Boletinomap201

OBSERVATORIO DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE PERUANO BOLETIN NÚMERO 201 DIRECTOR: Pedro A. Ventocilla Olaya DIRECCION: Jr1 de Julio 463 Dep. 103 TELEFONO: 989942091 E-MAIL: oambienteperuano@gmail.com BLOG: http://boletinomap.blogspot.com/ CONSEJO EDITORIAL: Manuel Ungaro IvanBudinich

A NUESTROS 37,474 LECTORES: Estimados amigos mayo nos trajo un frío otoñal que anuncia días frescos, donde tendremos que empezar a usar vestimenta mas gruesa y de yapa los incómodos resfrios.

Las marchas y contramarchas de nuestros actuales gobernantes estan generando un clima poco propicio para la ciudadanía y para los inversionistas, ya sabemos que tenemos un déficit fiscal, el cual debe disminuirse reduciendo los gastos corrientes del Estado, la sensación en estos casi dos meses de gestión gubernamental, es de contradicciones dentro del mismo Gabinete, si bien muchos Ministros y Altos Funcionarios no tienen mayor experiencia política, lo cual no es malo, sin embargo, al aceptar el puesto o responsabilidad, se convierten en “políticos” y deben adecuarse a la nueva realidad, ese argumento que “soy técnico” no es valido, así venga con un buen sueldo y algunas gollerías propias de la Alta Burocracia vernacular.

Nuestro Estado necesita funcionarios que se integren con otros sectores y con su propio sector, que compartan la información que ellos manejan, esa información es un gran insumo para otros sectores y para el sector empresarial peruano.

Desde Julio del 2016 hemos visto la proliferación de Ministros y Viceministros en a diferentes carteras que forman nuestro frondoso gabinete, lo cual quita estabilidad a los gestores publicos y no permiten desarrollar políticas públicas, mucho menos planificar.

La aprobación del la Ley Marco de Cambio Climático ha generado entusiasmo en diversos sectores, ahora toca a MINAM el reglamentar la ley e impulsar las leyes complementarias a fin de que tengamos la arquitectura legal para enfrentar el Cambio Climático, que no solo nos toca enfrentarlo a los citadinos, sino también a quienes viven tanto en la Puna como en la Selva.

MINAM avanza silenciosamente en la concientización de los ciudadanos para disminuir el uso del plástico, sobre todo de bolsas plásticas y de las famosas cañitas, en poco tiempo veremos los resultados, seria bueno que MINEDU en lugar de tratar de imponer la ideología de genero, que ya los padres de familia demostraron su rechazo, en el currículo escolar, debería empezar por erradicar el uso de cañitas en las instituciones educativas publicas, un pequeño paso pero significativo.

Una buena noticia es que hace pocos días se ha inaugurado INTIPAMPA, una nueva granja fotovoltaica que ha entrado en operaciones, demostrando en la practica que la energías renovables no conven-

cionales son factibles también en el Perú, un segundo gol que se anota el país, obviamente tendremos muchas mas soluciones fotovoltaicas, eólicas y geotérmicas si se aprobara el reglamente de la ley de generación distribuida, que el sector empresarial peruano viene esperando su aprobación desde el año 2015.

Lamentable que se haya evidenciado que en nuestro Congreso se haya contratada a una persona sentenciada por terrorismo, lo peor las posteriores justificaciones, esperamos una drástica sanción para la Congresista Foronda.

Vergonzosa la forma que se despidió a una joven profesional por haber criticado la conducta de una parlamentaria de la misma agrupación de la aun Ministra, fuera de sus horas de trabajo, es una clara muestra de la intolerancia y el poco tino de algunos de nuestros ministros, esa conducta no solo genera desazón sino que contribuye al desprestigio de nuestro sistema democrático, esperamos que esa ministra sea licenciada en poco tiempo.

En unos días mas la selección peruana de fútbol participará en el Campeonato Mundial RUSIA 2018, ilusiones, sueños y esperanzas que hemos venido construyendo desde hace muchos años, lo que no debemos olvidar que nuestro fútbol tiene limitaciones a pesar que el Profesor Gareca ha tenido la capacidad de construir un buen grupo humano que a la fecha ha respondido aceptablemente a los contendores, que ya no son paquetes, nuestro equipo ya cumplió con haber llegado a participar en el mundial, lo que venga después será un plus que nos regalaran.

Se ha demostrado que el deporte mueve la economía y no solo la de los organizadores sino la de los propios países participantes, además de unir a las familias y a los amigos..

Que nuestra selección de fútbol tenga un buen papel en RUSIA 2018 y que Dios ilumine a nuestros gobernantes

El menú para este número es: SE REQUIERE CON URGENCIA UNA TERCERA REFORMA PARA EL SECTOR ELECTRICO PERUANO Por Adolfo Rojas 9 FRASES DEL COPENHAGEN FASHION SUMMIT QUE TE AYUDARÁN A SER MÁS SOSTENIBLE Por Ester Xicota

¿PROGRESO JUSTO? MOVILIDAD ECONÓMICA ENTRE GENERACIONES ALREDEDOR DEL MUNDO Publicado en: www.worldbank.org EL ACUERDO DE PARÍS SIN FONDOS, NO AVANZA Por Friday Phiri A PESAR DEL LENTO AVANCE HACIA LAS METAS MUNDIALES EN MATERIA DE ENERGÍA, LAS FUERTES MEJORAS EN LOS PAÍSES RESULTAN PROMETEDORAS Por: www.worldbank.org ¿ESTÁ EL MUNDO EN CAMINO DE OFRECER ACCESO A LA ENERGÍA PARA TODOS? Por: www.worldbank.org LA ENERGÍA GEOTÉRMICA ESTÁ EN UN CAMINO CALIENTE Por: www.worldbank.org EMPLEOS RELACIONADOS A ENERGÍAS RENOVABLES ALCANZARON LOS 10,3M EN EL MUNDO DURANTE 2017 Por: AméricaEconomía.com GOBIERNO DIGITAL Y DEMOCRACIA Por: Karelys Abarca LAS MUJERES COMO MOTOR DE LA PROSPERIDAD EN EL SIGLO XXI Por: Julie T. Katzman MUJERES EN LA TECNOLOGÍA: UNA TAREA PARA CRECER Por: Natalia Vega IGUALDAD DE GÉNERO, TECNOLOGÍA DE PROPULSIÓN APEC TOURISM DEVELOPMENT Emitido por el Grupo de Trabajo de Turismo de APEC MINISTROS DE APEC ABREN MERCADOS DE TURISMO Emitido por la Reunión Ministerial de Turismo de APEC BUSCANDO LA SUSTENTABILIDAD DEL ACEITE DE PALMA MARINE LITTER LEGISLATION: A TOOLKIT FOR POLICYMAKERS DECLARATION OF THE GLOBAL PLASTICS ASSOCIATION Sfor Solutions on Marine Litter

PRESENTACION LIBRO ECONOMIA DE LA ENERGIA, AUTOR ALFREDO DANMERT Y RAUL GARCIA

EVENTO DE LANZAMIENTO DE PROYECTO GEF-6 ASEGURANDO EL FUTURO DE LAS AREAS NATURALES PROTEGIDAS

QUINTO ENCUENTRO HUB INNOVACION PUBLICA

10 AÑOS DE MINAM

VISITA TECNICA LOPEZ Y LOPEZ METALES

FORO INTERNACIONAL AGRO NEGOCIOS, MEDIO AMBIENTE Y DERECHOS HUMANOS LECCIONES DESDE AMERICA LATINA

FINANCIAMIENTO CLIMATICO UNA OPORTUNIDAD PARA LOGRAR LOS COMPROMISOS DEL PERU. EXPERIENCIAS APOYADAS POR EL PROYECTO FINANCC

VISION RUSA DE LA ESCENA MUNDIAL CONTEMPORANEA

EL SECTOR PRIVADO UN ACTOR CLAVE PARA GANAR LA BATALLA DEL CLIMA

SE REQUIERE CON URGENCIA UNA TERCERA REFORMA PARA EL SECTOR ELECTRICO PERUANO Por Adolfo Rojas A todas voces algunos especialistas del sector insisten y siguen presentando potenciales soluciones que no harían otra cosa que poner “parches temporales” a esta tan difícil situación que atraviesa el SEP. La gran mayoría solo basa el futuro energético peruano concibiendo el sueño de lograr se realice el GSP al 2021, algo que escapa y no aguanta ningún tipo de análisis ya que no se ajusta a la realidad.

Coyuntura Actual El sector eléctrico peruano (SEP) ha superado dos reformas de relevancia, en el año 1992, la Primera Reforma se dio con la promulgación del Decreto Ley Nº25844, LEY DE CONCESIONES ELÉCTRICAS (LCE), y en el año 2006, la Segunda Reforma mediante el Decreto Ley Nº28832, LEY PARA ASEGURAR EL DESARROLLO EFICIENTE DE LA GENERACIÓN ELECTRICA. En la actualidad y a todas luces es evidente que las proyecciones de crecimiento de la demanda eléctrica no se han dado según lo esperado, el Perú, así como mucho otros países de la región, ha sufrido una desaceleración económica acentuada por la crisis política y la coyuntura mundial.

Si sumamos a todo esto algunos de los principales factores y las DISTORSIONES propias del SEP como son: la sobre capacidad instalada de generación no del todo eficiente, declaraciones del precio de Gas Natural para lograr despachos para nada justificados, retrasos en la ejecución del proyecto

que inicialmente se llamaba gasoducto sur peruano (GSP), desaprovechamiento del Nodo Energético del Sur (NES) funcionando por ahora solo con diesel, planificación de las Redes de Transmisión desvinculada de los planes de ingreso de generación a futuro, costo marginal deprimido, alta migración de clientes regulados a clientes libres, contratos bilaterales que favorecen a clientes libres pero que son poco sostenibles en el tiempo por los costos oportunistas, limitación de la participación de las Energías Renovables No Convencionales (ERNC) que no superan ni el 5% de la participación de la demanda nacional, artificios para calcular y remunerar la potencia firme a las tecnologías de ERNC, sobre contratación de las distribuidoras, entre otras….bajo este escenario, la verdad no queda mucho que reflexionar, el diagnóstico es claro y amerita que responsablemente y en el cortísimo plazo se emprenda una revisión integral del marco normativo del SEP. Coincidentemente con esta difícil coyuntura, hoy todos los agentes involucrados del SEP están de acuerdo, desde los altos directivos de las diferentes instituciones públicas como son el Ministerio de Energía y Minas (MINEM), Organismo Supervisor de la Inversión Privada en Energía y Minería (OSINERGMIN), Comité de Operación Económico del Sistema (COES) y del otro lado de la mesa, todos los responsables de las empresas de Generación, Transmisión y Distribución.

Cabe precisar que este año 2018 según la AGENCIA INTERNACIONAL DE LA ENERGIA (IEA, por sus siglas en inglés), es el AÑO DE LA ELECTRICIDAD y bien podría marcar un NUEVO HITO en la historia del SEP. Se requiere una toma de decisión y voluntad política para planificar y llevar a cabo esta Tercera Reforma que podría bien denominarse de TRANSICIÓN ENERGÉTICA. Algunas propuestas para “parchar” la situación de forma temporal

A todas voces algunos especialistas del sector insisten y siguen presentando potenciales soluciones que no harían otra cosa que poner “parches temporales” a esta tan difícil situación que atraviesa el SEP. La gran mayoría solo basa el futuro energético peruano concibiendo el sueño de lograr se realice el GSP al 2021, algo que escapa y no aguanta ningún tipo de análisis ya que no se ajusta a la realidad. Por otro lado, algunos otros, a los que llamaré “tercos soñadores” siguen insistiendo en que se mantenga este proyecto a flote con la ligera esperanza de una potencial concreción para el 2025.

se cumpla esto es imperativo garantizar suficiencia y disponibilidad mediante un contrato 100% TAKE OR PAY de Gas Natural.

Claramente una de las mejores propuestas y que aún se mantiene encima de la mesa, es hacer una nueva convocatoria o subasta RER con ERNC, pero esto solo sería válido y oportuno si es que se hace dentro de este año 2018 o máximo el 2019, la tan llamada y esperada 5ta Subasta RER modificada podría mermar y minimizar algunos de los impactos de la potencial situación adversa que se presentaría a partir del 2021 por el retraso del GSP que obligaría a despachar las centrales del NES con diesel, lo cual generaría un incremento exponencial del costo marginal, llegando a 200 USD/MWh. Esta “ventana de oportunidad” que se abre para las ERNC puede ser cubierta con nuevas centrales solares fotovoltaicas y eólicas principalmente. ¿Cuáles son los Retos a Futuro?

En tanto otros manejan y exponen sus proyecciones donde se deba priorizar la construcción de una Línea de Transmisión que interconecte Tacna y Arica, con la bien intencionada esperanza que Chile nos pueda abastecer de energía a costos competitivos debido a los excedentes que hoy y a futuro va a tener por el gran despliegue de centrales solares fotovoltaicas que ha implementado en la zona norte de dicho país. Contra todo pronóstico, hoy los planes de interconexión regional con este país vecino salen a flote.

Otra propuesta es que se habiliten las dos centrales del NES importando Gas Licuado de Petróleo (GLP) o que se haga una extensión de la concesión del ducto de CONTUGAS para llevar Gas Natural hasta el Sur y abastecer a dichas centrales del NES. Complementariamente a estas dos opciones, se vocea en la prensa que hay interés de parte de Bolivia por interconectar un ducto hasta ILO. Ante la guerra de precios y competencia por el mercado, sumado a las declaraciones del precio de Gas Natural para generación de electricidad, otros especialistas del lado del gobierno, proponen la opción de cambiar el tipo de central que entraría en la hora de punta (HP). Se pretende cambiar la central a diesel por una central a ciclo simple con Gas Natural, algo que está muy lejos de la realidad porque para que

Los pilares a futuro sobre los cuales deben asentarse normativamente los mecanismos e incentivos que se deban proponer para esta Tercera Reforma deben ser: SUFICIENCIA, SEGURIDAD, CALIDAD Y PRECIO COMPETITIVO. Esta Tercera Reforma a la que he tenido a bien llamar de TRANSICIÓN ENERGETICA debe poder corregir o minimizar en gran medida los impactos negativos de los factores y distorsiones antes mencionados y soportar a futuro otras TECNOLOGIAS O MECANISMOS EMERGENTES como son: •

INDEPENDENCIA ENERGETICA, con la aplicación de una política que promueva una firme democratización y empoderamiento de los PROSUMERs, o muy bien conocidos como productores y consumidores de energía, basados en una ley y reglamento de GENERACIÓN DISTRIBUIDA acorde a los sistemas de media y baja tensión sin afectación de las empresas distribuidoras. Promoción de proyectos masivos de electrificación rural para atender los sistemas aislados.

•

EFICIENCIA ENERGETICA, mediante el modelamiento eficiente de la demanda, promover soluciones de ahorro energético por optimización o migración de tecnología, incentivar a los grandes consumidores a certificar sus instalaciones y a comprar energía verde a precios competitivos.

•

MAYOR INTEGRACION DE LAS ERNC, incorporando dentro de una nueva normativa a la GEOTERMIA y donde también se fomenten más soluciones con BIOMASA. Diseñando un plan vinculante de generación y transmisión, analizando a profundidad las bondades de establecer un MERCADO DE ENERGIA donde la componente de potencia firme no sea una limitante para contratar con clientes libres y distribuidoras. Claramente hoy se puede afirmar que estamos muy lejos de lo que se vaticinaba para el 2020 según los estudios y proyeccionesencargados por el MINEM, OSINERGMIN y COES y que por cierto muy poco difundidos, donde se auguraba que la participación que tendrían las ERNC dentro de la matriz energética peruana serían del orden de 8% a 13%. Siendo más realistas y si se fija una meta objetivo clara y ambiciosa se podría llegar al 2025 a un 20% de participación de las ERNC, pero para cumplir esto, se deben tomar decisiones ahora y trabajar arduamente en dictaminar una normativa que permita emprender un incremento anual de 2% durante el periodo de siete años a futuro.

•

TRANSPORTE Y VEHÍCULOS ELECTRICOS, lo cual ya se ha convertido en una tendencia mundial y está clarísimo que será CHINA quien marque el horizonte de este mercado, para lo cual el Perú tendrá que incentivar con mecanismos atractivos esta migración en sus principales ejes, flota de transporte público masivo y vehículos eléctricos. Cuando se analiza este tipo de tecnología, se debe tener en cuenta el CO2 producido en ambos sentidos, desde la fuente primaria hacia el depósito o tanque conocido como WELL TO TANK y desde el depósito o tanque hacia la rueda o TANK TO WHEEL. Las estaciones de recarga de estas unidades eléctricas se van a convertir en los futuros grifos o estaciones de recarga de combustible. Los estándares internacionales y precios van a jugar un rol muy importante, pero lo que claramente es un hecho, es que no existe en este momento ningún fabricante de vehículos pesados y ligeros que no tengan esto dentro de sus planes comerciales a futuro.Esta es una excelente manera de generar demanda con impactos positivos para el medio ambiente.

•

SMART GRIDS, implementando una plataforma digital que integre toda la cadena de valor del SEP para monitoreo y gestión de las redes eléctricas, facilite el reporte y atención de fallas, que sirva de herramienta integral de análisis. La flexibilización de los servicios eléctricos es una realidad, a futuro los usuarios eléctricos van a querer manejar información en tiempo real de sus consumos, tan igual como se hace en el sector TELECOMUNICACIONES y todo esto debe venir de la mano de una integración de sistemas y soluciones digitales.

•

•

ALMACENAMIENTO, para maximizar la contribución de esta tecnología en las etapas de generación y transmisión, complementar que nuevas tecnologías incluidas las ERNC puedan seguir otorgando y trasladando sus excelentes y muy competitivos precios a la cadena de valor. Sobre este punto, hay excelentes noticias, XCEL ENERGY, con-

SOSTENIBILIDAD Y CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO, liderado por la priorización de soluciones que nos permitan aprovechar mejor los beneficios que ofrecen estas nuevas tecnologías y su correcta sensibilización. Se deben focalizar esfuerzos conjuntos ente las municipalidades y empresas privadas para sacar adelante iniciativas sostenibles para el manejo de los residuos sólidos orgánicos e inorgánicos, o también llamados proyectos de residuos sólidos urbanos (RSU). Los compromisos que tiene el Perú con organismos internacionales se deben cumplir, es tarea de todos los peruanos contribuir con esto, así como el aprovechamiento de los beneficios que se tienen por los tratados de libre comercio para darle valor a nuestra materia prima, servicios y productos para que se comercialicen con un sello amigable con el medio ambiente.

sultora americana que ha publicado los resultados de un estudio que hizo a fines del 2017 donde precisa que los precios parael 2020 de la generación Solar Fotovoltaica con almacenamiento estarían en 36 USD/MWh y para Eólica con almacenamiento en 21 USD/MWh.

•

MECANISMOS DE DESARROLLO LIMPIO Y BONOS VERDES, es muy importante que no solo los grandes proyectos se vean beneficiados con este tipo de incentivos, los mecanismos de desarrollo limpio (MDL) también deben llegar a ser viables para proyectos de mediana y pequeña envergadura.

Por otro lado, conviene revisar y adecuar los mecanismos tributarios y financieros que van a permitir apalancar y hacer más bancables este tipo de proyectos para los distintos sectores productivos aportando de esta manera una mayor competitividad al país. La iniciativa de incluir la participación del BANCO DE LA NACIÓN en este rubro es fundamental.

Reflexión Final Queda clarísimo que será un gran reto para la nueva administración y para todos los agentes involucrados. La meta es poder llegar a aterrizar y converger en cuales deberán ser los mecanismos e incentivos más eficientes que tendría que incluir esta Tercera Reforma para que sea lo más eficiente posible.

En mi humilde opinión, el enfoque general y enunciativo de estos puntos deben ser considerados y tomados en cuenta para el diseño de la hoja de ruta. Estoy más que convencido que el resultado de este cambio normativo va a ser un HITO RELEVANTE para el SEP, tal y como lo han sido las dos reformas anteriores.

9 FRASES DEL COPENHAGEN FASHION SUMMIT QUE TE AYUDARÁN A SER MÁS SOSTENIBLE Por Ester Xicota En esta edición, el Copenhagen Fashion Summit tenía como objetivo mostrar los avances en sostenibilidad del sector y subrayar que la sostenibilidad es buen negocio, gracias al Pulse Reportrealizado por el Boston Consulting Group. .

De cada sesión plenaria pude destacar diversos insights muy poderosos y útiles para tu empresa que hoy traigo para ti de la mano de sus protagonistas.

“No podemos cambiar lo que no podemos ver” – Orsola de Castro, Co-Founder de Fashion Revolution La trazabilidad es el primer paso a tomar para cualquier empresa que quiere iniciarse en sostenibilidad; porque debes conocer el impacto que tiene tu negocio, no solo en tus instalaciones sino desde que se extraen las materias primas que harán parte de tu producto hasta el final de la vida útil del mismo.

“La sostenibilidad es un componente clave para la transformación de la industria textil de Bangladesh” – Mostafiz Uddin, managing director of Denim Expert Ltd La presión sobre las empresas para saber quién hace sus productos y en qué condiciones ha obligado a hacer transparente la cadena de

valor. Poner a disposición de la opinión pública y de tus competidores información que hasta ahora era considerada secreta es un paso muy difícil de tomar, especialmente para una industria que basa su ventaja competitiva en el secretismo. Pero además, hacerlo supone un nivel de apoyo de la empresa a estos proveedores y eso se puede hacer cuando hay un nivel alto de confianza que se construye con el trabajo conjunto y el respeto mutuo.

“Todos esos diseñadores dedicados a diseñar para el fin de vida, espero que no tengan éxito” – William McDonough, Chief Executive, McDonough Innovation El dr Mc Donough enfatizó la necesidad de diseñar y desarrollar productos que tengan una amplia vida y modelos de negocio que expandan la vida útil de los productos. Por ello recomienda diseñar para el final de uso no para el final de vida, entendiendo que cualquier producto debe poder volver a ser introducido en el sistema económico y sus materiales y propiedades reaprovechadas alejando cada vez más el final de vida útil de un producto.

No pienses en hacer un margen único de tu producto sino varios márgenes del sistema que

tu producto creará – Jeff Denby, Founder, The Renewal Workshop La economía circular aporta una revolución no solo en la manera como producimos o consumimos los productos sino también en los modelos de negocio que se establecerán en el sector. La circulación y recirculación constante de materiales y productos en la nueva economía permite que las empresas nos consideren únicamente un margen por vender el producto una primera vez sino que pueden pensar en obtener varios márgenes del mismo producto. Por ejemplo, muchas empresas están desarrollando modelos de negocio de alquiler de su ropa paralelos a la propia venta de productos. Y con esta lógica, pueden existir muchos más márgenes potenciales en el mercado de la economía circular.

“No impongas a tus proveedores estándares más altos que los que te pones a ti mismo” – Bill MacRaith, Chief Supply Chain Officer, PVH Bill destacó que, en su experiencia, el 96% de las veces que ocurren problemas en una organización, se culpa a los proveedores pero estos tienen la raíz en una ineficiencia o error interno.

Este responsable de Aprovisionamiento, anima a las empresas a ponerse un espejo a ellas mismas antes de exigir a los proveedores cosas que ni nuestra empresa está a la altura.

“La sostenibilidad no es una responsabilidad que eliges tener, es una responsabilidad que tienes” – Dorthe Scherling Nielsen, Head of Corporate Affairs, Bestseller La cuestión sobre si los consumidores exigen acciones de sostenibilidad provoca discrepancias. A pesar de que existen estudios a nivel mundial que sostienen que los consumidores están dispuestos a pagar más por productos más responsables, la verdad que no hay data concluyente al respecto.

Los consumidores no están exigiendo de manera contundente a las empresas que implementen la sostenibilidad pero sí se reconoce que estos valoran cuando una empresa lo hace. Paul Dillinger, Vice Presidente y responsable de innovación global de Levi Strauss Co fue merecedor de un sonoro aplauso del auditorio después de resaltar que los consumidores han estado inducidos por la industria durante muchos años a consumir más y más a precios cada vez más bajos; con lo que ahora no se les puede pedir que cambien de la noche al día su comportamiento de compra y sus valores.

La sostenibilidad es responsabilidad de las empresas por que la sociedad, el planeta y la propia rentabilidad y supervivencia de la empresa está en juego.

“No tenemos ni idea de cómo hacerlo pero tenemos una visión ambiciosa porque sabemos que lo que hay que hacer es un cambio sistémico y hay que empezar a hacerlo ahora” – Cecilia Brännsten, Directora de sostenibilidad ambiental en el Grupo H&M No hay una guía clara ni casos de estudio que aseguren cómo debe hacerse la transición pero si está claro que debemos hacerla. La mayoría de empresas que participaron en el Summit, destacaron el mismo punto: a pesar de no tener una idea clara del camino a seguir, la estrategia es definir objetivos ambiciosos; empezar a trabajar, valorar la cultura del ensayo y error y abrir la escucha a las nuevas generaciones.

En la misma línea Eric Sprunk, COO de Nike afirmó que “No hay un manual de estrategia, ni ningún caso de Harvard Business Review que te cuente cómo hacerlo” “La sostenibilidad es un viaje excitante para el que sientes que has preparado mal el equipaje” Niels Eskildsen, Designers Remix Niels manifestaba que cuando decididamente tomaron en cuenta el enfoque de la sostenibilidad, le pareció que un mundo excitante se abría ante sí pero que no contaba con muchas de las herramientas necesarias para poder hacer un cambio verdadero y significativo. Manifestó que para una empresa pequeña o mediana, la transición es bastante difícil por la falta de recursos y conocimiento. Y sí, la sostenibilidad es rentable pero requiere inversión.

Son necesarios cambios culturales, de procesos y a veces tecnológicos. Todos estos cambios redundan en mejoras en la eficiencia económica y en la generación de valor social y ambiental pero requieren un tiempo de inversión.

“La edad de piedra no se terminó porque nos quedáramos sin piedras”David Roberts, Singularity University Estamos al final de una era y algunos ya hace tiempo que han entrado en la siguiente. Y esta era es la de la sostenibilidad, la de buscar y generar valor compartido teniendo a la sociedad como punto de mira. Y no tenemos que esperar que se acabe el petróleo o estén todos

los ríos contaminados, la tecnología avanza y las oportunidades ya están aquí. No aprove-

charlas ahora puede costarte más caro.

¿PROGRESO JUSTO? MOVILIDAD ECONÓMICA ENTRE GENERACIONES ALREDEDOR DEL MUNDO Publicado en: www.worldbank.org Si naces en una familia de bajos ingresos, ¿qué posibilidades hay de que te eleves más, independientemente de tu origen? La capacidad de ascender en la escala de ingresos, tanto en la vida como con respecto a los padres, es importante para luchar contra la pobreza, reducir la desigualdad e incluso para impulsar el crecimiento. Sin embargo, la movilidad se ha estancado en los últimos años en gran parte del mundo, con las perspectivas de que demasiadas personas en todo el mundo sigan estando demasiado vinculadas al estatus social de sus padres y no a su propio potencial, según los hallazgos de un nuevo Banco Mundial. informe lanzado hoy. La movilidad es también mucho más baja, en promedio, en las economías en desarrollo que en las economías de altos ingresos. El mundo en desarrollo representa a 46 de las 50 economías más pobres en términos de movilidad en educación de abajo hacia arriba.

El informe: ¿Progreso justo? La movilidad económica entre generaciones en todo el mundo muestra que África y el sur de Asia, las regiones con la mayoría de las personas más pobres del mundo, tienen la movilidad promedio más baja. En algunos países africanos frágiles o de bajos ingresos, solo el 12 por ciento de los adultos jóvenes de hoy en día -los nacidos en la década de 1980- tienen más educación que sus padres. Por otro lado, Asia Oriental, América Latina y Medio Oriente y África del Norte han visto mejorar su movilidad promedio. Si bien la movilidad tiende a mejorar a medida que las economías se hacen más ricas, el informe sugiere que no hay nada inevitable en este proceso. Por el contrario, a medida que las economías se desarrollen, es probable que la movilidad aumente si las oportunidades se vuelven más equitativas, lo que generalmente requiere mayores inversiones públicas y mejores políticas.

"Con base en el acceso a cantidades de datos sin precedentes, el informe presenta una imagen detallada de la movilidad socioeconómica

entre generaciones para la mayoría de la población mundial", dijo Ambar Narayan, economista líder de la Práctica Global de Pobreza y Equidad del Banco Mundial y uno de los autores del informe. "Si bien el panorama actual es aleccionador, hay motivos para el optimismo, que también sugiere que las medidas políticas son importantes para mejorar la movilidad".

"Una mayor movilidad económica conduce a un crecimiento económico más rápido y a la reducción de la pobreza", dijo Roy Van der Weide, economista del Development Development Research Group en el Banco Mundial y uno de los autores del informe. "También puede impulsar la cohesión social y la estabilidad, y las personas que viven en sociedades más móviles probablemente sean más optimistas sobre su futuro".

El informe hace más de medio siglo para ver si las vidas de los niños son mejores o peores que las de sus padres. partes del mundo, y sugiere acciones locales, nacionales y globales que pueden ayudar a romper el ciclo de la pobreza y la desigualdad, allanando el camino para que la próxima generación realice su potencial. Examina este problema mediante el uso de su nueva Base de datos global para la movilidad intergeneracional (GDIM) , que cubre el 96 por ciento de la población mundial, incluida la mayor parte del mundo en desarrollo. El informe estima dos aspectos de la movilidad económica: 1. Absoluto, que mide la proporción de personas que superan el nivel de vida o el nivel educativo de sus padres; 2. Relativo, que mide el grado en que la posición de una persona en la escala económica es independiente de la posición de sus padres.

Hallazgos adicionales: La probabilidad de ascender en la escala económica entre las futuras generaciones de adultos es baja entre las familias pobres, particularmente en las partes más pobres del mundo.

En los países de ingresos bajos y medianos bajos, la probabilidad de matriculación escolar

entre los niños es significativamente menor entre los hogares más pobres con baja educación de los padres.

Pero las tendencias históricas y las recientes mejoras en la matrícula también son motivo de optimismo. En África y Asia meridional, el aumento de las matriculaciones en las últimas dos décadas puede aumentar la proporción de personas con educación superior que sus padres entre las futuras generaciones de adultos, es decir, aquellos que nacieron en la década de 1990 o más adelante.

Las niñas superan a los niños en las tasas de educación terciaria y movilidad absoluta en los países de altos ingresos, y la tendencia es similar en el mundo en desarrollo. En un futuro no muy lejano, el progreso de las niñas en la movilidad educativa superará a los niños a nivel mundial. Sin embargo, los desafíos continúan, ya que las mujeres todavía están atrasadas en términos de salarios y empleo en la mayoría de los mercados laborales.

La movilidad relativa en el ingreso también tiende a ser más baja en las regiones en desarrollo que en las economías de altos ingresos.

Todas menos una de las 25 economías del tercio inferior son países de bajos o medianos ingresos. En varias economías en desarrollo, la movilidad de los ingresos es baja en comparación con la movilidad educativa. La falta de empleos parece ser una razón clave por la que existen grandes brechas entre la alta movilidad educativa y la baja movilidad de los ingresos en muchos países en desarrollo.

Adoptar las políticas correctas requiere evidencia, y las buenas políticas requieren una financiación adecuada y un gasto prudente. Para medir la movilidad con mayor precisión, se requieren mejores datos de capital humano

para generaciones sucesivas, que vinculen a los padres con los hijos. Una mayor movilidad se asocia con un mayor gasto público. No es solo la cantidad de gasto lo que importa, sino también la calidad del gasto, por ejemplo, si el gasto en educación superior conduce a mejores insumos para la escolarización.

Las políticas y las inversiones deberían actuar para reducir las brechas entre los que tienen y los que no tienen en el desarrollo de la primera infancia y el acceso a una educación de calidad. Los países con menores tasas de retraso en el crecimiento para niños de 5 años tienden a tener mayor movilidad educativa. La movilidad también es más alta en los países donde más niños asisten a la escuela y reciben educación de calidad durante sus primeros años.

Tener las regulaciones y políticas adecuadas, incluidas las políticas fiscales, puede ayudar a aumentar la movilidad de los ingresos y reducir la probabilidad de trampas de pobreza. Facilitar el acceso al mercado laboral para los jóvenes desfavorecidos y los jóvenes, mejorar la competencia entre los empleadores y aumentar la protección de los trabajadores contra la discriminación por raza y género puede ayudar a igualar las oportunidades en los mercados laborales. Construir un sistema tributario justo y progresivo puede generar recursos para financiar inversiones progresivas y ayudar a reducir la desigualdad de ingresos y riqueza, que es un factor clave de la baja movilidad en la mayoría de las sociedades.

Las políticas a nivel local son importantes cuando se trata de igualar las oportunidades.

Donde una persona nace dentro de un país es importante para la movilidad social y la oportunidad. Las políticas a nivel local hasta el nivel de las comunidades y los barrios son cruciales para romper el ciclo.

EL ACUERDO DE PARÍS SIN FONDOS, NO AVANZA Por Friday Phiri BONN, 16 may 2018 (IPS) - “Los recursos económicos son clave para cumplir el Acuerdo de París”, subrayó el representante de los Países Menos Adelantados, Gebru Jember Endalew, en otra ronda de conversaciones prepara-

toria de la 24 Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC).

“Con el cambio climático, los países pobres y vulnerables tienen que hacer frente a pérdidas y daños y adaptarse a la variabilidad climática, a la vez que esforzarse por sacar a su gente de la pobreza sin repetir los errores de la economía construida sobre la base de los combustibles fósiles”, añadió.

“Eso es imposible sin un apoyo previsible y sostenible”, alertó.

Sin recursos económicos, no servirán de mucho las pautas de implementación del Acuerdo de París, debatidas en las conversaciones climáticas realizadas en la ciudad alemana de Bonn, del 30 de abril al 10 de mayo, con el fin de adoptarlas en la conferencia climática que se realizará a fin de año en la ciudad polaca de Katowice.

Las pautas son fundamentales para determinar si disminuyen las emisiones de gases invernadero con la suficiente rapidez como para evitar que la temperatura global aumente más de dos grados centígrados con respecto a la era preindustrial, y en lo posible que no supere 1,5 grados.

Diálogo sobre fondos para el clima Para evitar el aumento perjudicial de la temperatura global se requieren recursos. Por ejemplo, las Contribuciones Determinadas a Nivel Nacional de los países en desarrollo requieren de unos 4,3 billones (millón de billones) de dólares para concretarse.

“Los fondos son vitales para nosotros”, coincidió Ephraim Mwepya Shitima, líder de la delegación de Zambia y enlace CMNUCC. La sociedad civil no quedó contenta con el resultado de las conversaciones sobre recursos económico.

“El silencio total en materia de dinero instaló el miedo entre los países pobres de que sus contrapartes más ricos no se tomen en serio sus promesas”, observó Mohamed Adow, delegado sobre Clima Internacional de Christian Aid. “Estamos consternados con el cambio de objetivos de nuestros socios, quienes pretenden demorar la concreción de la financiación del costo total de la adaptación en África”, expresó Mithika Mwenda, de la Alianza Panafricana para la Justicia Climática (PACJA), molesta por la falta de compromisos concretos.

Activistas de la sociedad civil protestan contra los grandes contaminantes en una mesa de negociaciones en Bonn, en mayo de 2018. Crédito: Cortesía de Friday Phiri.

Sin embargo, Patricia Espinosa, secretaria ejecutiva de la CMNUCC tiene otra opinión: “Estoy satisfecha de los avances de Bonn”, comentó.

“Pero mucha gente subraya la urgencia de avanzar más rápido para terminar con las pautas operativas. El paquete que se negocia es altamente técnico y complejo. Necesitamos ponerlo en marcha para que el mundo supervise el avance de la acción climática”, añadió.

Los funcionarios que presiden los tres órganos de trabajo coordinaron las discusiones sobre varios asuntos en el marco del Programa de Trabajo del Acuerdo de París, y las delegaciones les encargaron redactar una “nota de reflexión” para ayudar a los gobiernos a prepararse para la próxima ronda de conversaciones, indicó Espinosa.

También recordó que las conversaciones preparatorias para la próxima COP24)de la CMNUCC, que se realizará en Polonia en diciembre, continuarán en Bangkok del 3 al 8 de septiembre, cuando se considerarán las opiniones de los gobiernos registradas en varios documentos preparados en Bonn.

El diálogo de Talanoa Siguiendo una tradición de la región del Pacífico, el objetivo de un “talanoa” es compartir historias para encontrar soluciones por un bien común.

Por eso, al margen de las negociaciones formales, se realizó el Diálogo de Talanoa, encabezado por Fiyi, el que contó con 250 participantes, que aportaron historias, ideas y una renovada determinación ambiciosa.

“Es hora de comprometerse a tomar las decisiones que el mundo debe tomar. Debemos

completar la implementación de las pautas del Acuerdo de París a tiempo. Y tenemos que asegurar que el Diálogo de Talanoa despierte una mayor ambición para nuestros planes de acción climática”, señaló el primer ministro de Fiyi, Frank Bainimarama, y presidente de la COP23.

Trata varios asuntos, pero la cuestión clave es, sin duda, los medios para implementarla, la financiación y la tecnología. Los países más ricos se comprometieron en 2009 a dar a las naciones en desarrollo 100.000 millones de dólares al año para 2020 para la acción climática.

El diálogo hizo historia cuando países y otros actores no partes, como ciudades, empresas, inversionistas y regiones, se embarcaron por primera vez a contar historias de forma interactiva.

Pero el retiro de 2.000 millones de dólares del gobierno de Estados Unidos cuando su presidente, Donald Trump, se retirsalió del Acuerdo de París, plantea un nuevo problema.

“Es hora de avanzar de la fase preparatoria del diálogo a la fase política, que ocurrirá en la COP24”, subrayó el presidente de la próxima conferencia, el polaco Michał Kurtyka.

Todos los aportes realizados al 29 de octubre de 2018 entrarán en el segundo Diálogo de Talanoa, una fase más política de la COP24.

El Programa de Koronovia sobre Agricultura Los agricultores son muy vulnerables a la variabilidad climática y la actividad es una gran fuente de emisiones contaminantes, pero a pesar de su importancia, no se había tratado su especificidad y solo se había debatido un apéndice en la mesa de negociaciones climáticas de las Naciones Unidas hasta noviembre de 2017, cuando se incluyó como un programa de trabajo.

Pero la conferencia de Bonn logró un avance significativo en el “Trabajo Conjunto de Koronivia sobre Agricultura”, al adoptar una hoja de ruta para los próximos dos años y medio.

“Desde la perspectiva de Zambia, nuestro interés se ajusta al del grupo africano, que busca proteger a los pequeños productores, que son la mayoría de los que sufren las consecuencias negativas del cambio climático”, señaló Morton Mwanza, enlace del ministro de Agricultura en materia de agricultura climáticamente inteligente.

La hoja de ruta derivada de las conversaciones en Bonn responde a las necesidades de la comunidad agrícola de más de 1.000 millones de personas y de las 800 millones que sufren la inseguridad alimentaria, principalmente en las naciones en desarrollo.

Influencia de los grandes contaminantes La investigación “Revolving doors and the fossil fuel industry” (Idas y vueltas con la industria de combustibles fósiles), realizada en 13 países europeos, señala que el fracaso de la Unión Europea al atender los conflictos de interés se debe a sus estrechas relaciones de años con el sector de combustibles fósiles.

“La política tiene un vínculo de ida y vuelta con el lobby de los combustibles fósiles en toda Europa”, indicó Max Andersson, miembro del Parlamento Europeo, en las conversaciones climáticas de Bonn.

“No se trata solo de un puñado de casos, es sistemático. La industria de combustibles fósiles tiene un enorme interés económico en demorar la acción climática, y las idas y vueltas entre la política y el lobby constituye una grave causa de alarma”, añadió.

Según Andersson, para cumplir los objetivos del Acuerdo de París y mantener el aumento de la temperatura global por debajo de 1,5 grados es necesario frenar los conflictos de interés e impedir que el carbón, el gas y el petróleo dejen su “huella sucia en nuestra política climática”.

Pero hubo buenas noticias para los que abogan por sacar a los grandes contaminantes. “No habrá ninguna obstrucción de Estados Unidos ni de sus aliados los grandes contaminantes que les impida avanzar”, observó Jesse Bragg, de Corporate Accountability.

Así, todo depende de resolver la cuestión de los recursos económicos. Hasta entonces, la implementación del Acuerdo de París dentro de dos años pende de un hilo.

Traducción: Verónica Firme

A PESAR DEL LENTO AVANCE HACIA LAS METAS MUNDIALES EN MATERIA DE ENERGÍA, LAS FUERTES MEJORAS EN LOS PAÍSES RESULTAN PROMETEDORAS Por: www.worldbank.org LISBOA, 2 de mayo de 2018. El mundo no está bien encaminado para el logro de las metas mundiales en materia de energía para 2030 establecidas dentro del marco de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS), pero se están realizando verdaderos avances en ciertas áreas, en concreto, la ampliación del acceso a la electricidad en los países menos adelantados y la eficiencia de la energía industrial, de acuerdo con un nuevo informe de cinco organismos internacionales.

•

Mil millones de personas, lo que equivale al 13 % de la población mundial, continúan viviendo sin electricidad. África al sur del Sahara y Asia central y meridional siguen siendo las regiones del mundo con mayores deficiencias de acceso. Casi el 87 % de los habitantes del mundo sin electricidad viven en zonas rurales.

•

El aumento del número de personas que obtienen acceso a la electricidad se ha acelerado desde 2010, pero tendría que cobrar más velocidad para lograr el acceso universal a la electricidad para 2030. Con la tendencia actual, se estima que 674 millones de personas seguirán viviendo sin electricidad en 2030.

•

Algunos de los avances más grandes tuvieron lugar en Bangladesh, Etiopía, Kenya y Tanzanía, donde la tasa de acceso a la electricidad aumentó al menos un 3 % al año entre 2010 y 2016. Durante el mismo período, India suministró energía a 30 millones de personas al año, más que ningún otro país. Por primera vez, el déficit de electrificación en África al sur del Sahara ha empezado a disminuir en términos absolutos.

•

Decenas de millones de personas tienen ahora acceso a electricidad a través de sistemas solares domésticos o conexiones a minirredes. Sin embargo, estas alternativas siguen concentradas en alrededor de una docena de países pioneros, en los que la penetración de la electricidad solar puede llegar a alcanzar al 5 %-15 % de la población.

Las energías renovables están avanzando de manera impresionante en el sector eléctrico, pero no ocurre lo mismo en el caso del transporte y la calefacción, que representan el 80 % del consumo mundial de energía.

Aunque las tendencias mundiales son decepcionantes, algunas experiencias nacionales recientes en todo el mundo ofrecen indicios alentadores. Existen cada vez más pruebas de que, con las estrategias y las políticas adecuadas, los países pueden lograr avances sustanciales en términos de energías limpias y acceso a la energía, y mejorar las vidas de millones de personas.

Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report (Seguimiento del ODS 7: El informe de progreso en materia de energía), anunciado hoy en el Foro de Energía Sostenible para Todos, es el examen más exhaustivo existente de los avances hacia las metas mundiales en materia de energía relacionadas con la electricidad, las cocinas limpias, la energía renovable y la eficiencia energética.

A continuación, se presentan algunas de las conclusiones principales del informe. Se basan en datos oficiales a nivel nacional que miden los avances mundiales hasta 2015 en términos de energía renovable y eficiencia energética, y hasta 2016 en el caso del acceso a la electricidad y las cocinas limpias.

Acceso a la electricidad

Cocinas limpias •

Tres mil millones de personas, lo que equivale al 40 % de la población mundial, no tienen acceso a combustibles y tecnologías limpias para cocinar. La contaminación del aire de los hogares derivada de la quema de biomasa para cocinar y generar calor

provoca alrededor de 4 millones de muertes al año. Las mujeres y los niños están más expuestos a este riesgo.

•

•

•

En algunas partes de Asia, el ritmo del aumento del acceso a cocinas limpias ha superado el del crecimiento de la población.

Estos resultados positivos se deben sobre todo al amplio suministro de gas licuado de petróleo o gas natural por tuberías. En India, Pakistán, Indonesia y Viet Nam, el aumento anual del número de habitantes con acceso a tecnologías limpias para cocinar equivalió a más del 1 % de su población.

Sin embargo, en África al sur del Sahara, el crecimiento de la población en los últimos años ha sido cuatro veces superior al número de personas que obtuvieron acceso a tecnologías limpias para cocinar.

De las cuatro metas relacionadas con la energía, las cocinas limpias siguen siendo el objetivo más rezagado, debido a la poca sensibilización de los consumidores, las deficiencias financieras, la lentitud de los avances tecnológicos y la falta de infraestructura para la producción y la distribución de combustible. Si se mantiene la trayectoria actual, 2300 millones de personas seguirán usando métodos tradicionales para cocinar en 2030.

debajo del descenso del 2,6 % anual necesario para cumplir la meta del ODS 7 de duplicar la tasa mundial de mejora de la eficiencia energética para 2030.

•

La mejora de la intensidad energética industrial, que se mantiene en el 2,7 % anual desde 2010, fue especialmente alentadora, ya que se trata del sector con mayor consumo en términos generales. Los avances en el sector del transporte fueron más modestos, especialmente en el caso del transporte de carga, y plantea un especial desafío para los países de ingreso alto. En los países de ingreso bajo y mediano, la intensidad energética del sector residencial está aumentando desde 2010.

•

Con inclusión de Japón y Estados Unidos, 6 de los 20 países que representan el 80 % del suministro total de energía primaria del mundo lo redujeron en 2010-15, aunque su PIB siguió aumentando, lo que indica un pico en el uso de energía. China e Indonesia se destacaron entre las economías en desarrollo que consumen mucha energía, con una mejora por encima del 3 % anual.

Energía renovable •

En 2015, el mundo obtenía el 17,5 % de la energía final que consumía de fuentes renovables, de las cuales el 9,6 % representaba fuentes modernas como las energías geotérmicas, hidroeléctrica, solar y eólica.

El resto consistía en usos tradicionales de la biomasa (como leña y carbón vegetal).

•

De acuerdo con las políticas actuales, se espera que el porcentaje de fuentes renovables solo alcance el 21 % para 2030, y que las fuentes modernas crezcan hasta el 15 %, lejos del aumento sustancial que marcan las metas del ODS 7.

•

La rápida caída de los costos permitió que las energías solar y eólica compitieran con las fuentes convencionales de generación de energía en múltiples regiones, lo que aumentó la contribución de las fuentes renovables a la producción de electricidad al 22,8 % en 2015. Sin embargo, la electricidad solo representó el 20 % del consumo final de energía en ese año, hecho que subraya la necesidad de acelerar los avances en los sectores del transporte y la calefacción.

Eficiencia energética •

•

Cada vez hay más evidencias de la desconexión entre el crecimiento y el uso de energía. El producto interno bruto (PIB) mundial creció casi dos veces más rápido que el suministro de energía primaria en 2010-15. El ritmo de crecimiento de la economía superó al del aumento del uso de energía en todos los grupos de ingresos y en todas las regiones, salvo Asia occidental, donde el PIB está muy ligado a industrias de alto consumo de energía. Sin embargo, los avances siguen siendo lentos en los países de ingreso bajo, con una intensidad energética por encima del promedio mundial.

A nivel mundial, la intensidad energética (la proporción de energía usada por unidad del PIB) disminuyó a un ritmo acelerado del 2,8 % en 2015, la caída más rápida desde 2010. Esto mejoró el descenso anual promedio de la intensidad energética hasta el 2,2 % durante el período 2010-15. Sin embargo, el desempeño sigue estando por

•

La proporción del uso de energía renovable en el transporte está aumentando con bastante rapidez, pero desde un nivel de partida muy bajo, equivalente al 2,8 % en 2015. El uso de energía renovable para la calefacción ha aumentado apenas en los últimos años y se mantuvo en el 24,8 % en 2015. Una tercera parte de este porcentaje proviene de fuentes modernas.

nible”, dijo Adnan Z. Amin, director general del IRENA. “Al mismo tiempo, este informe de seguimiento representa una señal importante de que debemos ser más ambiciosos a la hora de aprovechar el poder de la energía renovable para cumplir los objetivos relativos al desarrollo sostenible y el clima, y tomar medidas más deliberadas para lograr un futuro sostenible en términos de energía”.

•

Tan solo el avance de China desde 2010 en términos de energía renovable representó casi el 30 % del crecimiento absoluto del consumo de este tipo de energía en el mundo en 2015. Brasil fue el único país entre los 20 mayores consumidores de energía que superó considerablemente el promedio mundial de fuentes renovables para todos los usos finales: electricidad, transporte y calefacción. Desde 2010, la proporción de fuentes renovables en el consumo final de energía en el Reino Unido aumentó un promedio del 1 %, más de cinco veces por encima del promedio mundial.

“Este informe detallado, en el que se describe el progreso logrado hasta ahora con respecto al ODS 7, demuestra la colaboración de los cinco organismos internacionales para aportar información de calidad y datos exhaustivos y comunicar un mensaje común en relación con los avances para garantizar el acceso a energía asequible, fiable, sostenible y moderna para todos”, dijo Stefan Schweinfest, director de la UNSD. “De todos modos, sigue habiendo una necesidad de mejorar los sistemas estadísticos de recolección de información sobre energía en aquellos países en los que no se han abordado las cuestiones energéticas más acuciantes. Es necesario mejorar los datos para fundamentar correctamente las políticas, especialmente en los países en desarrollo, los países menos adelantados, los países en desarrollo sin litoral y los pequeños estados insulares en desarrollo. Es esencial que estos países inviertan en sistemas estadísticos sobre energía”.

Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report (Seguimiento del ODS 7: El informe de progreso en materia de energía) es una iniciativa conjunta de la Agencia Internacional de la Energía (AIE), la Agencia Internacional de Energías Renovables (IRENA), la División de Estadística de las Naciones Unidas (UNSD), el Banco Mundial y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS).

“Está claro que el sector energético debe tener un papel esencial en cualquier esfuerzo para guiar al mundo por un camino más sostenible”, dijo el Dr. Fatih Birol, director ejecutivo de la AIE. “Hay una necesidad urgente de actuar con respecto a todas las tecnologías, especialmente en el caso de las fuentes renovables y la eficiencia energética, que son clave para lograr tres metas fundamentales: acceso a la energía, mitigación del cambio climático y reducción de la contaminación del aire. La AIE se ha comprometido a liderar este programa y trabajar con los países de todo el mundo para apoyar las transiciones a la energía limpia”.

“La caída de los costos, las mejoras tecnológicas y los marcos propicios están fomentando un crecimiento sin precedentes de la energía renovable, que está ampliando el acceso a la energía, mejorando los resultados en materia de salud y ayudando a frenar el cambio climático, a la vez que se generan puestos de trabajo y se potencia el crecimiento económico soste-

“La experiencia de los países que han incrementado sustancialmente el número de personas con acceso a electricidad en poco tiempo nos da una esperanza real de poder alcanzar a los 1000 millones que siguen viviendo sin acceso a la energía”, dijo Riccardo Puliti, director superior y jefe de Energía e Industrias Extractivas del Banco Mundial. “Sabemos que, con políticas adecuadas, un compromiso de adoptar soluciones tanto conectadas como no conectadas a la red, estructuras de financiamiento bien adaptadas y la movilización del sector privado, se pueden lograr enormes avances en tan solo unos años. Esto está teniendo a su vez impactos reales y positivos sobre las posibilidades de desarrollo y la calidad de vida de millones de personas”.

“Es inaceptable que, en 2018, 3000 millones de personas sigan respirando todos los días el humo mortal derivado de cocinar con combustibles y cocinas contaminantes. La contaminación en los hogares mata cada año a 4 millones de personas por enfermedades como la neu-

monía, affeciones cardíacas y pulmonares, accidentes cerebrovasculares y cáncer”, dijo la Dra. María Neira, directora del Departamento de Salud Pública, Medio Ambiente y Determinantes Sociales de la Salud de la OMS. “Mediante la ampliación del acceso de los hogares a energía limpia y asequible, la comunidad mundial tiene el poder de levantar una terrible carga para millones de personas marginadas, especialmente las mujeres y los niños, cuya salud está más expuesta a los riesgos de la contaminación del aire en los hogares”.

“A la hora de examinar los avances hacia el objetivo mundial en materia de energía sostenible, estos nuevos datos demuestran claramente que se necesitan más medidas y liderazgo político para poder cumplir nuestra promesa de no dejar a nadie de lado”, afirmó Rachel Kyte, representante especial del secretario general de las Naciones Unidas y directora ejecutiva de Energía Sostenible para

Todos. “Para cumplir las metas de 2030, tenemos que aumentar el rendimiento de cada unidad de energía. Tenemos que incrementar la inversión en las tecnologías y los modelos comerciales que hacen que la energía sea asequible para todos, apostar aún más por la asombrosa capacidad de la energía renovable y desarrollar grandes mercados para el acceso a combustibles y cocinas limpias. Los líderes mundiales incluyeron la promesa de no dejar a nadie de lado como parte esencial de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible, y ahora ha llegado el momento de que esa promesa se haga realidad”.

Es la cuarta edición de este informe, antes denominado Informe marco de seguimiento mundial (GTF, por sus siglas en inglés). Se puede descargar el informe en http://trackingSDG7.esmap.org/. El Programa de Asistencia para la Gestión del Sector de la Energía (ESMAP) del Banco Mundial aportó financiamiento para el informe.

¿ESTÁ EL MUNDO EN CAMINO DE OFRECER ACCESO A LA ENERGÍA PARA TODOS? Por: www.worldbank.org DESTACADOS DE LA HISTORIA •

Los países deben acelerar el progreso en el acceso a la electrificación, la cocina limpia, las energías renovables y la eficiencia energética para alcanzar el Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible # 7, según un nuevo informe.

•

674 millones de personas, o el 8% de la población mundial, todavía estarán a oscuras en 2030 si las tendencias actuales de electrificación continúan

•

Se estima que 2.300 millones de personas continuarán cocinando quemando leña y carbón en 2030, lo que plantea importantes riesgos para la salud

¿Tiene acceso a electricidad confiable en el hogar, a un precio asequible? ¿Y cómo es la estufa que usas? ¿Es eléctrica, o depende de la madera o el carbón, generando humo cada vez que cocinas?

versal a la electrificación y las tecnologías de cocción limpias entre los objetivos relacionados con la energía que se alcanzarán en el marco de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) para 2030.

Mil millones de personas (13% de la población mundial) aún viven sin electricidad y más de 3 mil millones (41%) usan combustibles contaminantes para cocinar, lo que socava su salud, productividad y calidad de vida. Es por eso que las Naciones Unidas colocaron el acceso uni-

Además, el ODS # 7 requiere un aumento sustancial en la proporción de fuentes renovables (solar, eólica, hidroeléctrica y geotérmica, por ejemplo) en la combinación energética global, así como para un uso más eficiente de la energía.

Un nuevo informe, Tracking SDG7: Energy Progress Report 2018 , proporciona una instantánea de los avances del mundo hacia los objetivos de acceso a la electricidad, la cocina limpia, las energías renovables y la eficiencia energética. Y aunque el estudio muestra que el mundo no está en camino de alcanzar los objetivos energéticos mundiales para 2030, también destaca las experiencias recientes que ofrecen signos alentadores, principalmente en Asia y África Subsahariana, pero también en América Latina.

El informe es un esfuerzo conjunto de la Agencia Internacional de Energía (AIE), la Agencia Internacional de Energía Renovable (IRENA), la División de Estadística de las Naciones Unidas (UNSD), el Banco Mundial y la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS).

llegar a los mil millones de personas que aún viven sin electricidad", dice Riccardo Puliti, Director sénior de Energía y Extractiv el Banco Mundial.

Puliti agrega: "Sabemos que con las políticas correctas, un compromiso tanto con la electrificación de la red como con soluciones fuera de la red como los sistemas de energía solar para el hogar, estructuras de financiación bien adaptadas y la movilización del sector privado, se pueden obtener enormes ganancias en unos pocos años. Esto a su vez está teniendo impactos reales y positivos en las perspectivas de desarrollo y la calidad de vida de millones de personas ".

Cocina limpia

Acceso a la electricidad

En América Latina, casi tres cuartas partes de los países están en camino de alcanzar el acceso universal para 2020, y para 2030 se espera que la región logre un acceso casi universal, con Haití como el único país con una tasa de acceso inferior al 90%.

Más buenas noticias vienen de África, que en los últimos años vio la electrificación superar el crecimiento de la población por primera vez. Etiopía, Kenia y Tanzania aumentaron su tasa de acceso a la electricidad en un 3% o más anualmente entre 2010 y 2016. Mientras tanto, India proporcionó electricidad a 30 millones de personas anualmente, más que cualquier otro país.

Sin embargo, todavía queda mucho trabajo por hacer para cumplir con el objetivo de los ODS de electrificación. Si las tendencias actuales de acceso continúan, el 8% de la población mundial aún estará a oscuras en 2030.

"La experiencia de los países que han aumentado sustancialmente el número de personas con electricidad en un corto espacio de tiempo ofrece una esperanza real de que podamos

De los cuatro objetivos energéticos establecidos en los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible, el acceso a tecnologías de cocción limpias está muy rezagado: si la trayectoria actual continúa, 2.300 millones de personas seguirán quemando madera, carbón y otros tipos de biomasa en 2030. Estos métodos tradicionales los métodos generan contaminación del aire en los hogares, que es responsable de alrededor de 4 millones de muertes al año, más que el VIH y la tuberculosis combinados, y las mujeres y los niños corren el mayor riesgo.

El progreso ha sido lento debido a la baja conciencia del consumidor, las brechas de financiamiento, el lento progreso tecnológico y la falta de infraestructura para la producción y distribución de combustible, según el informe. Entre los relativamente pocos buenos resultados que se destacan a nivel mundial, se encuentran Indonesia y Vietnam, que proporcionaron acceso a un 3% adicional de su población cada año entre 2010 y 2016.

El informe también destaca que, de los 20 países que avanzaron más rápido entre 2010 y 2016, cuatro de ellos están en América Latina: Guyana, Perú, El Salvador y Paraguay.

Energía renovable

En América Latina, Brasil se destaca por más del doble de la participación de la energía global en electricidad, calefacción y transporte.

Eficiencia energética

A partir de 2015, el mundo obtuvo el 17,5% de su consumo total de energía final a partir de fuentes renovables, de las cuales el 9,6% representa formas modernas de energía renovable como la geotérmica, hidroeléctrica, solar y eólica. El resto son usos tradicionales de la biomasa (como leña y carbón vegetal).

Si bien el Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible # 7 no proporciona un objetivo fijo para la energía renovable, se requiere un "aumento sustancial" en la proporción de fuentes renovables en la combinación global. Con base en las tendencias actuales, se espera que la participación renovable alcance solo el 21% para el año 2030 (desde el 16,7% en 2010), sin alcanzar el aumento exigido por el objetivo del ODS7.

El transporte y la calefacción, que representan el 80% del consumo mundial de energía, aún deben acelerar el progreso. En el transporte, por ejemplo, el consumo de energía renovable alcanzó solo el 2,8% a nivel mundial en 2015.

Las principales áreas de preocupación siguen siendo el transporte aéreo, ferroviario y marítimo, donde las tasas de penetración de los biocombustibles son insignificantes en la actualidad. Mientras que en la calefacción, el uso tradicional de biomasa (como la leña y el carbón) sigue representando el 65% de la cuota de energía renovable.

La electricidad representa el 20% restante y ha tenido mejores resultados gracias a los costos decrecientes de la energía eólica y solar. En este sector en particular, la participación renovable ascendió al 22,8% en 2015. La energía hidroeléctrica sigue siendo la principal fuente de electricidad renovable, pero la energía eólica creció más rápidamente de 2010 a 2015.

Mejorar la eficiencia energética significa poder producir más con menos energía. Y la evidencia muestra que el crecimiento económico y el uso de energía están cada vez más desacoplados. Entre 2010 y 2015, el producto interno bruto (PIB) mundial creció casi dos veces más rápido que el suministro de energía primaria. El crecimiento económico superó el crecimiento en el uso de energía en todas las regiones, excepto en Asia occidental.

Una de las métricas más importantes para este objetivo de ODS es la intensidad energética -la relación entre la energía utilizada por unidad de PIB-, que cayó a un ritmo acelerado del 2,8% en 2015, el descenso más rápido desde 2010.

Esto mejoró la disminución anual promedio en intensidad energética hasta el 2,2% para el período 2010-2015. Sin embargo, el rendimiento aún no llega al 2,6% de disminución anual necesaria para cumplir con el objetivo del ODS7 de duplicar la tasa global de mejora en la eficiencia energética para 2030.

La industria, el mayor sector consumidor de energía, también realizó el progreso más rápido, reduciendo la intensidad energética en un 2,7% anual. Sin embargo, los avances en el sector del transporte fueron más lentos. Al igual que con la energía renovable, este sector será clave para garantizar el progreso hacia un futuro energético bajo en carbono.

LA ENERGÍA GEOTÉRMICA ESTÁ EN UN CAMINO CALIENTE Por: www.worldbank.org DESTACADOS DE LA HISTORIA •

Unos 40 países en todo el mundo podrían satisfacer una buena parte de su demanda de energía a través de la energía geotérmica. Pero el ritmo del desarrollo de los recursos geotérmicos ha sido lento debido a los riesgos de inversión en las primeras etapas.

•

El financiamiento concesional del clima ha ayudado a mitigar estos riesgos, lo que ha resultado en una mayor inversión para las etapas posteriores del desarrollo geotérmico.

•

Las instituciones financieras internacionales, incluido el Banco Mundial, están creando una sólida cartera de proyectos que están ayudando a los países en desarrollo a aprovechar su potencial geotérmico.

El desarrollo de la energía geotérmica ha seguido la misma línea argumental durante muchas décadas: una fuente de energía baja en carbono que puede ofrecer energía base confiable y sostenible, cuyo desarrollo a nivel mundial se ha visto frenado por el alto riesgo de recursos y los costos de la perforación de prueba.

Unos 40 países en África, Asia oriental y el Pacífico, y América Latina y el Caribe tienen recursos geotérmicos considerables que pueden ayudarlos a satisfacer sus necesidades energéticas de manera confiable y de bajo costo.

La energía geotérmica también podría ayudar a frenar las emisiones nocivas. La Agencia Internacional de Energía (AIE) proyecta que para 2050 la energía geotérmica podría representar el 3.5% de la producción mundial de electricidad, con 200 GW de capacidad instalada, evitando 760 millones de toneladas de emisiones de CO2 al año.

Aunque la energía geotérmica ha recibido amplio reconocimiento como un recurso de transformación, el desarrollo en etapas tempranas prohibitivamente arriesgado y costoso ha sido una barrera para la inversión del sector privado y ha llevado a un crecimiento lento de la capacidad geotérmica instalada durante las últimas décadas.

En 2016, la capacidad geotérmica global acumulada alcanzó poco más de 13 GW y se espera que aumente a casi 17 GW en 2021, con las mayores adiciones de capacidad esperadas en Indonesia, Turquía, Filipinas y México.

En los últimos cinco años, el desarrollo geotérmico ha tomado un rumbo diferente, impulsado principalmente por dos factores: un compromiso global con el desarrollo bajo en carbono y el Objetivo de Desarrollo Sostenible sobre energía (ODS7) y el despliegue estratégico de financiamiento concesional para mitigar los riesgos asociado con las etapas iniciales del desarrollo geotérmico.

La mitigación del riesgo funciona La experiencia global muestra que la mitigación de los costos y riesgos de exploración y perforación puede desbloquear la inversión necesaria para llevar la geotermia a escala.

En 2013, el Programa de asistencia para la gestión del sector de la energía del Banco Mundial (ESMAP) puso en marcha el Plan mundial de desarrollo geotérmico (GGDP). La iniciativa trabaja con socios para movilizar fondos concesionales para el desarrollo ascendente y, a su vez, catalizar inversiones significativas en toda la cadena de valor.

En solo cinco años, el GGDP ha logrado impulsar un cambio importante en el sector. Ha recaudado $ 235 millones en fondos concesionales a través del Fondo de Tecnología Limpia (CTF) , que se ha puesto a disposición de los bancos multilaterales de desarrollo (BMD), incluido el Banco Mundial, para apoyar las actividades geotérmicas aguas arriba.

Como resultado, el financiamiento multilateral para actividades upstream en 2013-2017 creció a alrededor de $ 100 millones por año, con proyectos en más de 30 países. Esto represen-

ta al menos un aumento de cuatro veces en la participación de la financiación de los BMD para el desarrollo de la etapa inicial, de solo 6.7% en 1978-2012 a 29.2% de sus inversiones geotérmicas en 2013-2017. Se espera que los proyectos actualmente en curso movilicen $ 1,500 millones adicionales de otras fuentes.

El Banco Mundial ha apalancado la asistencia técnica de ESMAP y actualmente apoya seis proyectos geotérmicos aguas arriba (con $ 610 millones de financiamiento del Banco Mundial y $ 689 millones de otros donantes) en cinco países: Indonesia , Turquía, Etiopía , Yibuti y Ar menia . Otros cuatro proyectos en Nicaragua , Dominica , Santa Lucía e Indonesia están en preparación.

Otros BMD han aumentado de manera similar aprovechando los fondos del CTF para ayudar a evitar el riesgo de los campos geotérmicos en países como Chile, México, Kenia, Indonesia, Filipinas y el Caribe Oriental.

Los países también están estableciendo mecanismos de eliminación de riesgos para atraer y ayudar a los desarrolladores en las primeras fases de su inversión. Por ejemplo, con el apoyo del Banco Mundial / ESMAP y otros socios, Indonesia está planificando un nuevo Servicio de Mitigación de Riesgo Geotérmico para apalancar miles de millones de dólares en fondos del sector privado. Este es un paso crucial para cerrar la brecha de inversión de $ 25 mil millones en los próximos 8 años para ayudar al gobierno a agregar 5.8 gigavatios (GW) de producción de electricidad con recursos geotérmicos para el 2026.

En 2012, el Banco Mundial apoyó al gobierno mediante una donación del Fondo para el Medio Ambiente Mundial (FMAM) para emprender reformas y ayudó a Pertamina Geothermal Energy (PGE) a comenzar su programa de expansión geotérmica mediante un préstamo de $ 175 millones del BIRF, junto con $ 125 millones financiamiento del CTF. En 2017, el Banco Mundial otorgó $ 55.25 millones en subvenciones para apoyar el Proyecto de Desarrollo Upstream de Energía Geotérmica de Indonesia.

El CTF está contribuyendo con $ 49 millones para apoyar el desarrollo de infraestructura y la

perforación de exploración y el GEF está contribuyendo con $ 6.25 millones adicionales para apoyar la asistencia técnica y el desarrollo de capacidades.

Un enfoque personalizado funciona La experiencia mundial también ha demostrado que los enfoques de la expansión geotérmica se pueden adaptar para ajustarse a diferentes contextos nacionales. Unanálisis financiado por ESMAP de la cartera global de proyectos de energía geotérmica comisionados antes de 2014 analiza en profundidad los mecanismos de apoyo para cada proyecto y describe los distintos enfoques que los países han adoptado para expandir su energía geotérmica.

Por ejemplo, países como México , Kenia , El Salvador y Costa Rica han dependido casi por completo de los recursos públicos para la expansión geotérmica para desarrollar más de 3.6 GW de energía. Sus éxitos fueron impulsados por un fuerte compromiso del gobierno y la disponibilidad de fondos públicos.

Sin embargo, cada vez más países han abierto las puertas a los desarrolladores privados y siguen un modelo en el que los sectores público y privado comparten los costos y los riesgos. Por ejemplo, uno de los componentes clave del crecimiento incomparable de Turquía en el desarrollo geotérmico ha sido la eliminación de riesgos de los campos geotérmicos con fondos públicos. En 2016, el Banco Mundial aprobó un proyecto de $ 350 millones desarrollado con apoyo de ESMAP que incluía un mecanismo de riesgo compartido de $ 40 millones para cubrir parte del costo de pozos de exploración fallidos en proyectos que se espera confirmen unos 210 MW de capacidad geotérmica. Se espera que estos proyectos movilicen alrededor de $ 200 millones de capital privado e incentiven la exploración fuera de las áreas más desarrolladas.

Otro ejemplo de distribución de costos entre los sectores público y privado es Santa Lucía, donde el financiamiento en condiciones favorables se utilizará para llevar a cabo una campaña de exploración exploratoria en un área con grandes perspectivas. Si se confirma el recurso, el gobierno contratará una empresa privada para desarrollar completamente el campo.

EMPLEOS RELACIONADOS A ENERGÍAS RENOVABLES ALCANZARON LOS 10,3M EN EL MUNDO DURANTE 2017 Por: AméricaEconomía.com China, Brasil, Estados Unidos, India, Alemania y Japón siguen siendo los mayores empleadores del mercado de energía renovable en el mundo, representando más del 70% de todos los empleos en el sector globalmente.

El sector de energía renovable creó más de 500.000 nuevos empleos en todo el mundo en 2017, un aumento del 5,3% con respecto a 2016, según los últimos datos divulgados por la Agencia Internacional de Energía Renovable (IRENA). Según la quinta edición del informe Renewable Energy and Jobs - Annual Review, lanzado hoy en la 15ª Reunión del Consejo de IRENA en Abu Dhabi, el número total de personas empleadas en el sector (incluyendo grandes hidroeléctricas) está actualmente en 10,3 millones, superando la marca de los 10 millones por primera vez.

China, Brasil, Estados Unidos, India, Alemania y Japón siguen siendo los mayores empleadores del mercado de energía renovable en el mundo, representando más del 70% de todos los empleos en el sector globalmente. Aunque un número creciente de países está cosechando los beneficios socioeconómicos de las energías renovables, la mayor parte de la producción ocurre en relativamente pocos países y los mercados domésticos varían enormemente en tamaño.

"La energía renovable se ha convertido en un pilar del crecimiento económico de bajo carbono para gobiernos en todo el mundo, un hecho reflejado por el creciente número de empleos creados en el sector", declaró Adnan Z. Amin, director general de la Agencia Internacional de Energía Renovable.

"Los datos también resaltan un cuadro cada vez más regionalizado, destacando que los beneficios económicos, sociales y ambientales de las energías renovables son más evidentes en los países donde existen políticas atractivas para el sector", continuó el Sr. Amin. "Fundamentalmente, esos datos apoyan nuestro análisis de que la descarbonización del sistema energético global puede hacer que la economía global crezca y creará hasta 28 millones de empleos en el sector para 2050".

El segmento de energía solar fotovoltaica sigue siendo el mayor empleador de todas las tecnologías de energía renovable, respondiendo por cerca de 3,4 millones de empleos, casi un 9% a partir de 2016, tras un récord de 94 gigavatios (GW) en 2017. Se estima que China responde por dos tercios de los empleos fotovoltaicos, equivalente a 2,2 millones, lo que representa una expansión del 13% con respecto al año anterior.

A pesar de una ligera caída en Japón y Estados Unidos, los dos países siguieron a China como los mayores mercados de empleos en energía solar fotovoltaica en el mundo. India y Bangladesh completan la lista de los cinco principales empleadores globales en este segmento, que juntos responden por cerca del 90% de los empleos en energía solar fotovoltaica en todo el mundo.

La industria eólica se ha retraído ligeramente el año pasado a 1,15 millones de empleos en todo el mundo. Aunque los empleos de este segmento se encuentran en un número relativamente pequeño de países, el grado de concentración es menor que en el sector fotovoltaico solar. China responde por el 44% de los empleos en energía eólica en todo el mundo, seguida por Europa y América del Norte, con un 30% y un 10%, respectivamente. La mitad de los diez principales países con la mayor capacidad instalada de energía eólica del mundo son europeos.

"La transformación del sector energético es una de las oportunidades de mejorar la economía y aumentar el bienestar social a medida que los países implementan políticas de apoyo y estructuras reguladoras atractivas para impulsar el crecimiento industrial y la creación de empleos sostenibles”, dijo Rabia Ferroukhi, jefe de la Unidad de Políticas de IRENA y Director de Conocimiento, Política y Finanzas de la agencia.

mercado de trabajo", continuó el Dr. Ferroukhi. "Tales consideraciones apoyarán una transición justa y equitativa a un sistema energético basado en energías renovables."

"Al proporcionar a los formuladores de políticas ese nivel de detalle sobre la composición de los requisitos de empleo y habilidades en energía renovable, los países pueden tomar decisiones informadas sobre varios objetivos nacionales importantes, desde educación y entrenamiento hasta políticas industriales y regulaciones del

Sobre la Agencia Internacional de Energía Renovable (IRENA). IRENA es una organización intergubernamental global con 156 miembros (155 Estados y la Unión Europea) y otros 24 países en fase de adhesión, que apoya las naciones en su transición hacia un futuro energético sostenible. IRENA sirve como la principal plataforma de cooperación internacional, un centro de excelencia y un repositorio de conocimiento sobre políticas, tecnología, recursos y finanzas sobre energía renovable. IRENA promueve la adopción generalizada y el uso sostenible de todas las formas de energía renovable en la búsqueda del desarrollo sostenible, el acceso a la energía, la seguridad energética y el crecimiento económico y la prosperidad de bajo carbono.

GOBIERNO DIGITAL Y DEMOCRACIA Por: Karelys Abarca El mundo ha estado cambiando velozmente en los primeros años de la Cuarta Revolución Industrial, una realidad que está reinventando la manera de producir masivamente y de relacionarnos socialmente. El proceso productivo está siendo determinado por tecnologías disruptivas que crecen exponencialmente y generan rupturas en los procesos tradicionales con los que se hacían las cosas.

la gestión eficiente del gasto público y para garantizar la transparencia en el manejo de los recursos. Por lo tanto, dependiendo de la situación política de cada país, los avances de la economía digital pueden darle más poder de influencia a la sociedad civil, fomentando las libertades económicas y bienestar de los ciudadanos, o por el contrario, dar más poder y control al Estado sobre los ciudadanos.

La automatización total de la producción y la singularidad que se espera que ocurra, después del 2030 (cuando la inteligencia artificial pueda superar a la inteligencia humana), describen esta nueva revolución industrial como un proceso total de transformación del mercado laboral, la distribución del ingreso, de configuración del Estado, el marco ético de la humanidad y la productividad laboral.

No podemos omitir que las nuevas tecnologías también ofrecen oportunidades de apalancamiento de la sociedad civil para la recuperación de su libertad de acción, brindándoles herramientas que les permitan exigir transparencia al gobierno en el manejo de los recursos y delimitando el papel del Estado, a través de la contraloría ciudadana directa. Pero toda ventaja lleva intrínseca un riesgo.

La mayor parte de los gobiernos con intervención limitada y descentralizada en la sociedad, tienen el reto de adaptarse a las exigencias de la economía digital para optimizar la vida de los ciudadanos, a través de la prestación de servicios de alta calidad que fortalezcan la competitividad del capital humano. De allí la importancia del gobierno digital como una palanca para

Los escenarios políticos podrían configurarse en dos tendencias extremas, democracia o totalitarismo. En democracia, los países tendrían que abocarse a la adaptación a los cambios que impone la Cuarta Revolución Industrial, los esfuerzos buscarían la optimización de la vida de los ciudadanos, el gasto público tendría que ser eficiente y transparente, además

de centrarse en educación y tecnología, con lo que la sociedad civil tendría más autonomía e influencia en las grandes decisiones, fortaleciéndose las libertades económicas.

Por el contrario, en un escenario de totalitarismo se provocarían rezagos y brechas en el aprovechamiento de los avances tecnológicos al alcance de los ciudadanos, se impondría el control digital sobre las personas, el gasto público expansivo con fines populistas se exacerbaría, además de la opacidad del manejo de recursos; el Estado concentraría más poder y se amenazarían las libertades económicas. Un ejemplo de esta posibilidad es Venezuela, donde el gobierno controla la plataforma de telecomunicaciones y los avances de la economía digital.

La innovación debe ser el centro de la política pública en sociedades al servicio del bienestar y felicidad de los ciudadanos. Los ciudadanos se hacen más exigentes, en la medida que descubren y ponen en práctica sus libertades civiles, mientras que ocurre lo contrario cuando se les priva de ellas, en ese caso se vuelven esclavos de un Estado todopoderoso que los alimenta, controla y les dice qué hacer.

Siendo así, el gobierno digital puede ser un arma de doble filo y ofrecer tanto ventajas y desventajas para los ciudadanos, dependiendo del sistema político donde se desarrollen, por ejemplo si se trata de una auténtica democracia o de un régimen totalitario.

En el escenario democrático, las ventajas más obvias de un gobierno apalancado en las nuevas tecnologías son, de acuerdo al Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo: en primer lugar la transparencia, al colocar los datos de monitoreo del presupuesto público disponibles a la ciudadanía. Además, permite colocar al ciudadano como eje central, de manera que se presten los servicios y se realicen los trámites adaptándolos a la medida de las necesidades de los habitantes.

Un gobierno digital en democracia, permite usar las nuevas tecnologías para facilitar la vida de todos, en lugares remotos y de difícil acceso; apunta a la simplificación de todos los

trámites y la reducción del gasto público, y permite una recaudación más eficiente de impuestos y transparencia en la gestión fiscal.

En democracia,las ventajas del gobierno digital son para los ciudadanos, mientras los retos son para el gobierno que debe ser muy transparente, por la contraloría ciudadana Lamentablemente en totalitarismo, todas las ventajas del gobierno digital son exclusivamente para el gobierno. En el escenario de régimen totalitario, se deducen que los riesgos de gobiernos apalancados en nuevas tecnologías de información se centran en la obtención fácil de datos privados de los ciudadanos, que se utilizan en su control y extorsión, además se crean las condiciones que permiten que el Estado pueda intervenir en todos los ámbitos de la sociedad civil (especialmente si monopoliza la plataforma de telecomunicaciones).

La Cuarta Revolución Industrial amenaza con imponer cambios en el mercado laboral y todas las relaciones que se establecen en la sociedad, porque viene acompañada de tecnologías que hacen énfasis en la concentración de esfuerzos en las áreas de ciencia aplicada. Por lo tanto, el gasto público en los países menos desarrollados de la región, debería enfocarse en educación de primera calidad, ciencia y tecnología, para la formación de capital humano adaptado a la nueva economía mundial digital.

Sin embargo, en países como Venezuela el deterioro de la democracia, ha provocado que el gobierno use las ventajas de las nuevas tecnologías, no para beneficio de la sociedad civil, sino para controlar y extorsionar a la población.

En el caso del gobierno venezolano, el gobierno exige transparencia de datos de los ciudadanos, pero sólo muestra opacidad en el manejo de los recursos de la República.

El gobierno digital puede ser una palanca que fortalezca la democracia o un instrumento que genere más mecanismos de control y extorsión para los ciudadanos en regímenes totalitarios, todo depende de quién tenga el poder económico y cómo se configure cada sociedad.

LAS MUJERES COMO MOTOR DE LA PROSPERIDAD EN EL SIGLO XXI Por: Julie T. Katzman La igualdad y la diversidad en el mercado laboral brindan innumerables beneficios a los sectores público y privado. Múltiples estudios procedentes de todas partes del mundo demuestran que cuando se cuenta con tres o más mujeres en una junta directiva, y con más mujeres y una mayor diversidad en la alta gerencia, se obtiene un mejor rendimiento ya sea en términos de rentabilidad, precio de las acciones o prevención de la bancarrota.

No obstante, en América Latina y El Caribe (ALC) solo el 4,2% de los directores ejecutivos son mujeres, y solamente el 7,2% de todos los cargos directivos están ocupados por ellas. De 14.412 compañías, solo el 21,4% tiene una sola mujer en puestos de alto rango. En otras dos áreas clave, ALC también enfrenta desafíos importantes. La participación de la mujer en la fuerza de trabajo ha disminuido desde 2002 y, con solo el 54%, se encuentra más de 30 puntos porcentuales por debajo de la participación de los hombres, una de las brechas más grandes del mundo. En lo que respecta a la brecha salarial de género, las mujeres pueden ganar hasta un 40% menos que sus pares masculinos en condiciones similares y tienen solo el 33% de los trabajos mejor pagados.

En el Grupo BID, estamos trabajando arduamente para cambiar esta situación. Sin embargo, no es fácil y requiere de acciones concertadas por parte del sector público y privado. Es por eso que en el BID, junto con el Foro Económico Mundial (WEF por sus siglas en inglés), hemos apoyado la creación de los llamados Grupos de Trabajo de Paridad de Género (IPGs) en Chile, Argentina y Panamá, con miras a su creación en Perú a finales de este año.

Las IPGs son iniciativas público-privadas diseñadas para reducir estas importantes brechas en un período de tres años. La de Chile es la más avanzada. Tras un año de su lanzamiento, más de 100 empresas privadas y estatales se han unido a la iniciativa en ese país, incluyendo nombres tan conocidos como Sodexo y Accenture, proveedores de servicios e infraestructura como Telefónica, y otras empresas pertenecientes a industrias consideradas predominan-

temente masculinas como Coldelco y Antofagasta Minerals. Cada compañía cuenta con una línea de base de indicadores de género y comparten mejores prácticas, como las metodologías para calcular las diferencias salariales, a la vez que establecen sus metas para los próximos dos años.

Las empresas también reciben dirección desde las políticas públicas y por eso la participación del sector público es tan importante. Tomemos por ejemplo las cuotas de participación en las juntas directivas. Diez años después de que Noruega introdujera una ley que obliga a las empresas de la bolsa a incluir al menos un 40% de mujeres en sus juntas directivas, el 42% de dichas posiciones son ocupadas por mujeres.

En Francia, las empresas también van encaminadas a cumplir la cuota establecida de 40%: las mujeres ocupan el 35% de los cargos directivos, muy por encima del 9% registrado hace unos años. La experiencia en otros países es similar.

La disponibilidad y asequibilidad de servicios de alta calidad para el cuidado infantil y de las personas mayores es otra pieza clave para aumentar la participación de la mujer en la fuerza de trabajo y promover su liderazgo en los sectores público y privado. En la actualidad, las mujeres realizan la mayor parte de las tareas domésticas y tienen mayor responsabilidad en el cuidado de los hijos y las personas mayores de la familia. Mientras no haya alternativas de cuidado de calidad, sus carreras se verán perjudicadas.

La licencia por paternidad es otra área que requiere atención. En este aspecto, es el sector privado quien lidera el camino por ser determinante para la contratación y retención del mejor talento. En 2016, EY comenzó a brindar 16 semanas de licencia por paternidad luego de enterarse de que este beneficio es tan valioso para sus empleados hombres, que incluso considerarían cambiar de empleador para obtenerlo. Sin embargo, fue solo después de que la empresa reclutó la participación de algunos de sus empleados más influyentes para hacer uso de este beneficio y hablar al respecto, que el

número de hombres elegibles que tomaron la baja por paternidad durante 6 semanas o más aumentó de 19% al 40%. Cuando los hombres dedican más tiempo a la crianza de los hijos y a las tareas domésticas, las mujeres pueden participar plenamente en el mercado laboral y desarrollar su potencial.

Hoy día, varías compañías han conseguido titulares en los medios por la forma en que han abordado la brecha salarial de género. Inicialmente en 2015, el director ejecutivo de Salesforce llevó a cabo una revisión exhaustiva de la compensación entre ambos géneros y realizó un ajuste del salario de las mujeres al alza para eliminar la brecha. Reddit experimentó con ofertas de trabajo no negociables para atender el hecho de que las mujeres tienden a no negociar los salarios tan bien como los hombres.

En lo personal, me enorgullece compartir que, en el BID, durante el proceso para obtener la certificación EDGE, confirmamos que nuestra brecha salarial de género es de 2%, estadísticamente insignificante. Desafortunadamente, somos una excepción. Apenas la semana pasada, pudimos conocer los primeros informes de la nueva iniciativa de transparencia del Reino Unido, que obliga a las empresas con más de 250 empleados a publicar las diferen-

cias salariales por género. Las cifras son impactantes en todas las industrias. En Goldman Sachs las diferencias salariales ascienden a un 54%, en Karen Millen a un 49% y en Telegraph Media Group a un 35%. La transparencia es una herramienta importante, pero puede no ser suficiente. Es por eso que Islandia ha ido más allá y se ha convertido en el primer país en aprobar una ley que exige que las empresas con más de 25 empleados demuestren que pagan por igual a hombres y mujeres para cerrar la brecha.

Dos siglos, 217 años para ser exactos, es lo que llevaría, según el WEF, cerrar la brecha económica de género. Sin intervenciones sustantivas, pasarán generaciones enteras antes de que las niñas y las mujeres experimenten la paridad. Lo que está en juego es demasiado para permitir que este sea el caso. Las cifras son elocuentes: US$2 mil millones en salarios adicionales solo en la OCDE, si la brecha salarial se cerrara; US$12 mil millones de PIB si la brecha de participación en la fuerza de trabajo se cerrara y US$1.000 millones solamente en América Latina y El Caribe. De más está decir que tomar acción y llevar a cabo estas reformas, no solo es lo justo sino lo necesario.

MUJERES EN LA TECNOLOGÍA: UNA TAREA PARA CRECER Por: Natalia Vega En el último tiempo se han alzado voces en diferentes ámbitos en materia de equidad de derechos entre hombres y mujeres. Autoridades, movimientos ciudadanos, celebridades se han unido para exigir algo que debiese ser inherente al ser: la igualdad de género.

Una de las bases para lograrlo es la participación en el trabajo. En ese ámbito, la contribución laboral femenina en Chile sigue en aumento y en 2017 llegó a un 48% según la CNP. La cifra, sin embargo, está por debajo del 55% promedio a nivel latinoamericano.

En la industria de las TIC se observa que hay minoría. Específicamente en el campo de las ciencias de la computación e ingeniería, del total de los trabajos del área de tecnología en el mundo sólo un 20% son realizados por mujeres, según cifras de Eurostat.

A nivel nacional las cifras también son bajas.

Un estudio de Laborum revela que sólo un 1,64% de mujeres postularon a trabajos del área de tecnología, sistemas y telecomunicaciones, reafirmando que las TIC están lideradas por el género masculino, que ocupa mayoritariamente los empleos de esta área en Chile y el mundo.

Para revertir la tendencia son necesarios cambios socioculturales que rompan los estereotipos y las actividades que en general se les asignan a las mujeres desde pequeñas. Es así como aparecen nuevos referentes en literatura que se alejan de la tradición como el best seller internacional “Cuentos de buenas noches para niñas rebeldes”, donde se reúnen historias de pioneras intrépidas como Elizabeth I, Coco

Chanel, Marie Curie y Frida Kahlo, que las invitan a soñar en grande.

Se hace cada día más relevante seguir potenciando su desenvolvimiento en tecnología, aumentar el interés de éstas por estudiar una carrera relacionada con tecnología, ya que actualmente es cuatro veces menor comparado con un niño. Así, la mayor inserción de las mujeres, tanto en ciencia y tecnología como en todos los ámbitos que el mundo requiere, es fundamental para el desarrollo y progreso del país.

Es necesario entonces, que, desde los líderes de las compañías e instituciones hasta cada uno de los colaboradores, se respeten el trabajo y la opinión del otro, independientemente del género de cada persona.

Y desde el sector público, implementar políticas públicas que impulsen la participación femenina en carreras de CTIM que se abran espacios para romper los estereotipos de género y se difunda el valor que pueden contribuir las mujeres en el área.

IGUALDAD DE GÉNERO, TECNOLOGÍA DE PROPULSIÓN APEC TOURISM DEVELOPMENT Emitido por el Grupo de Trabajo de Turismo de APEC Port Moresby, Papua Nueva Guinea, 31 de mayo de 2018 - Las economías miembros de APEC están ganando terreno en la igualdad de género y el acceso a la tecnología digital para impulsar el desarrollo del sector liderado por mujeres.

Impulsados por la necesidad de acomodar a los pasajeros en la región de Asia-Pacífico, los funcionarios en Port Moresby han sido seleccionados para mejorar su posición en los Estados Unidos.

Establece el escenario para que la Reunión de Ministros de Turismo de APEC el viernes tome medidas para enfrentar los desafíos de género y maximizar el potencial de crecimiento.

"Estamos trabajando para establecer una infraestructura turística en la región de APEC que pueda albergar a 800 millones de turistas anualmente hasta 2025", explicó Alcinda Trawen, líder del grupo de trabajo de turismo de APEC. "Abrir oportunidades en el sector, ya sea en la hospitalidad, o un artesano convertido en empresario", agregó Trawen, también un funcionario de la Autoridad de Promoción Turística de Papua Nueva Guinea.

La región de APEC recibe con satisfacción unos 400 millones de llegadas de turistas al año, duplicándose desde 2000 con un crecimiento interanual promedio del 4,7 por ciento.

Además, la industria representa el 3.9 por ciento del PIB en APEC y emplea a 150 millones de personas o el 10 por ciento de la fuerza laboral de la región.

Pero si el turismo es uno de los principales empleadores, las brechas de género persisten en lo que respecta a la participación laboral, las funciones de gestión y la compensación.

Los funcionarios de turismo en APEC se centran en promover políticas que promuevan lugares de trabajo inteligentes de género. Esto incluye el cuidado de los niños y el control del acoso sexual y la violencia para limitar el ausentismo, el volumen de negocios y la pérdida de salarios entre las mujeres y los costos de contratación más altos y la escasez de talento para los empleadores.

La atención paralela se centra en la alineación de los estándares de habilidades ocupacionales, las certificaciones profesionales y la capacitación en alfabetización digital y financiera para ampliar la participación laboral en las economías turísticas de APEC, en consulta con la industria y los grupos comunitarios.

"El sector del turismo es un catalizador para la inclusión de la fuerza de trabajo y su dependencia de las microempresas y las pequeñas empresas", dijo Frederick Tamarua, presidente de la Asociación de políticas de APEC sobre la mujer y la economía.

Prioridad de APEC ", concluyรณ Tamarua. "La nueva conciencia social y las herramientas

digitales estรกn allanando el camino para los avances del crecimiento de la industria real".

MINISTROS DE APEC ABREN MERCADOS DE TURISMO Emitido por la Reunión Ministerial de Turismo de APEC Port Moresby, Papua Nueva Guinea, 1 de junio de 2018

Los ministros de turismo de las economías miembros de APEC están coordinando sus políticas en Asia-Pacífico.

caciones y big data para impulsar el desarrollo de productos turísticos, marketing, servicios turísticos, capacitación y emprendimiento.

Abordar los cambios y las condiciones para las pequeñas y medianas empresas y el empleo en los Estados Unidos de América.

Paralelamente a este enfoque, los ministros de turismo están trabajando en una nueva guía de APEC para las partes interesadas de la industria, como los proveedores de servicios locales, las empresas de hostelería y las plataformas compartidas. El objetivo es alentar un servicio más uniforme y estándares ocupacionales.

"Hay nuevas oportunidades de crecimiento y desarrollo con estas oportunidades y desafíos", explicó el Ministro de Turismo, Arte y Cultura de Papua Nueva Guinea y Presidente de la Reunión Ministerial de Turismo de la APEC Hon. Emil Tammur MP. "El Ministro Tammur continuó:" La responsabilidad recae sobre nosotros, como región, para reconocer la necesidad de desarrollar y utilizar prácticas que sean sostenibles e inclusivas.

Los ministros de turismo son responsables de la posición de los operadores y la fuerza de trabajo en la región de APEC para aprovechar el rápido crecimiento de los flujos de turismo internacional y las nuevas tendencias de consumo.

Esto incluye la promoción de políticas que faciliten el crecimiento empresarial y el aprovechamiento de tecnología móvil accesible, apli-

Los ministros de turismo también están examinando estrategias para abordar los problemas de seguridad y hacerlos más seguros.

"Debemos desarrollar políticas y mecanismos que respondan a los desafíos actuales y reconozcan la necesidad de una mayor prosperidad", señaló el Ministro Tammur.

"Con Asia-Pacífico, uno de los contribuyentes más importantes del mundo al mundo", concluyó el Ministro Tammur.

La Reunión Ministerial de APEC concluirá el viernes. Seguirá una inspección del turismo en Kavieng, Nueva Irlanda, Papúa Nueva Guinea, el sábado.

BUSCANDO LA SUSTENTABILIDAD DEL ACEITE DE PALMA Para combatir el problema ambiental de este aceite se debe apelar a la sostenibilidad y no prohibir su uso, dice ONG. Los compradores se equivocan al eliminar el aceite de palma de sus adquisiciones y debe-

rían centrarse en su lugar en trabajar con estrategias de sostenibilidad y pequeños agricultores, dijo el martes una organización de conservación forestal con sede en Indonesia.

La cadena de supermercados británica Iceland dijo este mes que eliminaría el aceite de palma de los productos alimenticios de su marca a

finales de 2018, como parte de sus esfuerzos por cortar de raíz la deforestación en Indonesia y Malasia y ayudar a las especies en peligro de extinción.

“Que sea una mala idea comprar aceite de palma es sólo la última moda”, dijo Robert Nasi, director general del Centro para la Investigación Forestal Internacional (CIFOR).

Hogar del tercer bosque tropical más grande del mundo, Indonesia es también el mayor productor de aceite de palma. Los ecologistas culpan de la destrucción de bosques en gran parte a la limpieza de la tierra para cultivos.

Existen más de 2 millones de pequeños agricultores en Malasia e Indonesia, los dos países que controlan el suministro de aceite vegetal.

Es mucho mejor para los consumidores y compradores trabajar con organizaciones y estrategias de sostenibilidad, como la Mesa Redonda sobre Aceite de Palma Sostenible (RSPO, por su sigla en inglés), y reforzar esos estándares, dijo Nasi a la Fundación Thomson Reuters.

Estos agricultores producen en torno a un 40% de aceite de palma que procede de esos dos países, pero sufren baja productividad y a menudo se les culpa de prácticas agrícolas insostenibles, como la tala y quema de bosques y la destrucción de turberas.

El director gerente de Iceland, que comercia con 900 tiendas y que está especializado en congelados, dijo que la compañía no creía que existiera aceite de palma sostenible disponible para las empresas de venta minorista.

Compradores de aceite de palma como Nestle, Unilever y Procter & Gamble lideran pequeñas estrategias que intentan mejorar la sostenibilidad entre los pequeños agricultores, y los responsables de la conferencia respaldaron dichos esfuerzos.

El aceite de palma se usa en una amplia gama de productos alimenticios y del hogar, desde galletas, helado y crema de chocolate hasta sopas y cosméticos, así como en biocombustibles.

“El principal problema no es el aceite de palma, es dónde se planta”, dijo Nasi, hablando al margen de la cumbre de la Selva Tropical de Asia y el Pacífico en Yogyakarta, en la isla de Java.

Los árboles de palma producen de 4 a 10 veces más aceite que otros cultivos de aceite vegetal por unidad de tierra cultivada.

“Trabajar con productores de aceite de palma es importante... para asegurar que Indonesia pueda aumentar la producción, pero sin extenderse a los bosques”, dijo Christoffer Gronstad, experto en cambio climático y bosques en la embajada noruega de Indonesia.

Noruega e Indonesia firmaron un acuerdo bilateral en 2010 para acabar con la deforestación e impulsar el crecimiento económico.

MARINE LITTER LEGISLATION: A TOOLKIT FOR POLICY MAKERS Policymakers Acknowledgments

This report was developed by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It was researched, drafted, and produced by Carl Bruch, Kathryn Mengerink, Elana Harrison, Davonne Flanagan, Isabel Carey, Thomas Casey, Meggan Davis, Elizabeth Hessami, Joyce Lombardi, Norka Michelen, Colin Parts, Lucas Rhodes, Nikita West, and Sofia Yazykova. Within UNEP, Heidi Savelli, Arnold Kreilhuber, and Petter Malvik oversaw the development of the report. The authors express their appreciation to the peer reviewers, including Catherine Ayres, Patricia Beneke, Angela Howe, Ileana Lopez, Lara Ognibene, David Vander Zwaag, and Judith Wehrli.

Cover photo: Plastics floating in the ocean The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Environment Programme. Š 2016. United Nations Environment Programme.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Environment Programme.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, DCPI, UNEP, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya.

ISBN: 978-92-807-3594-9

Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers

Contents Foreword List of Acronyms Executive Summary 1. Introduction 1.1 This Report 1.2 The International Legal Framework 2. Overarching National Legislation and Policies 3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 3.1 Prohibiting and Disincentivizing Manufacturing 3.1.1. Prohibiting Manufacture of Nurdles (Pre-Production Plastic)

3.1.2 Prohibiting the Manufacture of Plastic Bags 3.1.3 Prohibiting the Manufacture of Microplastics (Microbeads) 3.2 Prohibiting and Disincentivizing Use at the Retail Level 3.2.1 Plastic Bag Bans 3.2.2 Regulation of Bag Thickness 3.2.3 Bans on Plastic Stirrers, Utensils, and Cups 3.2.4 Taxes and Other Levies 3.2.5 Banning “Biodegradable� Products 3.2.6 Bans on Expanded Polystyrene (Foam) 3.2.7 Requiring or Encouraging Reusable Products 3.2.8 Cigarette-Free Beaches 3.3 Extended Producer Responsibility 3.4 Summary 4. Managing Waste Disposal into the Marine Environment 4.1 Land-Based Waste Disposal Requirements 4.1.1 Landfill Siting and Operation 4.1.2 Planning and Disaster Preparedness 4.1.3 Mandatory Recycling and Separation 4.1.4 Incineration 4.2 Land-Based Waste Cleanup 4.3 Abandoned, Lost, and Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) 4.4 Regulation of Marine Litter from Ships 4.4.1 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), 1973 4.4.2 National Legislation Implementing MARPOL 4.4.3 Cruise Ship Waste 4.4.4 Penalties for Violations of Dumping Garbage into the Marine Environment 4.4.5 Summary 4.5 Artificial Reefs 5. Managing Waste in the Marine Environment 5.1 Assessing the Status and Impacts 5.2 Planning 5.3 Cleanup 6. Other Considerations 6.1 Research Programs 6.2 Advisory Bodies 6.3 Environmental Impact Assessment 6.4 Public Engagement 6.5 Private Sector Engagement 7. Conclusions APPENDIX A: Legal and Policy Instruments Related to Marine Litter APPENDIX B: References Foreword A Preventable Problem Far too much of the 300 million tonnes of plastic produced in every year finds its way into our oceans, food chains and ecosystems, damaging our health in the process. The scale of the problem is clear when you consider that a small group of volunteers collected over a million kilograms of waste from Versova beach in India in just 40 weekends. Yet well-designed laws can reverse this global trend. That is why this toolkit provides an overview of existing marine litter legislation and case studies to help policymakers change the habits of producers and consumers.

The toolkit shows why most legislation targets marine litter at source, rather than the resulting waste.

For example, Ireland used a levy to cut the number of plastic bags people use each year, from 328 to

14, in just over a decade. It’s an example that a growing number of places around the world are following.

Some countries tackle marine litter through comprehensive legislation, while others prefer to use a combination of several different laws. In either case, there are a wide range of important measures to consider. This toolkit includes recommendations on mapping and reviewing regulatory frameworks, documenting and sharing experience, and providing grace periods when introducing legislation.

Well-crafted laws alone cannot solve the problem of marine litter, but they are an important piece of the puzzle. I hope this toolkit will inspire policymakers and lawmakers to work together in strengthening legislation for one of the most pressing and preventable problems of our time.

Erik Solheim UN Environment Executive Director List of Acronyms ALDFG abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear APC armored personnel carrier CCAMLR Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources COP Conference of the Parties CWA Clean Water Act (U.S.) DDE dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene DFG derelict fishing gear EAC East African Community EEA European Environment Agency EIA environmental impact assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.) EPS expanded polystyrene EU European Union FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GESAMP Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection GOMMDP Gulf of Mexico Marine Debris Project GPA Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities GPS global positioning system IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission ITLOS International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea LPMLD Law for the Promotion of Marine Litter Disposal (Japan) MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MDRPRA Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act MEM Marine Environmental Management (South Korea) MLW Marine LitterWatch (EU)

MPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (U.S.) MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EU) NGO nongovernmental organization NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S.) NDRMS National Disaster Risk Management System OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PPSA Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act (Singapore) PRF Port Reception Facilities (EU) SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SIDS Small Island Developing States TAP Threat Abatement Plan (Australia) TMDL total maximum daily load UN United Nations UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNGA UN General Assembly U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WtE waste-to-energy WTO World Trade Organization Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers viii Executive Summary Marine litter poses serious environmental, health, and economic threats to oceans and coastal ecosystems. It also presents a unique legal and regulatory challenge for many nation States (hereinafter States), as it can originate from diverse land-based and sea-based sources both within and outside of a State. While the full magnitude of the problem can be difficult to ascertain, some estimates suggest that an average of 8 million tons of plastic waste entered the ocean in 2010, and this figure has been projected to increase.

The prevalence of marine litter is the result of many different factors, including changing production and consumption patterns, inadequate waste management, and gaps in regulation of waste materials. The diverse sources require a comprehensive response. Accordingly, countries frequently utilize a variety of laws and policies to prevent, manage, and reduce the proliferation of marine litter. Many of these approaches are part of the general frameworks to reduce the generation and spread of solid waste, rather than being part of frameworks specifically designed to address marine litter. That said, a growing number of countries are developing targeted laws and policies to address marine litter—from laws mandating more research (e.g., in the United States) to laws banning certain types of products (e.g., plastic bags in Bangladesh and Rwanda), to overarching frameworks to address the growing problem (e.g., in Japan and Singapore).

Policies and laws need to address not only the removal of litter but are generally more successful when they govern the production, use, and disposal of products that would otherwise become marine litter. To

this end, using a circular economy approach to prevent the generation of waste products can reduce the overall production of marine litter.

The following recommendations build upon the laws and policies reviewed in this Toolkit and address approaches States can take to reduce and minimize marine litter: Recommendations: States that elect to adopt a comprehensive, holistic approach to marine litter management may: Adopt legislation providing an overarching framework for preventing, reducing, and otherwise managing marine litter. This legislation should consider the relationship between the marine litter legislation and other relevant laws (for example, on waste management), and particularly whether the new overarching legislation ix Executive Summary supplements or replaces the existing laws. It should also provide for periodic review of the enacted legislation and its implementation.

Establish an inter-agency mechanism for coordinating among the diverse sectors with a role in addressing marine litter. This inter-agency coordination should address the development, implementation, and review of the marine litter legislation and implementing regulations. It should also engage key stakeholders from the private sector and civil society.

States that adopt a more piecemeal approach to marine litter may: Develop and implement laws to ban or diminish the production of single-use trash items and other waste that is commonly found in marine litter. Single-use plastics, such as bottles, cups, and bags, are often found on beaches and are pervasive in the marine environment. Therefore, many countries and sub-national governments have banned certain types of single-use items (especially plastic bags).

Regulate non-recoverable items, such as plastic microbeads in personal care and cosmetics products.

These are impossible to remove from an aquatic environment. By preventing their introduction into the marine environment, States can eliminate a source of marine plastic pollution.

Develop and implement legislation to prevent the waste, once created, from entering the marine environment. Preventing waste from entering the marine environment is a key approach, as once it has entered the marine environment, it is difficult or impossible to remove. Therefore establishing programs and practices, such as covered landfills near aquatic bodies, may help minimize waste. Approaches such as the circular economy model of economic development can be used to reduce the creation of items that easily become marine litter.

Support marine litter cleanup efforts. Through policy measures and government programs, States can support regional and local marine debris monitoring and cleanup programs, engage in education and awareness-raising initiatives, and extend producer responsibility.

Regardless of whether a State adopts a comprehensive or piecemeal approach to marine litter, there are a wide range of legal and policy approaches that are important for addressing marine litter— including collecting and accessing data and information; requiring agencies to report on progress; conducting baseline assessments; setting goals for litter reduction; addressing prevention, remediation, coordination, and planning; creating incentives through market-based instruments; and public participation and awareness-raising.

Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers x Specific measures include: Map and review national regulatory frameworks and other instruments to identify gaps in addressing the issue. This may include laws and policies related to export of certain plastics products to countries where no recycling or recovery for these items exist; prohibit production of disposable items that lack an adequate end-of-life plan and cost contribution to deal with the problem; or impose requirements on port reception facilities. From this assessment, States can make an informed decision about priorities for preventing marine litter.

When introducing new regulatory frameworks (such as bans, fees, or phase outs) plan for a grace period in which to educate the public. Securing support from key stakeholders who are affected by or contributing to the production of marine litter (i.e. regulated businesses, local authorities, and the public) can improve compliance with the regulation and enforcement. During the grace period, it is critical to increase public understanding of the initiative, the reason for it, its benefits, and what is required to comply with the requirements.

Document and share approaches. Countries and subnational authorities are encouraged to document the process of developing legislation to address marine litter (including for example, any cost-benefit analyses that are conducted, which stakeholders were engaged, and how, and the policy debate around particular options). Sharing information on the process as well as the final legislation can then inform other jurisdictions that are considering similar legislation. Online databases, such as ECOLEX, are one tool for sharing relevant laws and policies, although it may be advisable to develop new keywords focused on marine litter to facilitate identification of relevant legislation.

1. INTRODUCTION Solid waste that enters the ocean and becomes marine litter presents unique legal and regulatory challenges. Marine litter, sometimes referred to as marine debris, is defined as “any persistent, manufactured, or processed solid material that is discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment.�1 This definition includes items originating from land or sea-based sources. Major landbased sources of marine litter include waste from landfills sited near coastal areas, storm water runoff, ineffective sewage treatment, industrial outfalls, littering, ship-breaking yards, and natural disasters and storms.2 Sea-based waste is often the result of dumping from vessels at sea, fishing, shipping, and lost or abandoned fishing gear.3 The full magnitude of marine litter is difficult to determine. While it is commonly estimated, for example, that 80 percent of marine litter comes from land-based sources, this figure may not account for all litter entering the marine environment.4 The prevalence of marine litter is caused by many different factors, including changing production patterns, poor waste management, and gaps in regulation of waste materials.

1 UNEP, 2009.

2 Leous and Parry, 2005; UNEP, 2009.

3 National Research Council of the National Academies, 2005.

4 Jambeck et al., 2015.

The amount and composition of marine litter can vary between regions, due to differences in waste management and in economic activities such as tourism, fisheries and shipping. It also varies by location due, in part, to currents that can carry marine litter to accumulation sites.5 Data from the 2014 International Coastal Cleanup Day, coordinated by the Ocean Conservancy, found that the most commonly collected items from beaches included cigarette butts, food wrappers, plastic bottles, bottle caps, straws and stirrers, plastic bags, glass bottles, beverage cans, and plastic cups and plates.6 A 2014 study of litter on South Korean beaches from 2008 to 2009 found that fisheries and marine aquaculture accounted for approximately 35 percent of marine litter, household items made up 20 percent, and beach recreation items made up 12 percent.7 Marine litter is not just on the sea’s surface and on the beaches: a study of European waters found litter at depths ranging from 35 to 4500 meters, with plastic bags, glass bottles, and derelict fishing gear being the most prevalent.8 Plastics are estimated to make up as much as 95 percent of the marine litter found on coastlines, sea surface, and the ocean floor.9 An estimated 4.8 to 12.7 million metric tonnes of plastic entered the ocean from land-based sources in 2010, and about another 8 metric tonnes has entered the oceans each year since then.10 Microplastics 5 UNEP, 2005a.

6 Ocean Conservancy, 2015a.

7 Hong, Lee, and Kang, 2014.

8 Pham et al., 2014.

9 Galgani, Hanke, and Maes, 2015.

10 Jambeck et al., 2015.

1. Introduction Also present a significant problem for marine litter management. They can be found, for example, in personal care and industrial products (primary microplastics); they can also come from larger pieces of plastic that have degraded (secondary microplastics).

Microplastics pose a significant problem as they can pass through wastewater filters with ease, making it impossible to recover them once in the ocean. Microplastics range in size, but are commonly defined as plastic particles of less than 5mm.11 11 GESAMP, 2015.

Marine litter negatively impacts the environment, economy, and public health. Marine life can become tangled in abandoned nets and fishing gear, leading to death and injury.12 Several studies have found that ingested microplastics can potentially disrupt cellular processes and degrade tissue13 as well as concentrate toxins across the food chain, leading to a biomagnification effect.14 Marine litter can also lead to economic losses, due to the cost of coastal cleanup and lost tourism revenue. The Asia-Pacific region is reported to lose US$1.265 billion annually due to damage to its fishing, shipping, and marine tourism industries caused by marine litter.15 Marine litter presents a serious nonpoint pollution problem to Scotland, costing the state at least £16.8 million or US$24.3 million annually (when calculating consumptive uses, non-consumptive uses, and indirect uses of Scottish coasts and waters).16 Marine litter cannot be traced back to a single source. Rather, it is the result of many types of inputs and actions (or inactions). Policies and laws need to address not only the removal of litter but more importantly govern the production, use, and disposal of products. A circular economy approach can reduce the quantity of waste by stopping it at its source. By designing products that are durable, can be repaired, and are recovered and recycled at the end of their productive use, circular economy approaches can prevent the generation of waste in the first place, and thereby prevent the entry of marine litter into the environment.

12 Ocean Conservancy, 2015a.

13 Rochman et al., 2013.

14 Wright et al., 2013.

15 APEC Marine Resource Conservation Working Group, 2009.

16 Potts and Hastings, 2011.

Related to the circular economy, the concept of a waste hierarchy (sometimes referred to as a “waste management hierarchy”) indicates a preferred order of action to prevent, reduce, and manage waste.

Thus, prevention is the most favored option, then minimization, then reuse, then recycling, then energy recovery, then disposal.17 Waste management legislation, policies, and strategies of the EU and its Member States utilize the circular economy and the concept of a waste hierarchy to address marine litter and related waste challenges.18 Laws and policies can provide a mandate, procedures, and standards to prevent, reduce, and manage marine litter. For example, Ireland’s plastic bag levy was introduced to reduce the consumption of disposable plastic bags by influencing consumer behavior.19 Prior to the implementation of the levy, the Irish Government first secured support from key stakeholders, including the retail industry, Ministry of Finance, local authorities, and consumers. The cost of the implementation of the levy was estimated at approximately €1.8 million, including one-time setup costs, annual administration costs, and an initial publicity campaign—a relatively modest amount.20 Revenue collection and reporting required little additional work on behalf of retail firms, which integrated the levy into their Value Added Tax (VAT) collection systems. The levy took effect in 2002 with a rate of 15 cents per bag; in 2007 the rate was in-

creased to 22 cents per bag. All levies are remitted into the Environment Fund. It had an immediate effect on consumer behavior with a decrease in plastic bag usage from an estimated 328 bags per capita to 21 bags per capita.21 This has continued to fall to an estimated 14 bags per capita in 2014. According to the Department of Environment, Community, and Local Government, the bag levy raised €3.5 million in revenue during the first year after it was implemented.22 The National Littering Monitoring System found in its 2013 survey that plastic items made up only 0.26 percent of Ireland’s litter, down from about 1 percent according to the 2003 results.

Recently, a number of other countries have begun to implement bans on materials that can contribute to marine litter. Mauritius banned the “import, manufacture, sale, or supply of a plastic bag … that is designed to carry goods purchased at points of sale.”23 The regulation allows 11 types of plastic bags to be exempted for essential use and hygienic and sanitary purposes. Antigua and Barbuda has indicated that it intends to ban the importation of all plastic bags except 17 UNEP, 2013.

18 European Commission, n.d.

19 Waste Management (Environmental Levy) (Plastic http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/si/605/made/en/print.

Bag)

Regulations

2001

(Ir.),

20 Convery, McDonnell, and Ferreira, 2007.

21 Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, n.d.

22 Waste Management (Energy Levy) (Plastic Bag) Regulations 2001 (SI 605/2001) (Ir.).

23 Regulations Made by the Minister under Section 96 of the Environment Protection Act (Mauritius), Government Notice No. 233 of 2015, http://www.qb.mu/files/Environment_Protection_Banning_of_Plastic_Bags_Amendment.pdf.

1. Introduction for those used in garbage collection and disposal.24 The ban took effect in July 2016. Effective April 1, 2016, Guyana banned the importation, manufacture, and sale of polystyrene containers, focusing on “food serve establishments.”25 Local Law 142 amended the New York City administrative code to restrict the sale or use of certain expanded polystyrene items (EPS). Section 16-329 stipulates that if the Commissioner determines that EPS single-service items are not recyclable, then on July 1, 2015 “no food service establishment … shall possess, sell, or offer for use single service articles that consist of expanded polystyrene.” On October 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of New York overturned the law, stating city ban was incongruent with the City Council law.26 New York City is currently appealing the ruling.

While there are many approaches to address the different aspects of marine litter, few countries or regions have an overarching legal framework to tackle the problem. Drawing upon examples from countries around the world, this report considers broad international 24 Gordon, 2016.

25 Regulations Made under the Environmental Protection Act Cap 20:05 (10 Dec. 2015) (Guyana), 240 Official Gazette of Guy. 2593, http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/guy152293.pdf.

26 Restaurant Action Alliance, NYC v. Department of Consumer Affairs, New York County Index No. 100734/15, http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/CITY%20APPEAL%20NOTICE%20.PDF. frameworks for addressing marine litter and then examines more targeted legislative approaches.

1.1 This Report The following Report examines legislation that States have adopted to prevent and manage marine litter. Each section provides overarching information about the challenge and legislative approaches to addressing it as well as specific examples. The remainder of this section focuses on international law relevant to marine litter. Section two reviews overarching national legislation and policies, while section three considers laws governing the production and use of materials that contribute to marine litter. Sec-

tion four discusses legislative approaches to managing waste disposal into the marine environment from land-based and marine sources. Section five examines legislation governing waste in the marine environment. Finally, section six reviews alternative and complementary means of addressing marine litter.

The Report concludes with a summary of key approaches used to address the issue, as well as legal trends and future directions.

In addition to the options explored in this Report representing existing legislation in various jurisdictions, States may consider options for addressing marine litter through innovative approaches (such as labeling) and through non-legislative approaches (such as education).

1.2 The International Legal Framework This section briefly summarizes key international legal instruments and provisions that address marine litter. Relevant international law governing marine litter can roughly be categorized as multilateral environmental agreements, soft law, and international legal principles and customary international law.

These are discussed in more detail in the relevant sections of the report.

Multilateral environmental agreements are binding international agreements. As with other international agreements, multilateral environmental agreements bind only those States who commit to be bound by them via ratification or accession. Three multilateral environmental agreements are particularly relevant to marine litter: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982: UNCLOS came into force in 1994 and 167 States are party to it. The Convention provides a broad legal framework for ocean-related issues, placing a general obligation on States to protect and preserve the marine environment. It calls on States to address land-based sources of pollution as well as pollution from ships, cooperate with other states on marine issues, and work to address marine issues beyond national jurisdiction.

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), 1973/1978: Ratified by 153 States,27 the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) was developed under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It was adopted in 1973 and amended in 1978. MARPOL includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships, both accidental pollution and that occurring during routine operations. Annex V of MARPOL, which came into force in 2013, addresses ocean-based litter pollution and prohibits the discharge of all plastics from ships.

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention), 1972: The London Convention aims to prevent marine pollution by regulating the dumping of wastes and other matter at sea. The convention has been in force since 1975, with 87 States Party.

The 1996 London Protocol revised the London Convention, which allowed some dumping, prohibiting all dumping from ships except for materials listed on the so-called “reverse list.� The 1996 Protocol does not include plastics on the reverse list; thus, dumping of plastics is prohibited. It entered into force in 2006, and 45 States are party to the Protocol.

Other global and regional multilateral environmental agreements also have relevant provisions or are working to reduce marine 27 Ratification information in this report reflects the status as of October 2015.

1. Introduction 7 litter. These include, among others, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). See Appendix A for a more complete list. States are also bound by resolutions that are agreed upon by the Conferences of the Parties (COPs). COP resolutions from a wide range of agreements have addressed marine litter.

In addition to multilateral environmental agreements, international trade agreements are important as they establish the conditions under which States may adopt laws and other measures that affect trade (including bans, taxes, and subsidies). At the global level, the most important instruments are the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the 1995 Marrakech Agreement that established the World Trade Organization (WTO), and their accompanying protocols and related instruments. In addition, there are numerous bilateral and regional trade agreements. As a general matter, trade agree-

ments seek to limit measures that distort or limit trade. There are exceptions—such as GATT Article XX—that allow measures that restrict trade to protect public health and the environment, but these have often been narrowly interpreted.28 Soft law instruments are international declarations, guidelines, and other efforts that are non-binding, but are often persuasive, inspire and inform national legislation, and may reflect emerging international law. Soft law instruments relevant to marine litter include: 28 Wold, Gaines, and Block, 2011; Bernasconi-Osterwalder et al., 2014.

Declaration on Environment and Development: Adopted at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (popularly referred to as the “Rio Earth Summit”), this declaration sets forth 27 principles, many of which are now considered to constitute principles of international environmental law. Relevant principles are discussed below.

Agenda 21: Also adopted at the Rio Earth Summit, Agenda 21 was a 350-page blueprint for sustainable development, setting forth detailed guidance on a wide range of issues. Section II calls for the Conservation and Management of Resources for Development, and includes the conservation of biological diversity and control of pollution as two goals; chapter 17 of section II addresses protection of the ocean and coastal areas, and notes threats posed by marine litter.

Global Programme of Action (GPA) for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities: Established in 1995, the GPA is a global intergovernmental mechanism that advises national and regional authorities on how to prevent and reduce marine degradation from land-based pollution and activities. The GPA framework calls for countries to adopt national programs of action to address land-based sources of pollution.29 29 Relevant GPA declarations include those from Washington (1995), Montreal (2001), Beijing (2006), and Manila (2012).

These and related documents are available at http://unep.org/gpa/resources/MeetingDocuments.asp.

Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers 8 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries: In 1995, more than 170 States adopted the Code of Conduct. Section 7.2.2 states that management measures must be undertaken to minimize the impact of pollution and lost or abandoned gear on fish and non-fish species; section 8.3.2 asserts that port states also have a responsibility to prevent pollution, for example providing adequate disposal systems; and section 8.9.1 states that harbors have the same responsibilities as ports.

Johannesburg Plan of Implementation: Adopted at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation provides targets and timetables for specific measures; it calls for the reduction of pollution and waste and reinforces the polluter-pays principle articulated at the Earth Summit.

The Future We Want: Adopted at the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (also known as “Rio+20”), The Future We Want identified a series of measures to improve sustainable development.

Paragraph 163 noted the harm caused by marine litter from marine and land-based sources and committed countries to implement relevant conventions and programs, with the aim of achieving “significant reductions in marine debris” by 2025.30 30 UNGA, 2012, para. 163.

SAMOA Pathway: On September 4, 2014, representatives from States participating in the third International Conference on Small Island Developing States adopted the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway, calling for efforts “to strengthen national, regional and international mechanisms for the management of waste, including … marine plastic litter.”

Sustainable Development Goals: On October 21, 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 70/1 and endorsed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs).31 Goal 14 seeks to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development, and explicitly addresses marine debris.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 235: On December 23, 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 235 on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, which addressed marine debris in many ways, including urging States to adopt national and regional strategies, incentives, and infrastructure.32 Principles of international law and rules of customary international law are additional sources of international law. Rules of customary international law bind all States, 31 UNGA, 2015.

32 UNGA, 2016.

1. Introduction 9 except for those that persistently object. The key principles and rules relevant to marine litter are: Prevention of Environmental Harm: The principle calls for States to prevent pollution and minimize damage. Both Principle 21 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and Principle 2 of the 1992 Rio Declaration provide that States have the responsibility to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or areas beyond national jurisdiction. This principle is also reflected throughout UNCLOS, including article 194 requiring states to take “all measures … that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source ….”33 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognized this principle as a norm of customary international law.34 Precautionary Principle: The precautionary principle encourages legislators and regulators to enact laws, regulations, and policies that to prevent environmental harm even in the absence 33 Other UNCLOS articles addressing prevention of harm include articles 195, 196, 199, 201-203, 207217, 220, 222, 228, 230, and 234.

34 Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Merits, 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22 (April 9); Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226, paras.

29-30 (July 8); Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7, para. 53 (Sept. 25); Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), 2010 I.C.J., para. 193 (Apr. 20). See also Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905-81 (1941); In the Arbitration Regarding the Iron Rhine Railway (Belg. v. Neth), 23 R.I.A.A. 35 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 2005). of scientific certainty. Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration articulated the principle, and a 2011 advisory opinion of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) addressing deep seabed mining indicated there is a trend toward making the precautionary approach part of customary international law, but they did not explicitly rule on its customary status.35 Polluter Pays: Principle 16 of the 1992 Rio Declaration calls upon national authorities to take the approach that polluters bear the cost of environmental pollution. The polluter pays principle has informed taxes and fees that seek to internalize the cost of pollution.36 Duty to Cooperate: Principle 24 of the 1992 Rio Declaration emphasizes the importance of multilateral and bilateral cooperation to “effectively control, prevent, reduce and eliminate adverse environmental effects resulting in all spheres, in such a way that due account is taken of the sovereignty and interests of all States.” In its MOX Plant decision, ITLOS held that the duty to cooperate is “a fundamental principle in the prevention of pollution of the marine environment under [...] the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and general international law.”37 Decisions in the Lac Lanoux arbitration, 35 Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion) ITLOS Case No. 17, February 1, 2011, para. 135.

36 O’Riordan, 2013.

37 The MOX Plant case (Ireland v. United Kingdom) (Provisional Measures), ITLOS Case No. 10, Order of December 3, 2001, para. 82.

Pulp Mills case, and the Nuclear Test cases further confirm its binding status in international law.38 Environmental Impact Assessment: Principle 17 of the 1992 Rio Declaration calls for environmental impact assessments (EIA) to be undertaken for “proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.”

Article 206 of UNCLOS has a similar requirement for assessment of potential activities when those activities 38 McIntyre, 2006; Harrison, 2015. may have significant effects on the marine environment. In its Pulp Mills decision, the International Court of Justice held that there is a “requirement under general international law” for States to undertake an EIA where there is a risk of significant adverse impact on a shared resource.39 Sustainable Development: The principle of sustainable development—as articulated in the Rio Declaration—requires an integrated consideration of economic, environmental, and social concerns, taking into account the needs of future generations and intragenerational equity.40 For example, for waste disposal this means that marine litter issues should be taken into account along with other environmental concerns (emissions, leachate, habitat degradation) and social concerns (land-use, health risks), as well as economic costs.

Only those principles that are part of customary international law are binding. The principles related to prevention of harm, the duty to cooperate, and environmental impact assessment have recognized by the International Court of Justice as binding principles of international law, but the status of other principles—especially precaution—is still debated and uncertain.41 In addition to global agreements and soft-law instruments, there are a number of regional agreements and instruments that address marine litter. Examples include: Annex IV 39 Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), 2010 I.C.J., para. 204 (Apr. 20).

40 Brunnée and Toope, 1994.

41 Ivone, 2015; Foster, 2013.

FLOATING PLASTIC DEBRIS 1. Introduction 11 of the Helsinki Convention, the European Union (EU) Port Reception Facilities (PRF) Directive, the Regional Sea Conventions and Action Plans, and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, among others. These instruments provide regional approaches to global instrument and otherwise enable regional coordination to address marine litter. More information on these regional agreements and instruments is available in Appendix A. On the national and subnational level, there are a number of states with regulations that address marine litter. These are illustrated throughout the body of this Report.

2. OVERARCHING NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND POLICIES While marine litter often manifests as aggregated debris in specific locations (for example, litter on a beach or in a gyre), it has many diverse sources. In order to address these sources, it is often necessary to consider legislation governing manufacturing and use of certain products (such as plastic bags, beverage containers, and cigarettes), waste disposal and collection, fishing gear, cruise ships, and more.

As a result, at the national level, marine litter is usually addressed in a piecemeal manner across a variety of statutes, including by laws governing solid waste more broadly. Indeed, the authors identified only a few countries that have specific overarching legislation to address marine litter. This section provides a brief overview of some existing national frameworks that set forth overarching approaches to addressing marine litter.

Japan, for example, adopted the Law for the Promotion of Marine Litter Disposal (LPMLD), enacted on July 8, 2009. The purpose of this law is to control and reduce generation of marine litter. It mandates the

central Government to formulate a marine litter policy, which led to the creation of the Basic Policy for Comprehensively and Effectively Promoting Measures against Marine Litter, adopted in 2010.42 The law also mandates that the prefectural governments formulate regional plans, and prefectural governments have established councils to undertake their mandated activities. In addition, the law emphasizes cooperation among private, public, and international sectors.

The LPMLD is limited to litter washed ashore. It sets forth six basic principles, including the principle to clarify responsibilities for marine litter disposal among coastal administrators, prefectures, and other parties.43 The LPMLD also calls for national and international cooperation. To this end, the law encouraged the creation of the Japan Action Network and the National Cleanup Secretariat. The Japan Action Network established a network of local governments and citizens with the aim to enhance cooperation in addressing marine litter. The network cooperates with government ministries and agencies in the implementation of their policies. It also identifies common issues in managing marine litter issues around the different regions of Japan and designs and proposes possible solutions.44 Article 30 of the LPMLD requires the Japanese Government to establish the Council for Promoting Countermeasures against Marine Litter. This council is charged with coordinating a comprehensive and effective response to marine litter.

42 NOWPAP, n.d.

43 Go, 2010.

44 Ibid.

Article 30 also requires the creation of an Expert Council and the establishment of an Expert Conference to give advice and make proposals concerning promotion of countermeasures against marine litter.45 Other countries address marine litter through the inclusion of relevant provisions within broader legislation. In such situations, while a country does not have a law focusing specifically on marine litter, it does have a section of a broader law (e.g., on waste management) that provides an overarching mandate and framework for addressing the particular problem of marine litter. South Korea provides an example this approach. The South Korean Marine Environmental 45 Japanese Government, Office of Marine Environment, 2015.

Management Act of 2009 (MEM Act) includes a mandate to develop a Marine Litter Management Plan.

This statute defines the obligations of the State, local governments, and people to prevent marine pollution. The polluter pays principle is adopted in Chapter I, Article 7, stating that the polluter shall restore and bear expenses for remedying any damage or pollution of the marine environment.

South Korea builds its marine pollution governance structure on science, technology, and information.

The MEM Act provides for the promotion of science and technology, and international cooperation in the marine environment.46 The law mandates the creation of a marine environment information 46 Marine Environmental Management Act, Act. No. 8260, Jan. 19, 2007, art. 6 (S. Kor.).

PLASTIC PELLETS USED IN PLASTIC PRODUCTION WASHED UP ON BEACH. (CREDIT: SUSTAINABLE COASTLINES) 2. Overarching National Legislation and Policies 15 network and the public dissemination of information on the marine environment.47 The Act also calls for the Establishment of Marine Environment Management Master Plan, which includes measures for the prevention of marine pollution and improvement of marine environments.48 The plan was put in place in 2009,49 with the second phase implemented in 2014. The Second Basic Plan to Manage Marine Debris benefitted from the information provided by a pioneering national study estimating the annual flow and stock of marine litter.50 In 2011, South Korea centralized the management of information with the creation of the Marine Litter Management Center and Marine Litter Integrated Information System.51 Under the Plan, several projects on management and technology development have been implemented.52

Singapore adopted a different approach to create its legal framework on marine litter management, combining partial implementation of international mandates with prior national legislation. The main national legislation on marine litter in Singapore is the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act (August 1990) (PPSA), enacted to give effect to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention.53 The PPSA also contains domestic provisions on land-based pollution 47 Ibid., art. 11.

48 Ibid., art. 14.

49 Ibid.

50 Jang et al., 2014.

51 NOWPAP, n.d.

52 Ibid.

53 Singapore acceded to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention in November 1990. based on its previous Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act which goes beyond MARPOL in scope.

Instead of establishing specific marine litter legislation, several countries have developed and implemented a comprehensive national policy framework to address marine litter challenges. In such instances, a country adopts a national policy that provides an overarching strategy that guides national law but is ultimately nonbinding; that strategy is then pursued through the adoption and revision of various sectoral laws and regulations. This is the case with the Netherlands,54 which established its marine litter policy based on European Union (EU) regional policy as well as other regional and international frameworks. For the Netherlands (as for other European countries), the key legal framework shaping the policy is the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).55 Moreover, the Dutch policy and strategies in the area of microplastics is based on this regional legal instrument.56 The EU adopted the MSFD in 2008 to guide EU Member States in protecting the marine environment.

The MSFD seeks to achieve “Good Environmental Status” of EU marine waters by 2020, while also protecting the resource base for economic and social purposes. The MSFD articulates four broad marine regions to which it applies: the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, reviewed and updated every six years using an adaptive management approach. Marine litter considerations are to be addressed through the marine strategy. They are also addressed through the EU’s waste regulations, including the Waste Framework Directive, regulations on packaging waste (including provisions on plastic bags), and the circular economy approach.

The Dutch marine litter policy covers waste management, material chain management, innovative materials managements, and producer responsibility, in an effort to move from a waste challenge to managing the source. The prevailing approach in the implementation of measures and strategies is cooperation with stakeholders (so-called “green deals”). This cooperation aims to (a) reduce solid waste by regulating products and improving waste management; (b) give more attention to microplastics; (c) undertake cleanup projects; and (d) increase communication and awareness.57 The Netherlands established targets for 2020 to reduce visible litter on the beach, and decrease the amount of litter found in marine organisms.58 In June 2010, the Scottish Government launched Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan, which sets out a vision for a zero waste society. The plan seeks to minimize wastes and maximize reuse of resources, leaving only limited amounts of wastes to be treated. By 2025, 54 Busschbach, 2013.

55 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Environmental Policy, 2008 O.J. L 164/19.

56 Leslie et al., 2011.

57 Busschbach, 2013.

58 Ibid.

70 percent of all wastes should be recycled, while no more than 5 percent will go to a landfill.

Implementing the MSFD, the Scottish Government adopted a national litter strategy and a marine litter strategy in 2014. Based on broad consultations and environmental assessments, both strategies cover the period up to 2020. The national litter strategy identifies ways to encourage people to take personal responsibility. Actions include awareness-raising measures, improvement of product and service design through a close collaboration with the business sector, the provision of opportunities for recycling, and the establishment of a strong enforcement system. In order for people to change their behavior and stop littering, the Scottish Government has developed a communications toolkit, launched a marketing campaign and adapted legislation to increase the fixed penalties for litter. In 2014, a charging scheme for single-use carrier bags was introduced.

Scotland’s marine litter strategy provides a framework for controlling and managing marine and coastal litter, as well as to develop current and future measures to ensure that the amount of litter entering the marine and coastal environment is minimized. It articulates five strategic directions: Improve public and business attitudes and behaviors around marine and coastal litter; Reduce marine and coastal based sources of litter; 2. Overarching National Legislation and Policies 17 Contribute to a low carbon economy by treating “waste as a resource”; Improve monitoring; and The strategy aims at contributing to the implementation of the MSFD and other commitments of the country, including under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention). Reviews of the strategy are planned for 2016 and 2018, and a monitoring framework will be developed to evaluate its effectiveness. The policies are supported by a regulatory framework, which includes: Fixed penalties for littering: Based on the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Scottish Government introduced a fixed penalty of £80 for anyone who drops litter. The fixed penalty notice for fly tipping is £200.

A charging scheme for single-use carrier bags: Scotland introduced a minimum 5p charge for single use carrier bags on October 20, 2014 through the Single Use Carrier Charge (Scotland) Regulations.

Scottish Landfill Tax: The Scotland Act 2012 came into force on May 1, 2012. It gives Scottish Government a range of tax raising powers, based upon which the Scottish Landfill Tax was introduced in April 2015. The tax is a disincentive for wastes to landfill and provides a source of public revenue.

Under the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2015, packaging volume and weight must be the minimum amount to maintain the necessary amount of safety, hygiene, and acceptance for the packed product and the consumer; the packaging must be manufactured so as to permit reuse or recovery in accordance with specific requirements; and noxious or hazardous substances in packaging must be minimized in emissions, ash, or leachate from incineration or landfill.

At the global level there are numerous initiatives and frameworks such as the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) and the Honolulu Strategy.59 Similarly, on the regional and national levels, there are a diversity of marine litter projects and initiatives.

For example, the Gulf of Mexico Marine Debris Project was established in 2006 under U.S. law. This project created debris maps and was implemented to address the marine litter left behind by Hurricane Katrina. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Coast Survey and Office of Response and Restoration surveyed and mapped the Gulf coast area and posted the results on the project website that were used by boaters and for marine litter removal activities. The interactive maps showed the location, size, and depth of litter identified. The project was extended to areas in Louisiana. While this project ended in 2009, the data developed are still available online.60 Increasing efforts to address and improve marine litter management have been seen worldwide. Overarching national legislation is found in some countries but remains uncommon. To date, the more com-

mon practice is to adopt overarching policy, strategies, plans, and programs under international or regional cooperation frameworks, and to adopt or amend targeted provisions in multiple laws. For those countries that have overarching legislation, it often serves as a coordinating and planning mechanism to help integrate the existing laws and programs already in place and design strategies for priority actions.

59 For more information on the Honolulu Strategy, see UNEP and NOAA, 2011.

60 NOAA, 2016a.

3. LAWS GOVERNING THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF LAND-BASED MATERIALS CAUSING MARINE LITTER Land-based trash is the largest source of marine litter.61 Marine litter made of plastics, polystyrene foam, metal, glass, and other materials from land-based sources has been found in all the world’s oceans. The top ten items found during coastal cleanups around the world include: cigarettes and cigarette butts; food wrappers and food packaging; beverage bottles made of plastic, glass, and aluminum; plastic bags; paper bags; caps and lids; plastic stirrers and drinking straws; and single-use utensils like cups, forks, and spoons.62 Once such items find their way into the oceans, they often stay for decades or longer.

Given the practical challenges of removing decades of accumulated plastics from the 61 Jambeck et al., 2015; UNGA, 2004, para. 97.

62 Ocean Conservancy, 2015a. oceans, it is clear that prevention, rather than remediation, is critical. In recognition of this simple fact, several countries have endeavored to control the manufacture and use of the relevant materials at their source: on land. This section focuses on national laws that address production and consumer use of a variety of items that end up as marine litter. Laws discussed in this section address the most abundant type of marine litter, plastic, from its incipient “nurdle” or pre-manufacturing resin stage to ubiquitous and persistent consumer goods such as single-use plastic bags and utensils. While it comprises a great majority of marine litter, plastic is not alone in polluting the oceans.

3.1 Prohibiting and Disincentivizing Manufacturing While many countries have laws that address the use of consumer goods at the retail level, several countries have taken the more difficult step of legislating what goods may be manufactured. Manufacturing bans and restrictions generally face strong opposition from industrial lobbies.63 Once the laws are enacted, penalties are generally higher for manufacturers than retailers. This section addresses a few representative national and subnational laws that prohibit the manufacture of: nurdles, or pre-production plastic (California) plastic bags (Bangladesh, China, Rwanda, and South Africa) 63 Digital Journal, 2014; Masina, 2014; Toloken, 2013.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 21 microbeads in personal care products (Canada, United Kingdom, and United States) Although plastics are not the only source of litter in the sea, they are the most significant and one of the most persistent. In some regions, plastics account for 90 to 95 percent of marine litter and about 60 to 80 percent globally.64 Accordingly, this section focuses on bans on plastic products.

3.1.1. Prohibiting Manufacture of Nurdles (Pre-Production Plastic) An estimated 311 million metric tonnes of plastic are produced each year, the majority of which are single-use plastics that are discarded within a year of use.65 The plastic comes from every stage of the production process—from pre-production powders and resins to consumer use to waste disposal. It includes, for example, plastic from single-use containers, large manufactured goods, and tiny microbeads from cleansers and cosmetics that wash down drains.

Through the interaction of heat, ultraviolet light, wind, and waves, plastic eventually breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces. Some plastics break down into tiny plastic particles known as microplastics and are found at various depths throughout the world’s oceans. Plastic does not, however, biodegrade or disappear completely. Instead, it persists in the marine environment for decades.66 64 UNEP and SEPA, n.d.

65 PlasticsEurope, 2105.

66 Thompson, 2015.

One source of marine litter that has come to legislators’ attention is plastic in its nascent form—nurdles.

Nurdles are tiny pellets of plastic resin, the raw materials that are melted or melded to produce plastic goods. They are the most common form in which plastic is shipped prior to manufacturing.67 Their light weight and small size lead to losses during production, as well as during land and sea transport.

Nurdles are blown from factories or washed into storm drains and other waterways during manufacturing; are blown off or leaked from trucks, trains, and cargo ships during loading and unloading or transit; or leaked into the environment from spills during transit. Whatever the source, nurdles are now found en masse in oceans and on beaches around the world.68 Nurdles are inexpensive to produce, which contributes to their presence in the marine environment, as well as to the explosion of plastic manufacturing all over the globe. In addition to the abundance of nurdles in the marine environment, nurdles are also a concern given their composition: nurdles have been found to contain organic micropollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE), and nonylphenol.69 Moreover, plastics absorb contaminants from the surrounding seawater, so that the concentration of contaminants on the surface of plastic fragments is much higher than in the surrounding seawater.70 Pellets and microbeads thus pose an additional threat to ingestion, as they collect and concentrate toxins.

67 Coulter, 2010; Ellison, 2007.

68 International Pellet Watch, n.d.

69 Mato et al., 2001.

70 Rochman et al., 2013.

Few countries have adopted legislation addressing the potential of nurdles to become marine litter.

Companies in the United States, Spain, Portugal, Mexico and Japan, have undertaken voluntary nurdle management efforts,71 but few legislative bodies have passed laws to govern nurdle manufacture or handling.

In 2007, California passed a law requiring best management practices for companies that manufacture, handle, and transport nurdles.72 The law governs “preproduction plastic,” which “includes plastic resin pellets and powdered coloring for plastics.”73 It provides that “all permits issued under the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) program that regulate plastic manufacturing, handling, or transportation facilities” shall require the following minimum best practices: Appropriate containment systems shall be installed at all onsite storm drain discharge locations that are down-gradient of areas where preproduction plastic is present or transferred. A …

71 See, e.g., Marine Litter Solutions, 2015, joint resolutions by trade groups in the United States, Portugal, Spain, and Mexico; Operation Clean Sweep, 2015, a voluntary education program run by the Society of Plastics Industries and, more recently, the American Chemistry Council to reduce pellet, flake, and powder loss by resin producers; and JPIF, n.d.

72 Cal. Water Code § 13367(b)(1). bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=13001-14000&file=13367.

73 Ibid.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-

containment system that is … a device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a one millimeter mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flowrate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in each of the down-gradient drainage areas’ (2) At all points of preproduction plastic transfer, measures shall be taken to prevent discharge, including, but not limited to, sealed containers durable enough so as not to rupture under typical loading and unloading activities; (3) At all points of preproduction plastic storage, preproduction plastic shall be stored in sealed containers that are MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS ON A BEACH IN MALTA (CREDIT: ALAIN BACHELLIER) 3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 23 durable enough so as not to rupture under typical loading and unloading activities; (4) At all points of storage and transfer of preproduction plastic, capture devices shall be in place under all transfer valves and devices used in loading, unloading, or other transfer of preproduction plastic; (5) A facility shall make available to its employees a vacuum or vacuum type system, for quick cleanup of fugitive preproduction plastic.74 3.1.2 Prohibiting the Manufacture of Plastic Bags Several jurisdictions prohibit the manufacture or otherwise regulate the production and use of plastic bags for various reasons. Plastic bags harm sea turtles, birds, porpoises and other animals that mistake the bags for jellyfish. The European Commission has noted that “[a]t least 267 different species have suffered from entanglement or ingestion of marine litter.”75In addition, plastic bags have clogged municipal drains, exacerbating flooding. Other reasons for regulation of single-use plastic bags include tourism, cleanliness and social development, harm to livestock such as cows, and curbing marine litter.

Bangladesh was the first country to ban plastic bags.76 Its ban arose from concerns over flooding due to clogged drains and to a loss of arable land due to lingering plastic 74 Ibid.

75 European Commission, 2013.

76 Onyanga-Omara, 2013. in the soil.77 Under the broad auspices of Bangladesh’s Environmental Conservation Act, Bangladesh’s ban provides that: if, on the advice of the Director General [of the Department of the Environment] otherwise, the Government is satisfied that all kinds or any kind of polythene shopping bag, or any other article made of polyethylene or polypropylene, or any other article is injurious to the environment, the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, issue a direction imposing absolute ban on the manufacture, import, marketing, sale, demonstration for sale, stock, distribution, commercial carriage or commercial use, or allow the operation or management of such activities under conditions specified in the notification, and every person shall be bound to comply with such direction.78 Bangladesh’s ban applies to all “‘polythene shopping bag[s]’ which means a bag … or other container which is made of polyethylene or polypropylene or any compound or mixture thereof and is used for purchasing, selling, keeping or carrying another article.”79 Bags manufactured for export are exempt from the ban. The law imposes a fine and up to ten years imprisonment for those who “manufacture, market or import” plastic bags, compared to up to six months imprisonment 77 IRIN, 2011; Clapp and Swanston, 2009.

78 Bangladesh Environment Conservation http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/bgd42272.pdf.

Act

of

1995,

as

amended

79 Ibid. for those who “sell, exhibit for sale, stock, commercially transport or commercially use” them.

2002,

South Africa banned plastic bags under 30 microns and imposed a 46-rand cents levy on thicker bags.

Under the law, “[t] he manufacture, trade and commercial distribution of domestically produced and imported plastic carrier bags and plastic flat bags, for use within the Republic of South Africa… is hereby prohibited.”80 Violators are subject to a fine and imprisonment up to 10 years.81 The legislature carved out exceptions for plastic bags used to package meats and hold newspapers, among other items.

In 2008, China banned the “production, use and sale of ultrathin shopping bags”, defined as bags less than 25 microns in thickness, and mandated that retailers impose fees on thicker bags.82 One source reported that the regulation caused a 49 percent reduction in the use of new bags.83 Other evidence suggests a 66 percent drop in plastic bag use, equivalent to 40 billion bags and saving an estimated 1.6 million tons of petroleum.84 Plastic bag use in supermarkets in Guangzou City in the south of China dropped by almost 50 percent and by 90 percent in Beijing.85 80 Government Notice (GN) R625/2003 (S. Afr.). http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/saf73211.pdf.

81 Ibid.

82 The law was issued June 1, 2008. Notice of Office of State Council on Restricting the Production, Sale and Use of Plastic Shopping Bags (SC GO G [2008] No.72).

83 He, 2010.

84 Romer and Foley, 2012; Jierui, 2009.

85 Liu, 2013.

Mauritania also passed a manufacturing ban that imposes fines and up to a year in prison for anyone using, manufacturing, or importing plastic bags. 86 Rwanda may have gone the farthest. Legislators not only banned the manufacture and sale of all polythene bags within its borders in 2008, but also banned the import of all such bags.87 Violators face stiff penalties and fines. There are reports of manufacturers being raided and travelers’ bags seized at the airport before entering the country.88 Rwanda’s law defines polythene bags as “a synthetic industrial product with a low density composed of numerous chemical molecules ethene with a chemical formula; (CH2=CH2). In most cases the bag is used in packaging of various products.” The law requires anyone wishing to “manufacture, import, use and sell” polythene bags to send a written request to the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, along with the “reasons for the request and the ways through which he or she will manage the polythene waste.”89 To address manufacturers’ concerns, the law 86 BBC, 2013.

87 Law N°57/2008 of 10/09/2008, Law Relating to the Prohibition of Manufacturing, Importation, Use and Sale of Polythene Bags, Rwanda Management Authority, at p.

78. http://rema.gov.rw/rema_doc/Laws/Plastic%20bags%20law.pdf.

88 Kardish, 2014; BBC, 2004.

89 Rwanda Law N°57/2008 of 10/09/2008, at 78.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 25 provides tax incentives for manufacturers to recycle plastic bags and to companies to produce reusable bags.

3.1.3 Prohibiting the Manufacture of Microplastics (Microbeads) Though one source of microplastics is the gradual fragmentation of larger pieces of plastic trash, another is more deliberate. Microbeads are mild abrasive plastic particles that have been intentionally added to home and personal care products such as facial cleansers, shampoos, and toothpastes since the 1990s. Like most plastics, microbeads do not biodegrade. Instead, they persist in the environment.

There is some evidence that plastic microbeads cannot be captured or otherwise treated by conventional wastewater treatment plants, resulting in their discharge into waterways. Once in the waterways, these microbeads are ingested by fish and other marine and freshwater animals.90

In June 2016, the Canadian government added microbeads to the List of Toxic Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. As such, the government now has the ability to develop regulations that would prohibit the manufacture, import, sale, and offer for sale of personal care products containing microbeads to exfoliate or cleanse.

In the United States, seven states have adopted legislation restricting the use of microbeads in personal care products: 90 Goldstein, Rosenberg, and Cheng, 2012; Derraik, 2002.

Maryland, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Colorado, Indiana, and California. Maryland’s ban, for example, prohibits the manufacture and sale of any product containing non-biodegradable microbeads. In so doing, Maryland’s legislature defined “biodegradable” to mean “capable of decomposing (1) in a marine environment; and (2) in wastewater treatment plant processes in accordance with relevant established guidelines identified by the department, such as (I) ASTM International; (II) Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development; (III) International Organization for Standardization; or (IV) other comparable organizations or authorities.”91 Maryland’s law requires the Maryland’s Department of the Environment to develop regulations on biodegradability in wastewater treatment plants and periodically review the relevant science to “ensure that the most scientifically effective methods are being utilized to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, the entrance of synthetic plastic microbeads in the natural aquatic environment of the state.”92 Maryland’s law defines microbeads as “any intentionally added solid plastic particle that is not biodegradeable that: (1) measures less than 5 millimeters in size; and (2) is used in a rinse-off personal care product for exfoliation or cleansing purposes.”93 California’s law, which goes into effect in 2020 and imposes fines on manufacturers up to US$2500, states that “plastic pollution is the dominant type of anthropogenic debris 91 MD. Code Ann., Envir. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/bills/hb/hb0216E.pdf.

§

9–2001

to

9–2003.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid. found throughout the marine environment.”94 Microbead measures in many countries, such as the Netherlands, appear thus far to be voluntary efforts on the part of industry.95 In 2015, the United States enacted the Microbead-Free Waters Act, which bans rinse-off cosmetics that contain intentionally added plastic microbeads as of January 1, 2018, and bans manufacturing of these cosmetics effective July 1, 2017.96 These bans are delayed by one year for cosmetics that are overthe-counter drugs.97 This national legislation will preempt state bans on microbeads.

Other countries are exploring options for phasing out microbeads. For example, the United Kingdom has announced that it plans ban microbeads from cosmetics by the end of 2017.98 3.2 Prohibiting and Disincentivizing Use at the Retail Level Several national, sub-national, and local governments have passed laws regulating the use of landbased sources of trash, including single-use plastics and foam products. Experiences in places like Ireland and South Africa, discussed below, show that consumers often adjust well to bans and levies.

94 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB888.

42360.

95 UNEP, 2015a.

96 Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, 21 U.S.C. 331 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1321.

97 Ibid.

98 BBC, 2016.

This section addresses a few examples of retail-level laws that prohibit or provide disincentives to using plastics, foams, and other products. Such measures include:

Plastic bag bans (Bangladesh, Eritrea, Somaliland, Bhutan, Haiti, Tanzania, Macedonia, and numerous subnational laws in, for example, India and the United States) Laws governing the thickness of plastic bags (Botswana, China, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda) Bans on stirrers, utensils, cups (India) Taxes or levies on plastic bags (Ireland, South Africa, Belgium, Denmark, and Taiwan) Banning so-called “biodegradable” plastics (United States) Bans on expanded polystyrene (Haiti, Vanuatu, and various municipalities) Mandating “re-usable” products such as beverage containers and shopping bags (India, Hawai’i, and Barbados) Cigarette bans on beaches (United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom) 3.2.1 Plastic Bag Bans One of the most common legal mechanisms to address plastic litter is to regulate or ban plastic bag usage at the retail and consumer end user level. More than 100 national and subnational governments have banned 3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 27 or otherwise regulated plastic bags.99 The regulations include bans on plastic bags, regulations regarding the thickness of the bags, taxes or levies on end-user bags, or some combination thereof.

As noted above, Bangladesh was the first country to ban the manufacture and use of plastic bags. The law imposes a fine of US$71 and six months of imprisonment for using polythene bags.100 Other countries that have banned the use of all plastic bags include: Eritrea, Somaliland, Bhutan, Haiti, Tanzania (which banned bags under 100 microns after finding that its previous ban on bags under 30 microns was too difficult to enforce), Taiwan, and Macedonia.101 A number of subnational jurisdictions have also adopted a total ban on plastic bags. The widespread ban in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, for example, covers all plastic bags, newspaper wrappers, and utensils. It provides that “[n]o person shall sell, store, transport or use any non-reusable carry bag, cup, tumbler or plate made of, or containing, plastic and such other article as may be notified by the nongovernment in this behalf” and that “[n]o person shall sell, store, distribute or transport any magazine or periodical packed in plastic wrapper.”102 99 Florida DEP, 2010. policy.org/plan_b_updates/

A

map

of

such

jurisdictions

is

available

at

http://www.earth-

2013/update123; Californians Against Waste, n.d.

100 IRIN, 2011.

101 Florida DEP, 2010; ENS, 2012a; Kazoka, 2013; Pflanz, 2004; Chen, 2011; TEPA, 2011.

102 Tamil Nadu Plastic Articles (Prohibition of Sale, Storage, Transport and Use) Act, 2002. FAOLex. http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/ind52632.doc.

Other subnational jurisdictions that have enacted plastic bag bans at the retail level include: Maharashtra, India; Delhi, India; Huskisson and Coles Bay in Australia (both whale-watching tourist towns); County of Hawai’i (whose ordinance specifically mentions the harm caused by plastic bags to the marine environment);103 San Francisco, California;104 and both the city and county of Los Angeles, California.105 Adopted in 2006 and taking effect in 2007, San Francisco’s ordinance applied only to pharmacies and supermarkets with gross annual sales of more than US$2 million; even so, it is estimated that this led to a 5 to 10 percent reduction in the number of plastic bags reaching the land fill.106 The Los Angeles ban applied initially to large stores, and was later extended to convenience stores and other smaller stores.

As jurisdictions across the United States have adopted plastic bag levies and bans, they have measured the impacts on behavior and the environment. This has enabled the public and policymakers to better understand the benefits of the legislation. In San Jose, California, which prohibited single-use shopping bags, except for recycled paper 103 County of Hawai’i Ordinance 12-1. http://www.hawaiizerowaste.org/site-content/uploads/PLASTICBAG-REDUCTION-ORDINANCE12-001-2010-2012.pdf. Every county in the state of Hawai’i has banned single-use plastic bags; as a result, there is a de facto statewide ban, although the state legislature has not adopted such a ban.

104 S.F., Cal., Envir. Code ch. 17 § 1702-4. http://plasticbaglaws.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/leg_CA_SF-ordinance-final-2012-02-071.pdf.

105 Florida DEP, 2010; Herreria, 2015; LA DPW, 2015.

106 Florida DEP, 2010. bags which have a 10-cent fee, the city experienced reductions in the presence of single-use plastic bags in the street (by 59 percent), storm drains (89 percent reduction), and creeks (60 percent reduction), and an increase in the use of reusable bags (from 4 percent to 62 percent).107 In Washington, D.C., a 5-cent fee on single-use bags resulted in the reduction of bags used annually from 270 million bags to 55 million bags within the first year, and 50 percent fewer bags were found in an annual local river cleanup.108 After Los Angeles County enacted a bag ban ordinance, it experienced a 95 percent reduction of all single-use bags, with a 30 percent reduction of single-use paper bags.109 San Mateo County, California reported that their reusable bag ordinance resulted in an increase in 162 percent of the number of people who bring their own reusable bags and 130 percent more people carrying out items without a bag.110 And the County of Alameda, California reported that its bag ban resulted in 85 percent fewer bag purchases overall, with twice as many customers bringing their own bag after the ordinance was enacted or are not using a bag at all.111 3.2.2 Regulation of Bag Thickness More common than outright bans are laws that regulate the thickness of the bag. Thin bags are more likely to be caught by wind and end up as litter. They also clog drains, are 107 Romanow, 2012.

108 Associated Press, 2011.

109 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2012.

110 City of San Mateo, 2014.

111 StopWaste, 2014. difficult to recycle, and are easily ingested by marine and land animals. In Botswana, after the country imposed a ban on bags under 24 microns or 0.24 mm and a levy on heavier bags, consumer usage fell by 50 percent.112 Botswana’s law outlawed the manufacture and import of plastic bags thinner than 24 microns; imposed a jail sentence of up to three years and a fine of BWP25,000 for violations; and mandated that the cost of plastic shopping bags be transparent and publicly disclosed. Moreover, it required that individual bags had to indicate clearly in English and/or Setswana the name and country of origin of the producer, importer, or distributor. The law applies only to food and retail establishments (but not clothing) and excludes plastic refuse bags and plastic packaging.

In 2008, China banned the “production, use and sale of ultrathin shopping bags”, defined as under 25 microns, and mandated that retailers impose fees on thicker bags. Other countries adopting laws governing bag thickness include: Ethiopia (banning bags less than 33 microns thick); Kenya (banning bags under 30 microns thick); South Africa (thickness ban plus levy on thicker bags); and Uganda (30 micron ban).113 Sub-national laws governing thickness of plastic bags are also numerous. Thicknesses vary, with jurisdictions in India banning bags less than 20 microns, while other jurisdictions regulate bags from 40 to 50 microns.114 112 Dikgang and Visser, 2010.

113 Florida DEP, 2010; AFP, 2011; ENS, 2012b.

114 Florida DEP, 2010; Tembhekar, 2015; Ong, 2010.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 29 There are also regional efforts to govern bag thickness. In 2015, European Union Directive 2015/720/UE entered into force. The Directive requires Member States to reduce the use of plastic bags under 50 microns by either taking measures to reduce annual average consumption to 90 per person by the end of 2019, and to 40 bags by 2025, or by ensuring that by the end of 2018, no more lightweight plastic carrier bags are distributed free at the retail level. The Directive does allow oxo-degradable bags to continue to be used in Europe.115 In 2012, the East African Community (EAC) adopted the Polythene Materials Control Bill. If it is ultimately endorsed by EAC Member States, it would ban the manufacture, import, sale, and use of polythene bags, and establish penalties of up to 12 months in prison and a fine of up to US$5,000.116 3.2.3 Bans on Plastic Stirrers, Utensils, and Cups Food wrappers, plastic bottles, coffee stirrers, straws, plastic utensils, and take-out food packaging frequently land in the top five categories of marine litter collected on beaches.117 Several legal systems that address plastic bags also address other types of plastic: the wide-reaching plastics ban in Tamil 115 Zero Waste Europe, 2015. Oxo-degradable or oxo-biodegradable products rely on degradation through oxidation.

116 Full text of the East African Community Polythene Materials Control Bill, 2011 is available at http://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/EALA_Legislation/BILLSUPPLEMENT12thAugust20 116.pdf.

117 Ocean Conservancy, 2015a.

Nadu, India, for example, extends to “plastic articles” distributed in food establishments, and covers “any non-reusable carry bag, cup, tumbler, plate, spoon, fork, knife, straw, box, string, cord, sheet, mat or other article made of, or containing, plastic.”118 Bangladesh’s plastic bag ban also is broadly written and applies to “any other article made of polyethylene or polypropylene, or any other article” that is “injurious to the environment.”119 At the subnational level, especially in places where beaches are important for the tourism and hospitality industry, there are laws to curb plastic litter on the beach. For example, Miami Beach (in the U.S. state of Florida) passed a city ordinance in 2012 prohibiting beachfront hotels from serving drinks with straws.120 Similarly, the City of Manhattan Beach also enacted a sweeping polystyrene ban that encompasses straws and other carryout materials.121 Other jurisdictions use voluntary campaigns to provide disincentives to using materials that lead to marine litter. In London for example, environmentalists initiated a “Straw Wars” campaign to rid London’s Soho district of drinking straws and cited marine litter as a primary motivation for doing so. Businesses promise not to give out straws to customers 118 Tamil Nadu Plastic Articles (Prohibition of Sale, Storage, Transport and Use) Act, 2002, supra note 103.

119 Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act of 1995, as amended, supra note 80.

120 Miami Beach, Florida, Municipal Code § 46-92.

121 Manhattan Beach, California, Municipal Code § 5.80.010. unless straws are requested. It is reported that 31 bars and clubs joined the anti-straw campaign after its inception.122 3.2.4 Taxes and Other Levies Taxes and other market-based approaches can also reduce marine litter.123 However, there is some evidence that consumers eventually adjust to levies, and they may lose some of their effectiveness.124

In 2002, Ireland passed the first charge on plastic bags provided at checkout in retail establishments.

The 22 Euro cent levy caused a 90 percent reduction in plastic bag consumption.125 Funds generated by this levy on plastic bags are used for recycling facilities, enforcement of waste management laws, and other environmental purposes.

Several other countries have followed suit. South Africa enacted a levy in 2003 of 46 rand cents per 24 liter bag. There is some evidence that South Africa’s reduced levy on plastic bags was too low to affect long-term consumer change, and that reduction in plastic bag usage went from a 90 percent reduction to a 44 percent reduction after retailers dropped the price per bag from an original levy of 24 rand cents to lower amounts.126 Botswana banned bags under 24 microns thick but also allowed retailers impose 122 Straw Wars, n.d.

123 Dikgang and Visser, 2010.

124 Ibid.

125 Waste Management (Environmental Levy) (Plastic Bag) Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 605/2001) (Ir.), http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0605.html.

126 Dikgang, Leiman, and Visser, 2010. their own per bag fee, which they set at between 20 and 35 thebe (about US$0.02-0.03).127 Other countries impose levies on various plastic items provided by stores. For example, Belgium’s tax passed in 2007 included a tax on plastic films (such as dry cleaning bags), aluminum foil, and disposable cutlery.128 Denmark’s 1994 tax on plastics includes bags and all packaging materials, as well as a tax on sending waste to a landfill or incinerating it.129 In Germany, stores providing plastic bags are charged a recycling fee.130 In Taiwan, a bag ban prevented the store and restaurant owners from providing free plastic bags to their customers—a customer must pay NT$1 to NT$2 for a bag (due to sanitary concerns over reused bags, the ban was later lifted for food establishments).131 Israel imposed a levy on plastic bags in 2008.132 China’s order governing fees on plastic bags provided that: [a] commodity retailing place may determine the price of plastic bags independently, but any of the following behaviors shall be prohibited: 1. selling plastic bags at a price lower than the cost; 2. selling plastic bags without marking a price thereon or without marking the required information or in the required way; 3. selling plastic bags to consumers in violation of the marked price by discounting or other way; or providing free plastic bags to consumers either directly 127 Dikgang and Visser, 2010.

128 Florida DEP, 2010.

129 Ibid.

130 Ibid.

131 Shan, 2006.

132 Florida DEP, 2010.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 31 or in any disguised form. Commodity retailing places shall separately list the quantity, unit price and item of the plastic bags bought by consumers in the sales voucher. Trade markets operated in the form of leasing stalls, if it is really difficult for them to issue sales vouchers, shall be exempted from the preceding requirement.133 3.2.5 Banning “Biodegradable” Products Biodegradable plastic, as defined in most of the world, requires specific conditions such as heat and soil-dwelling microbes and bacteria to fully biodegrade. Such conditions do not exist in many ocean environments, and therefore plastic that might otherwise be biodegradable in industrial composters does not biodegrade once it enters the marine environment.134

Recognizing that biodegradable plastic bags are not in fact biodegradable once they enter the marine environment, some jurisdictions are beginning to ban such bags. For example, Los Angeles, California imposed a total ban on plastic bags that includes biodegradable bags below 2.5 mm thick, reasoning that such bags cannot be reused.135 133 Administrative Measures for the Paid Use of Plastic Bags at Commodity Retailing Places (promulgated by the Ministry of Commerce, May 15, 2008, effective June 1, 2008) (China). Translation available at http://en.pkulaw.cn.proxy.uchicago.edu/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=law&Cgid=105054&Id=6822&SearchKeyw ord=plastic%20bag&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookT...5/5k.

134 Thompson, 2015.

135 LA DPW, n.d.

More commonly, though, jurisdictions that ban plastic bags either exempt biodegradable bags or mandate their use. This has been done, for example, in Italy, Tasmania, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and Paris.136 Some jurisdictions have adopted legislation requiring biodegradable food packaging (in lieu of foam or polystyrene products). For example, in its ban on polystyrene food packaging, the city of Alameda, California mandates the use of biodegradable or compostable products. Its law states that “’Biodegradable’ means the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e. , decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal.”137 The law also references land-based disposal (not marine) and provides exemptions for to food vendors who “can show a biodegradable or compostable product is not available for a specific application or does not exist.”138 The challenge remains in ensuring that products are biodegradable in a marine environment, where there may not be heat, microbes and bacteria, or oxygen necessary for decomposition. Efforts to establish reliable standards for biodegradable plastic have struggled. ASTM D7081-05 was the sole performance specification standard referring to the biodegradation of plastic materials in marine environments. It was withdrawn 136 Florida DEP, 2010.

137 City of Alameda (California) Code. Environmentally acceptable packaging materials. § 8.36.020.C. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Capitola/html/Capitola08/Capitola0836.html.

138 Ibid., § 8.36.040.A. in 2014.139 Consequently, labelling an item as biodegradable in marine environments is currently not possible due to a lack of internationally agreed-upon according standards.

3.2.6 Bans on Expanded Polystyrene (Foam) Bans on polystyrene, or foam packaging, as with other plastics, range from prohibitions on importing and manufacturing to requirements related to retail use. Haiti, for example, banned the use of polystyrene containers and cups. Haiti bans the production, import, commercialization, and use in any form of plastic bags and objects made of styrofoam for food purposes, such as trays, bottles, bags, cups, and plates.140 In Vanuatu, the Ozone Layer Protection Act prohibits the importation of extruded polystyrene foam as well as “thermoformed plastic packaging such as supermarket meat or produce trays, egg cartons, fastfood containers, disposable plates and cups, horticultural packaging trays and packaging netting.”141 It also prohibits, within the country, the manufacture of “plastic foam, or any goods that contain plastic foam, that is or are manufactured using any controlled substance 139 ASTM, n.d.; UNEP, 2015b.

140 IPS, 2013.

141 Vanuatu Ozone Protection Act 2010, http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails;DIDPFDSIjsessionid=B4F37C03B789B02

23982DC5F222121AB?id=LEX-FAOC110179&index=documents. specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule (including any of the goods referred to in paragraph 5(1)(b)).”

Numerous jurisdictions in the United States have banned polystyrene packaging at the manufacturing and retail levels. Within California alone, more than 60 cities have banned polystyrene in a variety of contexts. For example, the law in Alameda, California prohibits food vendors from providing food to customers in disposable polystyrene foam containers.142 Also, in California, the City of Capitola passed a local law that prohibits retail vendors or special event promoters “from selling, renting or otherwise providing any polystyrene foam product that’s not completely encapsulated or encased within a more durable, non-EPS [non-expanded polystyrene] product. In addition to foodservice ware such as cups, plates, bowls and clamshells, the law also affects coolers, containers, ice chests, pool or beach toys, packing peanuts or other packaging materials made of EPS.”143 In Watsonville, California “[t]he city extended its existing EPS ban to cover all plastic (not just polystyrene) foam products, such as coolers, ice chests, cups, bowls, plates, clamshells, shipping boxes, containers, packaging peanuts, pool or beach toys and other unencapsulated products.”144 In July, 2015, New York City banned certain polystyrene foam items such as: polystyrene foam singleservice items including cups, 142 Alameda, Cal., Code ch. 4, art. I § 4-4; Alameda, Cal., Code ch. 1 § 1-5.6. http://www.planetalameda.com/images/pdf/StyrofoamOrdinance.pdf.

143 Melucci, 2014.

144 Ibid.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 33 bowls, plates, takeout containers, and trays; and polystyrene loose fill packaging, commonly known as packing peanuts.145 The law exempted expanded polystyrene containers used for prepackaged food that have been filled and sealed prior to receipt by the food service establishment, mobile food commissary, or store, as well as expanded polystyrene containers used to store raw 145 NYC, 2015. meat, pork, fish, seafood or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. The ban was overturned later that year.146 3.2.7 Requiring or Encouraging Reusable Products Laws that mandate or encourage reusable products tend to be less problematic than mandating biodegradable or compostable products. For example, the widespread ban on plastic bags, newspaper wrappers, plates, and other items in Tamil Nadu, India (described above in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3) applies to nonrenewable items.

146 Mueller, 2015.

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS ON BEACH (CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK) Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers 34 The definition of “reusable” can have its challenges. Thick plastic bags are often defined as “reusable,” even if there are other environmental concerns associated with the bags. In 2015, for example, the Big Island of Hawai’i passed a law prohibiting businesses from providing plastic checkout bags (all counties in Hawai’i now ban plastic bags).147 The law exempted “reusable bags, compostable plastic bags, or recyclable paper bags,” and defined reusable as being greater than 2.25 mm. That thickness has raised concerns among environmentalists due to the amount of petroleum used to make the bags and the environmental effects if they are improperly discarded.148 Several jurisdictions prohibit the manufacture or distribution of non-returnable beverage containers. For example, Barbados’s beverage law provides that: “no distributor or dealer shall sell or offer for sale, at wholesale or retail in Barbados, any beverage that is contained in a beverage container without government permission.”149 Distributors and dealers who have “an adequate system for the recycling of

147 Honolulu, Haw., Code ch.

9, art.

9 § 9-9.1 http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/pdfs/Article%209%20-%20Plastic%20Bag%20Ban.pdf.

to

9-9.4.

148 Herreria, 2015.

149 Laws of Barbados, Chapter 395A, http://www.bottlebill.org/assets/pdfs/legis/world/Barbados1986-RCA.pdf.

Returnable

Containers.

beverage container” may be exempted. The law imposes a fine of up to $500 and three months imprisonment for violations.

3.2.8 Cigarette-Free Beaches Cigarette butts are among the most common types of marine litter found on the world’s beaches.150 Cigarette butts are composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that can take decades to decompose, introducing toxic chemicals into waterways.151 As part of a global recognition of the dangers of smoking, and the aesthetic and environmental harm from litter, several jurisdictions have banned smoking on beaches. Littering laws in Dominica, Malta, and many other countries explicitly apply to cigarette butts.152 Such laws have proven difficult to enforce, and many jurisdictions have prohibited smoking on beaches altogether.

As of 2012, 100 local U.S. governments had banned smoking on beaches.153 Honolulu passed a smoke-free ordinance in 1993, reportedly the first in the United States and one that continues to be enforced. Australia banned smoking on certain section of beaches in 2010, and amended its 1987 Tobacco Act in 2012 to prohibit smoking on patrolled beaches within an area on public land or in the 150 Ocean Conservancy, 2015a.

151 Ariza and Leatherman, 2012.

152 Litter Act, Act No. 4 of 1990, as amended by Act No. 6 of 1991 (Dominica). http://faolex.fao.org/faolex/. Litter Act (Malta). http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlt41758.pdf.

153 Ariza and Leatherman, 2012.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 35 sea.154 Puerto Rico also has banned smoking on beaches, and the province of Winnipeg, Canada banned smoking on its freshwater beaches in 2013.155 3.3 Extended Producer Responsibility In Canada, EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, among other jurisdictions, the prohibition on manufacturing or importing single-use plastics and other potential marine litter hazards includes extended producer responsibility for cleanup, recycling, or alternatives. The Organision for Economic Cooperation and Development defines extended producer responsibility as a “policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle.”156 This concept of extended producer responsibility appears in many sections throughout this Report.

While not targeted to marine environments or single-use plastics, Estonia’s law on packaging requires all packaging in the country to be reusable and recyclable, and mandates that manufacturers bear some responsibility in recovery of package waste.157 The Act covers “[p]ackaging materials of any manufactured 154 Tobacco Amendment (Smoking at Patrolled Beaches) Act 2012 (Australia). http://docs2.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/9258387DE57BA30ACA257ABE0082545F/$FILE/Tobacco%20 Amendment%20(Smoking%20at%20Patrolled%20Beaches)%20Act%202012.pdf.

155 Owen, 2013.

156 OECD, n.d.

157 Packaging Act, 2004 (Estonia). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/12964621 (translation into English by Google). product, which is used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery or presentation of the product life cycle: from raw materials to processed goods from the producer and the consumer. The container used for the same purposes shall also be considered packaging.” The Act sets targets for recovery of plastic packaging waste at up to 55 percent, 45 percent of which is to be recycled.

In 2004, the Government of Ghana created a Recycling Taskforce to hire waste collectors to collect and deliver plastic bags to warehouses for recycling. Plastics manufacturers are required to help fund the project.158 In 2007, Uruguay adopted Ordinance No. 260/2007, requiring merchants to take actions to minimize waste and generation of plastic bags, and to develop management plans for their rational use, reuse, and recycling.159 3.4 Summary Laws governing consumer-level use of items that end up as marine litter—such as bans or taxes on single-use plastic bags or food utensils and laws promoting smoke-free beaches—have been shown to reduce consumer litter. A jurisdiction considering whether to ban an item such as a bag, or impose a fee for its use, may want to consider whether it has the resources to implement and enforce the law. Those considering imposing a levy or tax may want to consider the experience of many jurisdictions, such as Ireland and South Africa, that have found 158 Florida DEP, 2010.

159 Ibid.

Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers 36 that fees need to be set high enough to shape consumer use. A number of studies on the impact of bans and fees show that bans and fees can greatly reduce the usage of targeted bags, which greatly reduces their use in the environment, and increases the use of other bags (including both reusable bags and disposable bags made with alternative materials that may have a substantial environmental footprint).160 The most effective approaches have tended to combine measures, for example banning thin disposable plastic bags and a fee on alternative bags.

Jurisdictions considering targeting the sources of marine litter farther up the production chain such as laws banning the manufacture of nurdles, microbeads, and plastic bags might also consider that such laws have more impact if consistently enforced. Rather than discouraging industry participation, manufacturing bans and regulations can reinforce and strengthen industry’s nascent efforts to regulate themselves. Along the same lines, extended producer responsibility initiatives also provide incentives manufacturers to do more to prevent marine litter. The importance of well-crafted laws preventing marine litter cannot be overstated.

160 Taylor and Villas-Boas, 2016; Muthu et al. 2011.

3. LAWS GOVERNING THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF LAND-BASED MATERIALS CAUSING MARINE LITTER Land-based trash is the largest source of marine litter.61 Marine litter made of plastics, polystyrene foam, metal, glass, and other materials from land-based sources has been found in all the world’s oceans. The top ten items found during coastal cleanups around the world include: cigarettes and cigarette butts; food wrappers and food packaging; beverage bottles made of plastic, glass, and aluminum; plastic bags; paper bags; caps and lids; plastic stirrers and drinking straws; and single-use utensils like cups, forks, and spoons.62 Once such items find their way into the oceans, they often stay for decades or longer.

Given the practical challenges of removing decades of accumulated plastics from the 61 Jambeck et al., 2015; UNGA, 2004, para. 97.

62 Ocean Conservancy, 2015a.

oceans, it is clear that prevention, rather than remediation, is critical. In recognition of this simple fact, several countries have endeavored to control the manufacture and use of the relevant materials at their source: on land. This section focuses on national laws that address production and consumer use of a variety of items that end up as marine litter. Laws discussed in this section address the most abundant type of marine litter, plastic, from its incipient “nurdle” or pre-manufacturing resin stage to ubiquitous and persistent consumer goods such as single-use plastic bags and utensils. While it comprises a great majority of marine litter, plastic is not alone in polluting the oceans.

3.1 Prohibiting and Disincentivizing Manufacturing While many countries have laws that address the use of consumer goods at the retail level, several countries have taken the more difficult step of legislating what goods may be manufactured. Manufacturing bans and restrictions generally face strong opposition from industrial lobbies.63 Once the laws are enacted, penalties are generally higher for manufacturers than retailers. This section addresses a few representative national and subnational laws that prohibit the manufacture of: nurdles, or pre-production plastic (California) plastic bags (Bangladesh, China, Rwanda, and South Africa) 63 Digital Journal, 2014; Masina, 2014; Toloken, 2013.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 21 microbeads in personal care products (Canada, United Kingdom, and United States) Although plastics are not the only source of litter in the sea, they are the most significant and one of the most persistent. In some regions, plastics account for 90 to 95 percent of marine litter and about 60 to 80 percent globally.64 Accordingly, this section focuses on bans on plastic products.

3.1.1. Prohibiting Manufacture of Nurdles (Pre-Production Plastic) An estimated 311 million metric tonnes of plastic are produced each year, the majority of which are single-use plastics that are discarded within a year of use.65 The plastic comes from every stage of the production process—from pre-production powders and resins to consumer use to waste disposal. It includes, for example, plastic from single-use containers, large manufactured goods, and tiny microbeads from cleansers and cosmetics that wash down drains.

Through the interaction of heat, ultraviolet light, wind, and waves, plastic eventually breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces. Some plastics break down into tiny plastic particles known as microplastics and are found at various depths throughout the world’s oceans. Plastic does not, however, biodegrade or disappear completely. Instead, it persists in the marine environment for decades.66 64 UNEP and SEPA, n.d.

65 PlasticsEurope, 2105.

66 Thompson, 2015.

One source of marine litter that has come to legislators’ attention is plastic in its nascent form—nurdles.

Nurdles are tiny pellets of plastic resin, the raw materials that are melted or melded to produce plastic goods. They are the most common form in which plastic is shipped prior to manufacturing.67 Their light weight and small size lead to losses during production, as well as during land and sea transport.

Nurdles are blown from factories or washed into storm drains and other waterways during manufacturing; are blown off or leaked from trucks, trains, and cargo ships during loading and unloading or transit; or leaked into the environment from spills during transit. Whatever the source, nurdles are now found en masse in oceans and on beaches around the world.68 Nurdles are inexpensive to produce, which contributes to their presence in the marine environment, as well as to the explosion of plastic manufacturing all over the globe. In addition to the abundance of nurdles in the marine environment, nurdles are also a concern given their composition: nurdles have been found to contain organic micropollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE), and nonylphenol.69 Moreover, plastics absorb contaminants from the

surrounding seawater, so that the concentration of contaminants on the surface of plastic fragments is much higher than in the surrounding seawater.70 Pellets and 67 Coulter, 2010; Ellison, 2007.

68 International Pellet Watch, n.d.

69 Mato et al., 2001.

70 Rochman et al., 2013. microbeads thus pose an additional threat to ingestion, as they collect and concentrate toxins.

Few countries have adopted legislation addressing the potential of nurdles to become marine litter.

Companies in the United States, Spain, Portugal, Mexico and Japan, have undertaken voluntary nurdle management efforts,71 but few legislative bodies have passed laws to govern nurdle manufacture or handling.

In 2007, California passed a law requiring best management practices for companies that manufacture, handle, and transport nurdles.72 The law governs “preproduction plastic,” which “includes plastic resin pellets and powdered coloring for plastics.”73 It provides that “all permits issued under the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) program that regulate plastic manufacturing, handling, or transportation facilities” shall require the following minimum best practices: (1) Appropriate containment systems shall be installed at all onsite storm drain discharge locations that are down-gradient of areas where preproduction plastic is present or transferred. A …

71 See, e.g., Marine Litter Solutions, 2015, joint resolutions by trade groups in the United States, Portugal, Spain, and Mexico; Operation Clean Sweep, 2015, a voluntary education program run by the Society of Plastics Industries and, more recently, the American Chemistry Council to reduce pellet, flake, and powder loss by resin producers; and JPIF, n.d.

72 Cal. Water Code § 13367(b)(1). bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=13001-14000&file=13367.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-

73 Ibid. containment system that is … a device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a one millimeter mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flowrate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in each of the down-gradient drainage areas’ (2) At all points of preproduction plastic transfer, measures shall be taken to prevent discharge, including, but not limited to, sealed containers durable enough so as not to rupture under typical loading and unloading activities; (3) At all points of preproduction plastic storage, preproduction plastic shall be stored in sealed containers that are MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS ON A BEACH IN MALTA (CREDIT: ALAIN BACHELLIER) 3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 23 durable enough so as not to rupture under typical loading and unloading activities; (4) At all points of storage and transfer of preproduction plastic, capture devices shall be in place under all transfer valves and devices used in loading, unloading, or other transfer of preproduction plastic; (5) A facility shall make available to its employees a vacuum or vacuum type system, for quick cleanup of fugitive preproduction plastic.74 3.1.2 Prohibiting the Manufacture of Plastic Bags Several jurisdictions prohibit the manufacture or otherwise regulate the production and use of plastic bags for various reasons. Plastic bags harm sea turtles, birds, porpoises and other animals that mistake the bags for jellyfish. The European Commission has noted that “[a]t least 267 different species have

suffered from entanglement or ingestion of marine litter.”75In addition, plastic bags have clogged municipal drains, exacerbating flooding. Other reasons for regulation of single-use plastic bags include tourism, cleanliness and social development, harm to livestock such as cows, and curbing marine litter.

Bangladesh was the first country to ban plastic bags.76 Its ban arose from concerns over flooding due to clogged drains and to a loss of arable land due to lingering plastic 74 Ibid.

75 European Commission, 2013.

76 Onyanga-Omara, 2013. in the soil.77 Under the broad auspices of Bangladesh’s Environmental Conservation Act, Bangladesh’s ban provides that: if, on the advice of the Director General [of the Department of the Environment] otherwise, the Government is satisfied that all kinds or any kind of polythene shopping bag, or any other article made of polyethylene or polypropylene, or any other article is injurious to the environment, the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, issue a direction imposing absolute ban on the manufacture, import, marketing, sale, demonstration for sale, stock, distribution, commercial carriage or commercial use, or allow the operation or management of such activities under conditions specified in the notification, and every person shall be bound to comply with such direction.78 Bangladesh’s ban applies to all “‘polythene shopping bag[s]’ which means a bag … or other container which is made of polyethylene or polypropylene or any compound or mixture thereof and is used for purchasing, selling, keeping or carrying another article.”79 Bags manufactured for export are exempt from the ban. The law imposes a fine and up to ten years imprisonment for those who “manufacture, market or import” plastic bags, compared to up to six months imprisonment 77 IRIN, 2011; Clapp and Swanston, 2009.

78 Bangladesh Environment Conservation http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/bgd42272.pdf.

Act

of

1995,

as

amended

2002,

79 Ibid. for those who “sell, exhibit for sale, stock, commercially transport or commercially use” them.

South Africa banned plastic bags under 30 microns and imposed a 46-rand cents levy on thicker bags.

Under the law, “[t] he manufacture, trade and commercial distribution of domestically produced and imported plastic carrier bags and plastic flat bags, for use within the Republic of South Africa… is hereby prohibited.”80 Violators are subject to a fine and imprisonment up to 10 years.81 The legislature carved out exceptions for plastic bags used to package meats and hold newspapers, among other items.

In 2008, China banned the “production, use and sale of ultrathin shopping bags”, defined as bags less than 25 microns in thickness, and mandated that retailers impose fees on thicker bags.82 One source reported that the regulation caused a 49 percent reduction in the use of new bags.83 Other evidence suggests a 66 percent drop in plastic bag use, equivalent to 40 billion bags and saving an estimated 1.6 million tons of petroleum.84 Plastic bag use in supermarkets in Guangzou City in the south of China dropped by almost 50 percent and by 90 percent in Beijing.85 80 Government Notice (GN) R625/2003 (S. Afr.). http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/saf73211.pdf.

81 Ibid.

82 The law was issued June 1, 2008. Notice of Office of State Council on Restricting the Production, Sale and Use of Plastic Shopping Bags (SC GO G [2008] No.72).

83 He, 2010.

84 Romer and Foley, 2012; Jierui, 2009.

85 Liu, 2013.

Mauritania also passed a manufacturing ban that imposes fines and up to a year in prison for anyone using, manufacturing, or importing plastic bags. 86 Rwanda may have gone the farthest. Legislators not only banned the manufacture and sale of all polythene bags within its borders in 2008, but also banned the import of all such bags.87 Violators face stiff penalties and fines. There are reports of manufacturers being raided and travelers’ bags seized at the airport before entering the country.88 Rwanda’s law defines polythene bags as “a synthetic industrial product with a low density composed of numerous chemical molecules ethene with a chemical formula; (CH2=CH2). In most cases the bag is used in packaging of various products.” The law requires anyone wishing to “manufacture, import, use and sell” polythene bags to send a written request to the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, along with the “reasons for the request and the ways through which he or she will manage the polythene waste.”89 To address manufacturers’ concerns, the law 86 BBC, 2013.

87 Law N°57/2008 of 10/09/2008, Law Relating to the Prohibition of Manufacturing, Importation, Use and Sale of Polythene Bags, Rwanda Management Authority, at p.

78. http://rema.gov.rw/rema_doc/Laws/Plastic%20bags%20law.pdf.

88 Kardish, 2014; BBC, 2004.

89 Rwanda Law N°57/2008 of 10/09/2008, at 78.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 25 provides tax incentives for manufacturers to recycle plastic bags and to companies to produce reusable bags.

3.1.3 Prohibiting the Manufacture of Microplastics (Microbeads) Though one source of microplastics is the gradual fragmentation of larger pieces of plastic trash, another is more deliberate. Microbeads are mild abrasive plastic particles that have been intentionally added to home and personal care products such as facial cleansers, shampoos, and toothpastes since the 1990s. Like most plastics, microbeads do not biodegrade. Instead, they persist in the environment.

There is some evidence that plastic microbeads cannot be captured or otherwise treated by conventional wastewater treatment plants, resulting in their discharge into waterways. Once in the waterways, these microbeads are ingested by fish and other marine and freshwater animals.90 In June 2016, the Canadian government added microbeads to the List of Toxic Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. As such, the government now has the ability to develop regulations that would prohibit the manufacture, import, sale, and offer for sale of personal care products containing microbeads to exfoliate or cleanse.

In the United States, seven states have adopted legislation restricting the use of microbeads in personal care products: 90 Goldstein, Rosenberg, and Cheng, 2012; Derraik, 2002.

Maryland, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Colorado, Indiana, and California. Maryland’s ban, for example, prohibits the manufacture and sale of any product containing non-biodegradable microbeads. In so doing, Maryland’s legislature defined “biodegradable” to mean “capable of decomposing (1) in a marine environment; and (2) in wastewater treatment plant processes in accordance with relevant established guidelines identified by the department, such as (I) ASTM International; (II) Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development; (III) International Organization for Standardization; or (IV) other comparable organizations or authorities.”91 Maryland’s law requires the Maryland’s Department of the Environment to develop regulations on biodegradability in wastewater treatment plants and periodically review the relevant science to “ensure that the most scientifically effective methods are being utilized to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, the entrance of synthetic plastic microbeads in the natural aquatic environment of the state.”92 Maryland’s law defines microbeads as “any intentionally added solid plastic particle that is not biodegradeable that: (1) measures less than 5 millimeters in size; and (2) is used in a rinse-off personal care product for exfoliation or cleansing purposes.”93 California’s law,

which goes into effect in 2020 and imposes fines on manufacturers up to US$2500, states that “plastic pollution is the dominant type of anthropogenic debris 91 MD. Code Ann., Envir. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/bills/hb/hb0216E.pdf.

§

9–2001

to

9–2003.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid. found throughout the marine environment.”94 Microbead measures in many countries, such as the Netherlands, appear thus far to be voluntary efforts on the part of industry.95 In 2015, the United States enacted the Microbead-Free Waters Act, which bans rinse-off cosmetics that contain intentionally added plastic microbeads as of January 1, 2018, and bans manufacturing of these cosmetics effective July 1, 2017.96 These bans are delayed by one year for cosmetics that are overthe-counter drugs.97 This national legislation will preempt state bans on microbeads.

Other countries are exploring options for phasing out microbeads. For example, the United Kingdom has announced that it plans ban microbeads from cosmetics by the end of 2017.98 3.2 Prohibiting and Disincentivizing Use at the Retail Level Several national, sub-national, and local governments have passed laws regulating the use of landbased sources of trash, including single-use plastics and foam products. Experiences in places like Ireland and South Africa, discussed below, show that consumers often adjust well to bans and levies.

94 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB888.

42360.

95 UNEP, 2015a.

96 Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, 21 U.S.C. 331 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/house-bill/1321.

97 Ibid.

98 BBC, 2016.

This section addresses a few examples of retail-level laws that prohibit or provide disincentives to using plastics, foams, and other products. Such measures include: Plastic bag bans (Bangladesh, Eritrea, Somaliland, Bhutan, Haiti, Tanzania, Macedonia, and numerous subnational laws in, for example, India and the United States) Laws governing the thickness of plastic bags (Botswana, China, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda) Bans on stirrers, utensils, cups (India) Taxes or levies on plastic bags (Ireland, South Africa, Belgium, Denmark, and Taiwan) Banning so-called “biodegradable” plastics (United States) Bans on expanded polystyrene (Haiti, Vanuatu, and various municipalities) Mandating “re-usable” products such as beverage containers and shopping bags (India, Hawai’i, and Barbados) Cigarette bans on beaches (United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom) 3.2.1 Plastic Bag Bans One of the most common legal mechanisms to address plastic litter is to regulate or ban plastic bag usage at the retail and consumer end user level. More than 100 national and subnational governments have banned 3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 27

or otherwise regulated plastic bags.99 The regulations include bans on plastic bags, regulations regarding the thickness of the bags, taxes or levies on end-user bags, or some combination thereof.

As noted above, Bangladesh was the first country to ban the manufacture and use of plastic bags. The law imposes a fine of US$71 and six months of imprisonment for using polythene bags.100 Other countries that have banned the use of all plastic bags include: Eritrea, Somaliland, Bhutan, Haiti, Tanzania (which banned bags under 100 microns after finding that its previous ban on bags under 30 microns was too difficult to enforce), Taiwan, and Macedonia.101 A number of subnational jurisdictions have also adopted a total ban on plastic bags. The widespread ban in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, for example, covers all plastic bags, newspaper wrappers, and utensils. It provides that “[n]o person shall sell, store, transport or use any non-reusable carry bag, cup, tumbler or plate made of, or containing, plastic and such other article as may be notified by the nongovernment in this behalf” and that “[n]o person shall sell, store, distribute or transport any magazine or periodical packed in plastic wrapper.”102 99 Florida DEP, 2010. policy.org/plan_b_updates/

A

map

of

such

jurisdictions

is

available

at

http://www.earth-

2013/update123; Californians Against Waste, n.d.

100 IRIN, 2011.

101 Florida DEP, 2010; ENS, 2012a; Kazoka, 2013; Pflanz, 2004; Chen, 2011; TEPA, 2011.

102 Tamil Nadu Plastic Articles (Prohibition of Sale, Storage, Transport and Use) Act, 2002. FAOLex. http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/ind52632.doc.

Other subnational jurisdictions that have enacted plastic bag bans at the retail level include: Maharashtra, India; Delhi, India; Huskisson and Coles Bay in Australia (both whale-watching tourist towns); County of Hawai’i (whose ordinance specifically mentions the harm caused by plastic bags to the marine environment);103 San Francisco, California;104 and both the city and county of Los Angeles, California.105 Adopted in 2006 and taking effect in 2007, San Francisco’s ordinance applied only to pharmacies and supermarkets with gross annual sales of more than US$2 million; even so, it is estimated that this led to a 5 to 10 percent reduction in the number of plastic bags reaching the land fill.106 The Los Angeles ban applied initially to large stores, and was later extended to convenience stores and other smaller stores.

As jurisdictions across the United States have adopted plastic bag levies and bans, they have measured the impacts on behavior and the environment. This has enabled the public and policymakers to better understand the benefits of the legislation. In San Jose, California, which prohibited single-use shopping bags, except for recycled paper 103 County of Hawai’i Ordinance 12-1. http://www.hawaiizerowaste.org/site-content/uploads/PLASTICBAG-REDUCTION-ORDINANCE-12-001-2010-2012.pdf. Every county in the state of Hawai’i has banned single-use plastic bags; as a result, there is a de facto statewide ban, although the state legislature has not adopted such a ban.

104 S.F., Cal., Envir. Code ch. 17 § 1702-4. http://plasticbaglaws.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/leg_CA_SF-ordinance-final-2012-02-071.pdf.

105 Florida DEP, 2010; Herreria, 2015; LA DPW, 2015.

106 Florida DEP, 2010. bags which have a 10-cent fee, the city experienced reductions in the presence of single-use plastic bags in the street (by 59 percent), storm drains (89 percent reduction), and creeks (60 percent reduction), and an increase in the use of reusable bags (from 4 percent to 62 percent).107 In Washington, D.C., a 5-cent fee on single-use bags resulted in the reduction of bags used annually from 270 million bags to 55 million bags within the first year, and 50 percent fewer bags were found in an annual local river cleanup.108 After Los Angeles County enacted a bag ban ordinance, it experienced a 95 percent reduction of all single-use bags, with a 30 percent reduction of single-use paper bags.109 San Mateo County, California reported that their reusable bag ordinance resulted in an increase in 162 percent of

the number of people who bring their own reusable bags and 130 percent more people carrying out items without a bag.110 And the County of Alameda, California reported that its bag ban resulted in 85 percent fewer bag purchases overall, with twice as many customers bringing their own bag after the ordinance was enacted or are not using a bag at all.111 3.2.2 Regulation of Bag Thickness More common than outright bans are laws that regulate the thickness of the bag. Thin bags are more likely to be caught by wind and end up as litter. They also clog drains, are 107 Romanow, 2012.

108 Associated Press, 2011.

109 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2012.

110 City of San Mateo, 2014.

111 StopWaste, 2014. difficult to recycle, and are easily ingested by marine and land animals. In Botswana, after the country imposed a ban on bags under 24 microns or 0.24 mm and a levy on heavier bags, consumer usage fell by 50 percent.112 Botswana’s law outlawed the manufacture and import of plastic bags thinner than 24 microns; imposed a jail sentence of up to three years and a fine of BWP25,000 for violations; and mandated that the cost of plastic shopping bags be transparent and publicly disclosed. Moreover, it required that individual bags had to indicate clearly in English and/or Setswana the name and country of origin of the producer, importer, or distributor. The law applies only to food and retail establishments (but not clothing) and excludes plastic refuse bags and plastic packaging.

In 2008, China banned the “production, use and sale of ultrathin shopping bags�, defined as under 25 microns, and mandated that retailers impose fees on thicker bags. Other countries adopting laws governing bag thickness include: Ethiopia (banning bags less than 33 microns thick); Kenya (banning bags under 30 microns thick); South Africa (thickness ban plus levy on thicker bags); and Uganda (30 micron ban).113 Sub-national laws governing thickness of plastic bags are also numerous. Thicknesses vary, with jurisdictions in India banning bags less than 20 microns, while other jurisdictions regulate bags from 40 to 50 microns.114 112 Dikgang and Visser, 2010.

113 Florida DEP, 2010; AFP, 2011; ENS, 2012b.

114 Florida DEP, 2010; Tembhekar, 2015; Ong, 2010.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 29 There are also regional efforts to govern bag thickness. In 2015, European Union Directive 2015/720/UE entered into force. The Directive requires Member States to reduce the use of plastic bags under 50 microns by either taking measures to reduce annual average consumption to 90 per person by the end of 2019, and to 40 bags by 2025, or by ensuring that by the end of 2018, no more lightweight plastic carrier bags are distributed free at the retail level. The Directive does allow oxo-degradable bags to continue to be used in Europe.115 In 2012, the East African Community (EAC) adopted the Polythene Materials Control Bill. If it is ultimately endorsed by EAC Member States, it would ban the manufacture, import, sale, and use of polythene bags, and establish penalties of up to 12 months in prison and a fine of up to US$5,000.116 3.2.3 Bans on Plastic Stirrers, Utensils, and Cups Food wrappers, plastic bottles, coffee stirrers, straws, plastic utensils, and take-out food packaging frequently land in the top five categories of marine litter collected on beaches.117 Several legal systems that address plastic bags also address other types of plastic: the wide-reaching plastics ban in Tamil 115 Zero Waste Europe, 2015. Oxo-degradable or oxo-biodegradable products rely on degradation through oxidation.

116 Full text of the East African Community Polythene Materials Control Bill, 2011 is available at http://www.kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/EALA_Legislation/BILLSUPPLEMENT12thAugust20 116.pdf.

117 Ocean Conservancy, 2015a.

Nadu, India, for example, extends to “plastic articles” distributed in food establishments, and covers “any non-reusable carry bag, cup, tumbler, plate, spoon, fork, knife, straw, box, string, cord, sheet, mat or other article made of, or containing, plastic.”118 Bangladesh’s plastic bag ban also is broadly written and applies to “any other article made of polyethylene or polypropylene, or any other article” that is “injurious to the environment.”119 At the subnational level, especially in places where beaches are important for the tourism and hospitality industry, there are laws to curb plastic litter on the beach. For example, Miami Beach (in the U.S. state of Florida) passed a city ordinance in 2012 prohibiting beachfront hotels from serving drinks with straws.120 Similarly, the City of Manhattan Beach also enacted a sweeping polystyrene ban that encompasses straws and other carryout materials.121 Other jurisdictions use voluntary campaigns to provide disincentives to using materials that lead to marine litter. In London for example, environmentalists initiated a “Straw Wars” campaign to rid London’s Soho district of drinking straws and cited marine litter as a primary motivation for doing so. Businesses promise not to give out straws to customers 118 Tamil Nadu Plastic Articles (Prohibition of Sale, Storage, Transport and Use) Act, 2002, supra note 103.

119 Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act of 1995, as amended, supra note 80.

120 Miami Beach, Florida, Municipal Code § 46-92.

121 Manhattan Beach, California, Municipal Code § 5.80.010.

Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers 30 unless straws are requested. It is reported that 31 bars and clubs joined the anti-straw campaign after its inception.122 3.2.4 Taxes and Other Levies Taxes and other market-based approaches can also reduce marine litter.123 However, there is some evidence that consumers eventually adjust to levies, and they may lose some of their effectiveness.124 In 2002, Ireland passed the first charge on plastic bags provided at checkout in retail establishments.

The 22 Euro cent levy caused a 90 percent reduction in plastic bag consumption.125 Funds generated by this levy on plastic bags are used for recycling facilities, enforcement of waste management laws, and other environmental purposes.

Several other countries have followed suit. South Africa enacted a levy in 2003 of 46 rand cents per 24 liter bag. There is some evidence that South Africa’s reduced levy on plastic bags was too low to affect long-term consumer change, and that reduction in plastic bag usage went from a 90 percent reduction to a 44 percent reduction after retailers dropped the price per bag from an original levy of 24 rand cents to lower amounts.126 Botswana banned bags under 24 microns thick but also allowed retailers impose 122 Straw Wars, n.d.

123 Dikgang and Visser, 2010.

124 Ibid.

125 Waste Management (Environmental Levy) (Plastic Bag) Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 605/2001) (Ir.), http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0605.html.

126 Dikgang, Leiman, and Visser, 2010. their own per bag fee, which they set at between 20 and 35 thebe (about US$0.02-0.03).127 Other countries impose levies on various plastic items provided by stores. For example, Belgium’s tax passed in 2007 included a tax on plastic films (such as dry cleaning bags), aluminum foil, and disposa-

ble cutlery.128 Denmark’s 1994 tax on plastics includes bags and all packaging materials, as well as a tax on sending waste to a landfill or incinerating it.129 In Germany, stores providing plastic bags are charged a recycling fee.130 In Taiwan, a bag ban prevented the store and restaurant owners from providing free plastic bags to their customers—a customer must pay NT$1 to NT$2 for a bag (due to sanitary concerns over reused bags, the ban was later lifted for food establishments).131 Israel imposed a levy on plastic bags in 2008.132 China’s order governing fees on plastic bags provided that: [a] commodity retailing place may determine the price of plastic bags independently, but any of the following behaviors shall be prohibited: 1. selling plastic bags at a price lower than the cost; 2. selling plastic bags without marking a price thereon or without marking the required information or in the required way; 3. selling plastic bags to consumers in violation of the marked price by discounting or other way; or providing free plastic bags to consumers either directly 127 Dikgang and Visser, 2010.

128 Florida DEP, 2010.

129 Ibid.

130 Ibid.

131 Shan, 2006.

132 Florida DEP, 2010.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 31 or in any disguised form. Commodity retailing places shall separately list the quantity, unit price and item of the plastic bags bought by consumers in the sales voucher. Trade markets operated in the form of leasing stalls, if it is really difficult for them to issue sales vouchers, shall be exempted from the preceding requirement.133 3.2.5 Banning “Biodegradable” Products Biodegradable plastic, as defined in most of the world, requires specific conditions such as heat and soil-dwelling microbes and bacteria to fully biodegrade. Such conditions do not exist in many ocean environments, and therefore plastic that might otherwise be biodegradable in industrial composters does not biodegrade once it enters the marine environment.134 Recognizing that biodegradable plastic bags are not in fact biodegradable once they enter the marine environment, some jurisdictions are beginning to ban such bags. For example, Los Angeles, California imposed a total ban on plastic bags that includes biodegradable bags below 2.5 mm thick, reasoning that such bags cannot be reused.135 133 Administrative Measures for the Paid Use of Plastic Bags at Commodity Retailing Places (promulgated by the Ministry of Commerce, May 15, 2008, effective June 1, 2008) (China). Translation available at http://en.pkulaw.cn.proxy.uchicago.edu/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=law&Cgid=105054&Id=6822&SearchKeyw ord=plastic%20bag&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookT...5/5k.

134 Thompson, 2015.

135 LA DPW, n.d.

More commonly, though, jurisdictions that ban plastic bags either exempt biodegradable bags or mandate their use. This has been done, for example, in Italy, Tasmania, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and Paris.136 Some jurisdictions have adopted legislation requiring biodegradable food packaging (in lieu of foam or polystyrene products). For example, in its ban on polystyrene food packaging, the city of Alameda, California mandates the use of biodegradable or compostable products. Its law states that “’Biodegradable’ means the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e. , decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal.”137 The law also references land-based disposal (not marine) and provides exemptions for to food vendors who

“can show a biodegradable or compostable product is not available for a specific application or does not exist.”138 The challenge remains in ensuring that products are biodegradable in a marine environment, where there may not be heat, microbes and bacteria, or oxygen necessary for decomposition. Efforts to establish reliable standards for biodegradable plastic have struggled. ASTM D7081-05 was the sole performance specification standard referring to the biodegradation of plastic materials in marine environments. It was withdrawn 136 Florida DEP, 2010.

137 City of Alameda (California) Code. Environmentally acceptable packaging materials. § 8.36.020.C. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Capitola/html/Capitola08/Capitola0836.html.

138 Ibid., § 8.36.040.A. in 2014.139 Consequently, labelling an item as biodegradable in marine environments is currently not possible due to a lack of internationally agreed-upon according standards.

3.2.6 Bans on Expanded Polystyrene (Foam) Bans on polystyrene, or foam packaging, as with other plastics, range from prohibitions on importing and manufacturing to requirements related to retail use. Haiti, for example, banned the use of polystyrene containers and cups. Haiti bans the production, import, commercialization, and use in any form of plastic bags and objects made of styrofoam for food purposes, such as trays, bottles, bags, cups, and plates.140 In Vanuatu, the Ozone Layer Protection Act prohibits the importation of extruded polystyrene foam as well as “thermoformed plastic packaging such as supermarket meat or produce trays, egg cartons, fastfood containers, disposable plates and cups, horticultural packaging trays and packaging netting.”141 It also prohibits, within the country, the manufacture of “plastic foam, or any goods that contain plastic foam, that is or are manufactured using any controlled substance 139 ASTM, n.d.; UNEP, 2015b.

140 IPS, 2013.

141 Vanuatu Ozone Protection Act 2010, http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails;DIDPFDSIjsessionid=B4F37C03B789B0223982 DC5F222121AB?id=LEX-FAOC110179&index=documents.specified in Part I or Part II of the Schedule (including any of the goods referred to in paragraph 5(1)(b)).”

Numerous jurisdictions in the United States have banned polystyrene packaging at the manufacturing and retail levels. Within California alone, more than 60 cities have banned polystyrene in a variety of contexts. For example, the law in Alameda, California prohibits food vendors from providing food to customers in disposable polystyrene foam containers.142 Also, in California, the City of Capitola passed a local law that prohibits retail vendors or special event promoters “from selling, renting or otherwise providing any polystyrene foam product that’s not completely encapsulated or encased within a more durable, non-EPS [non-expanded polystyrene] product. In addition to foodservice ware such as cups, plates, bowls and clamshells, the law also affects coolers, containers, ice chests, pool or beach toys, packing peanuts or other packaging materials made of EPS.”143 In Watsonville, California “[t]he city extended its existing EPS ban to cover all plastic (not just polystyrene) foam products, such as coolers, ice chests, cups, bowls, plates, clamshells, shipping boxes, containers, packaging peanuts, pool or beach toys and other unencapsulated products.”144 In July, 2015, New York City banned certain polystyrene foam items such as: polystyrene foam singleservice items including cups, 142 Alameda, Cal., Code ch. 4, art. I § 4-4; Alameda, Cal., Code ch. 1 § 1-5.6. http://www.planetalameda.com/images/pdf/StyrofoamOrdinance.pdf.

143 Melucci, 2014.

144 Ibid.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 33 bowls, plates, takeout containers, and trays; and polystyrene loose fill packaging, commonly known as packing peanuts.145 The law exempted expanded polystyrene containers used for prepackaged food that have been filled and sealed prior to receipt by the food service establishment, mobile food commissary, or store, as well as expanded polystyrene containers used to store raw 145 NYC, 2015. meat, pork, fish, seafood or poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance. The ban was overturned later that year.146 3.2.7 Requiring or Encouraging Reusable Products Laws that mandate or encourage reusable products tend to be less problematic than mandating biodegradable or compostable products. For example, the widespread ban on plastic bags, newspaper wrappers, plates, and other items in Tamil Nadu, India (described above in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3) applies to nonrenewable items.

146 Mueller, 2015.

MARINE PLASTIC DEBRIS ON BEACH (CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK) The definition of “reusable” can have its challenges. Thick plastic bags are often defined as “reusable,” even if there are other environmental concerns associated with the bags. In 2015, for example, the Big Island of Hawai’i passed a law prohibiting businesses from providing plastic checkout bags (all counties in Hawai’i now ban plastic bags).147 The law exempted “reusable bags, compostable plastic bags, or recyclable paper bags,” and defined reusable as being greater than 2.25 mm. That thickness has raised concerns among environmentalists due to the amount of petroleum used to make the bags and the environmental effects if they are improperly discarded.148 Several jurisdictions prohibit the manufacture or distribution of non-returnable beverage containers. For example, Barbados’s beverage law provides that: “no distributor or dealer shall sell or offer for sale, at wholesale or retail in Barbados, any beverage that is contained in a beverage container without government permission.”149 Distributors and dealers who have “an adequate system for the recycling of 147 Honolulu, Haw., Code ch.

9, art.

9 § 9-9.1 http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/pdfs/Article%209%20-%20Plastic%20Bag%20Ban.pdf.

to

9-9.4.

148 Herreria, 2015.

149 Laws of Barbados, Chapter 395A, http://www.bottlebill.org/assets/pdfs/legis/world/Barbados1986-RCA.pdf.

Returnable

Containers.

beverage container” may be exempted. The law imposes a fine of up to $500 and three months imprisonment for violations.

3.2.8 Cigarette-Free Beaches Cigarette butts are among the most common types of marine litter found on the world’s beaches.150 Cigarette butts are composed of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that can take decades to decompose, introducing toxic chemicals into waterways.151 As part of a global recognition of the dangers of smoking, and the aesthetic and environmental harm from litter, several jurisdictions have banned smoking on beaches. Littering laws in Dominica, Malta, and many other countries explicitly apply to cigarette butts.152 Such laws have proven difficult to enforce, and many jurisdictions have prohibited smoking on beaches altogether.

As of 2012, 100 local U.S. governments had banned smoking on beaches.153 Honolulu passed a smoke-free ordinance in 1993, reportedly the first in the United States and one that continues to be enforced. Australia banned smoking on certain section of beaches in 2010, and amended its 1987 Tobacco Act in 2012 to prohibit smoking on patrolled beaches within an area on public land or in the 150 Ocean Conservancy, 2015a.

151 Ariza and Leatherman, 2012.

152 Litter Act, Act No. 4 of 1990, as amended by Act No. 6 of 1991 (Dominica). http://faolex.fao.org/faolex/. Litter Act (Malta). http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/mlt41758.pdf.

153 Ariza and Leatherman, 2012.

3. Laws Governing the Production and Use of Land-Based Materials Causing Marine Litter 35 sea.154 Puerto Rico also has banned smoking on beaches, and the province of Winnipeg, Canada banned smoking on its freshwater beaches in 2013.155 3.3 Extended Producer Responsibility In Canada, EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, among other jurisdictions, the prohibition on manufacturing or importing single-use plastics and other potential marine litter hazards includes extended producer responsibility for cleanup, recycling, or alternatives. The Organision for Economic Cooperation and Development defines extended producer responsibility as a “policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle.”156 This concept of extended producer responsibility appears in many sections throughout this Report.

While not targeted to marine environments or single-use plastics, Estonia’s law on packaging requires all packaging in the country to be reusable and recyclable, and mandates that manufacturers bear some responsibility in recovery of package waste.157 The Act covers “[p]ackaging materials of any manufactured 154 Tobacco Amendment (Smoking at Patrolled Beaches) Act 2012 (Australia). http://docs2.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/9258387DE57BA30ACA257ABE0082545F/$FILE/Tobacco%20 Amendment%20(Smoking%20at%20Patrolled%20Beaches)%20Act%202012.pdf.

155 Owen, 2013.

156 OECD, n.d.

157 Packaging Act, 2004 (Estonia). https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/12964621 (translation into English by Google). product, which is used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery or presentation of the product life cycle: from raw materials to processed goods from the producer and the consumer. The container used for the same purposes shall also be considered packaging.” The Act sets targets for recovery of plastic packaging waste at up to 55 percent, 45 percent of which is to be recycled.

In 2004, the Government of Ghana created a Recycling Taskforce to hire waste collectors to collect and deliver plastic bags to warehouses for recycling. Plastics manufacturers are required to help fund the project.158 In 2007, Uruguay adopted Ordinance No. 260/2007, requiring merchants to take actions to minimize waste and generation of plastic bags, and to develop management plans for their rational use, reuse, and recycling.159 3.4 Summary Laws governing consumer-level use of items that end up as marine litter—such as bans or taxes on single-use plastic bags or food utensils and laws promoting smoke-free beaches—have been shown to reduce consumer litter. A jurisdiction considering whether to ban an item such as a bag, or impose a fee for its use, may want to consider whether it has the resources to implement and enforce the law. Those considering imposing a levy or tax may want to consider the experience of many jurisdictions, such as Ireland and South Africa, that have found 158 Florida DEP, 2010.

159 Ibid.

that fees need to be set high enough to shape consumer use. A number of studies on the impact of bans and fees show that bans and fees can greatly reduce the usage of targeted bags, which greatly reduces their use in the environment, and increases the use of other bags (including both reusable bags and disposable bags made with alternative materials that may have a substantial environmental footprint).160 The most effective approaches have tended to combine measures, for example banning thin disposable plastic bags and a fee on alternative bags.

Jurisdictions considering targeting the sources of marine litter farther up the production chain such as laws banning the manufacture of nurdles, microbeads, and plastic bags might also consider that such laws have more impact if consistently enforced. Rather than discouraging industry participation, manufacturing bans and regulations can reinforce and strengthen industry’s nascent efforts to regulate themselves. Along the same lines, extended producer responsibility initiatives also provide incentives manufacturers to do more to prevent marine litter. The importance of well-crafted laws preventing marine litter cannot be overstated.

160 Taylor and Villas-Boas, 2016; Muthu et al. 2011.

4. MANAGING WASTE DISPOSAL INTO THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT In addition to laws governing the production and use of materials causing marine litter, many countries have adopted legislation governing waste disposal into the marine environment. Such legislation addresses four categories of disposal: (1) land-based disposal; (2) cleanup of land-based waste; (3) abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear; and (4) litter from ships.

4.1 Land-Based Waste Disposal Requirements Legislation can seek to reduce land-based sources of marine litter associated with waste disposal by setting particular requirements for siting and operation of landfills, planning for and responding to disasters (and particularly addressing disaster debris), reducing waste via recycling, and incineration. These are discussed in turn.

4.1.1 Landfill Siting and Operation There are three categories of landfills: open dumps, controlled systems, and engineered or sanitary systems.161 A sanitary landfill is a facility that isolates “landfilled wastes from the environment until the wastes are rendered innocuous through the biological, chemical, and physical processes of nature.”162 Among other standard practices, sanitary landfills should compact wastes, be covered daily with soil, and prevent odors from emanating from the site. Unlike sanitary landfills, where there are some guidelines to disposing solid waste, open dumps do not address solid waste storing or removal.163 This section provides examples of solid waste disposal requirements that are essential for preventing waste from entering the marine environment.

In 1976, the United States adopted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to protect human health and establish guidelines for proper solid waste disposal.164 Implementing regulations restrict the siting of landfill facilities, prohibiting them from being built in flood plains and wetland areas, where floods could transport garbage into rivers and eventually into the marine environment.165 Legislation often addresses the establishment and operation of landfills and land-based waste management generally. The Philippines governs landfills through Act 9003, the 161 ISWA, 2011. The definition of landfill goes on to state that “[m]ajor differences between the various definitions are in the degree of isolation and means of accomplishing it, as well as in the requirements for monitoring and closing the fill and in maintaining the fill after its active life.”

162 UNEP, 2005b.

163 Ibid.

164 EPA, 2015a.

165 40 U.S.C. § 257.8 to 257.9. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title40-vol26/xml/CFR-2012title40-vol26-part257.xml.

4. Managing Waste Disposal into the Marine Environment 39

Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.166 The Act prohibits open dumps and states that: No open dumps shall be established and operated, nor any practice or disposal of solid waste by any person, including LGUs [local government units], which constitutes the use of open dumps for solid waste, be allowed after the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That within three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act, every LGU shall convert its open dumps into controlled dumps, in accordance with the guidelines set in Section 41 of this Act: Provided, further, That no controlled dumps shall be allowed five (5) years following effectivity of this Act.167 166 Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Rep. Act No. 9003 (December 20, 2000) (Phil.), http://emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/RA-9003.pdf.

167 Ibid.

To provide incentives for local governments to reduce litter, the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority began offering monetary awards in 2012 for the cleanest and healthiest barangay (the smallest administrative division in the Philippines). These awards were done pursuant to regulations implementing Act 9003.168 Brazil’s 2010 solid waste management law requires all solid wastes to be disposed in modern landfills.169 In addition to addressing landfills generally, some nations create specific ocean and coastal restrictions.

For example, under New Zealand’s Resource Management Act (1991), landfills cannot be built near the coast without a coastal permit. The Act requires that regional councils oversee the permit process. In determining landfill siting, New 168 Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, 2015.

169 The Economist, 2015.

TANGLED MESS OF NETS AND ROPES WASHED UP ON THE OREGON BEACH Zealand recognizes environmentally sensitive areas as a key consideration in siting landfills. Government guidelines provide that, “Landfills should generally be located to avoid areas where sensitive natural ecosystems would be adversely affected, such as: significant wetlands; inter-tidal areas; significant areas of native bush including the Forest Park and areas able to comply with the requirements for QEII Trust status; recognised wildlife habitats; national/regional and local parks and reserve lands (for example, cemeteries); and any areas where release of contaminants from the site could severely affect fish/wildlife/aquatic resources.”170 Proper landfill design and siting involve extensive research of the proposed site. Often countries require environmental impact assessments (EIAs) to be developed when considering a proposed landfill site.

An EIA typically includes consideration of the site location, air quality, gas management, site description, and social-cultural concerns, including coastal impacts where relevant.171 Further discussion of EIAs is found in section 6.3 of this Report.

4.1.2 Planning and Disaster Preparedness Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and typhoons, can create substantial amounts of marine litter. It is estimated that the 2011 earthquake in Japan produced 5 170 Centre for Advanced Engineering, 2000.

171 See a sample EIA report for a landfill proposal in Hong Kong: Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department, 2007. million tons of debris.172 Similarly, the 2010 earthquake in Haiti produced 20 to 25 million cubic yards of debris.173 A 2009 World Bank report on Disaster Risk Management Programs for Priority Countries listed 20 high-risk countries prone to natural disasters. Of the 20 countries listed, fourteen were coastal countries.174 Many states implement disaster debris management plans to help prevent debris from entering waterways and to assist in the cleanup efforts after a natural disaster. The United States, Ja-

pan, and Haiti have all taken measures to prevent additional marine debris from impacted waterways after a major disaster.

This section surveys legal approaches that countries take to address marine debris caused by natural disaster.

United States: Following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, NOAA established the Gulf of Mexico Marine Debris Project (GOMMDP). GOMMDP researchers examined the Alabama, Mississippi, and Eastern Louisiana coastlines from 2006–2009 and discovered over 7,100 submerged items.175 Five thousand items were discovered following Hurricane Katrina, of which, 40 percent were submerged less than five feet.

As part of the GOMMDP, NOAA developed the Marine Debris Emergency Response Plan to help the region with disaster preparedness and provided guidelines for proper disposal methods of disaster debris.176 172 NOAA, 2015a.

173 Desvarieux, 2010.

174 World Bank, 2009a.

175 NOAA, 2012.

176 Barnea et al., 2009.

Alaska and Japan: There were various marine debris removal programs established following the Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent tsunami of March 2011. The State of Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development provided funding to remove approximately 115,000 pounds of debris from the Kodiak Archipelago.177 Furthermore, in 2012, Alaska implemented an administrative order, which states that Alaskan residents, “and the State of Alaska have a keen interest in seeing that marine debris risks are appropriately addressed. Alaskans’ economic interests and quality of life could be impacted. The State of Alaska owns tidelands and some of the uplands near the coastline that could suffer impacts, and significant federal lands, including national forests, parks, and monuments, also border the southern and southeastern coasts of Alaska.”178 The 2011 earthquake in Japan created approximately 20 million tons of disaster debris, much of it in coastal areas. Before the 2011 earthquake, Japan already had four waste management laws: the Basic Environment Act (1993); the Basic Environment Plan (1994); the Basic Act for Establishing a Sound Material Cycle Society (Basic Framework Act, 2000); and the Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act (1970). Guidelines on Disaster Waste Disposition Management were established in 1998 and provided local governments with 177 Island Trails Network, 2015.

178 Administrative Order No. 263. Office of the Governor, State of Alaska. July 30, 2012. http://gov.state.ak.us/admin-orders/263.html. On similar efforts in Oregon, see https://omdt.org. an emergency system for waste management after a disaster.179 After the earthquake—and in light of the substantial volume of disaster debris that Japan was coping with—Japan amended its legal regime governing waste management. One change was to relax the 30-day notice requirement that applied “when an industrial waste management facility deals with nonindustrial waste.”180 The Ministry of Environment also allowed spoiled seafood to be dumped into the ocean despite anti-dumping legislation.

Furthermore, the government implemented the Comprehensive Disaster Waste Management Act, which allowed the national government, instead of local governments, to process disaster waste.

Haiti: Like Japan, Haiti is susceptible to natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Indeed, a 2009 World Bank report listed Haiti as one of the most vulnerable countries for multiple hazards.181 Moreover, at the time of the report, environmental laws were ambiguous and storm damage, not earthquakes, was the primary concern.

In 2001, Haiti established the National Disaster Risk Management System (NDRMS). In response to the 2010 earthquake, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Haiti developed technical guidance to address disaster debris.182 To handle the 10 million cubic meters of debris, UNDP used the already-

179 Umeda, 2013.

180 Ibid.

181 World Bank, 2009b.

182 de Caen, 2013. established Truitier landfill as the disposal site for most of the debris and worked with municipalities to establish small- to medium-sized lots for additional debris.183 In the absence of a debris management plan, UNDP and Haiti focused on the recycling capabilities of the debris. Furthermore, lacking clear environmental laws or policies on the issue of disasters and debris, Haiti has continued to work with UNDP in preparing coastal communities for disasters.184 4.1.3 Mandatory Recycling and Separation To reduce marine litter from land-based sources—and to advance other environmental objectives— countries and subnational authorities have introduced mandatory recycling and separation.

An estimated 54 percent of marine debris on the West Coast of the United States comes from landbased sources.185 With a population of close to 40 million and a coastline of over 800 miles, California has introduced mandatory recycling policies for consumers and commercial businesses. The State of California enacted requirements for mandatory recycling of commercial solid waste by businesses.186 The Act states that: 183 Barenstein and Pittet, 2010.

184 UNDP, 2015.

185 EPA, 2011. The California Ocean Protection Council estimated that approximately 80 percent of marine debris derived from land-based sources. State of California Ocean Protection Council, n.d.

186 Cal. Code Regs. tit.

14, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/regulations/Title14/Chap09pt1/default.htm.

§

18837.

a business shall take at least one of the following actions in order to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise divert commercial solid waste from disposal: (1) Source separating recyclable and/or compostable materials from the solid waste they are discarding and either self-hauling, subscribing to a hauler, and/or otherwise arranging for the pick-up of the recyclable and/or compostable materials separately from the solid waste to divert them from disposal.

(2) Subscribing to a recycling service that may include mixed waste processing that yields diversion results comparable to source separation.187 At the local level, the City of San Francisco, as part of the California Waste Management Act of 1989, mandated recycling and composting.188 With a goal of having zero waste by 2020, the City requires residents and businesses in San Francisco to separate recyclables and landfill trash.189 According to the ordinance, in addition to providing color coded bins for recyclables, compost, and trash, business and property owners must educate residents and employees about how to properly use the recycle bins.

With limited land and a substantial tourism industry, the Maldives has struggled with how to manage its solid waste in ways that 187 Ibid.

188 S.F., Cal., Envir. Code ch. 19 § 1902 to 1912. http://www.sfenvironment.org/article/recycling-andcomposting/mandatory-recycling-and-composting-ordinance.

189 Ibid.

4. Managing Waste Disposal into the Marine Environment 43 do not generate marine litter, which could impact the tourism industry. The capital city of Male uses a former lagoon, Thilafishi, as its solid waste disposal site. According to the World Bank, the amount of

waste generated exceeds available land for disposal.190 In 2008, the Maldives developed a solid waste management framework, which implemented 11 policies to establish better waste management legislation, improve infrastructure, and educate consumers and producers on better waste management practices.191 4.1.4 Incineration In addition to reusing, recycling, landfill disposal, and composting, the practice of burning, incinerating (with energy recovery and emission control, allowing potentially harmful substances to be captured or destroyed to the largest extent possible), and waste-to-energy (WtE) is sometimes used to deal with waste as a last resort. Due to cost and pollution, open burning and incineration (without energy recovery) are not encouraged. Moreover, it is an unsustainable way to deal with waste. Nevertheless, new WtE technology has proven a viable option for developed countries with limited land availability.

There are more than 1200 WtE facilities in over 40 countries around the world. In order to have a viable WtE facility and plan, a country must already have a well-organized 190 World Bank, 2012.

191 National Solid Waste Management Policy for http://www.mvlaw.gov.mv/pdf/gavaid/minHousing/28.pdf.

the

Republic

of

Maldives.

2008.

waste management system in place. For example, the EU’s landfill directive has decreased landfill use by 65 percent in order to implement more WtE facilities. Austria, Germany, Singapore, Taiwan, Switzerland, and Japan all depend more on WtE facilities than on landfills and recycling.

Due to the lack of landfill space, Japan has primarily relied on incinerating its waste. Although Japan relies on incinerators, many facilities did not recover energy from waste. To address this issue, Japan’s Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law (2001), while not mandating energy recovery, provided incentivizes for facilities to use WtE methods. The WtE regulatory framework was established in 2010 and set guidelines for types of solid waste for incineration and air emission limits.

In 2008, Chile enacted the renewable electricity law that obliges “electricity providing companies, withdrawing electricity to supply their contract commitments, to demonstrate that a certain percentage of their total energy committed was injected in the system by non-conventional energy sources. The energy can be produced by their own plants, or by contracting from third-parties.” Between 2010 and 2014, 5 percent of electricity had to come from non-conventional energy sources, such as landfills. The percentage is expected to increase annually by 0.5 percent starting in 2015, and will cap at 10 percent by 2024.

The International Solid Waste Association provides guidelines for WtE facilities in lowto middle-income countries.192 The legislative and policy frameworks of many Small Island Developing States (SIDS) focus on end-of-life waste solutions, although landfills are not a viable option for many SIDS. Starting in 2014, the Cayman Islands implemented a 50-year Solid Waste Management System and Plan to address the increased waste and marine litter issues.193 Instead of focusing on end-of-life solutions, the Cayman Islands used Europe as its model and adopted the waste hierarchy (discussed below), which focuses on waste prevention.

For many SIDS, where tourism is important for many economies, WtE facilities are still novel in that many SIDS rely on incinerating without energy recovery due to efficiency, cost, and lack of infrastructure and technology.194 There is some movement in SIDS toward WtE: in 2014, Jamaica was in the final stages of implementing policies to build WtE facilities.195 4.2 Land-Based Waste Cleanup Numerous global programs take voluntary measures to address marine litter through cleanup. Other programs are regulatory and use government funding to reduce marine litter and increase community involvement. In 2013, the United States agency NOAA 192 ISWA, 2013.

193 Integrated Solid Waste Management System, 24 April 2014 (Cayman Islands). http://www.gov.ky/pls/portal/docs/page/cighome/newcighome/publications/waste-management-

strategic-outline-case-now-approved/strategic-outline-case-integrated-solid-waste-managementsystem.pdf.

194 UNEP, UN DESA, and FAO, 2012.

195 Linton, 2015. allocated US$250,000 to the State of Washington to assist with marine debris cleanup from the 2011 tsunami in Japan.196 The City of San Francisco and Los Angeles County spent US$6 million and US$18 million respectively on debris removal affecting marine life.197 South Korea has implemented various programs to reward marine litter cleanup. Since 2003, fishermen receive a small fee for delivering marine litter to ports.198 South Korea’s central and local governments established the buyback program to preserve marine environments and to educate fisherman and local residents about the dangers of marine litter.199 According to the report, the buyback program proved to be more cost-effective by engaging fishermen and the community rather than the central and local government collecting and removing marine debris.

In 2009, South Korea financed a US$9 million coastal cleanup which focused on community involvement and economic incentives for residents living along the coast.200 The program’s aim was to remove marine litter along the coast and provide jobs for elderly residents living in the area. While some of South Korea’s coastal cleanup programs included voluntary participation without incentives, the buyback program and pay-to-clean coastal environments 196 Washington State Marine Debris Task Force, 2013.

197 Kier Associates, 2012.

198 Morishige, 2010.

199 Ibid.

200 Ibid.

4. Managing Waste Disposal into the Marine Environment 45 demonstrate two marine litter removal methods that involve community and government collaboration.

Despite the aforementioned programs, many countries are focused on preventative measures to reduce the amount of marine litter. The European Union and the United States both use a waste hierarchy, which focuses on waste prevention versus reactive measures of waste production. The European Commission’s, for example, incorporates the polluter pays principle into its waste framework directive.201 The last two sections (4.1 and 4.2) address the broad category of land-based waste. Most of the programs identified are not specific to addressing marine litter. That said, they do make up essential components of the marine litter management framework. These components include landfills siting and management, recycling programs, incineration programs, disaster response, and more. In addition, an environmental impact assessment when siting landfills provides an important mechanism to evaluate the ability of landfills to prevent marine litter, especially when siting along coasts prone to natural disasters. Proper 201 Directive 2008/98 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098. planning in disaster-prone areas and recycling programs for disaster debris will reduce marine litter and help maintain ecosystems.

4.3 Abandoned, Lost, and Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) Abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is fishing gear such as crab pots, nets, or fishing line that are lost or intentionally discarded by fishers while at sea. ALDFG’s contribution to global marine litter is significant. UNEP estimates that some 6.4 million tons of gear is abandoned, lost, or discarded in our oceans each year.202 The derelict gear causes significant impacts to marine life and habitats. Seabirds and other marine animals may become entangled in the gear and in the process become wounded

or killed. In addition, the derelict gear can cause significant navigation hazards and damage to vessels.203 Gill nets, fish pots, and traps often “ghost fish” (or continue to fish after loss). Fishing lines entangle marine life and damage the ocean floor.204 For example, 870 ghost nets were recovered off the coast of Washington State; these nets had caught more than 32,000 marine animals and 500 birds and mammals.205 Crab pots are particularly dangerous, and it is estimated that 10-30 percent of the millions of crab pots cast out into the Chesapeake Bay annually are lost.206 202 Macfadyen and Huntington, 2009; World Society for the Protection of Animals, 2014.

203 NOAA, 2015b.

204 Dutch Shark Society, 2014.

205 Register, Rhett, 2014.

206 Humboldt State University, 2015.

International frameworks call upon the fishing industry and governmental managers to implement policies and procedures to minimize the effects of ALDFG on marine life. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing states that fishers must try to minimize their impacts on species and habitats “through measures including, to the extent practicable the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques.”207 The United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions (Resolutions 44/225, 45/197, and 46/215) to address the impacts of open water drift-net fishing on marine habitats.208 In addition, MARPOL Annex V prohibits the discharge of all garbage into the sea, including fishing gear.209 At the national level, several countries have regulations regarding ALDFG. For example the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis has enacted a Marine Pollution Management Act. Under this Act, prohibited fishing gear includes “any plastics, including but not limited to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets and plastic garbage bags.”210 The Government of Namibia also has set forth prohibitions on abandoning fishing gear in its Regulations Relating to the Exploitation 207 Macfadyen and Huntington, 2009.

208 UNGA, 1991.

209 IMO, 2015a.

210 The Marine Pollution Management http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/stk63654.pdf.

Act,

2002

(St.

Christopher

and

Nevis).

of Marine Resources.211 A fisher in Namibia “may not, without a written authorization by the Minister, leave any fishing gear or any other non-biodegradable object utilized for harvesting marine resources on or in the sea or on the sea shore on the termination of harvesting.”212 If a fisher does lose or abandon their fishing gear, they will incur all costs relating to the collection of the gear and if the State recovers the gear, the fisher will then be indebted to the State.213 In the United States, legislative initiatives aim to prevent ALDFG and focus on reporting and recovering ALDFG as quickly as possible.

In addition to reporting, countries have adopted many strategies in their laws to minimize the loss of fishing gear, including creating biodegradable components, marking gear, and attaching it to structures to enable retrieval. For example, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has established guidelines to minimize the likelihood of lost crab pots: each pot must be clearly marked, attached to a buoy, and have a biodegradable panel to allow marine life to escape if it does become abandoned.214 Improved gear marking systems such as global positioning system (GPS) tags are widely used in the EU. Providing adequate 211 Regulations No. 241 of 2001.

December http://www.mfmr.gov.na/documents/53305/832050/MarineRegulations/e2e0a7fb-a6db-45fd-9b14a26a6c3d3b4.

7.

212 Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia, Regulations Relating to the Exploitation of Marine Resources, Part Five-Protection of the Environment, Waste. http://faolex.fao.org/.

213 Ibid.

214 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015.

4. Managing Waste Disposal into the Marine Environment 47 port disposal access and limiting spatial fishing zones are two other strategies to combat the impacts of ALDFG.215 Once gear has been lost or abandoned, recovery is the key approach to addressing the problem. In 2002, the Washington State legislature passed State Senate Bill 6313, establishing the Derelict Fishing Gear Removal Program, which is responsible for removing derelict gear from Puget Sound.216 The program includes a popular method of reporting which takes a no-fault approach. A “no-fault� approach focuses on cleaning up the gear rather than focusing on who is responsible for losing it.217 The amount of ghost fishing nets which have been recovered from Puget Sound to date would cover more than 400 football fields. The Northwest Straits Foundation has also removed, as of June 2015, more than 5,660 derelict fishing nets and 3,800 shellfish pots from Puget Sound, restoring 329 hectares of seabed.218 4.4 Regulation of Marine Litter from Ships Marine litter may be accidently lost from a vessel or intentionally discarded. An estimated 20 percent of the litter found in the ocean can be linked to ocean-based sources, including commercial fishing vessels, cargo ships which discharge garbage, and cruise ships.219 The issue of marine litter is 215 On legislation relating port disposal generally, see section 4.4.1 of this overview.

216 Northwest Straights Initiative, 2015.

217 McConnon, 2016.

218 Ibid.

219 California Coastal Commission, 2016. particularly evident in the North Sea, one of the world’s most active shipping zones. It is estimated that 40 percent of marine litter in the North Sea area comes from vessels, an estimated 20,000 metric tonnes of waste. In the Netherlands, an area of heavy vessel activity, 90 percent of the plastic found on beaches is estimated to have come from maritime activities.220 4.4.1 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), 1973 MARPOL sets forth international regulations to prevent pollution from ships. Annex V includes regulations relating to vessel-borne garbage and its disposal. It establishes limits on what may be disposed at sea and imposes a complete ban on the at-sea disposal of plastics.221 Annex V entered into force in 1988, and was amended in 2013. The amendments came into force in January of 2013. The amendments address a broad spectrum of marine pollution and prohibit most discharge of garbage into the sea from vessels, with some specific exceptions.222 The amendments address specific types of waste such as animal carcasses, cleaning agents, and additive substances. The amendments include the potential to designate special areas which have specific ecological vulnerabilities 220 Seas at Risk, 2015.

221 IMO, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Documents/201(62).pdf.

222 Gard, 2013. or characteristics, or heavier vessel traffic, allowing for heightened regulations to prevent damage to sensitive marine environments.223 The ability of vessels to comply with MARPOL Annex V garbage regulations relates directly to the ability of port reception facilities to accept garbage and wastes accumulated onboard vessels. The Annex also provides guidance on this topic, stating that each party must provide adequate port reception facilities for the discharge of garbage and waste, and these port reception facilities must not cause ships to be unnecessarily delayed.224 Annex V states that port State control officers can conduct operational in-

spections upon a foreign-flagged vessel at a port or an offshore terminal “where there are clear grounds for believing that the master or crew are not familiar with essential shipboard procedures relating to the prevention of pollution by garbage.”225 Port reception facilities are particularly important in designated special areas that have particular environmental concerns or particularly high sea traffic. In special areas, rules are stricter and port reception facilities have increased importance.226 The European Union establishes port reception facility requirements in EU Directive 2000/59/EC, requiring adequate port reception facilities of its member States. The Directive states that these facilities “should meet the needs of the marine environment and every ship, largest 223 IMO, 2016.

224 Ibid.

225 Ibid.

226 Ibid. to smallest.”227 The Directive also requires vessels to discharge their garbage at a port reception facility before leaving port.

In addition to adequate port reception facilities, MARPOL sets forth guidelines on signage onboard vessels, garbage record books, and garbage management plans. Regulation 10.1 requires “every ship of 12 meters in length or over and every fixed or floating platform to display placards notifying passengers and crew of the disposal requirements of the Annex.”228 These signs must clearly state the restriction on discharging garbage from ships according to MARPOL. The signs should also warn of applicable penalties if garbage is discarded overboard. Under MARPOL, ships of more than 100 gross tonnage and certified to carry more than 15 people should have a clear garbage record book and a garbage management plan, which includes clearly written procedures for “minimizing, collecting, storing, processing and disposing of garbage, including the use of the equipment on board.”229 The plan should designate which crew member will be in charge of garbage management and should include records of 227 Directive 2000/59/EC (European Union). lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0059:EN:HTML.

http://eur-

228 IMO, 2012.

229 Regulation 10.2.

4. Managing Waste Disposal into the Marine Environment 49 all disposals or incinerations of garbage and should be kept for two years after the final entry.230 4.4.2 National Legislation Implementing MARPOL Many countries have adopted national legislation and regulations implementing MARPOL, including the Annex V regulations. In many instances, the national requirements go beyond the requirements of MARPOL, adding nuance and detail.

Namibia is a party to MARPOL,231 and it has national legislation to combat marine litter,232 which was developed to ensure that vessels do not discharge garbage into its waters. According to Namibian law, a person may not discharge waste generated on a fishing vessel into the sea except for biodegradable household waste or fish offal.233 Waste, other than biodegradable household waste or fish offal, must be taken back to port and disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the responsible authority at the landing port.234 New Zealand became a party to the Annex V Regulations in 1988.235 It has passed several national marine protection regulations under the Marine Transport Act and the Resource Management Act. The goal is to “incorporate into New Zealand law the technical standards 230 Ibid.

231 IMO, 2015b.

232 Government of Namibia, 2013.

233 Regulations Relating to the Exploitation of Marine Resources (Namibia), part 5 (protection of the environment, waste). http://faolex.fao.org/.

234 Ibid.

235 IMO, 2015b. contained in Annex V.”236 New rules were implemented in 2015 and address almost all ships and private leisure crafts in New Zealand’s territorial waters. The rules address discharge of wastes from vessels, restricting most discharges of garbage.237 The rules 236 Marine Protection Rules (New Zealand), part 170 (prevention of pollution from garbage from ships). http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/Rules/Rule-documents/Part170-marine-protection-rule.pdf.

237 Ibid.

FLOATING MARINE DEBRIS (CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK) Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers 50 establish a general prohibition on discharge of garbage from ships into the sea.238 New Zealand creates limited and specific circumstances when a vessel may discharge wastes into New Zealand waters, such as in order to secure the safety of those onboard the vessel. The regulations also allows for accidental discharge, and there are specific guidelines pertaining to discharge of food wastes and discharge in special areas. 239 China is a party to MARPOL, including Annex V, and has implemented national legislation in accordance with its regulations. Chinese national legislation focuses on collection, treatment, storage, and discharge of garbage from ships. China has also passed an environmental protection law, which includes anti-dumping provisions.240 The law prohibits any dumping of garbage from vessels, specifically stating that “[n] o unit is permitted, without approval of the State competent authority being in charge of marine affairs, to dump any wastes into the sea areas under the jurisdiction of the 238 Ibid., § 170.3.

239 Ibid.

240 Marine Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China (Chinese and English text). http://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/marineenvironmental-protection-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china.

People’s Republic of China.”241 Any vessels wanting to dump waste in the Chinese marine environment must obtain a permit.242 4.4.3 Cruise Ship Waste A cruise ship can carry thousands of passengers and produce copious amounts of garbage, contributing to global marine litter if not properly disposed of. The U.S. Government Accounting Office cited 87 confirmed cases of illegal discharges of garbage or other wastes from cruise ships between 1992 and 1998 in U.S. waters.243 Garbage from a cruise ship may include food packaging materials, waste created by passengers and crew, and food waste.244 It is estimated that every week a cruise ship generates 6,000 lbs. 5 m3 of glass, 2.5 m3 of cans, and 12 m3 of food waste.245 In another study, the USEPA estimated waste generated by one cruise ship as “21,000 gallons of sewage, one ton of garbage, 170,000 gallons of wastewater from sinks, showers and laundry, more than 25 pounds of batteries, fluorescent lights, medical wastes and expired chemicals, up to 6,400 gallons of oily bilge water from engines, four plastic bottles per passenger—about 8,500 bottles per day for the one major ship.”246 There have been some notable cases of cruise ship crew members dumping bags of garbage overboard; in response to the outcry over these incidents, some cruise companies have implemented tougher 241 Ibid., art. 55.

242 Ibid.

243 GAO, 2000.

244 EPA, 2008.

245 Ibid.

246 Ibid.

4. Managing Waste Disposal into the Marine Environment 51 policies for their ships. On one major cruise line, it is now a policy that all solid waste must either be incinerated onboard or disposed of in a port reception facility.247 Grenada: Areas of the Caribbean are at special risk of marine litter from vessel-borne sources of waste due to the region’s popularity as a cruise destination. Dumping of waste and garbage from cruise ships has become a major issue in the region, and it often goes unreported as small islands are dependent on tourism-related revenues and hesitant to report or tax major cruise line companies.248 Grenada attempted to impose a tax of US$1.50 per person arriving via cruise ships to help fund a World Bankmandated landfill; in protest, a major cruise line company withdrew from Grenada for many years.249 Grenada has created specially protected marine zones under its Marine Protected Areas Law.250 The law prohibits the discharge of waste in marine protected areas, including the discharge of “any refuse…or any other item harmful to animals or plants, or any unsightly item, or substance which does or is likely to destroy or reduce amenities of the area.”251 Organic waste also is subject to legislation, and it is “prohibited to bring organic waste into Grenada. Organic waste may be dumped at least 12 nautical miles offshore. Small organic waste (pieces less 247 Princess Cruise Lines, 2015.

248 Tampa Tribune, 2009.

249 Melia, 2009.

250 Laws of Grenada. http://laws.gov.gd/.

251 Ibid. than 25 mm) may be dumped at least three nautical miles offshore.”252 The island has port reception facilities for organic waste.

4.4.4 Penalties for Violations of Dumping Garbage into the Marine Environment MARPOL does not impose penalties—that is left up to States and their implementing legislation. Some countries do impose criminal penalties for illegal dumping in their waters. In the United States, national laws governing discharge of waste into U.S. waters include the Clean Water Act and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.

4.4.5 Summary The issue of marine litter emanating from vessels is one which requires both international action through treaties such as MARPOL, and national laws and policies implementing (and sometimes going beyond) such treaties. Key aspects of the legal requirements include prohibitions on dumping, requirements for port reception facilities, designation of special areas, institutional capacity, and legislation specifically addressing waste from cruise ships.

4.5 Artificial Reefs Artificial reefs may prove to be an effective method of improving fisheries and marine habitats, however, significant concerns exist regarding their functional role in 252 Ibid. the ecosystem and possible pollution of the marine environment (including its contribution to marine litter) by the materials used in their creation. Modern artificial reefs were first used in Japan, and by the 17th century their usage spread to the U.S. and Europe.253 Artificial reefs are created to serve two main purposes: (1) fish stock enhancement and fishery management, and (2) conservation, research, recreation, and restoration of the marine habitat.254 Artificial reefs may be created in underwater areas that require a hard structure to support a habitat for reef organisms, including many types of corals and

the fishes and invertebrates that live among them.255 There is also significant interest in using artificial reefs as an impediment to illegal trawling.256 Many different structures have been used to create artificial reefs. When building an artificial reef, decommissioned military and commercial vessels are often used to create reefs, but many environmental groups have voiced concern over pollution from: “fuels and oil, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), paint, debris (e.g., vessel debris, floatables, and introduced material), and other materials (e.g. mercury, refrigerants).” There are also concerns that areas where artificial reefs are created may become dumping grounds for polluted or unsuitable materials which may harm the environment.257 In New Jersey, a program called “Reef-Ex” was a collaboration between the Department of 253 Fabi et al., 2011.

254 Ibid.

255 NOAA, 2014.

256 Fabi et al., 2011.

257 Ibid.

Defense, environmental groups, and the State of New Jersey to use several types of obsolete tanks to create an artificial reef.258 They were first cleaned, then transported on a ship and rolled into the ocean. The most common were Vietnam-era Armored Personnel Carriers or APCs. Oil rigs have been used to create artificial reefs and have also sparked controversy. In Orange County, CA, obsolete oil rigs attract barnacles and many other forms of sea life. While some want to simply leave the rigs to create an artificial reef, others feel oil companies simply want to shirk their responsibilities in cleaning up the rigs.259 There is no comprehensive international legislation to address development and management of artificial reefs, and most international legislation touching on artificial reefs concerns protection of government-created reefs, permitting, or the prohibition of the creation of artificial reefs. There are many legal issues surrounding the production and management of an artificial reef, including ownership of the reef and its fish, management of marine fishing gear used in the area, and shipping and maritime activities allowed around the reefs.260 A number of countries have adopted legislation regulating artificial reefs, including through anti-dumping provisions in environmental and marine protection laws.261 United States: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the 258 Weitzman, 1994.

259 Mehta, 1999.

260 FAO, 2015.

261 UNEP and IMO, 2009.

4. Managing Waste Disposal into the Marine Environment 53 construction and maintenance of fishing reefs and fishing attractors in waters of the United States.

Some U.S. states (such as New York) have USACE permits for artificial reefs in the Atlantic Ocean.

Sec. 33 U.S. Code § 2103 sets out parameters for the National Artificial Reef Plan. This plan mandates the development of a long-term artificial reef plan which shall include amongst other specifications; “(1) geographic, hydrographic, geologic, biological, ecological, social, economic, and other criteria for siting artificial reefs; (2) design, material, and other criteria for constructing artificial reefs….”262 Australia: In Australia, the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (the Sea Dumping Act) oversees the construction and permitting of artificial reefs. Permits for construction of artificial reefs must be obtained from the Department of the Environment and Heritage or the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.263 If one does not obtain a permit and constructs a reef, penalties can be up to “$220 000, imprisonment, or both.”264 Permits are necessary to ensure that the sites for the reef are appropriate. According to the Australian Government, concerns about artificial reefs include the reduction of negative or harmful impacts to marine life and habitat and the safety of seafaring vessels

operating in the area. The permit applications are reviewed by several Australian governmental agencies to assure the necessity of the reef as well as 262 National Artificial Reef Plan, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2103.

33

U.S.

Code

§

2103.

263 Australian Government, Department of the Environment, 2008.

264 Ibid. reviewing the purpose it will serve. Once an appropriate permit is issued, the reef may be charted on maritime maps.265 Oman: The Sultanate of Oman has been proactive in establishing projects to improve fish stocks and marine habitats through the usage of artificial reefs in the Al-Batainah region and training personnel to manage them.266 Fisheries in Oman face difficulties due to Oman’s geographic particularities such as narrow coastal zones. Artificial reefs are being developed to support these fisheries. The artificial reefs in a manmade reef project known as “The Wave” in Muscat seek to provide habitats that will bring marine life to areas devoid of marine life and improve fishery production. The reefs are made from manmade “60 triangular concrete modules to 2km of seabed between Seeb and Bausher to create an artificial reef effect.”267 Oman has issued several Ministerial Decisions concerning artificial reefs and the current preference in Oman seems to be use structures specifically designed and built for the purpose of constructing an artificial reef. A 2004 Ministerial Decision (No. 55) addresses the establishment of artificial reefs. There is concern about pollution as specific substances are forbidden in the construction of artificial reefs such as engines, barrels, old boats and ships, glass, and plastic (art.

265 Ibid.

266 Sultanate of Oman, 2010.

267 Times of Oman, 2014.

Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers 54 13).268 Article 7 provides specifications in the construction of reefs: “only permitted materials may be used; they must not exceed 30 square meters; they must be more than 1000m from shore; reefs must not be closer than 500m from each other, and they must not exceed 1/3 of the depth of the sea where located; etc.”269 Manmade artificial reefs can create marine habitats where there were none, revitalize areas where biodiversity and fisheries have been depleted, but they may also raise significant environmental concerns.

Dumping spent heavy equipment such as army tanks or decommissioned military ships may seem to be an efficient recycling technique once this equipment is no longer used, but it may come at a high cost.

Many of the ships or vehicles that are dumped into the ocean need significant decontamination before they can be safely submerged. Moreover, management of the reefs needs to be improved after the reefs have been created, and national plans for management of the reefs are necessary. 270 The use of pre-fabricated materials created for the purpose of building an artificial reef may be a preferred choice as this would eliminate many concerns regarding contamination from prior usage. Artificial reefs can bestow many benefits, but the costs to the environment must be weighed as well.

268 Ministerial Decision No. 55 of 2004 Issuing Regulations Managing the Establishment of Artificial Reefs (Alshuduud) (Oman). http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails;DIDPFDSIjsessionid=6C805C89DB5ED00F57C 06F27B9A2010E?id=LEX-FAOC097361&index=documents.

269 Ibid.

270 Fabi et al., 2011 5. MANAGING WASTE IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

While marine litter is more difficult to address once it has entered the environment, countries have adopted legislation to manage it in the environment. This legislation generally addresses three dimensions: assessing the status of marine litter and its impacts on the environment; developing and implementing plans addressing litter in the marine environment; and cleaning up marine litter.

5.1 Assessing the Status and Impacts Some countries have adopted legislation empowering agencies to assess the status of marine litter and its impacts. For example, the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) and its 1972 amendments established regulations setting water pollution standards, programs to assess and monitor polluted bodies of water, and processes to design management plans to address water pollution.271 States are required to maintain a list of polluted waters and establish a plan to manage and restore the polluted water. Section 303(d) of the CWA states that for polluted waters, each 271 EPA, 2015b. state must determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL) of pollutants that can be found in a water body and still achieve the stated water quality objectives.272 In response to an environmental organization lawsuit to address pollution in Los Angeles, California, Los Angeles County began to categorize trash as a pollutant.273 The lawsuit required the county to reduce the 4.5 million pounds of trash that flowed into Californian watersheds yearly, to zero by 2016.274 The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) (33 U.S.C. § 1914 - 33 U.S.C. § 1915) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to study the adverse effects of improper disposal of plastics on the environment and on waste disposal, and various methods to reduce or eliminate such adverse effects. Section 1954 of the Act provides for an interagency marine debris coordinating committee, including membership requirements for the committee, meeting schedules, monitoring, and progress reports. The interagency committee coordinates marine debris research between federal agencies and non-governmental entities, such as universities. The reports should include the Committee’s recommendations, marine debris inventory, a review of marine debris reduction projects, a review of Coast Guard programs, and estimates of federal and non-federal funding for marine debris.

272 Ibid.

273 Hohnjune, 2008.

274 Ibid.

5. Managing Waste in the Marine Environment 57 The U.S. Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act (MDRPRA) established programs within NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard to help identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment and navigation safety. MDRPRA also re-authorized the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee.275 An EU directive on the criteria and methodological standards on good environment status of marine waters provides another approach to assessment.276 The directive issues 11 descriptors for Member States to assess whether they are practicing sound environmental practices. Descriptor 10 provides a guideline for the quantities of litter to coastal and marine environments and provides that “[t]he distribution of litter is highly variable, which needs to be taken into consideration for monitoring programmes. It is necessary to identify the activity to which it is linked including, where possible, its origin. There is still a need for further development of several indicators, notably those relating to biological impacts and to micro-particles, as well as for the enhanced assessment of their potential toxicity.”277 Assessing marine litter requires legislation and a proactive government that not only implements viable regulations for marine litter reduction, but practical solutions that are preventative. U.S. laws and the EU directive 275 EPA, 2016.

276 Directive 2010/477/EU. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:

32010D0477(01).

277 Ibid. for the environmental status of marine waters illustrate two regulatory approaches for assessing the status of marine litter affecting waters, and then using that assessment to inform proactive measures to reduce and control marine litter.

5.2 Planning In order to develop a holistic approach to preventing, reducing, and cleaning up marine litter, countries have provided legislative mandates to develop broad plans for managing marine litter.

In 2008, the European Union adopted the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The directive focuses on four European marine regions (the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the North East Atlantic Ocean) and sets goals with a two-year incremental timeframe to assess the current state of the sea. Additionally, the directive sets environmental targets and associated indicators to establish metrics to achieve “good environmental status” for their waters and monitoring.278 In 2009, the Government of Australia established the Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life (TAP) plan. TAP has four objectives: long-term prevention of harmful marine debris; remove existing harmful marine debris; mitigate impacts of harmful marine debris on ecological communities; and monitoring and managing marine debris. TAP incorporates a monitoring and management 278 EC, 2016. component, which include communities and schools conducting impact surveys and educational and wildlife rescue programs.279 To support countries and others in planning for marine litter, UNEP, the U.S. Government, and others developed the Honolulu Strategy in 2011. The Strategy is a planning framework for a comprehensive and global effort to reduce the ecological, human health, and economic impacts of marine debris and to reduce the amount and impact of accumulated marine debris in pelagic waters.280 Part of the Honolulu Strategy planning process involves specific goals to reduce marine litter. Goal A is to reduce the amount and impact of land-based sources of marine debris into the sea; goal B is to reduce the amount and impact of sea-based sources of marine debris; and goal C will reduce the amount of marine debris on shorelines.281 With these three goals and various strategies to achieve those goals, the Honolulu Strategy involves governments, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

5.3 Cleanup As has been made abundantly clear throughout this report, when it comes to marine litter, prevention is more effective and efficient than response. This is why the vast majority of the legislative measure seek to prevent marine litter from being generated (through restrictions on manufacturing and use) and from being introduced into the 279 Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2009.

280 UNEP and NOAA, 2011.

281 Ibid. marine environment. That said, countries and partners have sought approaches to capture and remove marine litter in the environment. Legislation can, for example, provide a mandate for government bodies to empower and work with local entities in organizing beach cleanups.

Australia has implemented various marine litter cleanup initiatives. The Caring for our Country initiative jointly administered by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Projects include: “ghost net” cleanup projects across northern Australia; regional and local marine debris monitoring and cleanup, including education and awareness raising; and industry initiatives.282

In January 2015, the U.S. EPA set new mandates for litter and debris removal from the Baltimore harbor and its tributaries for Baltimore city and Baltimore County Maryland.283 A 2014 Baltimore City TMDL draft listed various programs to assist in the restoration and TMDL compliance of Back River, Baltimore Harbor, Jones Falls, Gwynns Falls, and Lower Patapsco River. Engaging the community to participate in cleanups was also part of the draft plan.284 282 Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, n.d.

283 Lawson, 2015.

284 Baltimore City, 2014. In 2008, Baltimore became the third urban “stream system” which required regulatory intervention due to the amount of litter and trash found in the harbor. Wheeler, 2015.

6. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In addition to the various approaches laid out above for combatting and responding to marine litter, legislation can provide mandates for research programs, advisory bodies, environmental impact assessments, public participation, and private engagement.

6.1 Research Programs Recognition of the impacts of marine debris has led to coordinated research efforts at various scales into the magnitude, impacts, and sources of marine debris. While citizens, local organizations, universities, and government agencies conduct monitoring and research activities at site-specific, statewide, or watershed-specific scales, these programs are often coordinated and funded in part by national research programs, such as the Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project described below. Further, there are also global initiatives to combat this problem through coordination of regional efforts, resulting in the global dissemination of research results.

In 2006, the United States adopted the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (MDRPR), which directs NOAA and the Coast Guard to conduct research in order to “identify, determine sources of, assess, prevent, reduce, and remove marine debris…” in marine environments.285 Accordingly, NOAA has implemented the Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project, which utilizes shoreline marine debris surveys to collect baseline data on the amount of debris present in marine environments.286 NOAA also coordinates with and provides funding to state agencies, educational institutions, and NGOs. Examples of current projects include a study by the University of Maryland’s Wye Research and Education Center Aquatic Toxicology Group into the distribution of microplastics debris in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and a study by Sea Education Association into the impacts of microplastics on feeding behavior of copepods.287 Prior to 2012, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA)288 directed the U.S. EPA to study the impacts of improper disposal of plastics on the environment. These sections, however, were repealed in 2012, and MDRPR now authorizes the creation of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee. This committee is authorized to coordinate a comprehensive marine debris research program, and includes EPA, NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the Navy, as well as any other agencies which may be interested in pollution prevention.289 285 33 U.S.C.A. § 1952(a) (2015).

286 NOAA, 2016b.

287 These studies, among other current projects, can be found at http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/currentefforts/research.

288 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1914-1915.

289 33 U.S.C.A. § 1954.

6. Other Considerations 61 The Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012 updates the Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act of 2006. The amendments provide additional research and assistance to the U.S. Coast

Guard and NOAA to identify, determine sources of, remove marine debris, and determine the impacts on the marine environment.290 There is a dearth of national research programs on marine litter in the southern hemisphere, and an even greater shortage of legislation mandating such research programs.291 The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia’s national science agency, has coordinated one of the largest coastal 290 Howe, 2012.

291 Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel, 2015. assessments of marine litter by surveying sites at 100 km intervals around the entire coastline of the country.292 This study coordinated the efforts of thousands of students, teachers, and corporate employees throughout the country using a common survey methodology to assess the extent of marine litter accumulation.293 The European Environment Agency (EEA) has similarly utilized a citizen-based approach to researching marine litter. In order to inform policy decisions in the European Union, the EEA developed the Marine LitterWatch Program, which includes a mobile app, a web portal, and a public database to collect and 292 CSIRO, 2015.

293 Ibid.

SINGLE-USE PLASTIC ON BEACH (CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK) share coastal litter data.294 As demonstrated by these examples, national research programs often focus on coordinating citizen-scientists.295 On the international scale, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) coordinated efforts to reduce marine litter. While UNEP does not itself conduct research, it has developed Regional Seas Programs, the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (discussed earlier), and Action Areas through which UNEP supports the development of regional and national action plans on marine litter.296 UNEP then uses these regional actions to publish best practices for monitoring and research.297 UNEP also publishes guidelines (for example, on monitoring of marine litter) and lists research needs and priority areas for action.298 6.2 Advisory Bodies Advisory bodies are used in a number of capacities to monitor and provide advice on regulating marine litter. They provide scientific advice to states to inform regulations, can help coordinate implementation of national and subnational policies on marine litter, and assist with public education and outreach.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) serves as the EU Directorate-General for the Environment’s policy framework for the protection of the marine 294 European Environment Agency, 2015a.

295 Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel, 2015.

296 UNEP, n.d.

297 UNEP and IOC, 2009.

298 UNEP and IOC, 2009; UNEP, 2016. environment. Descriptor 10 in Annex I of the MSFD calls for the monitoring and assessment of marine litter. To support the MSFD implementation process, Task Groups of independent scientific experts were called in to prepare criteria and methodological standards for each of the eleven Framework descriptors, so that Member States might assess the state of marine and coastal waters and achieve Good Environmental Status. The Marine Litter Task Group consists of a team of eleven researchers and six observers.299

While it does not specifically address marine litter, Article 29 under Japan’s Basic Act on Ocean Policy (2007) established the Headquarter for Ocean Policy to coordinate conservation and pollution prevention in the marine environment among relevant national and local administrative bodies.300 Other examples of advisory bodies addressing aspects of marine litter include: the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), which advises the United Nations (UN) system on the scientific aspects of marine environmental protection, and the United States Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee, a multi-agency body that coordinates federal programs and makes recommendations for research priorities, monitoring activities, and regulatory actions; 299 Galgani et al., 2010.

300 Basic Act on Ocean Policy, http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/jap75593.pdf.

Act

No.

33

of

April

27,

2007

(Japan).

6. Other Considerations 63 On a subnational level in the United States, the states of Virginia, California, and Hawai’i all have marine litter management plans. Virginia developed the first statewide marine litter plan on the East Coast of the U.S., coordinating efforts between state agencies, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, researchers, educators, and members of the public. The VMDRP Leadership Team consists primarily of agency and organization representatives who identified potential policies and strategies to prevent litter from reaching coastal and freshwaters in the state.301 6.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are a legal tool used to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposed project or development prior to decision making in order to prevent or reduce adverse impacts.302 EIAs are used nearly universally: one study has found that 191 of the 193 member States of the United Nations have either adopted national EIA legislation or signed an international legal instrument that refers to the use of EIA.303 In the context of marine litter, EIAs can be used to assess the potential for waste and debris to enter the marine environment, identify preventive and mitigating measures, and create legally binding obligations to prevent and reduce marine litter from the project.

301 Register, Katie, 2014.

302 Convention on Biological Diversity, n.d.

303 Morgan, 2012.

The United Kingdom’s Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations Act of 2007304 applies to works related to deposits in the sea, works related to navigational safety, and harbor works.

Under the Marine Works Regulations Act, EIAs have been conducted in cases of dredging operations to ensure that debris is disposed of properly and not released into the sea.305 In addition to general EIA requirements, some countries have adopted specific protocols, procedures, and standards for EIAs in specific contexts. For example, when conducting EIAs for projects related to artificial reefs, the United Kingdom, Malta, and Brazil all have legal provisions that take marine litter into consideration.306 The Caribbean Island of Bonaire has specifically cited concerns in an EIA that tropical storms and wind gusts could spread debris from fishing vessels and litter related to tourism activities.307 UNCLOS article 206 and a number of regional conventions and programs have highlighted the potential of EIA to reduce effects of activities on the marine environment. These include, Article 6 of the OSPAR Convention calls upon contracting parties to undertake joint assessments of the quality of the marine environment and its 304 Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (United Kingdom). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/735/pdfs/uksi_20110735_en.pdf.

305 See MMO, 2011a; MMO, 2011b.

306 Guerra et al., 2015.

307 Vermeij, 2012. development, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of planned and enacted protection measures.308 The MED POL Programme (the marine pollution assessment and control component of Mediterranean Action Plan) includes a principle that contracting parties shall undertake environmental impact assessments for proposed activities that are likely to have an adverse impact on the marine environment.309 Article 7 of the Helsinki Convention calls for an environmental impact assessment of any proposed activities that may cause significant harm to the marine environment of the Baltic Sea Area.310 While these provisions all address marine protection generally, and not only marine litter, they illustrate the fact that countries have recognized the potential of EIAs to prevent and reduce the environmental effects of projects and activities on the marine environment.

6.4 Public Engagement Addressing the global problem of marine litter requires public engagement through a variety of means in order to accomplish several distinct goals. For one, marine litter is largely the result of individual behavioral 308 For text of the OSPAR Convention, see http://www.ospar.org/convention/text.

309 For text of the MED POL Programme, see http:// 195.97.36.231/acrobatfiles/MTSAcrobatfiles/mts119eng.pdf.

310 For text of the Helsinki Convention, see us/convention/Helsinki%20Convention_July%202014.pdf.

http://helcom.fi/PublishingImages/about-

patterns related to production, consumption, waste disposal, and littering.311 As such, policies and approaches that engage citizens can more effectively educate the citizens and change such behavior, stemming one of the major sources of marine litter.312The public is not only a contributor of marine litter, but also an invaluable resource for the collection of data on the distribution and intensity of marine litter. A variety of programs, such as Marine LitterWatch (MLW) in the European Union, rely on public involvement to better understand the causes of marine litter, constraints to preventing it, and opportunities to better manage it.313 The EU created the MLW network in 2015 to address existing data gaps in marine litter management and to integrate citizen engagement. The MLW system was developed by the Technical Group on Marine Litter, an expert group established to support implementation of the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), collect data on relevant MSFD beaches, and support official monitoring.314 The project was based on the MSFD monitoring guidelines and is built on three core elements: a database, a mobile application available for android and iPhone devices, and organized citizen groups. A web 311 Topping, 2000.

312 Many comprehensive national approaches focus on public education in order to reduce this source of pollution. Ibid. See also Marine Environment Protection Act, supra Section 2; Basic Plan on Ocean Policy, Act No. 33 of 2007, Art. 11 (Japan) (establishing the Marine Environment Information Network to educate the public).

313 See, e.g. European Environment Agency, 2015a; Morishige, 2009.

314 European Environment Agency, 2015b.

6. Other Considerations 65 portal helps citizens to create a community and facilitates community management of events and data.

In addition to data collection, the public can serve as a volunteer labor force for otherwise underfunded and understaffed organizations and government agencies, enabling these groups to conduct coastal cleanups on a large scale.315 Public engagement serves not only as a goal of public policy, but also as an important means of improving and legitimizing the process for developing national litter management legislation, policies, strategies, and projects. For instance, the Netherlands has ensured public participation in the implementation of the MSFD by granting to all stakeholders, including organizations, companies, and individuals, the opportunity to participate at different stages of a three phase process: Stakeholder engagement phase: The Consultative Committee of Infrastructure and the Environment is convened, which allows stakeholders the opportunity to discusses policy proposals. The MSFD process uses this committee as a consultation platform. At this stage, stakeholder interests are assessed and stakeholders can be asked for advice on participation and other relevant issues. Among the parties involved are representatives of the State Secretary, environmental and recreational organizations, and representatives of the oil, gas, fishing, and shipping industries.

315 E.g. Ocean Conservancy, 2015b.

Project development phase: Specific stakeholder projects are established, which focus on issues pertaining to marine litter and the protection of seabed areas such as the Central Oystergrounds and the Frisian Front.

Public consultation phase: The documents related to the MSFD products are made available at the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, at the houses of province, and published online on the Direction Participation website. Public reactions are collected, and subsequently addressed in the Note of Answers, which in turn can result in amendments of the document. The final MSFD Products, including the Note of Answers piece, are submitted to the Council of Ministers. 316 Public engagement plays a major role throughout the MSFD product development process in the Netherlands. Stakeholders are assembled at the outset in order to identify points of concern and potential strategies, and the public is again brought to the table after the planning stage to ensure that their input has been considered and incorporated into the final plans and products.

6.5 Private Sector Engagement Engagement of the private sector is one of the top priorities in the global effort to combat marine litter.317 In addition to the educational and behavioral elements discussed above, private industries have influence over product design and initial use, 316 Noordzeeloket, n.d.a.

317 See NOAA, 2011.

Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers 66 which may have enormous impacts on marine litter production.318 For instance, microplastics from larger items have become contributors to the litter found in the different gyres and are ubiquitous on beaches.319 Since this information came to light, some cosmetic companies have begun to phase out the use of microbeads—these efforts preceding a new U.S. law requiring such actions.320 Disposal practices of industries can also be a significant source of marine litter. Studies suggest that discarded fishing nets and buoys account for the greatest share of the total mass of litter found in the world’s oceans.321 This source presents a unique opportunity for engagement with the fishing industry, which discards such materials both intentionally and inadvertently. In the East Asian Seas Region, South Korea is attempting to address the problems presented by such “derelict fishing gear” (DFG).

South Korea has been addressing this problem by implementing specific programs, including implementing a DFG buyback program.322 Coordinated by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and implemented initially through memoranda of understanding among cities and regions,323 the buyback program’s purpose is to incentivize fishermen to bring back long-lasting DFG (plastic nets, lines, traps, and other fishing equipment) collected during fishing operations. Funds are provided 4:1 by the South Korean central government

318 Duncan Bury Consulting, 2012.

319 New York Times, 2015.

320 Putrich, 2015.

321 Eriksen et al., 2014.

322 Hong, Kang, and Lee, n.d.

323 Cho, 2009. and the local governments, respectively.324 The program is applicable beyond 12 miles from the coastline (i.e., beyond the territorial sea as defined by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).325 The annual average budget for the 2009-2012 period was US$4.4 million for payments based on a fixed rate per type of debris, excluding garbage produced on board. During this period, fishermen collected 7,700 tons of DFG nationwide.326 In the United States, a similar program run by NOAA encourages commercial fishermen to 324 Ibid.

325 Cho, 2004.

326 Ibid.

SINGLE-USE PLASTIC CUP ON BEACH (CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK) 6. Other Considerations 67 dispose of old, lost, or unusable fishing gear by providing funding to offset costs.327 The gear is then recycled and used to produce electricity at Covanta Energy-from-Waste Facilities.

Many programs that engage the private sector rely on voluntary agreements among governments and organizations involved in a particular activity. The Netherlands has worked on a voluntary approach by negotiating the so-called Green Deals in order to implement its marine litter policy in various industry sectors. Among recently enacted measures is the Clean Beaches Green Deal, which was entered into by the national government, municipalities, and private and non-governmental organizations, among others. Its main purpose is to reduce marine litter that originates on beaches.328 One element of the Clean Beaches Green Deal involves engagement with beach pavilion operators and facilitation of “Green Key� certification among these private operators. Green Key is an international certification for sustainable operators in the leisure industry. Certification takes into account many contributions toward sustainable industry practice, and includes elements such as waste separation and waste prevention.329 In addition, the Green Deal on Ship Generated Waste is an agreement among Dutch Port Authorities, the National Government of the Netherlands, and private shipping organizations, through which signees agree to certain practices that reduce 327 Specific projects can be found on the NOAA website.NOAA Marine Debris Program, 2015.

328 Noordzeloket, n.d.b.

329 Noordzeeloket, 2014b. waste and marine litter during shipment and delivery.330 Finally, the Fishery for a Clean Sea Green Deal is an agreement among the fishing industry, the national government, fishing ports, municipalities, and other private organizations.331 Ports and municipalities that are party to this agreement provide waste streams332 for disposal of waste collected by fishing operations as part of the Fishing for Litter Program.333 Each of these Green Deals demonstrates how government and industry can work together to implement best management practices and address major sources of marine litter.

330 Noordzeeloket, 2014a.

331 Noordzeeloket, 2014c.

332 Ibid.

333 The Fishing for Litter program is a multinational program in the North Sea region which encourages fishermen to bring ashore any litter that is caught in fishing nets, so that it can be disposed of properly once on land. KIMO, 2015.

7. CONCLUSIONS This Report provides an overview of the challenges of marine litter and options for legal frameworks designed to prevent, reduce, and manage marine litter. While not comprehensive, it seeks to identify the primary policy drivers and legal mechanisms for action and provide a range of examples—largely from States, and supplemented by examples from sub-national institutions and intergovernmental bodies.

To date, most States build from existing frameworks for solid waste management to address the problem, as well as continuing longer-standing specific marine litter prevention efforts such as regulating waste disposal from ships. Recognizing that existing approaches have not gone far enough to halt the expansion of marine litter, such frameworks have been bolstered by new laws that address specific aspects of marine litter. Thus, States that adopt a more piecemeal approach to marine litter may: Develop and implement laws to ban or reduce the production of single-use items and other waste that is commonly found in marine litter. Single-use plastics, such as bottles, cups, and bags, are often found on beaches and in the marine environment. Therefore, many countries and sub-national governments have banned certain types of single-use items that are easily replaced by reusable items (especially plastic bags).

Regulate non-recoverable items, such as plastic microbeads in personal care and cosmetics products.

Microbeads are difficult to remove from an aquatic environment, due to their small size and the length of time needed to biodegrade. By preventing their introduction into the environment, States can eliminate a major source of marine pollution.

Develop and implement legislation to prevent the waste, once created, from entering the marine environment. Preventing waste from entering the marine environment is key, as it is difficult if not impossible to remove. Therefore establishing programs and practices, such as covered landfills near aquatic bodies, may help minimize waste. Approaches such as the circular economy model of economic development can be used to prevent the creation of marine litter.

Support marine litter cleanup efforts. Through policy measures and government programs, States can support regional and local marine debris monitoring and cleanup programs, engage in education and awareness-raising initiatives, and extend producer responsibility. While beach cleanups and other activities are often undertaken by voluntary programs, some States provide incentives for clean-up. State support is especially important in addressing abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear.

Some States have passed overarching laws aimed at development and implementation of a marine litter plan, support of science and technology development, and creation of overarching marine litter policies.

States that elect to adopt a comprehensive, holistic approach to marine litter management may: Adopt legislation providing an overarching framework for preventing, reducing, and otherwise managing marine litter. This legislation should consider the relationship between the marine litter legislation and other relevant legislation (for example, on waste management), and particularly whether the new overarching legislation supplements or replaces the existing legislation. It should also provide for periodic review of the legislation and its implementation.

Establish an inter-agency mechanism for coordinating among the diverse sectors with a role in addressing marine litter. This inter-agency coordination should address the development, implementation, and review of the marine litter legislation and implementing regulations. It should also engage key stakeholders from the private sector and civil society.

As evidence mounts on the growing impacts of marine litter, it will be important for States to learn from each other and work collaboratively to address this transboundary and international challenge. One of the first needs is to design appropriate legal frameworks to regulate and incentivize change. Beyond that it will take political will, funding and capacity to implement and enforce the marine litter legislation. It

will also likely require engagement both with civil society and industry stakeholders to design systems that achieve marine litter objectives and address social and MARINE LITTER ON BEACH (CREDIT: HILLARY DANIELS) 7. Conclusions 71 economic needs. Regardless of whether a State adopts a comprehensive or piecemeal approach to marine litter, there are a wide range of legal and policy approaches that are important for addressing marine litter—including collecting and accessing data and information; requiring agencies to report on progress; conducting baseline assessments; setting goals for litter reduction; addressing prevention, remediation, coordination, and planning; and public participation and awareness-raising. Specific measures may include: Map and review national regulatory frameworks and other instruments to identify gaps in addressing the issue. This may include laws and policies related to imports of certain plastics products to countries where no recycling or recovery for these items exist; prohibit production of disposable items that lack an adequate end-of-life plan and cost contribution to deal with the problem; or impose requirements on port reception facilities. From this assessment, States can make an informed decision about priorities for preventing marine litter. „„ When introducing new instruments (such as bans, fees, or phase outs) plan for a grace period in which to educate the public. Securing support from key stakeholders who are affected by or contributing to the production of marine litter (i.e. regulated businesses, local authorities, and the public) can improve compliance with the regulation and enforcement. During the grace period, it is critical to increase public understanding of the initiative, the reason for it, its benefits, and what is required to comply with the requirements.

Document and share approaches. Countries and subnational authorities are encouraged to document the process of developing legislation to address marine litter (including for example, any cost-benefit analyses that are conducted, which stakeholders were engaged, and how, and the policy debate around particular options). Sharing information on the process as well as the final legislation can then inform other jurisdictions that are considering similar measures. Online databases, such as ECOLEX, are one tool for sharing relevant laws and policies, although it may be advisable to develop new keywords focused on marine litter to facilitate identification of relevant legislation.

This Toolkit is designed to assist States in considering options for improving their national legal frameworks to better address marine litter by providing examples of existing legal approaches to address various aspects of the problem. The challenge now is to support States as they adopt and adapt legislation and work to implement the legal requirements.

APPENDIX A: LEGAL AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS RELATED TO MARINE LITTER This appendix lists a range of multilateral and regional agreements that are relevant to marine litter.

Some include provisions expressly addressing marine litter, others are less explicit but still relevant.

Section 1 lists the relevant multilateral agreements, resolutions, and other instruments. Section 2 lists regional agreements, resolutions, and other instruments by region, and then generally.

Section 3 lists selected national instruments.Documents/LC1972.pdf (Article IV bans on the dumping of wastes or other matter from ships).

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (also called the “Law of the Sea Convention”), adopted 1982, available http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.

at:

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, adopted 1989, available http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/text/BaselConventionText-e.pdf.

at:

UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution A/RES/60/30: Oceans and the Law of the APPENDIX A: Legal and Policy Instruments Related to Marine Litter 73 Sea, adopted 2005, available at: https://www.un.org/depts/los/general_assembly/general_ assembly_resolutions.htm.

UNGA Resolution A/RES/63/111: Oceans and the Law of the Sea, adopted 2008, available at: https://www.un.org/depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_resolutions.htm.

UNGA Resolution A/RES/60/31: Sustainable Fisheries, adopted 2005, available https://www.un.org/depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_resolutions.htm.

UNGA Resolution A/RES/63/112: Sustainable Fisheries, adopted 2008, https://www.un.org/depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_resolutions.htm.

at: available

at:

UNGA Resolution A/RES/70/235: Oceans and the Law of the Sea, adopted 2015, available at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/235.

FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, adopted 1995, available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm (General principles 6.8 states that critical habitats should be protected from pollution; 7.2.2 states that management measures to minimize the impact of pollution and waste on fish and non-fish species must be undertaken; 8.3.2 asserts that port states also have a responsibility to prevent pollution; 8.9.1 also states that harbors have the same responsibilities as ports; This code is voluntary but based on principals taken from international law, including those reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).

UNEP/IOC Guidelines on the Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter: adopted 2009, available at http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_ Survey_and_Monitoring_Guidelines.pdf.

Honolulu Strategy: developed at the Fifth International Marine Debris Conference, held in Hawai’i, March 2011, available at: http://unep.org/gpa/documents/publications/honolulustrategy.pdf.

2. Regional Agreements, Resolutions, and Other Instruments 2.1 Mediterranean Instruments Barcelona Convention (The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterra nean): adopted 1976, revised 1995 (not yet ratified by all), available at: http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/regions/med/t_barcel.htm.

Signature Status for Convention and Protocols available http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/StatusOfSignaturesAndRatifications.doc.

at:

Dumping Protocol (Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft): adopted 1976, revised 1995 (not yet ratified by all), original available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolDumping76_Eng.pdf; amendments available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolDumping95amendments_Eng.pdf.

Emergency Protocol (Protocol Concerning Cooperation in Preventing Pollution from Ships and, in Cases of Emergency, Combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea): adopted 2002, replacing protocol adopted 1976, available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolEmergency02_eng.pdf.

LBS Protocol (Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based Sources): adopted 1980, amended 1996; original available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolLBS80_eng.pdf; amendments available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolLBS96amendments_Eng.pdf.

SPA Protocol (Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean): adopted 1995, replacing protocol adopted 1982; annexes adopted 1996 and amended 2013; available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolSPA95_eng.pdf; annexes available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolSPA96annexes_eng.pdf; amendments available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolSPA96annexesAmendmentsCoP18_Eng.pdf.

Offshore Protocol (The Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of the Continental Shelf and the Seabed and its Subsoil): adopted 1994, available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolOffshore94_eng.pdf.

Hazardous Wastes Protocol (The Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal): adopted 1996, available at: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolHazardousWastes96_ eng.pdf.

ICZM Protocol (Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Med APPENDIX A: Legal and Policy Instruments Related to Marine Litter 75 iterranean): adopted 2008, http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolICZM08_eng.pdf.

available

at:

2.2 Persian Gulf Instruments Kuwait Convention (Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution): adopted 1978; available at: http://ropme.org/uploads/protocols/kuwait_convention.pdf.

Emergency Protocol (Protocol Concerning Regional Cooperation in Combating Pollution by Oil and other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency): adopted 1978, available at: http://ropme.org/uploads/protocols/emergency_protocol.pdf.

Offshore Protocol (Protocol Concerning Marine Pollution Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of the Continental Shelf): adopted 1989, available at: http://ropme.org/uploads/protocols/continental_shelf_protocol.pdf.

LBS Protocol (Protocol for the Protection of the Marine Environment against Pollution from Land-Based Sources): adopted 1990, available at: http://ropme.org/uploads/protocols/land_based_protocol.pdf.

Hazardous Waste Protocol (Protocol on the Control of Marine Transboundary Movements and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes and Other Wastes): adopted 1998, available at: http://ropme.org/uploads/protocols/hazardous_wastes_protocol.pdf.

Protected Area Protocol (Protocol Concerning the Conservation of Biological Diversity and the Establishment of Protected Areas): under development.

2.3 West and Central Africa Instruments Abidjan Convention (Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region and Protocol): adopted 1981, available at: http://abidjanconvention.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=200&lang=en .Emergency Protocol (Protocol Concerning Cooperation in Combating Pollution in Cases of Emergency in the Western and Central African Region): adopted 1985, available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/combating.pollution.emergency.protocol.1981.html.

LBS Protocol (Additional Protocol to the Abidjan Convention Concerning Cooperation in the Protection and Development of Marine and Coastal Environment from Land-Based Sources and Activities in the Western, Central and Southern African Region): adMarine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers 76 opted 2012, available http://abidjanconvention.org/media/documents/protocols/LBSA%20Protocol-Adopted.pdf.

2.4 South-East Pacific Instruments

at:

Lima Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-East Pacific): adopted 1981, available at: http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/texts/marine.environment.coastal.south.east.pacific.1981.html.

Emergency Protocol (Agreement on Regional Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the South-East Pacific by Hydrocarbons or Other Harmful Substances in Case of Emergency): adopted 1981, available at: http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/cbl/synergy/pdf/cat3/UNEP_regional_seas/conventionlima/agre ement_re_coop.pdf.

Supplementary Emergency Protocol (Supplementary Protocol to the Agreement on Regional CoOperation in Combating Pollution of the South-East Pacific by Hydrocarbons or Other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency): adopted 1983, available at: http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/texts/acrc/suppSEP.txt.html.

LBS Protocol (Protocol for the Protection of the South-East Pacific against Pollution from Land-Based Sources): adopted 1983, available at: http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/cbl/synergy/pdf/cat3/UNEP_regional_seas/convention_lima/pro tocol_land.pdf.

SPA Protocol (Protocol for the Conservation and Management of Protected Marine and Coastal Areas of the South-East Pacific): adopted 1989, available at: http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails?index=treaties&id=TRE-001085.

2.5 Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Instruments Jeddah Convention (Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment): adopted 1982, available at: http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/persga/convtext.html.

Emergency Protocol (Protocol Concerning Regional Co-Operation in Combating Pollution by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency): adopted 1982, available at: http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/persga/redemer.html.

2.6 Wider Caribbean Instruments Cartagena Convention (Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean APPENDIX A: Legal and Policy Instruments Related to Marine Litter 77 Region): adopted 1983, available at: http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/text-of-the-cartagena-convention.

SPAW Protocol (Protocol Concerning Protected Areas and Wildlife): adopted 1985, available at: http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/spaw-protocol/spaw-protocol-en.pdf/at_download/file.

LBS Protocol (Protocol on the Prevention, Reduction and Control of Land-Based Sources and Activities): adopted 1985, available at: http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/lbs-protocol/lbsprotocol-english/at_download/file.

2.7 East Africa Instruments Nairobi Convention (Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region): adopted 1996, amended 2010, available at: http://www.unep.org/NairobiConvention/docs/Final_Act_Nairobi_ Amended_Convention&Text_Amended_Nairobi_Convention.pdf.

SPA Protocol (Protocol Concerning Protected Areas and Wild Fauna and Flora in the Eastern African Region): adopted 1985, available at: http://www.unep.org/NairobiConvention/ The_Convention/Protocols/Protocol_Protected_Areas.asp.

Emergency Protocol (Protocol Concerning Co-operation in Combating Marine Pollution in Cases of Emergency in the Eastern African Region): adopted 1985, available at: http://www.unep.org/NairobiConvention/The_Convention/ Protocols/Protocol_CooperationMarine_Pollution.asp.

LBS Protocol (Protocol for the Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Western Indian Ocean from Land-Based Sources and Activities): adopted 2010, available at: http://www.unep.org/NairobiConvention/docs/Final_Act_Protocol&Text_Protocol_Nairobi_Convention.pd f.

2.8 Black Sea Instruments Bucharest Convention (Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution): adopted 1992, available at: http://www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/blacksea/bsconv.html.

LBS Protocol (Protocol on Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against Pollution from LandBased Sources): adopted 1992, available at: http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/cbl/synergy/pdf/cat3/UNEP_regional_seas/convention_buchare st_prots/protocol_lbs.pdf.

Emergency Protocol (Protocols on Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the Black Sea Marine Environment by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Emergency Situations): adopted 1992, available at: http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/cbl/synergy/pdf/cat3/UNEP_regional_seas/convention_buchare st_prots/protocol_emergency.pdf.

Dumping Protocol (Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment against Pollution by Dumping): adopted 1992, available at: http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/cbl/synergy/pdf/cat3/UNEP_regional_seas/convention_buchare st_prots/protocol_dumping.pdf.

2.9 South Pacific Instruments Noumea Convention (Convention for the Protection of Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region): adopted 1986, available at: http://www.ecolex.org/server2.php/libcat/docs/TRE/Full/En/TRE-000892.txt.

Dumping Protocol (Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the South Pacific Region by Dumping): adopted 1986, available at: http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/cbl/synergy/pdf/cat3/UNEP_regional_seas/convention_noumea /protocol_prev_pollut.pdf.

Emergency Protocol (Protocol Concerning Co-operation in Combating Pollution Emergencies in the South Pacific Region): adopted 1986, available at: http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/cbl/synergy/pdf/cat3/UNEP_regional_seas/convention_noumea /protocol_coop.pdf.

2.10 North-East Pacific Instruments Antigua Convention (The Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Northeast Pacific): adopted 2002, available at: http://www.ecolex.org/server2.php/libcat/docs/TRE/Full/En/TRE001350.txt.

2.11 Other Instruments Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR): adopted 1982, available at: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/ccamlr_e.pdf.

European Union (EU) Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field APPENDIX A: Legal and Policy Instruments Related to Marine Litter 79 of marine environmental policy, content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056.

available

at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

HELCOM Baltic: Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, adopted 1974, revised 1992, available at: http://helcom.fi/Documents/About%20us/Convention%20and%20commitments/Helsinki%20Convention/ 1992_Convention_1108.pdf.

Caspian Sea (Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea): adopted 2003, available at: http://www.tehranconvention.org/IMG/pdf/Tehran_Convention_text_final_pdf.pdf.

OSPAR (North-East Atlantic: The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic–Oslo and Paris convention): adopted 1974, available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/acrc/MEofNE.txt.html.

3. National Instruments (Selected) Australian Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life: adopted 2009, available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d945695b-a3b9-4010-91b4914efcdbae2f/files/marine-debris-threat-abatement-plan.pdf.

Tasmanian Plastic Shopping Bags Ban Act of 2013, http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=ALL;doc_id=14%2B%2B2013%2BAT%40EN%2 B20150805130000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=plastic%20bag.

Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act of 1995: amended 2002 to include a ban on plastic bags, binding. Available at: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/bgd42272.pdf.

Estonia Packaging Act: adopted 2004, available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/12964621 Ethiopia Proclamation 513 (2008) (banning the manufacture and import of plastic bags less than 0.33mm in thickness) Grenada Marine Protected Areas Law: adopted 2009, available at: http://laws.gov.gd/ Guyana Regulations Made Under the Environmental Protection Act Cap 20:05 (10 Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers 80 Dec. 2015) 240 Official Gazette of Guy. 2593. Available at: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/guy152293.pdf Haiti Polystyrene Ban: adopted 2013, available at: http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/despite-two-bansstyrofoam-trash-still-plagues-haiti.

Ireland Waste Management (Energy Levy) (Plastic Bag) Regulations 2001 (SI 605/2001) (Ir.), available at: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/si/605/made/en/print.

India: Tamil Nadu Plastic Articles (Prohibition of Sale, Storage, Transportation, Use) Act: adopted 2002, available at: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/ind52632.doc Ireland S.I. No. 605/2001 - Waste Management (Environmental Levy) (Plastic Bag) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0605.html.

Regulations,

2001,

available

at:

Japan Law for the Promotion of Marine Litter Disposal: adopted 2009, available at: http://www.env.go.jp/en/Waste Management and Public Cleansing Law: adopted 2001, available at: http://www.env.go.jp/en/Namibia Regulations Relating to the Exploitation of Marine Resources: adopted 2001, available http://www.mfmr.gov.na/documents/53305/832050/MarineRegulations/e2e0a7fb-a6db-45fd-9b141a26a6c3d3b4.

at:

Philippines Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000: adopted 2000, available at: http://emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/RA-9003.pdf Rwanda Law Relating to the Prohibition of Manufacturing, Importation, Use, and Sale of Polythene Bags: adopted 2008, a vailable at: http://rema.gov.rw/rema_doc/Laws/Plastic%20bags%20law.pdf.

Singapore Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act: adopted 1990, available at: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3A%2294f8349f-9c2f4581-ad17-b651f14b0f0d%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0

South Korea Marine Environmental Management Act: adopted 2009, available at: http://www.moleg.go.kr/FileDownload.mo?flSeq=31422 United Kingdom Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Sewage and Garbage from Ships) Regulations 2008: adopted APPENDIX A: Legal and Policy Instruments Related to Marine Litter 81 2008, available https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440578/1807.pdf.

at:

United States Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act: adopted 1987, available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ449/html/PLAW-109publ449.htm.

An Ordinance of the County of Alameda to Prohibit Polystyrene Food Service Ware: adopted 2008, available at: https://www.acgov.org/aceh/documents/4-24-15-FinalOrdResPolystyreneBan.pdf California Water Code § 13367(b)(1) (requiring manufacturers to adopt BMPs when making nurdles): adopted 2007, available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=1300114000&file=13367.

California Mandatory Recycling of Commercial Solid Waste by Businesses: adopted 2012, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/laws/regulations/Title14/Chap09pt1/default.htm Maryland Act on the Prohibition or Sale of Microbeads: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/bills/hb/hb0216E.pdf.

adopted

available 2015,

available

at: at:

New York: Meeting Minutes, Thursday, December 19, 2013, New York City Council 48, available http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/View.ashx?M=M&ID=281888&GUID=EE09D489-D364-4975-A994D500C1A88AB9.

at:

APPENDIX B: REFERENCES AFP. 2011.

"Kenya bans plastic bags."

The Independent UK, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/kenya-bans-plastic-bags-2179928.html.

January

9.

APEC Marine Resource Conservation Working Group. 2009. “Understanding the economic benefits and costs of controlling marine debris in the APEC region.” http://www.nowpap.org/data/ML%20ref/APEC'ML-control...Cost-vs-Benefit.pdf.

Associated Press. 2011. “Nickel bag tax dissuades D.C. shoppers.” The Washington Times, January 5. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eCry9jBNxI8J:www.washingtontimes.c om/news/2011/jan/5/nickel-bag-tax-dissuades-dc-shoppers/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=jp.

Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2008. “Artificial reefs.” http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/publications/factsheet-artificial-reefs.

-------. 2009.”Background paper for the threat abatement plan for the impacts of marine debris on vertebrate marine life.” https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d945695b-a3b9-4010-91b4914efcdbae2f/files/marine-debris-background-paper.pdf.

------. n.d. “Marine debris.” https://www.enviAPPENDIX B: REFERENCES ronment.gov.au/marine/marine-pollution/marine-debris.

Ariza, Eduard, and Stephen P. Leatherman. 2012. “No-smoking policies and their outcomes on U.S. beaches.” Journal of Coastal Research 28 (1A): 143–147. doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00137.1.

ASTM. n.d. “ASTM D8071-05. Standard specification for non-floating biodegradable plastics in the marine environment (Withdrawn 2014).” http://www.astm.org/Standards/D7081.htm.

Baltimore City.

2014.

“Baltimore City: MS4 restoration and TMDL WP.” http://dpwappsbaltimorecity.gov/cleanwaterbaltimore/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/MS4-WIP-12-19-14Final-1.pdf Barenstein, Jennifer Duyne, and Daniel Pittet. 2010. “Baseline environmental site assessment report for the truitier landfill Port-au-Prince, Haiti.” World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2010/12/14101788/haitiinfrastructure-institutions-emergency-recovery-project-environmental-social-management-frameworkvol-8-8-baseline-environmental-site-assessment-report-truitier-landfill-port-au-prince-haiti.

Barnea, Nir, Jacqui Michel, Brendan Bray, APPENDIX B: References 83 Zachary Nixon, Gretchen Imahori, and Crescent Moegling. 2009. “Marine debris emergency response planning in the north-central Gulf of Mexico.”

NOAA. http://gulfofmexico.marinedebris.noaa.gov/MDERP.pdf.

BBC. 2004. “Rwanda's war on plastic http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3714126.stm.

bags.”

BBC

World

News,

October

4.

------. 2013. “Mauritania has banned the use of plastic bags to protect the environment and the lives of land and sea animals.” BBC World News, January 2. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-20891539.

------. 2016. “Plastic microbeads to be banned by 2017, UK government pledges.”

BBC News, September 3. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37263087.

Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Natalie, Daniel Magraw, Maria Julia Oliva, Elisabeth Tuerk, and Marcos Orellana. 2014. Environment and trade: A guide to WTO jurisprudence. Routledge.

Brunée, Jutta, and Stephen J. Toope. 1994. “Environmental security and freshwater resources: A case for international ecosystem law. Yearbook of International Environmental Law 5:41-76.

Busschbach, Hermien. 2013. “Marine litter policy in the Netherlands.” Presented at the 2nd Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections, Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 6. http://unep.org/gpa/documents/meetings/GLOCII/GLOCIIPresentationBusschbach.pdf.

California Coastal Commission. 2016. “The http://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/marinedebris.html.

problem

with

Californians Against Waste.

N.d.

“National http://www.cawrecycles.org/list-of-national-bans.

list

local

of

marine plast

debris,” bag

January.

ordinances.”

Centre for Advanced Engineering, University of Canterbury. 2000. “Landfill guidelines: Towards sustainable waste management in New Zealand.”

Christchurch, New Zealand. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/4139_landfill.pdf.

Chen, Chung-Ling. 2015. “Regulation and management of marine litter.” In Marine anthropogenic litter, edited by Melanie Bergmann, Lars Gutow, and Michael Klages, 395-428. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

City of San Mateo. 2014. “San Mateo County reusable bag ordinance survey and reporting report.” http://www.cawrecycles.org/files/San%20Mateo%20County%20Bag%20Report%202014.pdf.

Cho, Dong-Oh. 2009. “The incentive program for fishermen to collect marine debris in Korea.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 415-417. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.10.004.

------. 2004. “Marine debris: Case of Korea.” Presented at the Derelict Fishing Gear and Related Marine Debris Seminar, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, University of Hawaii, Manoa, January 13-16. http://www.wpcouncil.org/documents/APECSeminar/Regional%20Case%20Studies/Presentation%20by %20Capt.%20Dong-Oh%20Cho.pdf.

Clapp, Jennifer, and Linda Swanston. 2009. “Doing away with plastic shopping bags: International patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation.” Environmental Politics 18(3): 315-332. doi: 10.1080/09644010902823717.

Convention on Biological Diversity, n.d. “Impact assessment.” https://www.cbd.int/impact/whatis.shtml.

Convery, Frank, Simon McDonnell, and Susanna Ferreira. 2007. “The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy.” Environmental Resource Economics 38:1-11. http://plasticbaglaws.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/study_the-most-popular-tax-in-Europe2007.pdf.

Coulter, Jessica R. 2010. “A sea change to change the sea: Stopping the spread of the Pacific garbage patch with small-scale environmental legislation.” William and Mary Law Review 51: 1959-1995. http://wmlawreview.org/sites/default/files/CoulterNote_final.pdf.

CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation). 2015. “Sources, distribution and fate of marine debris.” http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Marine-resources-andindustries/Marine-debris.de Caen, Sophie. 2013. “Technical guide for debris management: The Haitian experience 2010-2012.”

September 5. http://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/technical-guide-debrismanagement-haitian-experience-2010-2012.

Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Ireland). n.d. “Plastic bag levy.” http://www.environ.ie/environment/waste/plastic-bags/plastic-bag-levy.

Derraik, José G.B. 2002. “The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (9): 842–852.

Desvarieux, Jessica. 2010. “Haiti’s latest problem: Clearing away the rubble.” Time, June 6. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1994544,00.html.

Digital Journal. 2014. “Statement from the American Progressive Bag Alliance on intent to repeal Senate Bill 270 through referendum.” September 30. http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2224561.

Dikgang, Johane, and Martine Visser. 2010. "Behavioral response to plastic bag legislation in Botswana." Environment for Development: Discussion Paper Series (University of Cape Town, May). http://www.rff.org/rff/documents/EfD-DP-1013.pdf.

Dikgang, Johane, Anthony Leiman, and Martine Visser. 2010. “Analysis of the plastic bag levy in South Africa.” Policy paper (University of Cape Town, July 8). http:// APPENDIX B: References 85 www.econrsa.org/papers/p_papers/pp18.pdf.

Duncan Bury Consulting. 2012. “Analytical Summary: Marine litter workshop for North America.” Prepared for UNEP, December 3. http://www.rona.unep.org/sites/default/files/Regional%20Priorities/Marine%20Debris/Workshop%20Rep ort%202012.pdf.

Dutch Shark Society. 2014. “Discarded fishing gear keeps ghostfishing forever…” October 30. http://www.dutchsharksociety.org/discard-fishing-gear-keeps-ghostfishing-for-ever/.

EC (European Commission).

2016.

“Legislation: The Marine Directive.” http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-frameworkdirective/index_en.htm.

The Economist.

2015.

“Rubbish in Brazil: Legislative landfill,” August 8. http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21661050-why-so-many-laws-end-up-bin-legislative-landfill.

Ellison, Katherine. 2007. “The trouble with nurdles.” Frontiers Ecology & Environment 5 (7): 396. ENS (Environmental News Service). 2012a. “Haiti bans plastic bags and foam containers.” Environmental News Service, October 3. http://ens-newswire.com/2012/10/03/haiti-bans-plastic-bags-and-foamcontainers/.

------. 2012b. “Uganda High Court rules in favor of plastic bag ban.” Environment News Service, November 12. http://ens-newswire.com/2012/11/12/uganda-high-court-rules-in-favor-of-plastic-bag-ban/.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. “Cruise ship discharge assessment report.” Washington, D.C. https://owpubauthor.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/cruise_ship_disch_assess_report.cfm.

------. 2011. “Marine debris in the North Pacific: A summary of existing information and identification of data gaps.” San Francisco, CA. http://www.epa.gov/region9/marine-debris/pdf/MarineDebrisNPacFinalAprvd.pdf.

------. 2015a. “Solid waste: Laws and regulations.” http://www.epa.gov/region9/waste/solid/laws.html#3.

------. 2015b. “History of the Clean Water Act,” June 1. http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/historyclean-water-act.

------. 2016. “Marine debris.” http://www3.epa.gov/region9/marine-debris/.Eriksen, Marcus, Laurent C. M. Lebreton, Henry S. Carson, Martin Thiel, Charles J. Moore, Jose C. Borrero, Francois Galgani, Peter G. Ryan, and Julia Reisser. 2014. “Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: More than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea.” PLoS ONE 9 (12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111913.

European Commission. 2013. “Questions and answers on the proposal to reduce the consumption of plastic bags,” November 4. Press Release. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13945_en.htm.

------. n.d. “Circular economy strategy.” http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm.

European Environment Agency. 2015a. “Marine LitterWatch in a nutshell,” March 23. http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/marine-litterwatch/at-a-glance/marine-litterwatch-in-anutshell.

------. 2015b. “Marine LitterWatch.” http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/marine-litterwatch.

Fabi, Gianni, Alessandra Spagnolo, Denise Bellan-Santini, Eric Charbonnel, Burak Ali Çiçek, Juan J. Goutayer García, Antony C. Jensen, Argiris Kallianiotis, and Miguel Neves dos Santos. 2011. “Overview on artificial reefs in Europe.” Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 59 (special issue CARAH): 155-166. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjoce/v59nspe1/17.pdf.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14861/en.

of

the United Nations). 2015. “Artificial reefs.”

Florida DEP (Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. “Retail bags report for the legislature.”

February 1. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/retailbags/RetailBag-Report_01Feb10.pdf.

Foster, Caroline. 2013. Science and the precautionary principle in international courts and tribunals: Expert evidence, burden of proof and finality. Cambridge University Press.

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.” http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC58104/tg10final.pdf.

Galgani, Francois, Georg Hanke, and Thomas Maes. 2015. “Global distribution, composition, and abundance of marine litter.” In Marine anthropogenic litter, edited by MelanieBergmann, Lars Gutow, and Michael Klages, 29-56. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

GAO (General Accounting Office). 2000. “Marine pollution: Progress made to reduce marine pollution by cruise ships, but important issues remain.” http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/228813.pdf.

Gard, 2013.

“MARPOL Annex V Revised garbage disposal regulations.” http://www.gard.no/ikbViewer/Content/20733795/Gard%20Alert%20MARPOL%20Annex%20V%20%20Revised%20garbage%20disposal%20regulations.pdf.

GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 2015. “Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: A global assessment.” #90. Rep. Stud. GESAMP. http://www.gesamp.org/data/gesamp/files/media/Publications/Reports_and_studies_90/gallery_2230/ APPENDIX B: References 87 object_2500_large.pdf.

Go, Naohiro. 2010. “New developments regarding the marine litter problem on occasion of the enactment of the Law for the Promotion of Marine Litter Disposal.” Ship and Ocean Newsletter. http://www.sof.or.jp/en/news/pdf/ssp13.pdf.

Goldstein, Miriam C., Marci Rosenberg, and Lanna Cheng. 2012. “Increased oceanic microplastic debris enhances oviposition in an endemic pelagic insect.” Biology Letters 8(5): 817-820. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0298.

Gordon, Theresa. 2016. “Plastic ban law not complete.” The Daily Observer, January 6. http://antiguaobserver.com/plastic-ban-law-not-complete/.

Government of Namibia. 2013. “Environmental law and policy in Namibia—Namibian Constitution.” http://www.environment-namibia.net/constitution.html.

Guerra, Flavia, Catarina Grilo, Nuno M. Pedroso, and Henrique Cabral. 2015. “Environmental impact assessment in the marine environment: A comparison of legal frameworks.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55: 182-194. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.08.003.

Harrison, James. 2015. “Actors and institutions for the protection of the marine environment.” In Research handbook on international marine environmental law, ed. Rosemary Rayfuse. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

He, Haoran. 2010. “The effects of an environmental policy on consumers: Lessons from the Chinese plastic bag regulation.” Working Papers in Economics Report No. 453 (University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, June 3).

Herreria, Carla. 2015. “Loophole undermines Hawaii’s historic plastic bag ban.” Huffington Post.com, July 10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/loophole-hawaii-plastic-bags_n_7750112.html.

Hidalgo-Ruz, Valeria, and Martin Thiel. 2015. “The contribution of citizen scientists to the monitoring of marine litter.” In Marine anthropogenic litter, edited by Melanie Bergmann, Lars Gutow, and Michael Klages, 429-447. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Hohnjune, Donovan.

2008.

“Sea of trash.”

New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/magazine/22Plastics-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

June

22.

Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department. 2007. “North East New Territories (NENT) landfill extension: Environmental impact assessment report.” http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1332007/html%20format/04904%20Final%20EIA.htm#_Toc169492066.

Hong, Sunwook, Jongmyoung Lee, and Daeseok Kang. 2014. “Quantities, composition, and sources of beach debris in Korea from the results of nationwide monitoring.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 84: 27-34. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/263391896_Quantities_composition_and_sources_of_beach_d ebris_in_Korea_from_the_results_of_nationwide_monitoring.

------. n.d. “Emergy evaluation of governmental policies on derelict fishing gear in South Korea.” http://www.cep.ees.ufl.edu/emergy/documents/conferences/ERC07_2012/32_Hong.pdf.

Howe, Angela. 2012. “Federal marine debris legislation signed by the President.” Surfrider Foundation, Legal, Plastic Pollution, Tsunami Debris (blog), December 21. http://www.surfrider.org/coastalblog/entry/federal-marine-debris-legislationsigned-by-the-president.

Humboldt State University. 2015. “Dissolve ghost fishing: Biodegradable panels can reduce mortality caused by abandoned crab pots.”

Marine Ecology @ HSU, March 3. https://marineecologyhsu.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/dissolve-ghost-fishing-biodegradable-panels-canreduce-mortality-caused-by-abandoned-crab-pots/.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2012. “Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL Annex V.” http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Documents/2014%20revisio n/RESOLUTION%20MEPC.219(63)%20Guidelines%20for%20the%20Implementation%20of%20MARP OL%20Annex%20V.pdf.

------.

2015a.

“Prevention of pollution by garbage from http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Pages/Default.aspx.

ships.”

------. 2015b. “Contracting States to MARPOL.” https://imo.amsa.gov.au/public/parties/marpolv.html.

------.

2016.

“Special areas under MARPOL.” http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/SpecialAreasUnderMARPOL/Pages/Default.aspx.

IPS. 2013. “Despite two bans, styrofoam trash still plagues Haiti.” IPS News.org, August 16. http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/08/despite-two-bans-styrofoam-trash-still-plagues-haiti.

IRIN. 2011.

“Bangladesh: Plastics proliferate despite ban,” http://www.irinnews.org/report/92072/bangladesh-plastics-proliferate-despite-bans.

March

2.

Island Trails Network. 2015. “Japan tsunami marine debris removal.” http://www.islandtrails.org/japantsunami-debris-removal.html.

ISWA (International Solid Waste Association).2011. “International guidelines for landfill evaluation.” http://www.iswa.org/index.php?eID=tx_bee4mememberships_download&fileUid=156.

------. 2013. “ISWA guidelines: Waste to energy in low and middle income countries.” https://www.iswa.org/index.php?eID=tx_iswaknowledgebase_download&documenAPPENDIX B: References 89 tUid=3252.

Ivone, Massimo. 2015. Evolution of the precautionary principle. Lambert Academic Publishing.

Jambeck, Jenna R., Roland Geyer, Chris Wilcox, Theodore R. Siegler, Miriam Perryman, Anthony Andrady, Ramani Narayan, and Kara Lavender Law. 2015. “Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean.”

Science 347 (6223): 768-771. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768.

Jang, Yong Chang, Jongmyoung Lee, Sunwook Hong, Jin Yong Mok, Kyoung Shin Kim, Yun Jeong Lee, Hyun-Woo Choi, Hongmook Kang, and Sukhui Lee. 2014. “Estimation of the annual flow and stock of marine litter in South Korea for management purposes.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 86: 505-511. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jongmyoung_Lee2/publication/264054588 Japanese Government, Office of Marine Environment, Ministry of the Environment. 2015. “Priority actions to address land-based sources.” Presented at G7 workshop, Berlin, August 3-5.

JPIF (Japan Plastics Industry Federation). n.d. “Activities of JPIF.” http://www.jpif.gr.jp/english/profile/activities.html.

Jierui, Shi. 2009. "China’s bag ban, one year https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/3158.

later."

China

Dialogue,

July

10.

Kardish, Chris. 2014. “How Rwanda became the world’s unlikely leader in plastic bag bans.” Governing.com, May. http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-rwanda-plastic-bagban.html.

Kazoka, Ludovick. 2013. “Tanzania: State imposes fresh ban on plastic bags.” AllAfrica.com, July. http://allafrica.com/stories/201308160058.html.

Kier Associates. 2012. “The cost to West Coast communities of dealing with trash, reducing marine debris.” Prepared for the EPA. http://www3.epa.gov/region09/marine-debris/pdf/WestCoastCommsCostMngMarineDebris.pdf.

KIMO (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon). http://www.kimointernational.org/FishingforLitter.aspx.

LA DPW (Department of Public Works). http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/aboutthebag/faq_stores.cfm.

2015.

2015.

“Fishing “Ordinance

for

litter.” basics.”

Lawson, Julie. 2015. “State and federal agencies mandate trash cleanup in Baltimore.” Trash Free Maryland (blog), January 9. http://www.trashfreemaryland.org/2015/01/state-and-federal-agenciesmandate.html.

Leous, Justin P., and Neal B. Parry. 2005. “Who is responsible for marine debris? The international politics of cleaning our oceans.” Journal of International Affairs 9 (1): 257-269.

Leslie, H.A., M.D. van der Meulen, F.M. Kleissen, and A.D. Vethaak. 2011. “Microplastic litter in the Dutch marine environment.” Prepared for the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/images/Microplastic%20Litter%20in%20the%20Dutch%20Marine%20Envi ronment_851.pdf.

Linton, Latonya. 2014. “Government finalising waste to energy service.” Jamaica Information Service, March 15. http://jis.gov.jm/government-finalising-waste-energy-policy/.

Liu, Yingling. 2015. “China Watch: Plastic bag ban trumps market and consumer efforts.” World Watch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5808.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 2012. “Implementation of the County of Los Angeles plastic and paper carryout bag ordinance.” http://ladpw.org/epd/aboutthebag/PDF/Bag%20Ban%20Status%20Nov%202012.pdf.

Macfadyen, Graeme, and Tim Huntington. 2009. “Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear.”

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0620e/i0620e00.HTM. Marine Litter Solutions. 2015. “Joint declaration.” http://www.marinelittersolutions.com/who-we-are/jointdeclaration.aspx.

Masina, Lameck. 2014. “Plastic bag ban stalls in Malawi.” Voice of America, November 11. http://www.voanews.com/content/plastic-bag-ban-stalls-in-malawi-amid-manufacturersopposition/2515953.html.

Mato, Yukie, Tomohiko Isobe, Hideshige Takada, Haruyuki Kanehiro, Chiyoko Ohtake, and Tsuguchika Kaminuma. 2001. “Plastic resin pellets as a transport medium of toxic chemicals in the marine environment.” Environmental Science & Technology 35 (2): 318-324.

McConnon, Amanda Jane. 2016. “Ghost fishing: When lost gear keeps fishing.” M Mag, January 6. http://millennialmagazine.com/ghost-fishing-when-lost-gear-keeps-fishing/.

McIntyre, Owen. 2006. “The role of customary rules and principles in the environmental protection of shared international freshwater resources.” Natural Resources Journal 46: 157-210.

Mehta, Seema. 1999. “Plan to turn oil rigs into reefs fuels controversy.” L.A. Times, October 25. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/oct/25/local/me-25976.

Melia, Mike. “Caribbean a dumping ground for garbage from cruise ships.” Los Angeles Times, March 9. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/01/news/adAPPENDIX B: References 91 fg-cruise-dumping1.

Melucci, Lauren. 2014. “A few states set the stage for the future of EPS at retail.” Packaging Digest.com, April 1. http://www.packagingdigest.com/regulatory/few-states-set-stage-future-eps-retail.

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. 2015. “MMDA announces Barangay 2014 winners on Thursday; launches Barangay Power 2015, too,” February 26. http://www.mmda.gov.ph/index.php/35news/news-2015/1523-mmda-announces-barangay-2014-winners-on-thursday-launches-barangaypower-2015-too.

MMO (Marine Management Organisation, UK). 2011a. “Environmental impact assessment consent decision: Capital dredge and quay wall construction, berths 201-202,” February 22. MMO reference DC 8590 and DC 8591. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140108121958/http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licen sing/public_register/cases/documents/abp_southampton/eia_consent_decision.pdf.

------. 2011b. “Environmental impact assessment consent decision: Capital dredge, Portsmouth Harbour, south of Whale Island,” March 17.

MMO reference DC 9275. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140108121958/http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licen sing/public_register/eia/documents/consent/portsmouth_eia.pdf.

Morgan, Richard K. 2012. “Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30 (1): 5-14. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.661557.

Morishige, Carey. 2009. “Campaigns that teach: Diving deeper into marine debris education.” Paper presented at “Strategies and Activities for the Prevention of Nearshore Marine Debris,” Honolulu, HI, August 12-13, 2009.

------. (ed.). 2010. “Marine debris prevention projects and activities in the Republic of Korea and United States: A compilation of project summary reports.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/TM_NOS-ORR_36.pdf.

Mueller, Benjamin. 2015. “Judge strikes down New York City’s ban on foam food containers.”

New York Times, September 22. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/judge-strikes-down-newyork-citys-ban-on-foam-food-containers.html?_r=0.

Muthu, Subramanian S., Y. Li, Junyan Hu, and Tracy P.Y. Mok. 2011. “Carbon footprint of shopping (grocery) bags in China, Hong Kong and India.” Atmospheric Environment 45:469-475.

National Research Council of the National Academies. 2005. Tackling marine debris in the 21st century.

Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12486.

New York Times. 2015. “Microbeads, the tiny orbs threatening our water.” Editorial, August 21. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/opinion/microbeads-the-tiny-orbs-threatening-our-water.html.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. “Summary proceedings of the 5th International Marine Debris Conference, March 20-25, 2011.” http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/summaryproceedings.pdf.

------. 2012. “Gulf of Mexico Marine Debris Project web site.” September 2. http://gulfofmexico. marinedebris.noaa.gov.

------. 2014. “What is an artificial reef?” http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/artificial-reef.html.

National

------. 2015a. “How do natural disasters contribute http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/disaster-debris.html.

------.

2015b.

“What is ghostfishing?” http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ghostfishing.html.

Ocean to

marine

National

Service, debris?’’

Ocean

------. 2016. “Gulf of Mexico Marine Debris Project – historical.” http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/interactive-maps/commerce-transportation/marine-debris/.

January

23.

March

11.

Service.

February

24.

------.

2016b.

“Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project.”

March http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/research/marine-debris-monitoring-and-assessment-project.

4.

NOAA Marine Debris Program. 2015. “Fishing for Energy Partnership announces grants to support Marine Debris Prevention.”

NOAA’s Marine Debris Blog, September 15. https://marinedebrisblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/15/nfwfannounces-fishing-for-energy-grants-to-support-marine-debris-prevention.

Noordzeeloket.

2014a.

“Green deal on ship generated waste.”

September 10. https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/Images/Green%20deal%20ship%20generated%20waste_4647.pdf.

------.

2014b.

“Clean beaches green deal C-172.”

November https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/Images/Clean%20Beaches%20Green%20Deal_4739.pdf.

20.

------.

2014c.

“Fishery for a clean sea green deal.”

November 20. https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/Images/Green%20Deal%20Fishery%20for%20a%20Green%20Deal_4 721.pdf.

------. n.d.a. “Public participation.” https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/projects/european-marine-strategyframework-directive/implementation-process/Public_participation/.

------. n.d.b. “Litter on the North Sea.” http://www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/functions-and-use/waterquality/Zwerfvuil/index.aspx.

Northwest Straights Initiative.

2015. http://www.derelictgear.org/Our-Program.aspx.

“The

derelict

fishing

gear

program.”

NOWPAP (Northwest Pacific Action Plan). n.d. “National efforts of NOWPAP member states to address the marine litter problem.” http://www.nowpap.org/ML-on_national-level.php.

NYC. 2015. “De Blasio administration bans single-use styrofoam products in New York APPENDIX B: References 93 City beginning July 1, 2015.” January 8. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/016-15/deblasio-administration-bans-single-use-styrofoam-products-new-york-city-beginning-july-1-2015.

Ocean Conservancy.

2015a.

“International coastal cleanup http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/international-coastal-cleanup/.

2015

report.”

------. 2015b. “Take the pledge.” http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our-work/international-coastalcleanup/sign-up-to-clean-up.html.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). n.d. “Extended producer responsibility.” http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/extendedproducerresponsibility.htm.

Ong, Czarina Nicole. 2010. “Manila seeks to ban thin plastic bags.” Manila Bulletin, October 2. www.mb.com.ph/node/280155/manila.

Onyanga-Omara, Jane. 2013. “Plastic bag backlash gains momentum.” BBC, September 14. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24090603.

Operation Clean Sweep.

2015.

“Plastic pellets in http://www.opcleansweep.org/Manual/Plastic-Pellets-in-the-Environment.html.

the

environment.”

O’Riordan, Timothy (ed.). 2013. Ecotaxation. Oxon: Earthscan.

Owen, Bruce. 2013. “Butts banned at the beach.” Winnipeg Free Press, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/butts-banned-at-the-beach-196257211.html.

March

9.

Pham, Christopher K., Eva Ramirez-Llodra, Claudia H. S. Alt, Teresa Amaro, Melanie Bergmann, Miquel Canals, Joan B. Company, Jaime Davies, Gerard Duineveld, Francois Galgani, Kerry L. Howell, Veerle A. I. Huvenne, Eduardo Isidro, Daniel O. B. Jones, Galderic Lastras, Telmo Morato, José Nuno Gomes-Pereira, Autun Purser, Heather Stewart, Inês Tojeira, Xavier Tubau, David Van Rooij, and Paul A. Tyler. 2014. “Marine litter distribution and density in European seas, from the shelves to deep basins.” PLoS ONE 9 (4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095839.

Pflanz, Mike.

"Tanzania to ban all plastic bags.”

Telegraph.co.uk., April 4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/tanzania/1514793/Tanzania-to-banall-plastic-bags.html.

PlasticsEurope. 2015. “Plastics - the facts 2015.” http://www.plasticseurope.org/Document/plastics--the-facts-2015.aspx.

Princess Cruise Lines.

2015.

“Environmental responsibility.” http://www.princess.com/news/backgrounders_and_fact_sheets/factsheet/Princess-Cruises'Commitment-to-the-Environment.html#.VeRLGJc1pko.

Putrich, Gayle S. 2015. “US microbead ban moves forward.” Plastics News, November 19. http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20151119/NEWS/151119844/us-microbead-ban-moves-forward.

Register, Katie. 2014. “Developing a marine debris reduction plan for Virginia.” Prepared for the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program. http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/MarineDebrisPlan.html.

Register, Rhett. 2014. “TRAPPED? Partners tackle derelict fishing gear.” Coastwatch. http://ncseagrant.ncsu.edu/coastwatch/previous-issues/2014-2/holiday-2014/trapped-partners-tacklederelict-fishing-gear/.

Rochman, C. M., Mark Anthony Browne, Benjamin S. Halpern, Brian T. Hentschel, Eunha Hoh, Hrissi K. Karapanagioti, Lorena M. Rios-Mendoza, Hideshige Takada, Swee Teh, and Richard C. Thompson.

2013.

“Policy: Classify plastic waste as hazardous.”

Nature 494: 169-171. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7436/full/494169a.html.

Romanow, Kerrie. 2012. “Bring your own bag ordinance implementation results and actions to reduce EPS foam food ware,” November 20. Memorandum to the San Jose Transportation and Environment Committee. http://www3.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommitteeAgenda/TE/20121203/TE20121203_d5.pdf.

Romer, Jennie R., and Shanna Foley. 2012. “A wolf in sheep's clothing: The plastics industry’s ‘public interest’ role in legislation and litigation of plastic bag laws in California.” Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal 5 (2): 377-437. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=gguelj.Potts, Tavis, and Emily Hastings. 2011. “Marine litter issues, impacts and actions.” The Scottish Government. www.gov.scot/Resource/0040/00402421.pdf.

Seas at Risk. 2015. “Waste from ships.” http://www.seas-at-risk.org/issues/marine-litter/waste-fromships.html.

Shan, Shelly. 2006. “Many support EPA ban on throw-away utensils.” Taipei Times, December 18. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/12/18/2003340889.

State of California Ocean Protection Council. http://www.opc.ca.gov/2010/04/preventing-ocean-litter-3/.

n.d.

“Prevening

ocean

litter.”

StopWaste. 2014. “Successful results from bag ordinance.” Press release, September 10. http://www.stopwaste.org/about/news/successful-results-bag-ordinance.

Straw Wars. 2015. http://strawwars.org.

Sultanate of Oman. 2010. “Fourth national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity.” https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/om/om-nr-04-en.pdf.

APPENDIX B: References 95 Tampa Tribune. 2009. “Cruise ships use Caribbean as solid waste dump.” February 28. http://tbo.com/news/florida/cruise-ships-use-caribbean-as-solid-waste-dump-115612.

Taylor, Rebecca L., and Sofia B. Villas-Boas. 2016. “Bans vs. fees: Disposable carryout bag policies and bag usage.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 38 (2): 351-372.

Tembhekar, Chittaranjan. 2015. “Units making plastic bags below 50 microns face heat.” Times of India, February 24. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Units-making-plastic-bags-below-50microns-face-heat/articleshow/46349733.cms.

TEPA (Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration). 2011. “Three Rs: Resource recycling and sustainable reuse.”

Thompson, Richard C. 2015. “Microplastics in the marine environment: Sources, consequences and solutions.” In Marine anthropogenic litter, edited by Melanie Bergmann, Lars Gutow, and Michael Klages, 185-200. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Times of Oman. 2014. “Artificial reefs at The Wave, Muscat attract new marine species,” June 10. http://timesofoman.com/article/35826/Oman/Artificial-reefs-at-The-Wave-Muscat-attract-new-marinespecies.

Toloken, Steve. 2013. “Asia's plastics associations see progress in bag ban battles.” Plastic News, September 27. http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20130927/NEWS/130929926/asias-plasticsassociations-see-progress-in-bag-ban-battles.

Topping, Paul. 2000. “Marine debris: A focus for community engagement.” Presented at the Coastal Zone Canada Conference, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, September. http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/czc2000_paper.pdf.

International Pellet Watch. n.d. “Global pollution map.” http://www.tuat.ac.jp/~gaia/ipw/en/map.html.

Umeda, Sayuri. 2013. “Japan: Legal responses to the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011.” The Law Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/japan-earthquake/Great-East-Japan-Earthquake.pdf.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2015. “Haiti – strengthening adaptive capacity of coastal communities.” http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/environmentandenergy/focus_areas/ecosystems_a nd_biodiversity/projects/haiti---strengthening-the-adaptive-capacity-of-coastal-communiti.html.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2005a. “Marine litter: An analytical overview.” Nairobi. www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/anl_oview.pdf.

------.

2005b.

“Sanitary landfill.”

In http://www.unep.org/ietc/Portals/136/SWM-Vol1-Part3.pdf.

Solid

Waste

Management.

------. 2009. “Marine litter: A global challenge.” Nairobi. www.unep.org/pdf/unep_marine_littera_global_challenge.pdf.

------. 2013. Guidelines for national waste management strategies: Moving from challenges to opportunities. http://www.unep.org/ietc/Portals/136/Publications/Waste%20Management/UNEP%20NWMS%20Englis h.pdf.

------. 2015a. “Dutch rally support for a Europe wide microplastic ban in a bid to keep mussels on the menu,” January. http://unep.org/gpa/news/MicroplasticBan.asp.

------. 2015b. Biodegradable plastics & marine litter: Misconceptions, concerns and impacts on marine environments. Nairobi. http://www.unep.org/gpa/documents/publications/BiodegradablePlastics.pdf.

------. n.d.

“UNEP regional http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/initiatives/unepregions/regionsA.asp.

activities.”

------. 2016. Marine plastic debris and microplastics – Global lessons and research to inspire action and guide policy change. Nairobi. http://www.unep.org/about/sgb/Portals/50153/UNEA/Marine%20Plastic%20Debris%20and%20Micropla stic%20Technical%20Report%20Advance%20Copy.pdf.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2009.

“London Convention and Protocol/UNEP guidelines for the placement of artificial reefs.” http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/publications/reports/RSRS/pdfs/rsrs_187.pdf.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission). 2009. “UNEP/IOC guidelines on survey and monitoring of marine litter.” http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Marine_Litter_Survey_and_Monitoring_ Guidelines.pdf.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. “Honolulu strategy.” http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/solutions/honolulu-strategy.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency). n.d.

“Marine litter, trash that kills.” http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/trash_that_kills.pdf.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), UN DESA (Department of Economic and Social Affairs) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN). 2012 “SIDS-focused green economy: An analysis of challenges and opportunities.” http://www.unep.org/pdf/Green_Economy_in_SIDS.pdf.

UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). Resolution 46/215. Large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing and its impact on the living marine resources of the world's oceans and seas. A/RES/46/215. December 20. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/46/a46r215.

------. 2004. Oceans and the law of the sea: Report of the Secretary-General—AddenAPPENDIX B: References 97 dum. August 18. A/59/62/Add.1. http://www.un.org/ga/59/documentation/list0.html.

------.

2012.

The future we http://www.uncsd2012.org/thefuturewewant.html.

want.

September

11.

A/RES/66/288*.

------. 2015. Resolution 70/1. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

October 21. A/RES/70/1. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. ------. 2016. Resolution 70/235. Oceans and the law of the sea. March 15. A/RES/70/235*. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/235.

UN Habitat.

2010.

“WTE industry http://mirror.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/10740_1_594319.pdf.

in

Latin

America.”

Vermeij, Mark J. A. 2012. “Environmental impact assessment of the construction of a pier and its future usages near Karel’s Bar, Bonaire.”

Carmabi Foundation, August 20. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/brochures/2012/05/20/environmental-impact-assessment-ofthe-construction-of-a-pier-and-its-future-usages-near-karel-s-bar-bonaire.

Washington State Marine Debris Task Force. 2013. “Washington receives $250,000 allocation to address marine debris.” May 17. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2013/13-007-MDNR.html.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. “Statewide gear rules—Crab, shrimp & crawfish.” http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/gear_rules.html.

Weitzman, Jennifer. 1994. “Tanks take on new role as artificial reefs to attract fish.” New York Times, December 4. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/04/nyregion/tanks-take-on-new-role-as-artificial-reefs-toattract-fish.html.

Wheeler, Timothy. 2015. “Trash cleanup ordered for Baltimore harbor, streams.” Baltimore Sun, January 6. http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/blog/bs-md-trash-harbor-20150106story.html?track=rss.

Wold, Chris, Sanford Gaines, and Greg Block. 2011. Trade and the environment: Law and policy. Carolina Academic Press.

World Bank. 2009a.

“Disaster risk management programs http://www.unisdr.org/files/14757_6thCGCountryProgramSummaries1.pdf.

for

priority

countries.”

------. 2009b. “Disaster risk management in Latin America and the Caribbean region: GFDRR country notes—Haiti.” http://reliefwebint/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Situation_Report_204.pdf.

------.

2012.

“Ari Atoll solid waste management pilot project.” http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/09/13/000020953_2012091309 4958/Rendered/PDF/724590PID0MV0A00Management0Project.pdf.

World Society for the Protection of Animals.

2014. “Fishing’s phantom menace: How ghost fishing gear is endangering our sea life.” https://www.worldanimalprotection.us.org/sites/default/files/us_files/ghost_gear_exec_summary _us2.pdf.

Wright, Stephanie L., Richard C. Thompson, and Tamara S. Galloway. 2013. “The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: A review.” Environmental Pollution 178: 483-492. http://resodema.org/publications/publication9.pdf.

WSP Environmental. 2013. “An investigation into the performance (environmental and health) of waste to energy technologies internationally.” Prepared for the Government of Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation. http://www.wtert.com.br/home2010/arquivo/noticias_eventos/W2E_Summary_Report_20123.pdf.

Zero Waste Europe. 2015. “International Bag Free Day—New EU Directive paves the way for a Europe without plastic bags.” July 3. http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2015/07/press-release-international-bagfree-day-new-eu-directive-paves-the-way-for-a-europe-without-plastic-bags.

DECLARATION OF THE GLOBAL PLASTICS ASSOCIATIONS for Solutions on Marine Litter Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter Plastic materials deliver significant societal benefits, including energy and resource savings, consumer protection and innovations that improve health care, reduce food spoilage and improve quality of life. For society to receive the benefits that plastics can provide, it is essential to properly recover them so that litter does not threaten our natural environment, including marine ecosystems.

Investigations by marine scientists are highlighting the extent to which littered plastic and other materials are ending up as debris in our oceans and the consequences for the marine environment. The organisations below are firmly committed to the principle that plastics do not belong in the world’s oceans and should not be littered — plastics should be responsibly used, reused, recycled and finally recovered for their energy value.

Plastic is present as debris in the marine environment as a result of poor or insufficient waste management, lack of sufficient recycling / re-

covery and bad practices such as land and marine litter.

These are large and complex issues with societal and economic challenges, and are more than any single entity, industry, or government can solve. Building on work in individual regions, the undersigned organisations are coming together to work with governments, NGOs, researchers and other stakeholders to prevent marine litter.

Success in these efforts will require sustained, good faith cooperation among a wide range of stakeholders. We will do our part and invite other organisations to join us.

For more information on specific regional efforts to prevent marine litter see: https://www.marinelittersolutions.com/projects/ WE WILL 1. Contribute to solutions by working in publicprivate partnerships aimed at preventing marine debris

2. Work with the scientific community and researchers to better understand and evaluate the scope, origins and impact of and solutions to marine litter

ASPA PLAST, Romanian Plastics Processor Employers’ Association, Bucharest, Romania Association of Hellenic Plastic Industries, Athens, Greece

3. Promote comprehensive science-based policies and enforcement of existing laws to prevent marine litter

BAP, Bulgarian Association Polymers, Sofia, Bulgaria

4. Help spread knowledge regarding ecoefficient waste management systems and practices, particularly in communities and countries that border our oceans and watersheds 5. Enhance opportunities to recover plastic products for recycling and energy recovery 6. Steward the transport and distribution of plastic resin pellets and products from supplier to customer to prevent product loss and encourage our customers to do the same List of the Associations ACC, American Chemistry Council, Washington, USA AICM, Association of International Chemical Manufacturers, Beijing, China AIPMA, All India Plastics Manufacturers Asociation, Mumbai, India ANAIP, Spanish Association of Plastics Industry, Madrid, Spain

BPF, British Plastics Federation, London, United Kingdom BPGMEA, Bangladesh Plastic Goods Manufacturers & Exporters Association, Dhaka, Bangladesh CEP, Centro Español de Plásticos, Madrid, Spain Cicloplast, Madrid, Spain, CIRFS: European Man-made Fibres Association, Brussels, Belgium CPA, Comité des Plastiques pour l’Agriculture, Paris, France CPIA, Canadian Plastics Industry Association, Ontario, Canada ECOPLAS Argentina SA, Buenos Aires, Argentina ELIPSO, Les entreprises de l’emballage plastique et souple, Paris, France EPS Industry Alliance, Crofton, United States

ANAPE, Asociación Nacional de Poliestireno Expandido, Madrid, Spain

Essencia, Belgian Federation for Chemistry and Life Sciences Industries, Brussels, Belgium

ANDIMAT, Asociación Nacional de Fabricantes de Materiales Aislantes, Madrid, Spain

EuPC, European Plastics Converter Association, Brussels, Belgium

ANIPAC, Asociación Nacional de Industrias del Plástico, Asociación Civil, Mexico

EuPR, European Plastics Recyclers, Brussels, Belgium

APIP, Associacao Portuguesa da Industria de Plasticos, Lisbon, Portugal

EUROMAP, European Plastics and Rubber Machinery, Frankfurt, Germany

ASECONP, Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Contenedores Plásticos para Residuos

FAMA, Asociación de Fabricantes de Articulos Monouso Reciclables, Madrid, Spain

Urbanos, Madrid, Spain

Federation de La Plasturgie, French Association of Plastic Converters, Paris, France

ASEMUPLAST, Asociación de Empresarios del Sector Plástico de la Región de Murcia , Spain ASEPUR, Asociación Española de Empresas de Poliuretanos, Madrid, Spain AseTUB, Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Tubos y Accesorios Plásticos, Madrid, Spain ASOVEN, Asociacíon Ventanas PVC, Madrid, Spain

Federation of Thai Industries, Nonthaburi, Thailand Federplast, Belgian Association of Plastics Producers and Rubber Products, Brussels, Belgium Fetraplast, Federación Española de Transformadores y Manipuladores de Plásticos, Madrid, Spain

GPMA, Ghana Plastic Manufacturers’ Association, Accra-North, Ghana

PAFA, Packing and Film Association, Nottingham, United Kingdom

GPCA, Gulf Petrochemicals & Chemicals Association, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

PAGEV, Türk Plastik Sanayicileri Arastirma, Gelistirme ve Egitim Vakfi, Istanbul, Turkey

HGK, Croatian Chamber of Economy, Zagreb, Croatia

PlasticsEurope, European Association of Plastics Manufacturers, Headquartered in Brussels, Belgium with regional centers in Frankfurt Germany, London United Kingdom, Madrid Spain, Milano Italy and Paris France

IK Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen e.V, Bad Homburg V.D.H, Germany IPI, Indian Plastics Institute, Mumbai, India JPIF, Japan Plastics Industry Federation, Tokyo, Japan KPIA, Korea Petrochemical Industry Association, Seoul, Korea KVS, Kunststoff Verband Schweiz, Aarau, Switzerland MMSZ, Association of Hungarian Plastics Industry, Budapest, Hungary MPIA, Myanmar Plastic Industries Association, Yangon, Myanmar MPMA, Malaysian Plastics Manufacturers Association, Selangor, Malaysia Muoviteollisuus ry, Finnish Plastics Industries Federation, Helsinki, Finland NRK, Dutch Rubber & Plastics Federation, Leidschendam, the Netherlands PACIA, Plastics and Chemical Industry Association, Melbourne, Australia

P&K, Plast och Kemiforetagen, Stockholm, Sweden Plastics Federation of South Africa, Gauteng, South Africa Plastics New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand Plastindustrien, the Danish Plastics Federation, Copenhagen, Denmark Plastivida, Instituto Sócio-Ambiental dos Plásticos, Sao Paulo, Brazil PPIA, Philippine Plastics Industry Association, Caloocan City, Philippines SPI, Society of the Plastics Industry, Washington, United States SPPCR, Association of Plastics Industry of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic VPA, Vietham Plastics Association, Ben Nghe Ward, Vietnam WVK, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Kunststoff, Bad Homburg, Germany

Los artículos publicados son una contribución colaborativa voluntaria al Observatorio del Medio Ambiente Peruano. La responsabilidad y mérito de las afirmaciones, opiniones y contenidos expuestos en los artículos es de los autores de los mismos. El Observatorio del Medio Ambiente Peruano permite la reproducción de estos contenidos siempre y cuando se cite correctamente la fuente de procedencia y el autor/-a haya sido informado de ello y lo haya aceptado previamente y de modo expreso.