DOCSLIB.ORG

Waste Management Services 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Waste Management Services 2013 The OECD Competition Committee debated Waste Management Services in October 2013. This document includes an executive summary of that debate and the documents from the meeting: a background note, written submissions by Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, South Africa, Sweden, Chinese Taipei, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, BIAC as well as an aide-memoire of the discussion. Technological and policy changes have altered the economics of waste collection and treatment. Landfills are further away from cities and larger. More waste is diverted towards treatments that allow to re-use it, recycle it, or to recover energy from it. Secondary raw materials derived from recycled waste are being increasingly sought afters, as primary raw materials are becoming scarcer and more expensive. Producers have been made responsible for the products they have put on the market at the post-consumer stage of the products’ life. All these changes are raising new competition issues, some relative to the conduct of firms operating in the markets for the management of waste, some raised by the ever-increasing amount of environmental legislation. This legislation is aimed at protecting the environment and the health of citizens, but may sometimes raise unnecessary barriers to competition and thus reduce the incentives towards efficiency. This Roundtable examines recent developments in the management of municipal solid waste and discusses the experience of competition agencies in addressing the competition implications of these changes. Special attention is devoted to producer responsibility schemes, which have recently been introduced to full producers’ responsibility over the waste they generate, and are already playing a major role in increasing the share of waste that is being recycled but also raising a number of competition concerns. Horizontal Agreements in the Environmental Context (2010) State Owned Enterprises and the Principle of Competitive Neutrality (2009) Competition in Local Services: Competition in Bidding Markets (2006) Solid Waste Management (1999) Unclassified DAF/COMP(2013)26 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 04-Apr-2014 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English, French DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE Unclassified DAF/COMP(2013)26 WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES JT03355742 English, French Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. DAF/COMP(2013)26 FOREWORD This document comprises proceedings in the original languages of a Roundtable on Waste Management Services held by the Competition Committee (Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation) in October 2013. It is published under the responsibility of the Secretary General of the OECD to bring information on this topic to the attention of a wider audience. This compilation is one of a series of publications entitled "Competition Policy Roundtables". PRÉFACE Ce document rassemble la documentation dans la langue d'origine dans laquelle elle a été soumise, relative à une table ronde sur les services de gestion des déchets qui s'est tenue en octobre 2013 dans le cadre du Comité de la concurrence (Groupe de Travail N° 2 sur la concurrence et la réglementation). Il est publié sous la responsabilité du Secrétaire général de l'OCDE, afin de porter à la connaissance d'un large public les éléments d'information qui ont été réunis à cette occasion. Cette compilation fait partie de la série intitulée "Les tables rondes sur la politique de la concurrence". Visit our Internet Site -- Consultez notre site Internet http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/ 2 DAF/COMP(2013)26 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 5 BACKGROUND NOTE ................................................................................................................................. 9 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DELEGATIONS Canada ................................................................................................................................................. 43 Czech Republic ................................................................................................................................... 59 Estonia ................................................................................................................................................. 67 European Union .................................................................................................................................. 71 Finland................................................................................................................................................. 75 France (Version française) ................................................................................................................. 77 France (English version) .................................................................................................................... 91 Germany ............................................................................................................................................ 103 Ireland ............................................................................................................................................... 109 Italy ................................................................................................................................................... 123 Japan .................................................................................................................................................. 131 Latvia................................................................................................................................................. 143 Lithuania ........................................................................................................................................... 147 Norway .............................................................................................................................................. 153 Peru ................................................................................................................................................... 165 Poland ................................................................................................................................................ 171 Romania ............................................................................................................................................ 177 Russian federation ............................................................................................................................. 181 Slovak Republic ................................................................................................................................ 191 South Africa ...................................................................................................................................... 197 Sweden .............................................................................................................................................. 201 Chinese Taipei ................................................................................................................................... 209 Turkey ............................................................................................................................................... 215 Ukraine .............................................................................................................................................. 219 United Kingdom ................................................................................................................................ 229 United States ..................................................................................................................................... 233 BIAC ................................................................................................................................................. 237 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 243 *** SYNTHÈSE ............................................................................................................................................... 253 NOTE DE RÉFÉRENCE .......................................................................................................................... 259 COMPTE RENDU DE LA DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 299 3 DAF/COMP(2013)26 4 DAF/COMP(2013)26 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY By the Secretariat * Considering the discussion at the roundtable, the delegates’ submissions, as well as the panellist’s presentation, several points emerge: (1) Environmental objectives, taxonomy, and historical practices govern much of the law and regulation that applies to the waste sector,
Recommended publications
  • Chapter 93: Health and Sanitation

    Chapter 93: Health and Sanitation

    Goose Creek, South Carolina Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 93: HEALTH AND SANITATION Section Administration 93.001 Title 93.002 Scope 93.003 Purposes 93.004 Application of code 93.005 Authority 93.006 Enforcement 93.007 Right-to-enter 93.008 Appeals 93.009 Validity and separability 93.010 Compliance with other ordinances 93.011 Persons responsible Rules of Construction and Definitions 93.025 Rules of construction 93.026 Definitions The Adoption of Rules and Regulations of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 93.055 Adoptions 93.056 Food handling establishments 93.057 Burning garbage and the like 93.058 Abandoned wells Solid Waste Collection and Disposal 93.075 Responsibility 93.076 Prohibited waste 93.077 Solid waste collection 93.078 Placement requirements; household solid waste 93.079 Bundling of solid waste 93.080 Solid waste containerization and removal 93.081 Use of non-standard containers 93.082 Service for owners requiring additional containerization for household refuse 93.083 Owners, agents and tenants responsibility 93.084 Refusal of service 93.085 Frequency of solid waste collection 93.086 Assessment rates for city residents Sewage Disposal 93.100 Occupancy of premises without proper system 93.101 Building contracts to provide for sewage disposal 93.102 Use of septic tanks 93.103 Connection to sewer Nuisances 93.145 Public nuisances prohibited 93.146 Enumeration of public nuisances affecting health 93.147 Public nuisances affecting public safety Abatement 93.160 Notice to abate involving great a1vd
  • CTDEEP Annual Municipal Collector Report Form

    CTDEEP Annual Municipal Collector Report Form

    Page 1 of 3 Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) Bureau of Materials Management & Compliance Assurance 79 Elm Street - 4th Floor Hartford, CT 06106-5127 CONNECTICUT SOLID WASTE COLLECTOR ANNUAL SOLID WASTE REPORTING FORM to be Submitted to MUNICIPALITIES FY_______ This form must be completed and submitted by collectors (i.e. haulers) of solid waste and recyclables by July 31st for the previous Fiscal Year (i.e., July 1-June 30) to the CT municipality in which they collect. Please contact the municipality in which you collect for further instruction. Unless otherwise instructed by the municipality, completed reports should be submitted to the Municipal Recycling Contact. COLLECTOR/HAULER - CONTACT INFORMATION: Collector Contact Phone #: E-mail: Name: Person: Address Street: Town: State: Zip Code: Mailing Address: Part 1 - Recyclables Collected from within the Town/City of: (B) (D) SOURCE OF TONS 3 (A) RECYCLABLE RECYCLABLES Only report ITEMS ST tons if 1 (C) 1 DESTINATION OF RECYCLABLES COLLECTED (B-1) Residential or (B-2) Waste destination 2 is not a CT Non-Residential Stream (check all that apply) permitted SW facility Residential MSW NonResidentia C&D Waste Mix-Res&NonRes LandClearing Residential MSW NonResidentia C&D Waste Mix-Res&NonRes LandClearing Residential MSW NonResidentia C&D Waste Mix-Res&NonRes LandClearing Residential MSW NonResidentia C&D Waste Mix-Res&NonRes LandClearing Residential MSW NonResidentia C&D Waste Mix-Res&NonRes LandClearing Residential MSW NonResidentia C&D Waste Mix-Res&NonRes
  • Rapid Assessment of Measures on Safety of Sanitation and Waste Workers During Covid-19 in Pakistan

    Rapid Assessment of Measures on Safety of Sanitation and Waste Workers During Covid-19 in Pakistan

    Rapid Assessment of Measures on Safety of Sanitation and Waste Workers during Covid-19 in Pakistan A QUALITATIVE STUDY REPORT Islamabad, Pakistan |June 24, 2020 APEX Consulting Pakistan 1st Floor, Kashmir Commercial Complex, Fazal-ul-Haq Road, Blue Area, Islamabad. Tel: +92 (051) 8437529/30 www.apexconsulting.biz Acknowledgement APEX Consulting Pakistan (APEX) takes this opportunity to express profound gratitude to all those who contributed to the successful completion of this Rapid Assessment of Measures on Safety of Sanitation and Waste Workers during Covid-19 in Pakistan. APEX is thankful to the WaterAid management in particular, and Ms. Nighat Immad for technical coordination and support; and the WaterAid staff for their active engagement and contributions to the finalization of this study. We take the opportunity to acknowledge the support of the consulting team member Nasir Ali and the researchers Sulaiman Khan, Noor Hamid Khan, Raja Mazhar, Arbaz Khan, Athar Ali Mughal, M Mashood, Hira Baig, Ilam Khan, Kamran Gardezi, Riaz Ahmed, Lareb Mansoor and Rabel Mansoor. We are grateful for their contributions, demonstrated professionalism and commitment to deliver quality results. We hope the findings, analysis and recommendations of this study will contribute to informed and responsive planning and programming. Ameera Kamal Lead Consultant APEX Consulting Pakistan Table of Contents List of Acronyms __________________________________________________________________ i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________2
  • US and State of Texas V. Allied Waste Industries, Inc

    US and State of Texas V. Allied Waste Industries, Inc

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Civil Action STATE OF TEXAS, No.: 497-CV 564 E Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. ' Defendant. COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT The United States, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act ("APPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding. I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING On July 14, 1997, the United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition by Allied Waste Industries, Inc. ("Allied") of the Crow Landfill in Tarrant County, Texas from USA Waste Industries, Inc. ("USA Waste") would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. An Amended Complaint was filed on July 29, 1997. The Complaint alleges that Allied and USA Waste are two of only four competitors in the greater Tarrant County area that operate commercial landfills for the disposal of municipal solid waste ("MSW") generated in Tarrant County. If 'the acquisition were consummated, there would be only three operators competing to dispose of MSW generated in Tarrant County, and that loss of competition would likely result in consumers paying higher prices for waste disposal and hauling and receiving fewer or lesser quality services. MSW disposal is a service which involves the receiving of waste at landfills from haulers which have collected paper, food, construction material and other solid wastes from homes, businesses and industries, and transported that waste to a landfill.
  • Mead Johnson Announces Renewable-Energy Project

    Mead Johnson Announces Renewable-Energy Project

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: CarolAnn Hibbard, (508) 661-2264 [email protected] Mead Johnson Announces Renewable-Energy Project Mead Johnson Nutritionals today announced plans for an innovative project that will use landfill gas for energy at the company's manufacturing facility in Evansville. The gas will be captured at a local landfill, processed for use and transported by dedicated pipeline to Mead Johnson, where it will replace most of the company's use of natural gas. Landfill gas is a natural byproduct of the decomposition of organic materials in the landfill. Mead Johnson will work with Ameresco and Allied Waste Industries, Inc., to make this important project possible. Ameresco, which will own the system, will be responsible for designing, building, maintaining and operating it. The system will process the landfill gas into a useable fuel and then deliver it to Mead Johnson's facility via a dedicated pipeline. Allied Waste will provide the landfill gas from its Laubscher Meadows Landfill. Construction is expected to begin in June, and the process will be operational by early 2009. The project is the first of its type for Evansville and it utilizes a ""green"" technology that's been proven safe and reliable. ""Bristol-Myers Squibb and Mead Johnson are committed to environmental stewardship and sustainability around the world,"" said Mead Johnson President Steve Golsby. ""The natural gas usage eliminated through this project represents a shift from the use of fossil fuels to energy that comes from a renewable source," he added. "This is another great example of how we can be stewards of the environment and partner with businesses to achieve positive results,"" said Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel.
  • A Silent Crisis in Congo: the Bantu and the Twa in Tanganyika

    A Silent Crisis in Congo: the Bantu and the Twa in Tanganyika

    CONFLICT SPOTLIGHT A Silent Crisis in Congo: The Bantu and the Twa in Tanganyika Prepared by Geoffroy Groleau, Senior Technical Advisor, Governance Technical Unit The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with 920,000 new Bantus and Twas participating in a displacements related to conflict and violence in 2016, surpassed Syria as community 1 meeting held the country generating the largest new population movements. Those during March 2016 in Kabeke, located displacements were the result of enduring violence in North and South in Manono territory Kivu, but also of rapidly escalating conflicts in the Kasaï and Tanganyika in Tanganyika. The meeting was held provinces that continue unabated. In order to promote a better to nominate a Baraza (or peace understanding of the drivers of the silent and neglected crisis in DRC, this committee), a council of elders Conflict Spotlight focuses on the inter-ethnic conflict between the Bantu composed of seven and the Twa ethnic groups in Tanganyika. This conflict illustrates how representatives from each marginalization of the Twa minority group due to a combination of limited community. access to resources, exclusion from local decision-making and systematic Photo: Sonia Rolley/RFI discrimination, can result in large-scale violence and displacement. Moreover, this document provides actionable recommendations for conflict transformation and resolution. 1 http://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2017/pdfs/2017-GRID-DRC-spotlight.pdf From Harm To Home | Rescue.org CONFLICT SPOTLIGHT ⎯ A Silent Crisis in Congo: The Bantu and the Twa in Tanganyika 2 1. OVERVIEW Since mid-2016, inter-ethnic violence between the Bantu and the Twa ethnic groups has reached an acute phase, and is now affecting five of the six territories in a province of roughly 2.5 million people.
  • Integration of Resource Recovery Into Current Waste Management Through

    Integration of Resource Recovery Into Current Waste Management Through

    INTEGRATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY INTO CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT THROUGH (ENHANCED) LANDFILL MINING Juan Carlos Hernández Parrodi 1,2,*, Hugo Lucas 3, Marco Gigantino 4, Giovanna Sauve 5, John Laurence Esguerra 6,7, Paul Einhäupl 5,7, Daniel Vollprecht 2, Roland Pomberger 2, Bernd Friedrich 3, Karel Van Acker 5, Joakim Krook 6, Niclas Svensson 6 and Steven Van Passel 7 1 Renewi Belgium SA/NV, NEW-MINE project, 3920 Lommel, Belgium 2 Montanuniversität Leoben, Department of Environmental and Energy Process Engineering, 8700 Leoben, Austria 3 RWTH Aachen University, Process Metallurgy and Metal Recycling, 52056 Aachen, Germany 4 ETH Zürich, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland 5 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Materials Engineering, 3001 Leuven, Belgium 6 Linköping University, Environmental Technology and Management, 58183 Linköping, Sweden 7 Universiteit Antwerpen, Department of Engineering Management, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium Article Info: ABSTRACT Received: Europe has somewhere between 150,000 and 500,000 landfill sites, with an estimat- 1 November 2019 Accepted: ed 90% of them being “non-sanitary” landfills, predating the EU Landfill Directive of 15 November 2019 1999/31/EC. These older landfills tend to be filled with municipal solid waste and Available online: often lack any environmental protection technology. “Doing nothing”, state-of-the- 23 December 2019 art aftercare or remediating them depends largely on technical, societal and eco- Keywords: nomic conditions which vary between countries. Beside “doing nothing” and land- Landfill mining strategies fill aftercare, there are different scenarios in landfill mining, from re-landfilling the Enhanced landfill mining waste into “sanitary landfills” to seizing the opportunity for a combined resource-re- Resource recovery covery and remediation strategy.
  • Rates 2017.Xlsx

    Rates 2017.Xlsx

    Facilities with Scales - Schedule of Charges March 2017 Description Charges GENERAL Basic Gate Fee $50 per ton Minimum Gate Fee Charge for Waste $5.00 Recyclable Materials Drop Off No Charge TYPE OF MATERIAL HOUSEHOLD TRASH Up to 200 lbs. minimum Gate Fee $5.00 $0.50 each additional 20 lb. increment or fraction CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) C&D with no concrete, recyclables, green waste or chipable wood $50 per ton minimum $5.00 Separated Concrete $25 per ton minimum $5.00 Separated chipable wood $25 per ton minimum $5.00 Mixed C&D (household trash, recyclables, green waste and/or concrete in the load) $175 per ton minimum $5.00 GREEN WASTE Lawn Clippings/Leaves, Up to 400lbs. Minimum Gate Fee $5.00 yard waste, brush, shrubs, $.0.50 each additional 40lb. Increment or fraction trees, branches, woodchips. Tree Stumps $4.00 less than 24" plus Gate Fee $5.00 $12.00 greater than 24" plus Gate Fee $5.00 Mixed Debris (Green waste, household trash,recyclables and/or concrete in the load) $175 per ton minimum $5.00 ANIMALS Small (less than 25 lbs.) $5.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee Medium (25-200 lbs.) $10.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee Large (more than 200lbs.) $30.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee FURNITURE $5.00 minimum Gate Fee plus $4.00 per item ELECTRONIC WASTE No Charge UNIVERSAL WASTE No Charge RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE No Charge COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE Not accepted SEPTAGE Inyo $65.00 first 3,000 gallons $42.00 per additional 1,000 gallons or increment Out of County $130.00 first $3,000 gallons $84.00 per addional 1,000 gallons or increment Facilities with Scales - Schedule of Charges March 2017 Description Charges TIRES Auto & light truck $4.00 for 19" rim or less + $5.00 Gate Fee $8.00 for 20" - 24.5" rim + $5.00 Gate Fee Tractor/Heavy Equipment Tire $30 For Up to 100 lbs + $5.00 Gate Fee $40 over 100 lbs.
  • Quality Assurance of Compost and Digestate – Experiences from Germany

    Quality Assurance of Compost and Digestate – Experiences from Germany

    Quality assurance of compost and digestate – Experiences from Germany Quality assurance of compost and digestate Experiences from Germany 1 Quality assurance of compost and digestate – Experiences from Germany Imprint Publisher: German Environment Agency Section III 2.4 Waste Technology, Waste Technology Transfer Section I 1.2 International Sustainability Strategies, Policy and Knowledge Transfer Wörlitzer Platz 1 D-06844 Dessau-Roßlau Tel: +49 340-2103-0 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt Authors: Marie Dollhofer (BiPRO GmbH), Elisabeth Zettl (BiPRO GmbH) In cooperation with: Wolfgang Lausterer (Awiplan-PPD GmbH), Ulrich Hommel (Awiplan-PPD GmbH), Tim Hermann (UBA), Katharina Lenz (UBA) On behalf of the German Environment Agency Design: Atelier Hauer + Dörfler GmbH, Berlin Publications as a pdf: www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen Photo credits: BiPRO GmbH, PLANCO-TEC, Shutterstock, Tim Hermann As at July 2017 ISSN 2363-832X This document is a result of the project “Exchange of expe- riences for establishing a system and an organisation for the quality assurance of compost in Bulgaria”. This project was financed by the German Federal Environment Ministry’s Advisory Assistance Programme (AAP) for environmental protection in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia and other countries neigh- bouring the European Union. It was supervised by the Ger- man Environment Agency. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors.
  • 00 Gate Fee Schedule

    00 Gate Fee Schedule

    EFFECTIVE Nov. 17, 2020 GATE FEE SUMMARY Walker Transfer Station / Lanfill Mono County Solid Waste Program *All prices for waste that must be transported off-site include a $20/ton Transportation Surcharge GREEN ITALICIZED TEXT = RECYCLED MATERIAL Category / Item Description Unit Cost Minimum Gate Fee ....................................................................................................................... $5.00 per load Household and Commercial Waste. “First” Garbage Can(s) (up to 82 gallons, or any portion thereof) .................................................. $5.00 Additional Cans (up to 41 gallons each, or any portion thereof) ............................................. $2.50 Mixed Waste, Generally ......................................................................................................... $11.75 per cu. yd. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Mixed Building C&D Debris -- 2 CUBIC YARD DAILY LIMIT (painted wood, furniture, drywall, insulation, plumbing fixtures, mattresses, cementitious building products, carpet, other misc. bldg. debris) ..................................................................................................................... $16.50 per cu. yd. Recyclable Building C&D Debris (un-painted lumber, engineered wood products) …$5.00 per cu. yd. Wood, Green Waste, and Similar Organics. Organics8 (clean loads of bark, hay, grass clippings, sod, tumbleweeds) ............................... $5.00 per load Wood (clean loads of prunings, brush, tree limbs and trunks less than 18”
  • Language Planning and Textbooks in French Primary Education During the Third Republic

    Language Planning and Textbooks in French Primary Education During the Third Republic

    Rewriting the Nation: Language Planning and Textbooks in French Primary Education During the Third Republic By Celine L Maillard A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2019 Reading Committee: Douglas P Collins, Chair Maya A Smith Susan Gaylard Ana Fernandez Dobao Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of French and Italian Studies College of Arts and Sciences ©Copyright 2019 Céline L Maillard University of Washington Abstract Rewriting the Nation: Language Planning and Textbooks in French Primary Education During the Third Republic Celine L Maillard Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Douglas P Collins Department of French and Italian Studies This research investigates the rewriting of the nation in France during the Third Republic and the role played by primary schools in the process of identity formation. Le Tour de la France par deux enfants, a textbook written in 1877 by Augustine Fouillée, is our entry point to illustrate the strategies used in manufacturing French identity. We also analyze other texts: political speeches from the revolutionary era and from the Third Republic, as well as testimonies from both students and teachers written during the twentieth century. Bringing together close readings and research from various fields – history, linguistics, sociology, and philosophy – we use an interdisciplinary approach to shed light on language and national identity formation. Our findings underscore the connections between French primary education and national identity. Our analysis also contends that national identity in France during the Third Republic was an artificial construction and demonstrates how otherness was put in the service of populism.
  • Chapter 14 the Economics of Marine Litter

    Chapter 14 the Economics of Marine Litter

    Chapter 14 The Economics of Marine Litter Stephanie Newman, Emma Watkins, Andrew Farmer, Patrick ten Brink and Jean-Pierre Schweitzer Abstract This chapter aims to provide an overview of research into quantifying the economic impacts of marine litter. From an environmental economics perspec- tive it introduces the difficulties in measuring the economic costs of marine litter; reviews those sectors where these costs are notable; and considers policy instru- ments, which can reduce these costs. Marine litter is underpinned by dynamic and complex processes, the drivers and impacts of which are multi-scalar, trans- boundary, and play out in both marine and terrestrial environments. These impacts include economic costs to expenditure, welfare and lost revenue. In most cases, these are not borne by the producers or the polluters. In industries such as fisher- ies and tourism the costs of marine litter are beginning to be quantified and are considerable. In other areas such as impacts on human health, or more intangible costs related to reduced ecosystem services, more research is evidently needed. As the costs of marine litter are most often used to cover removing debris or recov- ering from the damage which they have caused, this expenditure represents treat- ment rather than cure, and although probably cheaper than inaction do not present a strategy for cost reduction. Economic instruments, such as taxes and charges addressing the drivers of waste, for instance those being developed for plastic bags, could be used to reduce the production of marine litter and minimise its impacts. In any case, there remain big gaps in our understanding of the harm caused by marine litter, which presents difficulties when attempting to both quantify its economic costs, and develop effective and efficient instruments to reduce them.