In 2016, I first traveled to the island nation of Vanuatu with a mission: to understand the real-life impacts of ghost gear(abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear) on the local communities.
When you look at Vanuatu’s remote location in the Pacific, I’m sure it comes as no surprise that fishing is a critical part of daily life there. In fact, some estimates have shown that over 75% of adults in Vanuatu engage in fishing of some kind, and in 2018, frozen fish fillets alone contributed to 55% of Vanuatu’s total export revenue.
Never miss an update
Enter your email and never miss an update
During my trip, I met with many local fishers to hear from them first-hand about the challenges they face, and in every conversation, one theme was abundantly clear: Ghost gear was threatening their way of life.
All the fishers I met saw nets and other gear washed up on beaches, draped over coral reefs, wrapped around the propellers of their boats and littered across precious fishing grounds. And they were right to be concerned—studies have shown that ghost gear is the deadliest form of plastic pollution to marine life. In some cases, and depending on the fishery, it accounts for a loss of up to 30% in harvestable fish stocks.
Ghost gear occurs wherever fishing takes place, but there are a number of reasons that small island developing states (SIDS) such as Vanuatu are disproportionately impacted by the harms of ghost gear.
For example, due to their limited land-based resources and remote locations, these countries are highly reliant on marine resources for food security and their economy. Therefore, when ghost gear threatens fish stocks and fishing sustainability, these countries take a greater hit to their economy and food sustainability.
Furthermore, the geography of SIDS makes them disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of ghost gear. The fisheries along their coastlines are often threatened by hurricanes, storm surges and other climatic hazards. Many studies have shown that storms can increase fishing gear loss. In some hurricane-prone areas, gear-loss records have reached as high as 100% annually. Additionally, many island nations are close in proximity to ocean gyres. Ocean gyres can relocate ghost gear from its original location, depositing the gear along the coasts of island and coastal nations.
For those reasons, SIDS have been some of the countries most impacted by ghost gear, but they have also been at the forefront of advocacy to find solutions to this problem. Over one-in-three government members of Ocean Conservancy’s Global Ghost Gear Initiative® (GGGI) are small island nations, including the Dominican Republic, Montserrat, Palau, Samoa, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
Over the years, our GGGI has worked with several island countries across the South Pacific and Caribbean, engaging local fishers, policymakers, academia and the private sector to implement best practices to prevent, mitigate and remediate the occurrence and impacts of ghost gear. This work has involved conducting fisher surveys, trialing gear marking technologies to track gear and retrieve it should it become lost, and hosting capacity-building workshops. The insights gained from working with these communities help inform practical solutions and ensure locals are effectively engaged throughout the process.
Despite the global impact of ghost gear and its disproportionate impacts on SIDS, there is currently no dedicated international agreement in place to address its impacts. Existing guidance is fragmented and often voluntary, with varying approaches across regions and nations.
For that reason, Ocean Conservancy is advocating for ghost gear to be included in the United Nations plastics treaty, currently under negotiation and entering its fifth and final session in November in Busan, South Korea.Ocean Conservancy and the Global Ghost Gear Initiative will continue to help lift up the voices of island nations within the negotiations and stand ready to assist with the implementation of the treaty after its ratification in 2025. Take action now—adding your name takes two minutes.
The post How Does Ghost Gear Affect Small Island Developing States? appeared first on Ocean Conservancy.
When I attended the OBIS Data Mobilization Workshop in the Azores (Thanks to the Air Center) this year, one observation immediately caught my attention: compared with countries such as the United States, Europe still appears surprisingly fragmented and underinvested in biodiversity data mobilization. The issue is not necessarily a lack of biodiversity research. European scientists produce enormous amounts of ecological data. The challenge is that publishing biodiversity observations into global infrastructures such as MBON/GBIF often remains an additional task rather than an integral part of funded research. In the United States, biodiversity data publication is frequently embedded in funding mechanisms and institutional mandates. Data management, curation, and dissemination seem to be recognized research activities. In much of Europe, including Denmark, researchers often mobilize data on top of their existing responsibilities, with limited dedicated funding for long-term stewardship.
I asked myself how is Denmark performing compared with its Nordic and neighboring countries?
Denmark is not lagging behind, but neither is it leading
The numbers reveal a mixed picture.
Germany clearly stands out as the regional leader, with both the highest number of datasets and the highest taxonomic coverage. Denmark has the lowest number of occurrence records and species represented among the four countries, despite having a very active biodiversity research community. What is striking is that Denmark does not fall dramatically behind in dataset numbers. Rather, the difference appears in scale and breadth. Danish datasets tend to contain fewer records and cover fewer taxa than those from Germany, Norway, and Sweden.
Different countries tell different biodiversity stories
The taxonomic breakdowns are equally revealing. Denmark should appreciate its fish and birds’ activists. Large portions of the records belong to Gadidae (cod family), Clupeidae (herring family), Laridae (gulls), and other marine vertebrates. This reflects Denmark’s historical strengths in fisheries monitoring, marine ecology, and seabird observations. However, many invertebrate groups, microorganisms, and less visible components of biodiversity remain comparatively underrepresented in global data sets despite active programs like national Program like MONIS.
Norway shows stronger contributions from invertebrate sides such as polychaetes, bivalves, copepods, and marine benthic fauna. The Norwegian data landscape appears heavily influenced by aquaculture sectores, long-term marine monitoring programs and offshore environmental surveys. There is greater representation of marine invertebrates, which are often critical indicators of ecosystem change.
What stood out in Sweden’s data profile is the relatively large contribution from copepods, diatoms, dinoflagellates, and macroalgae. These groups are often overlooked in biodiversity databases because they require specialized expertise and monitoring programs. Sweden’s contribution suggests sustained investment in aquatic ecosystem monitoring beyond commercially important species. Well done Sweden!
Germany’s profile appears the most diverse. While fish and vertebrates remain important, there are strong contributions from polychaete worms, molluscs, arthropods, plankton in general term and benthic organisms. Germany not only contributes more records but also appears to mobilize a wider variety of biodiversity data types. You made me proud Germany 
The real gap may be invisible biodiversity
One lesson from the workshop was that biodiversity databases often reflect what is easiest to observe, identify, and fund. Fish, birds, and mammals are well represented almost everywhere. The groups that drive ecosystem processes, such as jellyfish, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton, and microbial communities, remain far less visible. This is particularly relevant for marine ecosystems. Some of the most important ecological changes currently occurring in our seas involve gelatinous zooplankton, plankton communities, and benthic assemblages, yet these groups remain underrepresented in many biodiversity repositories. For someone working with jellyfish and marine food webs, this raises an important question:
Are we documenting the biodiversity that is easiest to count, or the biodiversity that is most important for understanding ecosystem change?
This fall, Ocean Conservancy is celebrating its 41st annual International Coastal Cleanup® (ICC), once again bringing together volunteers to protect the beaches and waterways we all love. Ocean Conservancy recently hosted flagship events in Long Beach and Washington, D.C. that celebrated this global movement close to home.
Over the past four decades, nearly 20 million volunteers have rolled up their sleeves to remove more than 405 million pounds of trash from beaches and waterways around the world. And their impact extends far beyond what they collect. ICC volunteers have documented nearly 440 million individual items, creating the world’s largest marine debris database and providing invaluable information that helps Ocean Conservancy and others better understand—and tackle—ocean plastic pollution.
This year’s celebration continued that incredible legacy. At Alamitos Beach in Southern California, more than 150 volunteers gathered on September 19 and removed 1,109 pounds of trash, alongside members of Team USA Artistic Swimming and Olympic and Paralympic athletes. In Washington, D.C., 439 volunteers gathered on September 26 to remove 2,182 pounds of trash from Anacostia Park along the Anacostia River.
“I am so grateful to all of the volunteers who came out today for our ocean—and every volunteer who has made the last 41 years of impact possible,” said Ocean Conservancy’s Senior Director of Conservation Cleanups, Allison Schutes. “Every piece of plastic collected helps protect marine animals and habitats and contributes to research and advocacy.”
And the impact doesn’t stop when the cleanup ends. During International Coastal Cleanup events, volunteers do more than remove trash: They document what they find, helping build a clearer picture of the plastic pollution threatening our waterways and wildlife. Through the Clean Swell® app or paper data sheets, ICC volunteers contribute to Ocean Conservancy’s online, open-access database, the world’s largest repository of marine debris data. These records help scientists, conservation groups and governments understand pollution trends and identify solutions.
That data can also drive meaningful policy change. ICC data were recently used in a peer-reviewed study showing that plastic bag bans lead to reduced plastic bag pollution. The data have also helped advance policies ranging from California’s SB 54 to Florida’s balloon release ban and the federal Farewell to Foam Act. From a neighborhood cleanup to statewide action, every piece of documented trash helps build the evidence needed to tackle plastic pollution at its source.
Get Ocean Updates in Your Inbox
Sign up with your email and never miss an update.