UV radiation onto the plastic waste—and catalysts, normally present in traces; • Chemicals coming from the recycling of plastic waste; and, • Hydrophobic chemicals adsorbed from environmental pollution onto the surface of the plastics (Gallo et al., 2018) Current research suggests that while there is significant uncertainty and complexity in the kinetics and thermodynamics of the interaction, plastic litter appears to act as a vector transferring Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxins (PBTs) from the water to the food web, increasing risk throughout the marine food web, including humans (Gallo et al., 2018)). Though it is not clear how long plastic items remain in their original form in the marine environment, some plastic items appear to be fragmented over time (Allsopp et al., 2006). This process is thought to occur due to wave action, oxidation and ultraviolet light at sea (Allsopp 19 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh et al., 2006). On the shore, it may break up into smaller pieces due to grinding from rocks and sand (Allsopp et al., 2006). 2.5 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN URBAN COASTAL AREAS Coastal areas around the world are developed, overpopulated and coastal resources are overexploited (Hinrichsen, 1998). Coastal waters and bays are often heavily polluted with untreated or partially treated municipal, industrial and agricultural wastes (Rockefeller, 2008). This is as a result of the increasing population of coastal areas and the increasing need for resource use (Hinrichsen, 1998). It is said that poor waste management practices can be a major source of litter, with the litter eventually entering the marine environment through a variety of pathways such as wind and waterways (Potts and Hastings, 2011). All over the world and specifically in many developing countries in Africa, there has been tremendous population growth especially along the coast, accompanied by intense urbanization, and relative increase of industrial activities. Coast (2002) asserts that at the turn of the twenty-first century, global population had increased from five billion to an excess of six billion with developing countries, within a space of twelve years accounting for about 80 per cent of the world's population. According to Coast (2002) again, growth rates in Africa still exceed 2.3 per cent per year, which is the highest growth rate of any major region. These transformations have brought enormous increase in the amount of solid waste produced and a wide diversification of other types of pollutants which include marine litter that reach the marine environment (Nunoo and Quayson, 2003). Anthropogenic waste includes all items that people have no use for, and either intend to get rid of or have already discarded. Some items which could be considered as waste include household rubbish, wastes from manufacturing activities, sewage sludge, packaging items, old electronic and electrical appliances and garden waste. By implication, all our daily activities give rise to a large variety of different wastes materials from different sources. With 20 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh such huge amounts of waste being produced, it is important that it is managed in a way that waste does not cause any harm to either human health or to the environment (EIONET, 2009). Waste management along the coast was for a long time, regarded by coastal countries as an entirely aesthetic problem and therefore only coastal resorts and tourism players attempted to address the problem by regularly cleaning their adjacent beaches (World Ocean Review, 2010). According to the World Ocean Review (2010), the World’s oceans are full of trash and the National Academy of Sciences in the USA also estimates that about 6.4 million tonnes of litter enter the World’s oceans each year. It is, however, difficult to arrive at accurate estimates of the amount of litter in the oceans firstly because, it is constantly in motion and secondly, because the litter enters the oceans from different pathways, making it difficult to accurately quantify how much is entering (World Ocean Review, 2010). According to the United Nations Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, land-based sources make up about 80 percent of the world’s marine pollution (GESAMP, 1991). According to the World Ocean Review (2010), the problem does not only affect the coastal areas but propelled by wind and ocean currents, the litter travels very long distances throughout the world’s oceans and to remote beaches and islands that are uninhabited. Hinrichsen (1998) asserts that not much is being done to manage this crisis of our coast globally. The World Ocean Review (2010) also argues that marine litter, a major problem that must be taken seriously is only gradually being recognized. 2.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN GHANA Ghana is a West African coastal state with an estimated population of about 28.83million and annual growth-rate of 2.5% (Ghana Statistical Service, 2017). Ghana has a long and productive coastline of about 550 km facing the Gulf of Guinea (EPA, 2012). The coastline of Ghana is dotted with extraordinary environmental diversity and beauty. The country is endowed with 21 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh very productive coastal zones and they represent a huge natural and economic resource for the country (Amlalo, 2007). About 60 per cent of all industries in Ghana are situated in the coastal zone, mainly in the Accra and Tema metropolis which covers less than 1 per cent of the total area of the country. This concentration of industrial activity in the coastal area has led to the continuous migration of people from the hinterlands in search of jobs in coastal industrial centers, a contributing factor to the problem of waste generation (UNEP, 1999). Proper waste management in Ghana has been a major challenge for successive governments (Jospong Group of Companies, 2010). Mensah and Larbi (2005) assert that the major problems with solid waste disposal in Ghana principally relate to: • Indiscriminate dumping • Challenges with acquiring suitable disposal sites • Challenges with conveyance of solid waste by road due to increasing traffic problems and the lack of alternative transport options • Weak demand for composting as an option for waste treatment and disposal. In the coastal communities of Ghana, most of the municipal and industrial effluents are directly dumped into coastal waters with little or no pretreatment including raw sewage. High concentrations of bacteria and pathogens in some of these areas pose a clear threat to human health (Hinrichsen, 1998). Increased rural-urban migration and subsequent congestion in coastal cities have resulted in major environmental and waste problems (Jospong Group of Companies, 2010). It is mostly in the urban areas of Ghana that most of the concern for waste management is prevalent. Variety of waste is produced in the urban areas of Ghana with some of the predominant wastes being industrial waste, domestic solid waste and construction waste. There are only a few dumpsites and landfills where these waste materials are sent to so majority 22 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh of the wastes end up in drains, streams and open places and then eventually into the marine environment (United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, 2012). The poor state of waste management in Ghana cannot only be attributed to engineering problems. Increased rate of urbanization, poor financing ability of local authorities, low technical capacity for the planning and management of solid waste, weak or no enforcement of environmental regulations, have all contributed to compound the problem of waste management (Mensah and Larbi, 2005). According to the 2000 Housing and Population Census 4.8% of households have their waste collected directly from their dwellings, 7.9% burn their household refuse, 57.6% use various household receptacles for storage and send it to designated public dumps including communal-container stations or sanitary sites. It is reported that 3.9% of households bury their refuse while 25.9% dump at unspecified locations including vacant lots, drains, embankment of water courses, rivers, lakes and wetlands. In total, close to 85% of all refuse generated is currently not collected and disposed of in a proper manner (GSS, 2000). The case, however, had improved according to the 2010 Population and Housing Census (PHC), although there was still some form of improper disposal of waste. 37.7% of households disposed of their solid waste in open space at public dumps and 23.8% disposed of their solid waste into public containers. A combined percentage of about 25% households either had their solid waste collected or burned. However, in Greater Accra, almost half (48.5%) of households have their solid waste collected from their homes leaving the other half unaccounted for. Again, according to the 2010 Housing and Population Census, the two major coastal regions, Greater Accra and Central regions had the highest population growth rates (3.1%) (GSS, 2010) with Greater Accra having the highest proportion of urban population (90.5%) that same year. Without proper waste management we are not only harming the beauty and health of our environment but we are also increasing the negative effects that waste can have on our own health. 23 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.7 SOCIAL DRIVERS OF LITTERING The view of society varies widely (Arafat et al., 2007) however, it is widely acknowledged within literature that littering is a by-product of modernity (Slavin, 2011), with anthropogenic litter being identified as one of the most visible forms of pollution and environmental degradation (Slavin, 2011). Hansmann and Scholz (2003) defines littering as the careless, incorrect disposal of minor waste. Sibley and Lui (2003) also asserts that attitudes related to littering can be either referred to as active or passive. Active littering is when the environment is littered knowingly, while passive littering is when the environment is littered unknowingly (Slavin, 2011). Passive littering is difficult to combat (Sibley and Lui, 2003) because the person involved is unaware that they have participated in the act of littering (Slavin, 2011). There are a number of different factors that are believed to contribute to littering behaviour especially within a society or group (Slavin, 2011) specifically referred to as descriptive and injunctive norms (Caldini, 2003; Schultz et al., 2007). The descriptive norm refers to a person’s perception of what is done normally per a given situation, while an injunctive norm refers to a person’s perception of what is approved or not per a given situation (Caldini, 2003; Schultz et al., 2007). Environmental factors are also powerful determinants of behaviour of people in that, the more litter there is around, the more people are inclined to drop litter (Arafat et al., 2007). Cialdini (2003) and Torgler et al. (2008) report a higher probability of people littering places where litter is already present as opposed to areas without litter. This would suggest that if people notice other individuals littering, their willingness to litter also increases, reducing the moral constraints which would ordinarily compel individuals to behave in a rather socially acceptable manner (Torgler et al., 2008).Thus, an individual’s attitude towards littering is likely to be influenced by their perception of the behaviour of others (Torgler et al., 2008). 24 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.8 INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS CONCERNED WITH THE PREVENTION OF MARINE LITTER Humans, for many centuries, have deemed the oceans as unlimited source of food, a useful route of transport, and, unfortunately, a dumping ground for anthropogenic waste. The ocean was believed to be too vast to feel the effects of human action from use as dumping ground (Rockefeller, 2003). In coastal areas around the world, shoreline developments have led to the destruction of habitats and breeding grounds of several marine species (Rockefeller, 2003). Although there are laws that regulate the dumping of trash at sea and on shore, the global nature of marine litter, the inability to confine litter within territorial boundaries and the difficulty in identifying litter sources have made effective laws difficult to develop and even harder to enforce (Sheavly, 2007). The major key to controlling marine litter is to tackle it at source and this is not only consistent with the precautionary principle, but may be a management option that is economically sustainable in the longer term (Fanshawe and Everard, 2002). There are many international agreements and legislation that directly and indirectly address the problem of marine litter. Many of the legislations are specifically formulated to reduce marine litter and to prevent the discharge of waste into the marine environment but many of the existing agreements also take a broader approach and outline fundamental principles for the sustainable use and conservation of the oceans (Mouat et al., 2010). 2.8.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982 The UNCLOS is a convention designed to broadly govern the management and sustainable utilization of marine resources. Provisions of the Convention include territorial sea limits, marine scientific research, protection of the marine environment, conservation and management of living marine resources, economic and commercial activities, and a binding procedure for the settlement of disputes that are related to the oceans. The preservation and protection of the marine environment is addressed by Part XII of the Convention (Articles 192 25 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh - 237) which outlines basic responsibilities to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources; from sea-bed activities subject to national jurisdiction; from activities in the area; pollution by dumping; pollution from vessels; as well as pollution from or through the atmosphere. Marine litter was particularly addressed in November 2005 as part of the UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/30– Oceans and the Law of the sea, which states that ‘…The General Assembly, 65. Notes the lack of information and data on marine litter and encourages relevant national and international organizations to undertake further studies on the extent and nature of the problem, also encourages States to develop partnerships with industry and civil society to raise awareness of the extent of the impact of marine litter on the health and productivity of the marine environment and consequent economic loss; 66. Urges States to integrate the issue of marine litter within national strategies dealing with waste management in the coastal zone, ports and maritime industries, including recycling, reuse, reduction and disposal, and to encourage the development of appropriate economic incentives to address this issue including the development of cost recovery systems that provide an incentive to use port reception facilities and discourage ships from discharging marine litter at sea, and encourages States to cooperate regionally and sub regionally to develop and implement joint prevention and recovery programmes for marine litter;…” (Mouat et al., 2010). 2.8.2 International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973, As Modified By the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto (MARPOL 73/78) Annex V The MARPOL Convention is the main international agreement formulated to prevent pollution of the marine environment by ships and comprises six annexes focusing on various types of pollution 26 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 2.1: Pollution types covered by MARPOL Annexes I-VI Annex I covers oil and oily wastes; entered into force in 1983; Annex II covers noxious liquid substances in bulk; entered into force in 1987; Annex III covers harmful substances in packaged form; entered into force in 1992; Annex IV covers sewage; entered into force in 2003; Annex V covers garbage (that may become marine litter); entered into force in 1988; Annex VI covers air pollution from ships; entered into force in May 2005. Annexes I (Oil) and II (Chemicals) are compulsory, however, the other annexes are voluntary (Fanshawe and Everard, 2002; UNEP, 2005; Mouat et al., 2010). The Annex V regulates the types and amount of trash that ships may discharge into the sea and also specifies the distances from land that it can be discharged as well as the manner in which they may be disposed of (UNEP, 2005; Mouat et al., 2010). For the purposes of Annex V, trash includes all types of domestic and operating waste, excluding fresh fish, generated during the usual operations of the ship (IMO, 2002; Mouat et al., 2010). With respect to these regulations, the disposal of plastic waste into any part of the sea is strictly prohibited and the discharge of other waste materials is sternly restricted in coastal waters and other ‘Special Areas’. The North Sea and adjacent areas are designated as ‘Special Areas’ under the MARPOL Annex V and in accordance with these regulations, the discharge of garbage into the sea is strictly prohibited, except food waste. As at March 2010, 140 states had ratified the MARPOL Annex V and these regulations now cover about 97.5% of the world’s shipping tonnage (IMO, 2010). The MARPOL Annex V is currently under review by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), in consultation with other relevant stakeholders, to assess and enhance its effectiveness in tackling ocean-based sources of marine litter (Mouat et al., 2010). 27 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.8.3 International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter, 1972 (London Convention, 72) and 1996 Protocol The London Convention, (LC 72) seeks to promote the effective management of all sources of marine pollution and to prevent the dumping of waste materials and other matter at sea. This instrument works with a black- and grey-list approach. Dumping of items on the blacklist is strictly prohibited whereas dumping of grey-list items requires a special permission and is also subject to strict control; and the dumping of all other items is allowed with a general permit (UNEP, 2005; Mouat et al., 2010). Items on the blacklist are the contaminants that are most likely to cause grave harm to living resources and human beings, due to their lethal characteristics. These lethal characteristics include the tendency to bio-accumulate and bio-magnify in the marine food chain (Kimball, 2005). Items on the greylist are those that contain significant amounts of arsenic, chromium, beryllium, copper, nickel lead, vanadium, zinc, organosilicon compounds, cyanides, fluorides, and their by-products which are not covered in the Annex I (UNEP, 2005; Mouat et al., 2010). Annex I of the London Convention explicitly prohibits signatories of the Convention from dumping persistent plastics and other non-biodegradable materials into the sea from vessels and other man-made structures (UNEP, 2005; Mouat et al., 2010). In 1996, the London Protocol was agreed upon and it aims to modernize the London Convention. The objective of the Protocol is to protect the marine environment from all sources of pollution, thus, all dumping is prohibited under the Protocol with the exception of acceptable wastes. States can either be a Party to the London Convention 1972, or the 1996 Protocol, or both (UNEP, 2005; Mouat et al., 2010). The following agreements are also key for the protection of the marine environment as well as the prevention of marine litter. 28 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.8.4 Agenda 21: The Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be undertaken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nation, Governments, and Major Groups in areas where there are anthropogenic impacts on the environment (UNEP, 2005). 2.8.5 Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 and the Jakarta Mandate on the Conservation on and Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity 1995 This convention emphasizes the need for co-operation among parties with respect to areas beyond national jurisdiction for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, either directly or through competent international organizations (Kimball, 2005). 2.9 MONITORING MARINE LITTER Marine litter or beach litter monitoring is defined by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the repeated surveys of beaches, seafloor and/or surface waters to determine amounts of litter or debris such that information gathered can be compared with baseline data to evaluate whether changes occur over time and / or in response to management strategies. This can be done in several different ways, although some basic principles need to be adhered to (Cheshire et al., 2009). Most programs have unique objectives and employ a variety of region-specific methodologies, making across the board comparisons of debris estimates difficult (Barnes et al., 2009). For shorelines, some studies report the number or weight of items per unit length of the shoreline (Velander and Mocogoni, 1999) while others report the number or weight of items per unit area of shoreline (Acha et al., 2003). By enhancing our ability to undertake long-term, broad-scale monitoring programs, we will be able to make meaningful comparisons of marine litter or debris loads at various locations and the data acquired from the monitoring will help us to better identify the sources of various types of 29 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh litter, leading to targeted control, specific education and other behaviour modification strategies. (Cheshire and Westphalen, 2007; Sheavly, 2007). Until recently, amounts and types of marine debris is often measured by land-based surveys along shorelines (Frost and Cullen 1997; Cunningham and Wilson 2003; Storrier et al., 2007; Sheavly, 2007). Other techniques include the sea surface technique for assessing floating debris, at-sea visual technique for ship-based surveys for floating debris and the benthic technique for evaluating debris on the seafloor (UNEP, 2015). 2.10 TYPES OF SHORELINE SURVEYS 2.10.1 Standing-stock surveys Standing-stock surveys are undertaken to measure the density or concentration of litter at a shoreline over time. Each even of survey is a snapshot of the concentration of litter at the shore, and a series of these snapshots over time gives information on changes in the baseline concentration of litter. Knowing the density of litter at various shoreline sites is important in evaluating the overall impact of litter at a given site and on a regional scale. In standing-stock surveys, the measured debris concentration or density reflects the long-term balance between inputs which could be land or sea based, and removal through export, burial or degradation. An understanding of how the amount of litter changes over time facilitates analysis of the factors of debris deposition (Lippiat et al., 2013). 2.10.2 Accumulation surveys During accumulation surveys, the litter is removed from the shore. Accumulation studies require the initial removal of all litter from the shore followed by regular surveys to record and again remove all litter. Because the litter is removed from the shore, the data that is collected over time provides an estimate of the flux of debris onto the shoreline with respect to time, as opposed to the concentration or standing-stock of litter. Both types are useful for developing 30 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh models of the life cycle and movement of marine litter among environmental compartments. Accumulation survey data indicate the net flux of litter onto the shoreline, and assume that the rate of litter accumulation is the same between sample events. Litter flux data can be used to assess changes in at-sea litter loads, but cannot be used to evaluate the debris load or cumulative impacts of debris. Compared to standing-stock surveys, accumulation studies are more time consuming and require more money as they are more thorough, require the removal of the litter, and need to be undertaken more frequently. The shoreline being surveyed may have a relatively rapid litter turnover rate, so in order to accurately estimate debris flux onto a shore, it must be sampled frequently (Lippiat et al., 2013). 2.11 BEACH SELECTION Selection of a beach for marine litter surveys follows the approach detailed in the NMDMP which are similar to the OSPAR and AMDS criteria (Sheavly 2007; OSPAR 2007; Cheshire and Westphalen, 2007), although the requirement for sandy beaches could be relaxed so that gravel beaches can also be included. The basic beach selection criteria should therefore include: • Beach length of at least 500 meters (0.31 miles) • Low to moderate slope (15-45º) • Composed of sand to small gravel • Clear, direct access to the sea (not blocked by breakwaters or jetties) • Accessible to surveyors all year round • Does not receive any routine municipal or community cleaning during the study; and • Site would not impact any endangered or protected species such as sea turtles, sea/shorebirds, marine mammals or sensitive beach vegetation (Sheavly, 2007). These characteristics should be met as much as possible, but could be modified also (Opfer et al., 2012). 31 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER THREE MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Study area For this particular study, two beaches were selected, which were the La Pleasure Beach and the Sakumono Beach (Figure 3.1). The distance between the two beaches is about 12 km. Aside these two beaches qualifying for the requirements for beach monitoring as mentioned earlier (Opfer et al., 2012), they were selected because one (La Pleasure Beach) is a managed beach while the other (Sakumono) is a free and open beach. Both beaches are about 550 m long. The Sakumono beach is located in the Tema Metropolis and the beach serves as a fish-landing site for people from the Sakumono township. The people of Sakumono engage mainly in small- scale artisanal fishing and farming. The Sakumono beach is adjacent the Sakumo II Lagoon which is designated as a Ramsar site due to its high diversity of bird species (Nunoo and Quayson, 2003). The Sakumono beach is a sandy beach protected by a sea defense structure and serves as a recreational hub for the people from both far and near. The beach is bordered by the Tema Port to the left and the Regional Maritime University to the right. The Sakumono beach is a low-lying beach with a gentle slope in the semi-arid coastal zone of Accra. The beach consists of fine to coarse sand grains and an average of 800 mm rainfall over two rainy seasons. The La Pleasure beach is also located at La, off the Accra-Teshie/Nungua Road in the La Dade- Kotopon Metropolis. The beach is one of the most patronized beaches in Accra and is patronized throughout the week by both foreign and local tourists (Tsagbey et al., 2009). Just like the Sakumono beach, the La Pleasure beach is also a sandy beach, also with fine to coarse sand grains. The La Pleasure beach is a gently sloping beach. 32 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The two beaches are all located in the Greater Accra region. The Greater Accra region, with a population of 4,010,054, representing 16.3% of the population of Ghana, is the smallest region in terms of size and covers a total land area of 3,245 km2 (GSS, 2014). The Greater Accra region has a coastline of approximately 225 km, stretching from Kokrobite in the west, to Ada in the east. These two beaches were selected for the survey because Sakumono is an open access beach where entry is not restricted, i.e., entry is free, and also there is no restriction to what revelers can bring onto the beach. The La Pleasure beach on the other hand, is more restricted and revelers have to pay to enter the beach. Figure 3.1: Map of Ghana showing study sites 33 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.2 Data collection and analysis A preliminary survey was undertaken at the two beaches to determine the stations and familiarize with the beaches a week before the start of the survey. During the preliminary survey, the two beaches were divided into five 100 x 10 m (1000 m2) transects each for surveying. The points were georeferenced using the Garmin etrex 10 GPS. After every 100 m, the coordinates were taken and marked as waypoints on the GPS. This was done to serve as sampling frame for random selection during each visit. The 100 x 10 m transects were denoted as La1 – La5 and Sak1 – Sak5 corresponding to the two beaches surveyed. It was ensured that the edge of the transect begun from the low tide mark and run parallel to the shoreline. The preliminary survey was also used to clear the beaches of any debris that was collected on the shores already. Figure 3.2: Diagram showing water level for sampling 34 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The beaches were surveyed twice a month on the same day (Thursdays) from January to April, 2019 during low tide which was usually between 0.3 m and 0.5 m tidal level. On each survey event, a 1000 m2 transect at each beach was selected at random for survey by balloting. Pieces of paper with the codes for the various transects were folded and one picked at random giving all the transects an equal chance of being selected. All litter within the transect was collected into labelled trash bags and sent away for sorting and weighing. The litter was hand-picked with latex gloves worn on the hands for protection. Any litter that was poking out of the sand was gently pulled out and if was torn in the process, it was ignored. This was done so that no litter within the transect was overlooked and those that were deeply buried were avoided so that the phenomenon where a chunk of the piece of the litter is buried and may not be accounted for is avoided. Laboratory analysis In the laboratory, the litter was sorted and categorized into identifiable groups. The litter was air dried after which they were counted and then weighed to the nearest kilogram using an electronic scale. This was done to reduce the amount of sand and water in the litter as much as possible and to get the actual weight of the litter. Each bag was weighed and then marine litter items were sorted and classified according to the Master List of categories of the guidance document (TGML/JRC) (Galgani et al., 2013b). The basic material types are as follows: (i) plastic, (ii) metal, (iii) rubber, (iv) glass/ceramics, (v) natural products and (vi) miscellaneous with a total of thirty-nine (39) subcategories. 35 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The litter was further categorized as either ocean-based or land-based based on the classification by Barr (2000). Data analysis The check lists were transferred to an electronic version (Excel 2019, ©Microsoft) to calculate statistical parameters and weight percentages as well as the count on all items was registered as a whole and for each beach individually. The same Microsoft Excel 2019 was used to run a t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the data to determine whether litter from the two beaches were significantly different from each other. 36 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS Over the entire period of the study, a total of 2,697 items were collected from the Sakumono and La Beaches (Table 4.1). The total weight of the litter throughout the survey was 50.07 kg from both sites (Table 4.2). Weight of litter collected from Sakumono beach was 31.79 kg accounting for 63.49% of the total weight of litter surveyed whereas the weight of litter collected from La was 18.28 kg, also accounting for 36.51% of total litter surveyed. Table 4.1: List of litter items and numbers for both beaches Item Number % Number Plastics Bottles 282 10.4560623 Cutlery 67 2.48424175 Cigarette lighters 19 0.70448647 Cigarette butts 205 7.60103819 Styrofoam 160 5.93251761 Cups 20 0.7415647 Water sachet 424 15.7211717 Bags 320 11.8650352 Caps/lids 125 4.63477938 Toys 13 0.48201706 Synthetic rope 65 2.41008528 Fishing net 14 0.51909529 Strapping bands 17 0.63033 Crates/containers 23 0.85279941 Diapers 34 1.26065999 Sanitary towel/tampon 32 1.18650352 Straws 137 5.07971821 37 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.2 (cont’d): List of litter items and numbers for both beaches Item Number % Number Metals Cans 87 3.22580645 Other pieces of metals 23 0.85279941 Crown corks 198 7.34149055 Rubber Balloons 46 1.70559881 Slippers 31 1.14942529 Condoms 56 2.07638116 Gloves 2 0.07415647 Tyres 4 0.14831294 Pieces of foam 30 1.11234705 Glass/ceramics Bottle 34 1.26065999 Pieces 32 1.18650352 Natural products Processed wood 14 0.51909529 Rope 15 0.55617353 Paper/cardboard 32 1.18650352 Juice carton 94 3.4853541 Miscellaneous Clothing/rags 27 1.00111235 Shoes 12 0.44493882 Bags 3 0.11123471 2697 100 38 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.3: List of litter items and weights for both beaches Item Weight % Weight Plastics Bottles 2.45 4.89981385 Cutlery 0.24 0.48171317 Cigarette lighters 0.00 0.00796864 Cigarette butts 0.05 0.09007158 Styrofoam 0.85 1.69358529 Cups 0.12 0.2396583 Water sachet 4.03 8.04453011 Bags 1.28 2.55635515 Caps/lids 0.03 0.04992881 Toys 12.70 25.3658334 Synthetic rope 4.49 8.97021027 Fishing net 3.18 6.35533856 Strapping bands 0.02 0.03734675 Crates/containers 0.28 0.55121408 Diapers 2.34 4.66494872 Sanitary towel/tampon 0.74 1.46990421 Straws 0.03 0.05472198 Metals Cans 2.18 4.3438066 Other pieces of metals 1.24 2.48046336 Crown corks 0.26 0.51406704 Rubber Balloons 0.01 0.0183738 Slippers 0.19 0.37147036 Condoms 0.02 0.04473622 39 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.4 (cont’d): List of litter items and weights for both beaches Item Weight % Weight Gloves 0.00 0.00119829 Tyres 4.30 8.58775558 Pieces of foam 0.18 0.35948744 Glass/ceramics Bottle 2.04 4.07419102 Pieces 1.60 3.19544394 Natural products Processed wood 0.00 0 Rope 0.00 0 Paper/cardboard 0.12 0.23646285 Juice carton 1.30 2.59070617 Miscellaneous Clothing/rags 1.03 2.04907842 Shoes 0.23 0.46493709 Bags 2.57 5.13467897 50.07 100 The mean weekly number of litter for Sakumono was 209 ± 92.66 (Table 4.3) and mean weekly weight of 3.97 kg ± 2.86kg (Table 4.3). For La Pleasure beach, there was a mean weekly number of litter of 129 ± 30.63 and a mean weekly weight of 2.28 kg ± 0.92kg (Table 4.3). Table 4.5: Mean weekly weights and number of litter for both beaches Beach Mean Weekly Weight (kg) Mean Weekly Number Sakumono 3.97 ± 2.86 209 ± 92.66 La Pleasure 2.28 ± 0.92 129 ± 30.63 Plastics were found to be the most abundant both by number as well as weight. For both beaches, plastics made up 65.53% (Fig. 4.3) by weight at 32.81 kg and 72.56% (Fig. 4.4) composition by number or quantity at 1975 items. 40 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8% Plastics 3% 7% Metals 9% Rubber 7% 66% Glass/Ceramics Natural products Miscellaneous Figure 4.3: Composition of total litter by weight at both beaches Plastics 2%6%2% Metals6% 11% Rubber Glass/Ceramics 73% Natural products Miscellaneous Figure 4.4: Composition of total litter by number at both beaches This trend of composition was not different at the various beaches. At Sakumono, plastics were the most dominant both by weight and number at 67% (Fig. 4.5) and 75% (Fig. 4.6) respectively. La Pleasure beach also recorded plastics as the most dominant litter also by weight 41 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh and number at 62% (Fig. 4.7) and 69% (Fig. 4.8) respectively. 3%7% Plastics 9% Metals 8% Rubber 6% Glass/ceramics 67% Natural products Miscellaneous Figure 4.5: Composition by weight of litter at Sakumono 1% 3%6% 5% Plastics Metals 10% Rubber Glass/Ceramic Natural products 75% Miscellaneous Figure 4.6: Composition by number of litter at Sakumono 42 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3%8% Plastics4% Metals 13% Rubber Glass/Ceramic 10% 62% Natural products Miscellaneous Figure 4.7: Composition by weight of litter at La 1%6% 2% 8% Plastics Metals 14% Rubber Glass/Ceramic Natural products 69% Miscellaneous Figure 4.8: Composition by number of litter at La 43 Straws 137 Sanitary towel/tampon 32 Diapers 34 Crates/containers 23 Strapping bands 17 Fishing net 14 Synthetic rope 65 Toys 13 Caps/lids 125 Bags 320 Water sachet 424 Cups 20 Styrofoam 160 Cigarette butts 205 Cigarette lighters 19 Cutlery 67 Bottles 282 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Figure 4.9: Abundance of most dominant litter type (Plastics) By numbers, water sachets were the most abundant in terms of plastics (Fig. 4.9). By numbers, the water sachets made up 22% of the plastics collected from both beaches (Fig. 4.11). Although water sachets were most abundant in numbers, toys far weighed more than them. Toys made up about 39% of the total weight of plastics (Fig. 4.12). In terms of numbers, toys were however the least, at only 13 (Fig. 4.9). 44 Straws 0.0274 Sanitary towel/tampon 0.736 Diapers 2.3358 Crates/containers 0.276 Strapping bands 0.0187 Fishing net 3.1822 Synthetic rope 4.4915 Toys 12.701 Caps/lids 0.025 Bags 1.28 Water sachet 4.028 Cups 0.12 Styrofoam 0.848 Cigarette butts 0.0451 Cigarette lighters 0.00399 Cutlery 0.2412 Bottles 2.4534 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure 4.10: Weights of most dominant litter types Bottles Cutlery Cigarette lighters Cigarette butts 12%2%% 7% 14% 1 Styrofoam1% 13%% 3 6% 1 %% Cups Water sachet 10% Bags 16% 8% Caps/lids 1% Toys 22% Synthetic rope Fishing net Strapping bands Figure 4.11: Percentage by number of Plastics at both beaches 45 Bottles Cutlery Cigarette lighters 7%20%%7% 01% 103%0%% Cigarette butts 10% 12% Styrofoam Cups 14% 04%% Water sachet Bags Caps/lids 39% Toys Synthetic rope Fishing net Figure 4.12: Percentage by weight of Plastics from both beaches Twenty-five (25) of the thirty-five (35) litter types collected during the survey were identified as land based marine litter with only three (3) litter types identified as ocean based (Table 4.4). Table 4.6: Sources of litter items (Barr, 2000) Sources Types Land-Based Plastic Bottles, Straws (plastic), Plastic bags, caps/lids, Glass bottles, Water sachet, Balloons, Metal cans, Cigarette packaging/ wrappers, Crown corks, Styrofoam packs, plastic cutlery, cigarettes butts, shoes, Clothing/textile, condoms, diapers, Toys, Plastic cups, rubber slippers, Bags, sanitary towels/tampons, Newspaper/Magazine pieces, juice cartons. Ocean/Waterway-Based Fishing net, Rope, Strapping bands. General Nails, Cardboard pieces, Glass pieces, Metal pieces, Plastic containers, Styrofoam pieces, Pieces of foam, Car tyres. 46 Over the 4 months of the survey, it was observed that there was a decrease in the weight and amount of litter at the two beaches (Figs. 4.13 and 4.14). This trend, however, changed during the fourth month which was April. There was a general increase beyond the previous month. For the weight however, Sakumono beach recorded the highest in April (Fig. 4.13). This was also the highest weight throughout the entire survey. The weight of litter collected at Sakumono beach in the month of April was 11.16 kg (Fig. 4.13) and it made up about 22% of the total litter collected throughout the survey. The least litter in terms of weight was recorded in the month of March. This was at the Sakumono beach (Fig. 4.13). 47 14 12 10 11.15649 9.74681 8 8.71618 6 6.12739 4 4.92862 3.93582 3.2844 2 2.17558 0 January February March April Month Sak La Figure 4.13: Monthly variation by weight 800 700 626 600 500 471 400 340 336 300 239 239 240 206 200 100 0 January February March April Sak La Month Figure 4.14: Monthly variation by number 48 Weight Number With an average of 418 and 256 monthly litter items at Sakumono and La respectively, the density of litter at the two beaches was 0.418 items/m2 and 0.256 items/m2. Running ANOVA at a confidence level of 95%, there was a p value of 0.02 (Table 4.5). Table 4.7: ANOVA Table for spatial variation in amount of litter at Sakumono and La Pleasure beaches Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit Between Groups 52326.125 1 52326.125 9.0298544 0.02385469 5.98737761 Within Groups 34768.75 6 5794.79167 Total 87094.875 7 49 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 5.1 Types and quantities of marine litter A total of 2,697 marine litter items, with total weight of 50.0713 kg were collected for this study. This quantity was lower than that of Van Dyck, Nunoo and Lawson (2016), which was 18,241 and weighed 297.59 kg. This difference could be attributed to the number of beaches surveyed by Van Dyck, Nunoo and Lawson. For that particular study, four beaches were surveyed (Sakumono, Mensah Guinea, La and Korle Gonno beaches). Only two of these beaches were surveyed for this current study (Sakumono and La beaches). The difference in amount of litter could also be attributed to the duration of the study. The current study was undertaken over eight weeks as compared to sixteen weeks by Van Dyck, Nunoo and Lawson (2016). The difference in weight could also be attributed to the methodology used. In this current study, the litter was air dried and as much sand as possible was removed from the litter in order to obtain the actual weight of the litter as much as possible. This detail was not outlined in the study by Van Dyck, Nunoo and Lawson (2016). This current study as well as that by Van Dyck, Nunoo and Lawson (2016) were conducted within 1000 m2 transects but for this study every survey was done by choosing a transect at random such that every part of the entire shoreline had equal chance of being surveyed. For the study by Van Dyck, Nunoo and Lawson (2016), a fixed 1000 m2 transect was surveyed throughout the study. The litter items found and collected from the beaches during sampling were varied, with drinking water sachets being the most abundant. Over the years, people seem to have lost confidence in water that runs through the taps in their homes. This may be attributed to the widespread knowledge of the polluted nature of water bodies which serve as the sources of the 50 water that runs through our taps. The trust has been shifted to sachet water as there is the notion that it is purer than what runs through the taps. On the other hand, not all homes have water running in their homes and so they resort to sachet water for all they may need water for. This rise in interest in sachet water has also led to the springing up of many sachet water producing factories and in effect increased amount of water sachets, especially in the urban areas. Drinking water sachets was followed by plastic bags, plastic bottles and then cigarette butts. This trend is comparable to the most common items that are found during many clean-ups that are conducted onshore and/or underwater. Some of these items include plastic bags, plastic beverage bottles, food wrappers/containers and cigarettes or cigarette filters according to the International Coastal Clean-up report (Ocean Conservancy, 2009). Plastics were found to be the most common and abundant litter type in this study. This finding is comparable to other surveys undertaken on South African beaches (STAP, 2011b) and some other selected beaches in Europe (OSPAR, 2007). The amounts of plastics recorded at the Sakumono and La beaches (66% by weight and 73% by number) also compare favourably with what was recorded by Van Dyck, Nunoo and Lawson (2016). This confirms the assertion that plastics are the major source of marine litter worldwide, accounting for 60% to 80% of litter collected (Derraik (2002); Allsopp et al., (2006) and STAP (2011a)). The introduction of plastics and synthetics in the past few decades, has considerably changed the nature of anthropogenic wastes over the last 30 to 40 years (Sheavly 2005). Plastics are generally very durable materials and are resistant to natural biodegradation. As a result, plastics does not easily and readily break down when they enter the marine environment, but only get torn into pieces by abrasion against rocks and other hard surfaces as well as by wave action (Moore et al., 2001; Allsopp et al., 2006; STAP, 2011b). When plastics reach the marine environment, about half of them are kept afloat because of their light nature and can 51 therefore travel on currents over very long distances and widely spread over the oceans (Derraik 2002, Sheavly 2005). This light nature of the plastic products is observed in the weights of the litter as recorded. Water sachets were the most abundant in terms of number but were among the least heavy items in terms of weight due to their light nature. Plastic wastes remain prevalent on the beaches of Ghana. This indicates the widespread use of plastics in everyday activities such as packaging of items and the eventual poor disposal of these plastic items. Cigarette butts have been reported to be one of the main sources of marine litter on beaches in Brazil, Spain and the US (Slavin, 2011). In this current study there was a similar trend. This was evident by the fact that cigarette butts were the fourth in terms of abundance, after water sachets, plastic bags and plastic bottles. This implies the heavy use of the beaches for recreational activities where there is also a lot of smoking. This is also indicative of the large number of smokers among those that patronize the beaches. 5.2 SOURCES OF LITTER IDENTIFIED From this study, twenty-five out of the thirty-five litter items collected during the survey were land based. This agrees with the assertion in literature that land based sources of litter types make up approximately 80% of the litter found on beaches (GESAMP, 1991; NOAA, 2007; Sheavly, 2007; World Ocean Review, 2010; US EPA, 2012). This is also coherent with a study undertaken on the West Coast of the United States of America and Hawaiian Islands (Sheavly, 2007). The high amount of land-based litter recorded could be attributed to the location of the beach, accessibility to the beach, status of the beach as a tourist hub and human behaviour. The proximity of the beach to inflow from inland could also be an attributing factor to high amounts of land-based types litter. This could make waste produced inland, flow through rivers and 52 lagoons to the beach. Again, based on the findings of Gregory and Ryan (1997), ocean-based litter accounted for the least amount of litter in origin supporting the least amount of ocean- based litter recorded for this study. There are few major shipping routes in this region due to the presence of only one major port that operates in Tema, which may explain the low levels of ocean-based litter. 5.3 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ABUNDANCE OF MARINE LITTER Sakumono beach generally recorded the higher amount of litter by count and weight followed by the La beach. This trend could be attributed to the fact that the Sakumono beach is an open beach where people don’t have to pay to get onto and it mainly patronized by local tourists or revelers. There is also no restriction as to what revelers can bring onto the beach; anything can be brought onto the beach. There is also minimal management of waste on the Sakumono beach. The La Pleasure beach on the other hand, is a managed beach and entry to the beach is regulated. The beach has foreign tourists visiting the place almost every week. The La beach is also better managed in terms of waste. The vendors on the beach clean their various sides of the beach but there is also general cleaning that is supervised by the management of the entire place. At an alpha value of 0.05, the p value from running ANOVA on the amount of litter surveyed at both beaches was 0.02. This indicates that there is significant difference in the amount of litter found at both beaches. From the analysis it was observed that Sakumono beach was more littered than La Pleasure beach. The statistical test supports the observation and further indicates the result of management of the La Pleasure beach. This compares favourably with the survey undertaken by Van Dyck et. al., (2016) where Sakumono beach had more litter than La Pleasure beach. 53 In the month of March, Sakumono recorded higher amount of litter by count but lower by weight. This phenomenon could be attributed to the presence of lighter litter than the other months. For instance, in the first week of March, more condoms and crown corks were recorded than any other month. Survey for that week was also done on the 7th March, a day after the 6th March holiday. More litter was expected in the month of March at the two beaches due to the festive activities, especially during the first week. This was, however, not the case. There was rather an increase in the following month. This could be attributed to the effect of currents probably moving litter from elsewhere to the beach and not necessarily from anthropogenic activities only, leaving litter on the beach. Tides rise and fall daily and carry and deposits items off and on the shore as it rises and falls as the items are moved by currents. The highest weight of litter was recorded at Sakumono in the month of April with the same beach recording the lowest weight in the month of March. There was generally a decrease observed in the overall litter trend over the eight-week period which may be as a result of the continuous removal of the litter from the beach over the weeks. The highest litter count was observed in the first month and at the Sakumono beach. This observation could be attributed to the continuous celebrations and festivities from the month of December (Christmas period) through to the month of January (New Year celebrations). 54 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Conclusion At both beaches, plastics were the most dominant litter type, especially drinking water sachets, followed by plastic bottles and then plastic bags which indicates the widespread use of plastics in everyday activities such as packaging of items and the eventual poor disposal of these plastic items. Plastics made up the bulk of the litter surveyed in terms of quantity. Marine litter of land-based sources were the highest during the survey which is also indicative of the fact that majority of the litter generated is from inland and activities on the beaches. There was a general decline over the weeks as the litter was collected from January to March and a sudden rise in the month of April. From this survey, however, Sakumono beach was more littered than La Pleasure beach. From this survey, it can be concluded that La Pleasure beach is less littered with 18.28 kg by weight and 1025 litter items than Sakumono beach at 31.80 kg by weight and 1672 litter items, possibly because it is a managed beach and efforts are made to reduce litter on the beach. 6.2 Recommendations • This study was conducted within a relatively short period and did not cover the entire year and both rainy and dry seasons so it is first of all recommended that a more extended survey is done, possibly all year round to have a better picture and understanding of the trend of litter accumulation. The limited funds also influenced the length of the study so availability of sufficient funds could also help to do a more extensive work. 55 • Within the short to medium term, there could be intensive education on issue of marine litter along the coast. Communities could be educated intensively on the health and environmental hazards as well as economic implications. The situation where litter is landed instead of fish could be leveraged in the education to help community members better understand the impact. Education may also be extended to basic schools as well. School children are able to reduce information to as lay as possible and it could help them better communicate to their parents. • Communication and education could also be effectively done by the use of posters and handbills which carry the information pictorially. Opinion leaders in communities could also be engaged and sensitised to provoke change in the behaviour and attitude of members of the community towards proper management of waste and littering habits. 56 REFERENCES Acha, E.M., Mianzan, H.W., Iribarne, O., Gagliardini, D.A., Lasta, C., and Daleo, P., (2003). The role of the Rio de la Plata bottom salinity front in accumulating debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, 197–202. Alkalay, R., Pasternak, G., and Zask, A., (2007). Clean-coast index–a new approach for beach cleanliness assessment. Ocean Coastal Management 50(2), 352–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.10.002. Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santillo, D. and Johnston, P., (2006). Plastic debris in the world’s oceans. Greenpeace Research. Amlalo, D.S. (2007). The Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of Ghana. http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pub36/chapters/chapter_10.pdf [Accessed 3rd March 2019]. Andrady, A.L., (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 62(3), 1596–1605. Andrady, A.L., (2015). Persistence of plastic litter in the oceans. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. SpringerLink, Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London, pp. 57–72. Arafat, H.A., Al--khatib, I.A., Daoud, R., and Shwahneh, H. (2007). Influence of socio- economic factors on street litter generation in the Middle East: effects of education, level, age and type of residence. Waste Management and Research, 25(4), 363 - 370. Araújo, M.C., and Costa, M.F., (2007a). An analysis of the riverine contribution to the solid wastes contamination of an isolated beach at the Brazilian Northeast. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 18(2), 6–12. 57 Araújo, M.C., and Costa, M.F., (2007b). Visual diagnosis of solid waste contamination of a tourist beach: Pernambuco, Brazil. Waste Management. 27(7), 833–839. Baird R.W. and Hooker S.K., (2000). Ingestion of plastic and unusual prey by a Juvenile Harbour Porpoise. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40, 719-720. Ballance, A., Ryan, P., and Turpie, J., (2000). How much is a clean beach worth? The impact of litter on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. South African Journal of Science. 96, 210 - 219. Barnes, D.K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., and Barlaz, M., (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. B Biological Sciences 364, 1985–1998. Barr, C. (2000). Marine Debris Monitoring and Data Collection Activities Conducted By The Center for Marine Conservation. Paper from the International Marine Debris Conference On Derelict Fishing Gear and the Ocean Environment, Honolulu, HI, 935 - 962. Batel, A., Linti, F., Scherer, M., Erdinger, L., and Braunbeck, T. (2016). Transfer of benzo [a] pyrene from microplastics to Artemia nauplii and further to zebrafish via a trophic food web experiment: CYP1A induction and visual tracking of persistent organic pollutants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 35(7), 1656-1666. Bravo, M., de los Ángeles Gallardo, M., Luna-Jorquera, G., Núñez, P., Vásquez, N., and Thiel, M. (2009). Anthropogenic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): Results from a national survey supported by volunteers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58, 1718-1726. Brouwer, R., Galantucci, M., Hadzhiyska, D., Ioakeimidis, C., Leermakers, A., Ouderdorp, H., Boteler, B., and Fernandez, P., (2015). Socio-economic assessment of the costs of marine litter, D 4.11. In: Developed Under Clean Sea Project. Co-funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme Under Grant Agreement. 58 Browne, M.A., Galloway, T.S., and Thompson, R.C., (2010). Spatial patterns of plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. Environmental Science and Technology. 44(3), 3404–3409. Carson, H.S., Lamson, M.R., Nakashima, D., Toloumu, D., Hafner, J., Maximenko, N., and McDermid, K.J., (2013). Tracking the sources and sinks of local marine debris in Hawaii. Marine Environmental Research. 84(7), 76–83. Cheshire, A.C. and Westphalen, G (2007). Standardised Survey and Data Management Platforms for Marine Debris Characterisation from Beach Litter. A report to the Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra, ACT. Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., Jeftic, L., Jung, R.T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E.T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan, L., Pereira, M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B., and Westphalen, G. (2009). UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC Technical Series No. 83: xii + 120 pp. Cialdini, R.B., (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 105–109. Cialdini. R.B., Kallgren, C.A., and Reno, R.R., (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and re-evaluation of the role of norms in human behaviour. In Zanna., M., (Eds). Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press: New York. 24, 201 -234. Claessens, M., Meester, S.D., Landuyt, L.V., Clerck, K.D., and Janssen, C.R., (2011). Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along the Belgian coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 62, 2199–2204. CMC (2000). Pocket guide to marine debris. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, DC, USA. 35 pp. 59 Coast, E., (2002). Population trends in developing countries In: Desai, V and Potter, R, (eds.) The Arnold companion to development studies. Hodder Arnold, London, pp. 360-367. ISBN 0340614528 Coe, J. M. & Rodgers, D., (Eds.). (2012). Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts and Solutions. Springer Science & Business Media. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., and Galloway, S.C., (2011). Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 2588– 2597. Cunningham D. J., and Wilson S. P., (2003). Marine debris on beaches of the greater Sydney region. Journal of Coastal Research, 19(2): 421-430. Demanya B. K., (2006). The Role of Local Knowledge in planning and managing urban solid waste: the tale of two (2) West African Cities, Accra and Kumasi, Ghana. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Department of Environmental Conservation, (2012). Marine debris in Alaska [online]. Available at :< URL: http://dec.alaska.gov/commish/tsunami- debris/docs/Marine_Debris_in_AK.pdf> [Accessed 5 May 2019]. Derraik, J.G.B., (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 842–852. Doong, D.J., Chuang, H.C., Shieh, C.L., and Hu, J.H., (2011). Quantity, distribution, and impacts of coastal driftwood triggered by a typhoon. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 1446–1454. Duckett, P.E., and Repaci, V., (2015). Marine plastic pollution: using community science to address a global problem. Marine and Freshwater Research 66(3) 665–673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF14087. 60 EIONET (2009). European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production [Online]. Available at :< URL: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/themes/waste> [Accessed 30 March 2019]. Endo, S., Takizawa, R., Okuda, K., Takada, H., Chiba, K., Kanehiro, H., Ogi, H., Yamashita, R., and Date, T., (2005). Concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in beached resin pellets: variability among individual particles and regional differences. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50, 1103–1114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.04.030. EPA, (2012). Manual for the preparation of District Waste Management Plans Fanshawe, T. and Everard, M. (2002). The Impacts of Marine Litter, Marine Pollution. Monitoring Management Group Report of the Marine Litter Task Team (MaLiTT), p.43. Fossi, M.C., Pedà, C., Compa, M., Tsangaris, C., Alomar, C., Claro, F., Ioakeimidis, Ch., Galgani, F., Hema, T., Deudero, S., Romeo, T., Battaglia, P., Andaloro, F., Caliani, I., Casini, S., Panti, S., and Baini, M., (2018). Bioindicators for monitoring marine litter ingestion and its impacts on Mediterranean biodiversity. Environmental Pollution 237, 1023–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.019. Frost, A. and Cullen, M. (1997). Marine debris on northern New South Wales beaches (Australia): sources and the role of beach usage. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 34, 5, 348- 352. Galgani, F., D. Fleet, J. Van Franeker, S. Katsanevakis, T. Maes, J. Mouat, L. Oosterbaan, I. Poitou, G. Hanke, R. Thompson, E. Amato, A. Birkun, and C. Janssen (2010): Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Task Group 10 Report: Marine Litter. In: JRC Scientific and Technical Reports [Zampoukas N. (ed.)]. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra. 61 Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., and De Vrees, L., (2013a). Marine litter within the European marine strategy framework directive. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70, 1055–1064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst122 Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Thompson R.C., Van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M., Mira Veiga, J., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A., Leslie, H., Gago, J., and Liebezeit, G., (2013b). Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas. MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (TSG-ML) Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., Goraguer, H., Latrouite, D., Andral, B., Cadiou, Y., Mahe, C., Poulard, J.C., and Nerisson, P., (2000). Litter on the sea floor along European Coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40 (6), 516– 527. Gall, S.C., and Thompson, R.C., (2015). The impact of debris on marine life. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 92, 170–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041. Gallo, F., Fossi, C., Weber, R., Santillo, D., Sousa, J., Ingram, I., Nadal, A. and Romano, D. (2018). Marine litter plastics and microplastics and their toxic chemicals components: the need for urgent preventive measures. Environmental Sciences Europe, 30, 1-14. GESAMP (Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution). (1991). The State of the Marine Environment. London: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 146 pp. Ghana Institute of Engineers (GhIE). (2011). ICE Forum on ―Accra waste management Strategy [Online]. Available at :< URL: http://ghie.org.gh/ghieHome/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1313: ice-forum-on-accra-waste-management-strategy-held&catid=106:newsghie- news&Itemid=618> [Accessed 17 June 2019]. 62 Ghana Statistical Service. (2014). 2010 population and housing census report. Ghana Statistical Service. Government of Ghana. Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development Environmental health and sanitation directorate (2010). National Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan NESSAP. Gregory M.R. and Ryan, P.G., (1997). Pelagic plastics and other seaborne persistent synthetic debris: a review of Southern Hemisphere perspectives. Prepared for AB 259 (Krekorian), AB 820 (Karnette), and AB 904 (Feuer) by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation. Gregory, M. R. (2009). Plastics and South Pacific Island Shores: environmental implications, Ocean & Coastal Management, 42, 603-615. Gregory, M.R., and Andrady, A.L., (2003). Plastics in the marine environment. In: Andrady, A.L. (Ed.), Plastics and the Environment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., pp. 379 – 401. Hansmann, R. and R. W. Scholz (2003). A Two-Step Informational Strategy for Reducing Littering Behaviour in a Cinema, Environment and Behaviour, 35, 752-762. Hastings, E., and Potts, T., (2013). Marine litter: progress in developing an integrated policy approach in Scotland. Marine Policy 42, 49–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.024. Hinojosa, I.A., Rivadeneira, M.M., and Thiel, M., (2011). Temporal and spatial distribution of floating objects in coastal waters of central-southern Chile and Patagonian fjords. Continental Shelf Research. 31, 172–186. Hinrichsen, D. (1998). Coastal waters of the world. Trends, threats and strategies. Island Press, Washington DC. 275pp. ISBN 1-55963-383-2 63 Hoagland, P. and Kitte-Powell, H. L., (1997). Characterization and mitigation of marine debris in the Gulf of Maine. A report prepared for the US Gulf of Maine Association. Contract No. GM 97-13. Woods Hole Research Consortium. 36 pp. International Ocean Conservancy (2009). A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It. International Coastal Cleanup Results 2008. The Ocean Conservancy. Ivar do Sul, J.A., and Costa, M.F., (2007). Marine debris review for Latin America and the Wider Caribbean Region: from the 1970s until now, and where do we go from here? Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 1087–1104. Jambeck, J., Timothy, G. T., and Barr, C. G., (2001). A Survey of Marine Debris Management and Research Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., and Law, K.L, (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347, 768– 771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352. Keller, A.A., Fruh, E.L., Johnson, M.M., Simon, V., and McGourty, C., (2010). Distribution and abundance of anthropogenic marine debris along the shelf and slope of the US West Coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 60, 692–700. Kimball, L. A., (2005). The International Legal Regime of the High Seas and the Seabed Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction and Options for Cooperation for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Marine Areas Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series no. 19, 64 pages. Kusui T. and Noda M., (2003). International survey on the distribution of stranded and buried litter on beaches along Sea of Japan. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 47, 175–179. Laing, L.V., Viana, J., Dempster, E.L., Trznadel, M., Trunkfield, L.a., Webster, T.M.U., van Aerle, R., Paull, G.C.,Wilson, R.J., Mill, J., and Santos, E.M., (2016). Bisphenol A 64 causes reproductive toxicity, decreases dnmt1 transcription, and reduces global DNA methylation in breeding zebrafish (Danio rerio). Epigenetics 2294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15592294.2016.1182272. Laist, D. W., J. M. Coe, and K. J. O‘hara. (1999). Marine Debris Pollution. Pp 342-366 in J. R. Twiss, Jr. and R. R. Reeves (eds.) Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Laist, D.W. (1997) Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J.M. and D.B. Rogers (eds.) Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, Solutions. New York: Springer Verlag, pp 99-140. Laist, D.W. and Liffmann, M., (2000). Impacts of Debris: Research and Management Needs. Issue Papers of the International Marine Debris Conference, Aug 6-11, 2000. Honolulu, Hawaii. Lakshmi, A. and Rajagopalan, R. (2000) Socio-Economic Implications of Coastal Zone Degradation and Their Mitigation: A Case Study from Coastal Villages in India. Ocean and Coastal Management, 43, 749-762. Lattin, G.L., Moore, C.J., Zellers, A.F., Moore, S.L., and Weisberg, S.B., (2004). A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths near the southern California shore. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49, 291–294. Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart, M., Glas, M., and Schludermann, E., (2014). The Danube so colourful: a potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river. Environmental Pollution http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.006. 65 Leggett, C., Scherer, N., Curry, M., and Bailey, R., (2014). Assessing the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris: A Pilot Study of Beach Recreation in Orange County, California. Industrial Economics, Incorporated & Timothy Haab Ohio State University. Lewis, P.N., Riddle, M.J., and Smith, S.D.A. (2005) Assisted passage or passive drift: a comparison of alternative transport mechanisms for non-indigenous coastal species into the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science, 17(2), 183-191. DOI: 10.1017/S0954102005002580. Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., and Arthur, C. (2013). Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-46. Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T. and Cappell, R., (2009). Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 523.Rome: UNEP/FAO. Mariwah, S., (2012). Institutional Arrangements for Managing Solid Waste in The Shama- Ahanta-East Metropolis, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 14 (6), 292- 312. Martínez, M.L., Intralawan, A., Vázquez, G., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Sutton, P., and Landgrave, R., (2007). The coasts of our world: ecological, economic and social importance. Ecology and Economics. 63:254–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.022. Masalu, D.C., (2000). Coastal and marine resource use conflicts and sustainable development in Tanzania. Ocean and Coastal Management, 43(6), 475 – 494. McIlgorm, A., Campbell, H.F., and Rule, M.J., (2011). The economic cost and control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean and Coastal Management. 54, 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.05.007. 66 MCS, (2009). Marine Conservation Society Beachwatch Big Weekend 2009, Final Report, Chapter 2: Methods, Marine Conservation Society (MCS). Mensah, A., and Larbi, E., (2005). Solid Waste Disposal in Ghana. Well Factsheet – Regional annex. [Online:] Available at: < http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/fact- sheets/fact-sheets-htm/RSA%20Solid%20waste.htm> [Accessed 14 March 2019] Mireku-Gyimah, N., Apanga, P. A., & Awoonor-Williams, J. K. (2018). Cyclical cholera outbreaks in Ghana: filth, not myth. Infectious diseases of poverty, 7(1), 51. Moore, C.J. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long term threat. Environmental Research 108, 131-139. Moore, C.J., Lattin, G.L., and Zellers, A.F., (2011). Quantity and type of plastic debris flowing from two urban rivers to coastal waters and beaches of Southern California. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. 11, 65–73. Mouat J, Lozano L. R, and Bateson H., (2010). Economic Impacts of marine litter, pp. 117: KIMO (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon). Nagelkerken I., Wiltjer G. A. M., Debrot A. O. and Pors L. P. J. J., (2001). Baseline study of submerged marine debris at beaches in Curacao, West Indies. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 42, 789–789. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2007a). Marine Debris [online]. Available at :< URL: http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/whatis/welcome.html> [Accessed 5 May 2019]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2007b). Marine Debris 101: Land-Based Sources of Marine Debris, Fishing Facts, Boating Facts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2008). Interagency Report on Marine Debris Sources, Impacts, Strategies & Recommendations. Silver Spring, MD. 62 pp. 67 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2010). 2008-2009 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act. Silver Spring, MD. 70 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2011). Coastal issues: Climate change. [Online]. Available at :< URL: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate.html> [Accessed May 2019]. Neto, J.A.B. and da Fonseca, E.M., (2011). Seasonal, spatial and compositional variation of beach debris along of the eastern margin of Guanabara Bay (Rio de Janeiro) in the period of 1999–2008. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. 11, 31–39. Newman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., Brink, P.T. and Schweitzer, J.P., (2015). The Economics of Marine Litter. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. SpringerLink, Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: pp. 367–394 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_14. Nunoo, F. K. E., and Quayson, E. (2003). Towards management of litter accumulation – case study of two beaches in Accra, Ghana. Journal of the Ghana Science Association, 5 (1), 145-155. Obirih-Opareh, N., (2002). Solid Waste Collection in Accra: The Impact of Decentralization and Privatization on the Practice and Performance of Service Delivery. AGIDS: Amsterdam. Oosterhuis, F., Papyrakis, E., and Boteler, B., (2014). Economic instruments and marine litter control. Ocean and Coastal Management 102, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.08.005. Opfer S., Arthur, C., and Lippiatt, S., (2012). NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Response & Restoration Marine Debris Program Silver Spring, MD. 68 Pham, C.K., Gomes-Pereira, J.N., Isidro, E.J., Santos, R.S., and Morato, T., (2013). Abundance of litter on Condor seamount (Azores, Portugal, Northeast Atlantic). Deep Sea Research Part II: Tropical Studies Oceanography, 204–208. Poeta, G., Battisti, C., and Acosta, A.T.R., (2014). Marine litter in Mediterranean sandy littorals: spatial distribution patterns along Central Italy coastal dunes. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 89: 168–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.011. Potts, T., and Hastings, E., (2011). Marine Litter Issues, Impacts and Actions [Online]. Available at :< URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00402421.pdf> [Accessed 30 March 2019]. Ramirez-Llodra, E., De Mol, B., Company, J.B., Coll, M., and Sardà, F., (2013). Effects of natural and anthropogenic processes in the distribution of marine litter in the deep Mediterranean Sea. Prog. Oceanography. 118, 273–287. Rech, S., Macaya-Caquilpán, V., Pantoja, J.F., Rivadeneira, M.M., Jofre Madariaga, D., and Thiel, M., (2014). Rivers as a source of marine litter - a study from the SE Pacific. Marine Pollution Bulletin 82:66–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.03.019 Ribic, C. A., Sheavly, S. B., and Rugg, D. J. (2011). Trends in Marine Debris in the US Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico 1996-2003. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada- Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, 11(1). Richards, Z.T., and Beger, M., (2011). A quantification of the standing stock of macro- debris in Majuro lagoon and its effect on hard coral communities. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 1693–1701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06.003. Rochman, C.M., Browne, M.A., Halpern, B.S., Hentschel, B.T., Hoh, E., Karapanagioti, H.K., Rios-Mendoza, L.M., Takada, H., Teh, S., and Thompson, R.C., (2013). Policy: classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 494, 169–171. 69 Rochman, C.M., Hentschel, B.T., and Teh, S.J., (2014). Long-term sorption of metals is similar among plastic types: implications for plastic debris in aquatic environments. PLoS One 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085433. Rockefeller, D, (2003). Oceans Away [Online]. Available at :< URL: http://www.populationeducation.org/docs/earthmatters/reading-oceans_away.pdf> [Accessed 12 February 2019] Ryan, P.G., (2015). A brief history of marine litter research. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–25. Schneider, F., Parsons, S., Clift, S., Stolte, A., and McManus, M.C., (2018). Collected marine litter - a growing waste challenge. Marine Pollution Bulletin 128, 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.011. Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., and Griskevicius, V., (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429 - 434. Schulz, M., Clemens, T., Förster, H., Harder, T., Fleet, D., Gaus, S., Grave, C., Flegel, I., Schrey,E., and Hartwig, E., (2015). Statistical analyses of the results of 25 years of beach litter surveys on the south-eastern North Sea coast. Marine Environmental Research. 109:21–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.04.007. Sheavly S.B, and Register K.M., (2007). Marine debris and plastics: environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 15: 301-305. Sheavly, S.B. (2005). Sixth Meeting of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Processes on Oceans & the Law of the Sea. Marine debris – an overview of a critical issue for our oceans. June 6-10, 2005. New York, NY. 7 pp 70 Sheavly, S.B. (2007) National Marine Debris Monitoring Program: Final Program Report, Data Analysis and Summary. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Ocean Conservancy, Grant Number X83053401-02, 76 p. Shimizu, T., Nakai, J., Nakajima, K., Kozai, N., Takahashi, G., Matsumoto, M., and Kikui, J., (2008). Seasonal variations in coastal debris on Awaji Island, Japan. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 57, 182–186. Shomura, R. S. and H. O. Yoshida (Eds.). (1985). Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. 27-29 November 1984, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFC-54. 580p. Sibley, C. G. and J.H. Liu (2003). Differentiating Active and Passive Littering: A Two-Stage Process Model of Littering Behaviour in Public Spaces. Environment and Behaviour, 35, 415-433. Sigler, M., (2014). The effects of plastic pollution on aquatic wildlife: Current situations and future solutions. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. 225, 2184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-2184-6. Silva-Iñiguez, L., and Fischer, D.W., (2003). Quantification and classification of marine litter on the municipal beach of Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 46, 132–138. Singh, N., (2011). What is marine debris? [online]. Available at :< URL: http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/environment/what-is-marine-debris/ [Accessed 11 May 2019]. Slavin, M.C., (2011). Types and Sources of Marine Debris in Northern Tasmania. BSc. thesis, University of Australia. 71 STAP (2011a). Marine Debris as a Global Environmental Problem: Introducing a solutions- based framework focused on plastic. A STAP Information Document. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC. STAP (2011b). Marine Debris: Defining a Global Environmental Challenge. A STAP Information Document. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC. Storrier, K. L., McGlashan, D. J., Bonellie, S., and Velander, K. (2007). Beach Litter Deposition at a Selection of Beaches in the Firth of Forth, Scotland. Journal of Coastal Research, 23, 813 – 822. Taffs, K.H., and Cullen, M.C., (2005). The distribution and abundance of beach debris on isolated beaches of northern New South Wales Australia. Australas. Journal of Environment. 12, 244–250. Ten Brink, P., Lutchman, I., Bassi, S., Speck, S., Sheavly, S., Register, K., and Woolaway, C., (2009). Guidelines on the Use of Market-based Instruments to Address the Problem of Marine Litter. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium, and Sheavly Consultants, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA. 60 pp Tenbruggencate J., (2005). Sea debris can trap vessels. In Honolulu Advertiser, 8th August, 2005. Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I.A., Miranda, L., Pantoja, J.F., Rivadeneira, M.M., and Vásquez, N., (2013). Anthropogenic marine debris in the coastal environment: a multi-year comparison between coastal waters and local shores. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 71, 307–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.005. Thompson, R., C. Moore, A. Andrady, M. Gregory, H. Takada, and S. Weisberg (2005), New directions in plastic debris, Science 310, 11-17. 72 Thompson, R.C., Moore, C.J., von Saal, F.S., and Swan, S.G., (2009). Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 364, 2153 - 2166. Topçu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Oztürk, A.A., and Oztürk, B., (2013). Origin and abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish western Black Sea Coast. Marine Environmental Research. 85, 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2012.12.006. Topping, P., Eade, A. and Eaton, P., (1994). Marine plastic debris research in Canada. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on marine debris, Miami, Florida, May 1994. Marine Environment Division, Canada. Torgler, B., Garcia Valinas., M., A., and Macintyre, A., (2008). Justifiability of Littering: An Empirical Investigation. Working Paper # 8. Tsagbey, S.A., Mensah, A.M., and Nunoo, F.K.E. (2009). Influence of tourist pressure on beach litter and microbial quality: case study of two beach resorts in Ghana. West African Journal of Applied Ecology, 15, 13-23. Tudor, D. T., and Williams A. T., (2001). Investigation of litter problems in the Severn Estuary / Bristol Channel Area. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency R&D Technical Report E1- 082/TR. Tudor, D.T., and Williams, A.T., (2003). Public perception and Opinion of Visible Beach Aesthetic Pollution: The Utilisation of Photography. Journal of Coastal Research, 19, 1104 - 1115. UNEP (1990a). The problem of persistent plastics and marine debris in the oceans. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 114. UNEP (2005). Marine Litter, an analytical overview. UNEP (2009). Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. UNEP, Nairobi (232 pp.). 73 UNEP (2016). Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics – Global Lessons and Research to Inspire Action and Guide Policy Change. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (2012). 18th Session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. National Report for Ghana. USEPA (2007). Turning the tide on trash. A learning guide on marine debris. EPA 842-B-92- 003. USEPA (2012). Water: Marine Debris. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Valavanidis, A., and Vlachogianni, T., (2011). Marine Litter: Man-made Solid Waste Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea and Coastline. Abundance, Composition and Sources Identification [online]. Available at :< URL: http://www.chem.uoa.gr/scinews/env01/MARINE-LITTER-REVIEW-2011.pdf> [Accessed 5 April 2019]. Van Dyck, I.P., Nunoo, F.K.E. and Lawson, E.T. (2016) An Empirical Assessment of Marine Debris, Seawater Quality and Littering in Ghana. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 4, 21-36. Veiga, J.M., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Nilsson, P., Vlachogianni, T., Werner, S., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Dagevos, J., Gago, J., Sobral, P., and Cronin, R., (2016). Identification of Sources of Marine Litter. MSFD GES TG Marine Litter Thematic Report, JRC Technical Report. Velander, K. A. and Mocogni, M., (1998). Maritime litter and sewage contamination at Cramond beach Edinburgh - a comparative study. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 36, 5, 385- 389. 74 Viehman, S., Vander Pluym, J.L., and Schellinger, J., (2011). Characterization of marine debris in North Carolina salt marshes. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 62, 2771–2779. Vlachogianni, T., (2017). Understanding the socio-economic implications of marine litter in the Adriatic-Ionian macroregion. In: IPA-Adriatic DeFishGear project and MIOECSDE, pp. 70 (ISBN: 978-960-6793-26-4). Watkins, E., ten Brink, P., Mutafoglu, K., Withana, S., Schweitzer, J.-P., Russi, D., Kettunen, M., and Gitti, G., (2016). Marine Litter: Socio-economic Study. A Report by IEEP for UNEP. Watters, D.L., Yoklavich, M.M., Love, M.S., and Schroeder, D.M., (2010). Assessing marine debris in deep seafloor habitats off California. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 60, 131–138. White, M.P., Wheeler, B.W., Herbert, S., Alcock, I., and Depledge, M.H., (2014). Coastal proximity and physical activity: is the coast an under-appreciated public health resource? Preventive Medicine 69, 135–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.09.016. Williams, A.T., and Simmons, S.L., (1996). The degradation of plastic litter in rivers: implications for beaches. Journal of Coastal Construction. 2, 63–72. Williams, A.T., and Simmons, S.L., (1997a). Movement patterns of riverine litter. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 98, 119–139. Williams, A.T., and Simmons, S.L., (1997b). Estuarine litter at the estuarine/beach interface in the Bristol Channel. Journal of Coastal Research. 13, 1159–1165. Williams, A.T., and Simmons, S.L., (1999). Sources of riverine litter: the river Taff, South Wales, UK. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. 112, 197–216. World Ocean Review, (2010). Living with the oceans. Maribus gGmbH, Pickhuben, Hamburg. Wyles, K.J., Pahl, S., Thomas, K., and Thompson, R.C., (2015). Factors that can undermine the psychological benefits of coastal environments: exploring the effect of tidal State, 75 presence, and type of litter. Environment and Behaviour. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916515592177. 76