Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Report
Upstream Reduction of Solid Waste Generation: Prepared for:
Implications on Dioxin and Furan Emission
May 2011
www.erm.com
Public Disclosure Authorized
The World Bank Washington, DC
Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world
FINAL REPORT
The World Bank Washington, DC
Upstream Reduction of Solid Waste Generation:
Implications on Dioxin and Furan Emission
May 2011
ERM Project: 0130996
World Bank Vendor ID Number: 125432
Environmental Resources Management City Tower Building 250 Ponce de León Ave., Suite 900 San Juan, PR 00918
FINAL REPORT
The World Bank Washington, DC
Upstream Reduction of Solid Waste Generation:
Implications on Dioxin and Furan Emission
May 2011
ERM Project: 0130996
World Bank Vendor ID Number: 125432
José A. Hernández, P.E. Partner-in-Charge
Noel Marrero Project Manager
Eileen M. Pagán Phase II Technical Expert Solid Waste and Institutional Specialist
Daryl Beardsley Phase II Technical Advisor Solid Waste and Institutional Specialist
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 ACRONYMS 4 1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 AUTHORIZATION 5 1.2 OBJECTIVES 5 2 TECHNICAL APPROACH 6 2.1.1 STUDY LIMITATIONS 6 3 RATIONALE FOR SOURCE REDUCTION 7 3.1 WHY IS SOURCE REDUCTION IMPORTANT TO MUNICIPALITIES & GOVERNMENTS? 7 3.1.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY 8 3.2 DIOXIN AND FURAN EMISSION 9 4 WORLDWIDE RESEARCH-DATA GATHERING 13 4.1.1 LEVEL 1: SURVEY OF SOURCE REDUCTION PROGRAMS 17 4.1.2 PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS 29 4.1.3 LESSONS LEARNED 29 4.1.4 NEW PROGRAMS 29 5 IN-DEPTH REVIEWS FOCUSED ON A SUBSET OF PROGRAMS 31 5.1 INTRODUCTION 31 5.2 LEVEL 2- LEGAL/POLICY REVIEW 32 5.2.1 LANDFILL TAX (EUROPEAN UNION, EU) SINCE (1999) 32 5.2.1.1 DEVELOPMENT: 32 5.2.1.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 33 5.2.1.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 33 5.2.1.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 33 5.2.2 VENUES AND EVENTS: REDUCING WASTE, CALIFORNIA (SINCE 2005) 34 5.2.2.1 DEVELOPMENT: 34 5.2.2.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 34 5.2.2.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 35 BESIDES INCREASING PERFORMANCE, NO CHANGES WERE HIGHLIGHTED 35 5.2.2.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 35 5.2.3 PACKAGING TAXES FOR NON-REFILLABLES, FINLAND (SINCE 1970S) 36 5.2.3.1 DEVELOPMENT: 36 5.2.3.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 36 5.2.3.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 37 5.2.3.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 37 5.2.4 PAY AS YOU THROW (PAYT) IN USA (SINCE 1980S) 38
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 i CONTENTS
5.2.4.1 DEVELOPMENT: 38 5.2.4.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 39 5.2.4.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 40 5.2.4.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 40 5.2.5 INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING REGULATIONS (EU) (SINCE 1994, AMENDED 2004) 41 5.2.5.1 DEVELOPMENT: 41 5.2.5.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 42 5.2.5.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 42 5.2.5.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 42 5.2.5.5 OTHER SIMILAR POLICIES IMPLEMENTED: 42 5.2.6 IRELAND’S PLASTIC BAG LEVY (SINCE 2001) 44 5.2.6.1 DEVELOPMENT: 44 5.2.6.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 44 5.2.6.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 45 5.2.6.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 45 5.2.7 GREEN PURCHASING LAW (SINCE 2000) 46 5.2.7.1 DEVELOPMENT: 46 5.2.7.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 47 5.2.7.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 47 5.2.7.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 48 5.2.8 CALGARY MATERIAL EXCHANGE (CMEX), SINCE 2005 49 5.2.8.1 DEVELOPMENT: 49 5.2.8.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 49 5.2.8.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 50 BESIDES INCREASING PERFORMANCE, NO CHANGES WERE HIGHLIGHTED 50 5.2.8.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 50 5.2.9 WASTEWISE USA (SINCE 1994) 51 5.2.9.1 DEVELOPMENT: 51 5.2.9.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 51 5.2.9.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 52 BESIDES INCREASING PERFORMANCE, NO CHANGES WERE HIGHLIGHTED 52 5.2.9.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 52 5.2.10 MACHU PICCHU’S PLASTIC BAN (2011) 53 5.2.10.1 DEVELOPMENT: 53 5.2.10.2 IMPLEMENTATION: 54 5.2.10.3 CHANGES OVER TIME: 54 5.2.10.4 SOURCE REDUCTION IMPACT: 54 6 LEVEL 3 ANALYSIS – COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS 56 6.1 INTRODUCTION 56
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 ii CONTENTS
6.2 CALGARY MATERIAL EXCHANGE (CMEX) – GREEN CALGARY, CANADA 58 6.2.1 INVESTMENT COST 58 6.2.2 BENEFITS OBTAINED 59 6.2.3 NET BENEFIT PER WASTE DIVERTED 59 6.3 BAG LEVY TAX – IRELAND 59 6.3.1 INVESTMENT COST 60 6.3.2 BENEFITS OBTAINED 61 6.3.3 NET BENEFIT PER WASTE DIVERTED 61 6.4 PAY AS YOU THROW – CART BASED PROGRAM – GAINESVILLE, FL, USA 61 6.4.1 INVESTMENT COST 62 6.4.2 BENEFITS OBTAINED 62 6.4.3 NET BENEFIT PER WASTE DIVERTED 62 6.5 OVERALL CONCLUSION OF COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS 64 7 UNDERSTANDING LAC CIRCUMSTANCES 66 7.1 WASTE FINAL DISPOSAL IN LAC ACCORDING TO THE SIZE OF THE POPULATION 66 7.1.1 SOLID WASTE GENERATION PER CAPITA AND SETTINGS IN LAC 67 7.1.2 LAC MSW COMPOSITION 68 7.1.3 CURRENT LAC UPSTREAM WASTE REDUCTION STRATEGIES 69 7.1.4 SELECT CASE STUDY IN THE TOURISM SECTOR IN A LAC COUNTRY – PERU MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE Nº 06-2008 (2001) 76 7.1.4.1 CUSCO CITY: 77 7.1.4.2 SACRED VALLEY: 79 8 ASSESSMENT OF STRATEGY IN LATIN AMERICA 81 8.1 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 82 8.1.1 APPLICABILITY OF PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED IN LAC 84 8.1.1.1 PLASTIC BAG TAX: 87 8.1.1.2 LANDFILL TAX: 87 8.1.1.3 PACKAGING TAXES FOR NON-REFILLABLES: 87 8.1.1.4 JAPAN'S GREEN PURCHASING LAW (SINCE 2000): 88 8.1.1.5 WASTEWISE 88 8.1.1.6 MATERIALS EXCHANGE PROGRAMS: 89 8.1.1.7 INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING REGULATIONS: 89 8.1.1.8 MACHU PICCHU PLASTIC CONTAINER BAN: 89 8.1.1.9 VENUES AND EVENTS: REDUCING WASTE: 90 8.1.1.10 PAY AS YOU THROW (PAYT): 90 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 iii CONTENTS
10 ANNEXES 92 Annex 1: Description of Programs Annex 2: General Waste Reduction Matrix Annex 2.1 Lessons Learns Annex 3: LAC Waste Reduction Matrix Annex 4: LAC Supplemental Waste Reduction Matrix Annex 5: Landfill Tax (European Union) Reference Material Annex 6: Venues and Events: Reducing Waste, California Reference Material Annex 7: Packaging Taxes for Non-Refillables, Finland Reference Material Annex 8: Pay As You Throw (PAYT) in USA Reference Material Annex 9: Green Purchasing Law Reference Material Annex 10: Levy Bag Tax – Ireland Reference Material Annex 11: Japan's Green Purchasing Law Reference Material Annex 12: Calgary Material Exchange Reference Material Annex 13: USA WasteWise Reference Material Annex 14: Machu Picchu’s Plastic Ban Reference Material
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 iv CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Hierarchy of Waste Reduction 9 Figure 2: Sacred Valley Figure 79
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Precursors of Dioxins and Furan Emissions in the State of Garbage 11 Table 2: World Data Gathering 14 Table 3 Summary Table of Case Studies for Cost Benefit Analysis 63 Table 4: MSW Generation per Capita in LAC Countries by Population 67 Table 5: Characteristic Waste Management Settings within the LAC Region 68 Table 6: MSW Composition in LAC Countries 69 Table 7: Summary of Current LAC Upstream Waste Reduction Strategies by Country 71 Table 8: Table Cusco Waste Disposal 78 Table 9: Overview of Weaknesses and Strengths of Programs 82 Table 10: Overview of Applicability of Programs 84
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental Resources Management PR, Inc presents this Report entitled “Upstream Reduction of Solid Waste Generation and its Implications on Dioxin and Furan Emissions ” as part of the project Phase II Study Upstream Reduction of Solid Waste Generation and its Implications on Dioxin and Furan Emissions , approved by the World Bank on April 19, 2011.
Burning of garbage is prevalent in Latin America at poorly managed disposal sites and when it is used as a means of disposal at the household level in rural areas and other areas not adequately covered by collection. Waste burning is one of the major sources of dioxins and furans in these Countries. Current strategies to reduce these emissions include the long term process of converting dumpsites to landfills and expanding collection to areas not covered by the collection service. In addition to these programs, reduction in waste generation volume potentially present a cost effective means to reduce overall dioxin and furan emissions and there is some evidence that reducing certain types of wastes (plastics and chlorinated polymers) would reduce the levels of dioxin and furans emitted from a given quantity waste.
Waste reduction has been an integral part of the solid waste management strategy for years and has taken a variety of forms including: bans on disposal or production of certain materials, economic incentives (taxes on materials use, tariffs and disposal fees), product stewardship (design for durability, waste reduction and recycling), and product and packaging standards. More recently, national and city based laws in Europe, USA, and in some capital cities and tourism areas in Latin America and Asia have focused on reducing the use of plastic bags and other plastic products using outright bans, taxes, and other incentives. Petroleum based plastics can have a devastating impact on our environment. Approximately 300 million tons of plastic are produced globally each year. At these quantities, we could wrap the entire planet several times over.
ERM carried out a Benchmark Study of 50 programs and strategies to date published during the last 15 years from all continents. The information covers programs from the following countries: South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zanzibar, Ruanda, Somalia, Ghana, Cameroon, Botswana, Eritrea, Kenya, Australia, Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan, Europe, Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, and Puerto Rico .
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 1
ERM concluded that whatever the programs or strategies of upstream waste reduction efforts implemented internationally by private, public or non government entities, the preferred choice is policies and legislation where the consumer has individual responsibility and accountability, who must determine whether the extra financial costs of waste disposal are worth the reduced garbage bill and health benefits.
ERM also examined the key legal and/or policy provisions implemented that contributed to the success of the Programs selected. From the information gathered, ERM has concluded that these programs have been successful because they were implemented through a regulatory framework, followed by the provisions, and the institutional execution. When implementing a program, there must be a successful of legislative development, an effective educational campaign, and efficient continuous monitoring process. ERM has concluded that any one of the ten selected programs may be included in the legal framework of most Latin American countries, without difficulty; since we understand there are no legal restrictions to implement any of the 10 selected programs.
The ten Programs selected were: 1. Landfill Tax (European Union) 2. Venues and Events: Reducing Waste (California) 3. Packaging Taxes for Non Refillables (Finland) 4. Pay As You Throw (PAYT) (USA) 5. International Packaging Regulations (European Union) 6. Plastic Bag Levy (Ireland) 7. Green Purchasing Law (USA) 8. Machu Picchu’s Municipal Ordinance Nº 06 2008 (2001) (Peru) 9. Calgary Material Exchange (CMEX) (Canada); and 10. Waste Wise (USA)
The evaluation of the Program’s effectiveness was based upon identified accomplishments – noting the status of key indicators such as: waste reduced participation levels, environmental significance, and geographic impact. Worldwide information available through the Internet, telephone interviews, and site visits were utilized to gather all of the necessary information in order to select the best defined successful programs/strategies. ERM also used preliminary data provided by the World Bank.
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 2
After the selection of the 10 programs ERM performed a Cost Benefit Analysis for three programs. These analyses were completed for the following programs: 1. Pay As You Throw (PAYT) -USA 2. Calgary Material Exchange (CMEX) - Canada 3. Packaging Taxes For Non-Refillables -Finland
Although, the benefits are oftentimes greater than the cost of implementation, a key item to take into consideration is that these programs can only work successfully in those cities or communities that have strong financing, adequate infrastructure (road network in good condition, a properly designed landfill) and capacity to implement a mechanism of supervision and control over the generators regarding the imposition of taxes or municipal fees.
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 3
ACRONYMS
C/B Cost/Benefit
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GBTP Garbage By The Pound
ISO International Standards Organization
KPI Key Performance Indicator
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NGO Non Government Organizations
PAYT Pay As You Throw
POP Persistent Organic Pollutants
SR Source Reduction
TSDF Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility
US, USA United States, United States of America
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 4
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 AUTHORIZATION
The World Bank requested this Study from ERM in accordance with the scope of work presented in ERM’s Proposal CR116021007.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the Upstream Reduction of Solid Waste Generation: Implications on Dioxin and Furan Emission Report were: • Review worldwide policy, incentive based, and other Programs focused on reducing waste generation at the sources; • Assessing their effectiveness, costs and benefits; and • Understanding their potential for application or expansion in Latin American countries (LAC) 1.
To achieve these objectives ERM:
• Conducted data gathering to identify Programs that have been implemented; • Evaluated the Programs to determine which were relevant and useful to the objectives; • Communicated findings to the World Bank during April 24, 2011 and later on May 17, 2011 for further refinement of the investigation based on findings; and • Performed more in depth analyses of the selected Programs.
1 Information obtained from Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in Latin America and the Caribbean for year 2010 (www6.iadb.org/Residuos)
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 5
2 TECHNICAL APPROACH
This section includes a general overview of the Technical Approach carried out by ERM in order to evaluate and analyze the information gathered to meet the objectives of the Study. The variety of Approaches/Programs that were found from around the World was examined on three levels:
1) Level 1 - Survey of Approaches : The purpose of the survey is to give a sense of the range of measures being implemented to address source reduction, the basic circumstances of their implementation, and where to go for more information about them.
2) Level 2 - Detailed Evaluation of Approaches : From the survey, 10 approaches are selected for further evaluation; to examine the details of their implementation such as what factors influenced their design, participants, performance (successes and failures), etc.
3) Level 3 - Cost / Benefit Assessment of Approaches : More detailed information about the costs and benefits associated with 3 of the approaches is presented to help discern the feasibility of implementing like approaches elsewhere. Not only the magnitude of the costs and benefits is presented but also how they were measured/calculated is included when possible so that adjustments can be made to reflect varying local factors.
2.1.1 Study Limitations
The following limitations were found in development of the Report: • Data is a sampling representation of a number of resources; • Assumptions and hypothesis have been necessary for the cost Benefit analyses; • Data from the Internet was assumed to be factual (i.e., source reduction statistics); • Information gathering in Peru was limited to interviews and the data received during the study period; and • Contacts for level 3 investigations were not readily available.
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 6
3 RATIONALE FOR SOURCE REDUCTION
3.1 WHY IS SOURCE REDUCTION IMPORTANT TO MUNICIPALITIES & GOVERNMENTS ?
In recent years source reduction, also known as waste prevention, has been gaining momentum around the World. A key goal of source reduction programs is to decrease the amount and toxicity of waste material that must be managed; preventing its generation in the first place, i.e. at its source does this. Thus, source reduction is distinguished from other forms of solid waste management, such as recycling and yard waste collection, because it reduces or eliminates the need to manage waste .
Waste generation impacts society in several manners:
• Municipal capital and operating expenses, • Human health impacts, and • Diminished environmental quality.
These impacts are not necessarily borne by the waste generators. Frequently, they are economic externalities, or social costs, borne by society as a whole or by individuals not necessarily connected to the generation of the waste. For example: • Waste collection and disposal costs are often borne by Municipalities who organize a centralized system to preserve city sanitation. In this way, the costs associated with waste generation are shared and are not directly tied to specific individual waste contributions. • Health care costs, whether paid by individuals who become ill or by government health care systems, may result when people are exposed to toxins in air emissions from open burning of solid wastes. • Disposal methods that degrade habitats, thereby reducing wildlife populations, can affect the ability of people to hunt or fish for food.
Currently, most developed countries with a mature system of waste management, such as Europe and Japan, seek to prevent the generation of waste and increase reuse and recycling, while in countries with less economic development and a poor waste management system such as countries in Latin American and Caribbean, the goal is on improving or introducing a basic system of waste management aimed at landfills and the proper management of hazardous waste. Burning of garbage is a prevalent practice in Latin America at poorly managed disposal sites and when it is
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 7
used as a means of disposal at the household level in rural areas and other areas not adequately covered by collection.
The lack of political and economic support to implement various programs, the continuing rise in the cost of waste management, and lack of marketing studies for recyclable materials are some of the reasons why waste management in LAC has been poorly developed. In rural areas, occasionally solid waste collection is not available at all.
Nevertheless, if waste management were available, landfills would not be the best option as environmental impacts include air emissions, water, and soil pollution in addition to environmental footprint due to space usage.
Despite the fact that waste is a problem, it also represents opportunities and potential business like exchange programs, disused materials maintenance, and repairs and recycling companies. For example in Europe, the waste management and recycling sector has a high growth rate and has an estimated turnover of over €100 billion for EU. It is labor intensive and provides between 1.2 and 1.5 million jobs. The recycling industry is providing increasing amounts of resources to manufacturing industry: at least 50% of paper and steel, 43% of glass and 40% of non ferrous metal produced in the EU are currently derived from recycled materials.
In general, source reduction has a broader scope than dealing with waste or material management; it is resource management and includes the following: • Decreasing or eliminating the amount or toxicity of material used in the manufacture and packaging of products; • Redesigning products for increased life span, reusability, and reparability; • Changing purchasing decisions to favor those products that have minimized residual toxicity and waste associated with them; and • Modifying patterns of consumption and material used in a way that reduces the amount and toxicity of waste generated.
3.1.1 Waste Management Hierarchy
The waste management hierarchy is a nationally and internationally accepted guide for prioritizing waste management practices with the objective of achieving optimal environmental outcomes (Refer to Figure 1 ).
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 8
Figure 1: Hierarchy of Waste Reduction
The waste hierarchy sets out the preferred order of waste management practices, from most to least preferred, while still recognizing the need for flexibility based on local and regional economic, social and environmental conditions. The most preferred waste management strategy is to avoid waste generation at the source; followed then by reducing the waste generation, reusing, recycling, recovering, treating and finally the least preferable is disposing.
3.2 DIOXIN AND FURAN EMISSION
Precursor formation of dioxins and Furan Emission involves the reaction at higher temperatures of particles such as polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorophenols and chlorobenzenes.
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 9
Table 1 below summarizes a report dated 2010 from the State of Garbage. USA has the higher levels of Dioxin and Furan Emission from Biomedical waste and municipal waste incineration while European countries and Australia are way below emission concentrations.
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 10
Table 1: Precursors of Dioxins and Furan Emissions in the State of Garbage
Incineration Process Category Australia UK " USA b Canada c Netherlands d Austria d Switzerland d West Germany d New Zealand e
Biomedical (grams l-TEQ/yr) 2.5 9.6 18 88 1,600 16,000 3.1 2.1 4 2 3 5.4 0.26
Hazardous (grams I-TEQ/yr) < 0.5 1.5 8.7 11 110 1.3 16 6 < 1 0.5 72 0.001 0.003
Sewage Sludge (grams I-TEQ/yr) 0.09 0.77 0.7 6 10 52 0.3 0.3 < 1 Unknown 0.01 1.1 0
Municipal (grams I-TEQ/yr) 0 460 580 1,300 6,700 151.7 382 3 90 150 5.4 432 0
Included in above Crematoria (grams I-TEQ/yr) 0.14 4.8 1 35 Biomedical Unknown " 0.2 f " 0.1 f " 0.42 f " 2.1 f 0.05 1.68
" Unified Germany Note: a Source: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, 1995 b Source: USEPA, 1995 c Source: Environment Canada, 1999 d Source: P A E Study, 1998 e Source: New Zealand Inventory of Ditox in Emissions, 1998 f Source: Landcsu mwclta mt NRW, (1997)
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 11
A number of international treaties bear on chlorinated solvents. Following the Montreal protocol, the Swedish parliament adopted a plan to abolish the use of ODS in Sweden. Between 1988 and 1994 the use of ODS decreased by 93%. Another important study1 on Swedish prohibition of chlorinated (or halogenated) hydrocarbons revealed the ban has been at best a partial success and illustrates the dilemmas of policymaking. Use has declined but not stopped, largely because the decision to ban TCE was challenged in the courts. A cross country comparison indicates that the Swedish ban was less effective than the very strict technical requirements in Germany or the tax used in Norway. A tax (or deposit refund scheme) would be a good mechanism to achieve a swift phase out. This may also be the case with Dioxins and Furan precursors, the well studied polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorophenols and chlorobenzenes found in most plastics.
As of April, 2011, there are 173 parties to the Stockholm Convention to reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants, POPs. The Latin American Caribbean Region are part of the parties who co signed agreeing to outlaw nine of the dirty dozen chemicals, limit the use of DDT to malaria control, and curtail inadvertent production of dioxins and furans. The negotiations for the Convention were completed on May 23, 2001 in Stockholm. The convention entered into force on May 17, 2004 with ratification by an initial 128 parties and 151 signatories. Parties to the convention (including the high populated countries of Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina) have agreed to a process by which persistent toxic compounds can be reviewed and added to the convention, if they meet certain criteria for persistence and trans boundary threat.
The first set of new chemicals to be added to the Convention was agreed at a conference in Geneva on May 8, 2009. There were initially twelve distinct chemicals listed in three categories where dioxins and furans are listed in the category of Unintentional Production 2.
1 Implementation of Policy Instruments for Chlorinated Solvents, A Comparison of Design Standards, Bans, and Taxes to Phase Out Trichloroethylene by Daniel Slunge and Thomas Sterner 2 http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/en US/Default.aspx
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 12
4 WORLDWIDE RESEARCH-DATA GATHERING
ERM completed a Benchmark Study of 50 programs published during the last 15 years from all of the continents. The Countries where strategies were evaluated during the Study are: South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zanzibar, Ruanda, Somalia, Ghana, Cameroon, Botswana, Eritrea, Kenya, Australia, Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan, Europe, Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica and Puerto Rico . A list of the programs reviewed is available in Error! Reference source not found. . The world data gathering focused on Canada, USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.
Figure 2: Worldwide Waste Generation Reduction Programs-Strategies Data Gathering
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 13
Table 2: World Data Gathering
Program-Approach LAC USA Canada EU Africa Asia Australia
Plastic bag ban X X
Plastic bag tax X X X X X
Paper bag tax X
Polystyrene ban X X X X
Bottle bill X
PVC ban X X
Unit pricing Pay as You Throw X X X X PAYT
Improper waste sorting fine X
Landfill tax X X
Landfill bans X X X
Collection bin sizes X
Recycle bank X X
Waste Minimization Clubs X X X X
Exporting Waste
Clean Production X X X X X X X
Stepwise Incentive System (SIS) X
Product stewardship X X X X X X
Prolonged product life
Extended Producer Responsibility X X X X X (EPR); Life cycle cost
Food Recycling Law X
Construction Material Recycling Law X
Tax Product Packaging X X X
Refillable Beverage X X X
Tire Stewardship/ Tire Tax X X X
E Waste Law X X
The Green Purchasing Law X
Home Appliance Recycling X
Venues and Events: Reducing Waste X
Zero Waste Law X X X X
Oregon Paint Program X
ERM 0130996 WB UPSTREAM REDUCTION OF SWG (FINAL) 05/30/11 14
Program-Approach LAC USA Canada EU Africa Asia Australia
Plastic ban in Machu Picchu X
State Agency Buy Recycled X Campaign (SABRC)
Mandate Recycled Content Law in X Plastic Packaging
Taxing Virgin Natural Resources X
Bag it back (Bottle Bill) X
Empty Space Limits X X X X
Ontario Blue Box