SOLVING MARINE POLLUTION Successful models to reduce wastewater, agricultural runoff, and marine litter Olha Krushelnytska SOLVING MARINE POLLUTION Successful models to reduce wastewater, agricultural runoff, and marine litter Olha Krushelnytska, September 2018 This report presents solution models for three types of marine pollution originating on land: wastewater, agricultural runoff, and marine litter. It examines the status and impacts for each pollution type, and provides pollution management case studies with cost-benefit analysis where available. The report provides a menu of pollution abatement options to help countries and their development partners improve the health and productivity of coastal and ocean areas. Annex 1 acknowledges contributors, and Annex 2 provides the legal and institutional context for this paper. Status and Impacts Wastewater Wastewater, both treated and untreated, is widely On average, high-income countries treat about 70% of recognized as a resource. As water demand is the wastewater they generate. This ratio drops to 38% predicted to increase significantly over the coming in upper middle-income countries and to 28% in lower decades, minimizing water loss, changing management middle-income countries. In low-income countries, only approaches and enabling water reuse to become 8% of industrial and municipal wastewater gets any kind intrinsic part of long-term sustainable solutions. The of treatment (Sato et al. 2013) (see Figure 2). The use of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations treated wastewater varies. It goes primarily to industrial (FAO) estimates annual global freshwater withdrawals and domestic sectors in the humid regions, such as at 3,928 km3 (UN 2017). More than half of it is being the eastern part of North America, northern Europe, released into the environment as wastewater (municipal and Japan. And in the arid and semiarid areas, such as and industrial effluent and agricultural drainage), and western North America, Australia, and southern Europe, less than half is being consumed, mainly by agriculture treated wastewater is used primarily for irrigation, which is through evaporation in irrigated cropland (see Figure 1). predicted to expand due to the climate change-induced Over 80% of wastewater released to the environment is changes (Sato et al. 2013). not adequately treated. Figure 1. Freshwater consumption and wastewater production by major sectors (circa 2010) 16% Industrial wastewater 38% 3% Industrial water consumption 8% Municipal wastewater 3% Municipal water consumption Agricultural drainage 32% Agricultural water consumption Source: Based on data from AQUASTAT (n.d.a.); Mateo-Sagasta et al. (2015); and Shiklomanov (1999). Contributed by Sara Marjani Zadeh (FAO). 1 | Solving Marine Pollution Figure 2. Ratio of treated wastewater to total wastewater Treated wastewater percentage < 20 21 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 > 80 No data available Map prepared by the Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) Technical Secretariat; adapted from Sato et al. 2013. Environmental and health impacts from insufficient and arsenic - have acute and chronic toxic effects on wastewater treatment depend on the type of pollutants: species, accumulating and increasing in concentration along the food chain • Decaying organic matter and debris - use up the • Bacteria, viruses, and disease-causing pathogens - dissolved oxygen so fish and other aquatic biota pollute beaches and contaminate shellfish populations cannot survive • Other substances, such as some pharmaceutical • Excessive nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen and personal care products, primarily entering the (including ammonia) - result in eutrophication, or environment in wastewater effluents - pose threats to overfertilization of receiving waters (freshwater or human health, aquatic life, and wildlife. marine), which can be toxic to aquatic organisms, promote excessive algae blooms, reduce available The economic impact of wastewater pollution is oxygen, harm spawning grounds, alter habitat (e.g. difficult to value. One way to do so is to establish its corals can be overgrown by seaweed if exposed to impact on ecosystem services and to determine the cost excesses nutrients), and lead to a decline in certain of replicating those services. The U.S. Environmental species Protection Agency (EPA) and the Centers for Disease • Chlorine compounds and inorganic chloramines - toxic Control and Prevention estimated the hidden cost of to aquatic invertebrates, algae, and fish unreliable water delivery and wastewater treatment to • Metals, such as mercury, lead, cadmium, chromium, surpass $2 trillion by 2040 in USA alone (Table 1). Solving Marine Pollution | 2 Table 1. Estimated costs due to unreliable water and wastewater infrastructure Sector Cumulative cost, 2011-2040 (billion 2010 USD) Households $616 Businesses $1,634 Total $2,250 Sources: EPA Agricultural Runoff Agricultural activities are considered a primary The level of land-based Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen contributor to an increase in pollutant delivery to (DIN) export from watersheds to large marine ecosystems marine ecosystems. Industrialized agriculture is one of (LMEs) varies globally across a large range of magnitudes the largest sources of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) (Lee et al. 2016). Fertilizer was the primary source of DIN pollution in the form of animal manure, inefficient nutrient to LMEs in most of Europe and Asia, while manure was application, bad irrigation practices, and soil erosion. the primary source in most of Central and South America. The use of N-based fertilizers is predicted to double or The smallest loads are exported to many polar and even triple within the next 50 years (Beman et al. 2005). Australian LMEs, while the largest loads are exported Though agricultural runoff is highest among developed to northern tropical and subtropical LMEs. The LMEs countries, marine nitrogen pollution is increasingly receiving the largest loads of land-based DIN are the widespread because of agriculture intensification North Brazil Shelf, Bay of Bengal, Guinea Current, South globally. China Sea, East China Sea and Gulf of Mexico LMEs. Figure 3. DIN load to LMEs. Watersheds discharging to LMEs are grey, watershed with zero coastal discharge are white 90oN 90oN 60oN 60oN 30oN 30oN DIN Load (T/y) 0 o 0 - 100,000 0o 100,100 - 250,000 250,100 - 500,000 500,100 - 750,000 o 30 S 30oS 750,100 - 1,000,000 1,001,100 -2,500,000 2,501,000 -5,000,000 60oS 60oS Source: Lee etal. 2016 3 | Solving Marine Pollution Nutrient use efficiency is a key indicator of nutrient N and P compounds to water (Sutton et al. 2013). management. Oversupply or imbalance between nutrients reduces the efficiency of nutrient use, while Analysis of the consumption of N-based and P-based insufficient application of nutrients leads to depletion of fertilizers consistently show high concentration of given organic matter, reducing soil quality and exacerbating chemicals in air, water, and soil in Latin America, Western land degradation through erosion. The efficiency of Europe, the Middle East, and South-East Asia. In Africa, nutrient use is very low on a global scale: over 80% of Latin America, and parts of Asia, there are still many nitrogen (N) and 25–75% of phosphorus (P) consumed regions with too few nutrients (Figure 4). In considering (and not temporarily stored in agricultural soils) are regional differences, it is clear there is a common need lost to the environment. This wastes the energy used to improve nutrient use efficiency ‘to produce more food to prepare the fertilizers and causes pollution through and energy with less pollution’. See Annex 3 for a quick emissions of the greenhouse gases nitrous oxide (N2O) overview of the key issues and differences between and ammonia (NH3) to the atmosphere. It also results in regions. losses of nitrate (NO3-), phosphate (PO43), and organic Figure 4. Fertilizer use and nitrogen losses to the environment a. Estimated and projected use of fertilizers that contain nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium compounds b. Total estimated losses to the environment (air, water, and soil1 ) of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in emissions from combustion sources and of reactive nitrogen (Nr) from agricultural activities for 2000 and 2050 a 1962 300 2006 2050 Annual fertilizer use (kg per ha) 250 200 150 100 50 0 Sub-Saharan Latin Near East / South Asia East Asia Developed World Africa America North Africa Countries b 70 NO� from combustion (2000) Annual nitrogen losses (million tonnes) 60 Nr from agriculture (2000) 50 NO� from combustion (2050) Nr from agriculture (2050) 40 30 20 10 0 Sub-Saharan Latin Near East / South Asia East Asia Developed Africa America North Africa Countries Source: Sutton et al. 2013. 1 Losses are represented mainly by ammonia (NH3) emissions from agricultural and livestock production systems, soil denitrification, and N leaching and runoff Solving Marine Pollution | 4 Livestock manure is one of the major contributors to • Ecosystems and biodiversity, including the loss of nutrient pollution. The European Nitrogen Assessment species of high conservation value naturally adapted estimated that 85% of nitrogen in EU harvest was used to to few nutrients; eutrophication from atmospheric N feed livestock, while the average EU citizen consumed deposition is an insidious pressure that threatens the 70% more protein than needed for a healthy diet (Sato biodiversity of many “protected” natural ecosystems et al. 2013). • Soil quality2, including overfertilization and too much atmospheric N deposition acidify natural and China is among the world’s largest producers and agricultural soils, while a shortage of N and P nutrients consumers of beef, mutton and dairy, which generate leads to soil degradation, which can be exacerbated large amounts of livestock manure. China also does by a shortage of micronutrients, leading to loss of not have systematic nutrient management planning; fertility and erosion. most manure generated by large operations is not used as fertilizer, but instead is treated or released In addition, poorly-managed irrigation has one of the without treatment. In comparison, the United States has worst impacts on water quality. It causes salt concentration a zero-discharge system - for example, all manure and and erosion; transports nutrients, pesticides, and heavy wastewater are applied to cropland, with essentially no metals downstream; and decreases the amount of water manure nutrients or pathogens going directly to surface that flows naturally in streams and rivers. waters. While treating manure is expensive, its use as fertilizer can significantly benefit soil quality. If applied Economic cost of agricultural runoff is difficult to properly, it can result in zero nutrient emissions into calculate, but it far outweighs the benefits of nitrogen surrounding freshwater systems. application. Pollution from pesticides and fertilizers is hard to measure and the source is often diffuse, making Aquaculture is also a substantial contributor to nutrient it hard to determine. In 27 countries in the EU, the cost- pollution through the release of excess nutrients into benefit analysis (Van Grinsven et al. 2013) in 2008 nearby water supplies. Due to overfeeding and less showed the annual benefit of nitrogen application of than optimal feed regulation systems, and high organism €20-€80 billion/year with a cost of €35-230 billion/year. density in the fish ponds, high levels of nitrate and In China and India, the cost of agricultural pollution is set phosphate nutrients are created that can leak out into to rise as farmers race to increase food production, with watersheds and begin the process of eutrophication. some regions probably already passing the pollution However, not all aquaculture practices result in nutrient level that may cause significant health issues (OECD runoff - mollusk farms and some seaweed farms can 2012). Loss of N-P-K from an average erosion of 20 tons remove excess nutrients from a watershed and thus help per hectare per year represents an annual economic prevent eutrophication. loss of $242 million in nutrients, as nutrient loss is closely associated with rainfall-runoff events, and the Environmental and health impacts from agricultural economics of nutrient control tend to be closely tied runoff, particularly nitrogen pollution, stem from too to the costs of controlling runoff and erosion. The link much or too little use of nutrients, highlighting the between erosion, increasing fertilizer application, and complexity of nutrient interactions (Sutton et al. 2013): loss of soil productivity is very direct in many countries. • Water quality, including coastal and freshwater dead zones, hypoxia, fish kills, harmful algal blooms, nitrate- contaminated aquifers, and impure drinking water, resulting from both N and P eutrophication 2 One of the main factors contributing to decreasing soil quality is the lack of humus, organic matter and clay. Healthy soils with adequate levels of humus and organic matter will have a higher retention capacity of N (so that leaching is minimized) and P 5 | Solving Marine Pollution Marine Litter Marine litter is one of the most insidious forms of Pacific, North Atlantic, South Pacific, South Atlantic, and ocean pollution, with most of it originating on land and Indian Ocean (Figure 5). Though the location of the gyres about 80% of it being plastics. Packaging is plastics’ has been known for many years, quantification of the largest use, representing 26% of the total volume (WEF, plastic problem - by number of pieces and weight - is an MacArthur, McKinsey 2016). Plastics drifting in the ocean ongoing modelling effort. are highly concentrated in five subtropical gyres: North Figure 5. Simulation of evolution of drifter density (or marine debris) by 2018 after 10 years of advection by currents, as determined from real drifter movements 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0.01 2 4 6 8 10 Note: Units represent relative change in drifter concentration. Source: IPRC Climate 2008. Box 1 - Major sources of marine litter Land-based • Fishing industry activities • Ship-breaking yards • Wastes from dumpsites on the coast • Natural storm-related events or river banks • Rivers and floodwaters Sea-based • Industrial outfalls • Discharge from stormwater drains • Shipping and fishing activities • Untreated municipal sewerage • Offshore mining and extraction • Littering of beaches and coastal • Legal and illegal dumping at sea recreation areas • Abandoned, lost, discarded fishing • Tourism and recreational use of the gear coasts • Natural disasters Solving Marine Pollution | 6 Recent estimate of the amount of plastics drifting at and economic status to determine which countries sea showed more than 5 trillion plastic particles, where contribute the greatest mass of plastic marine debris smallest size is the most numerous (Eriksen et al. 2014). (Figure 6). It also pointed to the critical importance of the This includes only the plastic floating on the surface. The waste management infrastructure improvements. data collected for four size classes - small micro, large micro, meso, and macro - in all five subtropical gyres and Recent studies looking at plastic pathways indicate extensive coastal regions and enclosed seas, showed that 10 rivers basins are responsible for 90% of land- that the two smallest microplastic size classes combined based leakages to the ocean (Lebreton et al., 2017, account for over 90% of the global particle count, while and Schmidt et al., 2017). Both studies from Schmidt macroplastics account for around 90% of the plastic and Lebreton show the Yangtze river basin as the main pollution weight. contributor (Figure 7). The ranks for other polluted rivers differ due to the entry data used in two studies: Lebreton The study of marine litter sources estimates 275 used the global river plastics input model for estimation million metric tons (MT) of plastic waste generated in whereas Schmidt’s made calculations as a product of 192 coastal countries in 2010, with 4.8-12.7 million MT mismanaged plastic waste generated per capita and entering the ocean (Jambeck et al. 2015). The study population size in the catchment. linked worldwide data on solid waste, population density, Plastic waste produced and mismanaged Figure 6. Plastic waste produced and mismanaged Norway Canada Denmark Sweden United Finland Russian EU 27 plus Kingdom Federation Norway Netherlands Germany Ireland Poland Belgium Ukraine North France Croatia Korea United States Italy Turkey Japan Spain Greece Syria Iran South Portugal China Cyprus Lebanon Korea Tunisia Pakistan Morocco Israel India Hong Kuwait Taiwan Mexico Cuba UAE Kong Haiti Dominican Republic Algeria Libya Puerto Rico Egypt Saudi Arabia Bangladesh Guatemala Honduras Trinidad Oman Myanmar Vietnam El Salvador Nicaragua Nigeria Yemen Philippines and Tobago Senegal Venezuela Ghana Thailand Costa Rica Panama Guyana Malaysia Colombia Somalia Sri Lanka Cote d'Ivoire Singapore Ecuador Indonesia Papua New Guinea Peru Brazil Angola Mauritius Chile Australia Uruguay South Africa Argentina Coastal population Plastic waste production Million people Thousand tonnes per day, 2010 New Zealand Less than 1 1 to 2 37 Total plastic waste 2 to 10 produced 10 10 to 50 Source: Jambeck, J., R., et al., Plastic waste inputs from land 50 to 263 1 into the ocean, Science, 2015; Neumann B., et. al., Future 0,2 Portion of plastic Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Land locked country waste mismanaged Coastal Flooding - A Global Assessment. PLoS ONE, 2015. Source: Jambeck et al. 2015. 7 | Solving Marine Pollution Figure 7. Top 10 river contributing to marine litter Estimates by Lebreton et al, 2017 Estimates by Schmidt et al, 2017 Solo Mekong Irrawady Niger Pasig Amur Amazon Zhujiang Brantas Ganges, Brahmaputra Cross Nile Huangpu Hai He Xi Huang He Ganges Indus Yangtze Yangtze 0 100 200 300 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 Mismanaged plastic waste, 1000 tons/year Mismanaged plastic waste, 1000 tons/year The level of contribution to plastic marine litter by a The health impact of plastic pollution is a potential country or locality depends on the number of factors disruption of key physiological processes, such as (ORA 2010): cell division and immunity. This is caused by most of the priority pollutants that are present in plastic debris. • Geography: location of city and hydrology related to Some are ingredients of plastic are absorbed from the rivers, type of development, relative proximity of key environment like ocean, where litter bonds with other polluters, topography, and water flow synthetic polymers and gets accumulated in marine • Environment: presence and location of native species, later appearing in our food. Some of these vegetative filter strips, shape of receiving water body, polymers are carcinogens, like polychlorinated biphenyls flow rate of receiving body, and rainfall patterns (PCBs) and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)3 • Infrastructure: type of stormwater collection system (Rochman et al. 2013a). Micro-plastics are particularly and the location of dams problematic because of their long residence times in • Institutional capacity: efficiency of waste collection the ocean and their ingestion by marine organisms and street cleaning services, extent of legislation and and birds (NOAA Marine Debris Program 2015; World enforcement prohibiting littering, availability of proper Ocean Review 2010), resulting in increased morbidity waste treatment and disposal facilities, and presence and mortality of marine life and infiltration of food and type of industry webs. Attention should be given to abandoned, lost, • Demographics: culture and degree of environmental or discarded fishing gear, which can continue to catch concern, leading to proper use of waste disposal bins; and kill marine life for decades, known as “ghost fishing”. and population density Roughly 70% (by weight) of macroplastics floating in the • Economy: income level and waste composition, open ocean are fishing-related, though this also has to with low-income communities generating larger do with the various densities of types of plastic (Eriksen percentages of organic wastes versus high-income et al. 2014). communities that generate larger percentages of inorganic wastes such as plastics. 3 Pesticides and organic pollutants such as PCBs are consistently found on plastic waste at harmful concentrations 100 times those found in sediments and 1 million times those occurring in seawater. PCBs and DDT bioaccumulate and biomagnify, with a recent EPA-funded study showing severe glycogen depletion, fatty vacuolation, cellular necrosis, and lesions in fish exposed to a mix of chemicals via plastic ingestion. Solving Marine Pollution | 8 The economic cost of marine litter is most researched in the tourism sector. The estimated annual lost tourism revenues in 2011 in Asia-Pacific region were 0.3% of gross domestic product, or $622 million (Jang et al. 2014), and $29-37 million in Geoje Island in South Korea. The coastal cleanup efforts can be costly, too: recent estimates by the West Coast Governor’s Alliance (California, Oregon, and Washington, with over 50 million people) have placed annual cleanup efforts of marine litter and mitigation along the U.S. West Coast at over $520 million. Indirect costs are less known; however, tourism and fishing industries are affected by opportunity costs related to the degradation of the marine environment and forgone trips to impaired beaches. In South Africa, a survey of visitors in 2000 indicated that the degree of beach pollution could result in a loss of 52% of revenue from tourism. Marine litter has a twofold impact on fisheries: by decreasing revenues through ghost-fishing and by increasing costs due to vessels repairs. Research focusing on the Shetland fishing fleet found that marine litter could cost a vessel up to £30,000 a year (Hall 2000). 9 | Solving Marine Pollution Solutions Wastewater Wastewater can be reused to generate different One of the legal incentives for wastewater treatment benefits, using different levels of treatment and its cost. is the transfer of freshwater entitlements from farmers In regions with water scarcity, investments in reclaimed to municipalities, allowing wastewater to be used by water reuse and water exchange arrangements are farmers in agriculture while freeing freshwater for usually profitable in the long term. Treated wastewater municipal uses. The farmers save the cost of water is used in agriculture for irrigation, in industrial activities pumping and fertilizing, and increase harvest yields (which account for more than one-fifth of all water and incomes. The transfer of freshwater entitlements used), and in urban activities such as irrigation of parks, depends on the farmers having secure rights to the landscaping, and street cleaning. Another use if an water that they can transfer - either in water markets artificial groundwater recharge with treated wastewater. (see example in the Solution Examples subsection) or This does not only conserves groundwater resources, in return for compensation. This makes legal rights and but helps retard eutrophication of surface waters compensation for wastewater use central to the water through physical and biological processes in the soil that exchange solution, where the national legal system must improve water quality. The recharge operations are not permit transfer of these rights. yet done on the large scale due to the lack of specific criteria and guidelines governing the artificial recharge One of the financial solutions is to recover the of groundwater with recycled municipal wastewater. operational costs of the wastewater treatment from the final beneficiaries. This will make wastewater Treated wastewater is still not used very frequently treatment process self-sustaining and efficient in the as drinking water, except for space missions, the long run. In irrigation, the economic drivers for the use Concordia Station in the Antarctic, and in some military of reclaimed water are unclear: the pricing mechanisms operations, and to a lesser extent by few countries that are not transparent(Radcliffe 2003), with the high cost suffer from water shortages. Several cities produce of distribution, lack of awareness of end users, and drinking water from their wastewater on a large scale: the inefficiencies of sewage collection and treatment Windhoek (Namibia), Singapore, and Orange County operations adding to the problem. district in California (USA), with works underway in Lima (Peru) and Kampala (Uganda). Another financial incentive for wastewater treatment it a biogas capture from the treatment process. While When it comes to water purification, both the “grey” most sewage treatment facilities still simply flare the gas, and the “green” treatment infrastructures can be used. technologies in developed countries usually include The “grey” or conventional infrastructure is often ageing, biogas capture, providing a variety of benefits. Many inappropriate or insufficient, thus creating opportunities plants in the United States have offset capital costs for “green”, or natural-based solutions (NBS) for water. NBS completely through income and savings from using embed perspectives of ecosystem services, enhanced the captured biogas to generate heat and electricity. resilience and livelihood considerations, usually offer During a biogas and energy efficiency project, a sewage multiple water-related benefits, and often help address treatment plant in Washington State captured methane water quantity, quality and risks simultaneously (UNESCO gas from the treatment process and recycled it as fuel to 2018). When it comes to water purification, the water run equipment at the plant, saving more than $228,000 treatment plant is the grey infrastructure solution, while yearly in utility costs. And the largest wastewater treatment re/afforestation, riparian buffers and wetlands restoration facility, DC Water’s Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater are green infrastructure solutions. See Annex 4 for more Treatment Plant, extracts and reuses useful products like examples of water NBS that could be used as alternatives biosolids (recycling nitrogen and phosphorous back into or in combination with the conventional water treatment local soils) and energy (generating about 10 megawatts systems. of electricity that is consumed by the plant). Solving Marine Pollution | 10 Some economic solutions are selective sales taxes Colombia and India: Cost recovery through tariffs and on “polluting items” such as agricultural chemicals or differential sewage pricing fuels, or a pay-as-you-pollute plan. The pay-as-you- pollute method proved to be effective in Colombia, where companies had to pay for each unit of pollution In Hyderabad, India, wastewater treatment cost recovery (Blackman 2010). To make such a plan effective, however, is restricted to water supply, and the Hyderabad the government must devote resources to collect data Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board has not on nutrient runoff and fees from the companies. yet been successful in full cost recovery. During one of the studies, only 30% of respondents were willing to pay for wastewater to be treated to potable quality. This Solution Examples indicates that the full cost recovery of sewerage services and wastewater treatment is not possible. However, Thailand hotels: Attractive loans for green a phased increase in the water tariffs accompanied investments by simultaneous improvements in service delivery mechanisms may be successful in the future. Also, like water supply charges, the sewerage fees could be World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Conservation Finance and levied according to consumer income levels. Such a its partners designed a $40 million subsidized credit system exists in parts of Colombia, where urban areas facility to reduce biodiversity impacts of hotels operating are divided into zones based on socioeconomic criteria on the Thai coastline. This credit facility was launched and water rates are adjusted according to the zone by Kasikorn Bank, the second largest commercial bank (Mekala et al. 2009). in Thailand. It offers discounted interest rates of up to –1.5% of the minimum lending rate for hotels committed to reducing their impacts on marine biodiversity and Caribbean Region: innovative solutions and improving their environmental management. The facility financing mechanisms for water treatment offers long-term loans to finance investments mainly in wastewater treatment, solid waste management, 13 countries in the Wider Caribbean region benefitted and water consumption management. To participate, from the Caribbean Regional Fund for Wastewater the hotels must adopt an Environmental Management Management (CREW) project, funded by the GEF and co- System and green certification. implemented by IDB and UN Environment in 2011-2016. Some of the achievements included Land-Based Sources Manila, Philippines, sewage treatment: financial of Marine Pollution Protocol (LBS protocol) ratified by incentives and private sector participation Jamaica and Costa Rica, over 37,000 people (8,400 households) getting access to improved wastewater treatment, and 12 new wastewater treatment plants to The GEF4/IBRD5 Manila Third Sewerage project provided be completed. The following financial mechanisms were sewerage services to 20% of the 12 million residents of the established: Metropolitan Manila Area (640 km), sanitation services to 57% of the population, reduced the biochemical oxygen • In Belize and Guyana, National Wastewater Revolving demand (BOD) load in Manila bay by 9,000 tonnes per Funds worth $5m and $3m respectively will provide year, and estimated reduction of 2,200t/year of N and below-market interest rate loans for wastewater 340 t/year of P (figures as of 2014). To increase private treatment projects. sector investment, two key policy areas were identified • In Jamaica, Credit Enhancement Facility worth $3m will through extensive consultation - making septage provide credit enhancement for local commercial bank manage compulsory and increasing minimum standards financing of wastewater projects. The government for industrial pre-treatment - with policy drafted and of Jamaica pledged an additional $12M, with total adopted, and serving as a model for adoption by other financing expected to grow substantially. 13 projects are local governments. Use of market-based incentives for planned involving either rehabilitation or construction pollution reduction was achieved through expanding the of wastewater facilities. pollutants covered under the Environmental User Fee, institutional strengthening, community participation, and A second phase of CReW project was approved in 2017 the awareness raising. with $14 million of financing, covering 18 countries in the 4 The Global Environment Facility 5 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 11 | Solving Marine Pollution region. Additional information can be found in Cost- depending on their size, location, scale, management, Benefit Analysis section and Annex 4. and overall efficiency. Trading allows sources with high abatement costs to purchase pollution discharge reductions from sources with lower abatement costs. Cartagena, Colombia: Private ownership and legal Entities with lower abatement costs can economically framework lower their pollution discharges beyond regulated or permitted levels, enabling them to sell their excess Cartagena underwent an environmental and public reductions to entities with higher costs. Water quality health crisis in the mid-1990s, caused by rapid population trading is most commonly applied to nutrients (such as growth, unplanned urban development, and poor N and P), but it has also been applied to temperature, wastewater management. In response, the government selenium, and sediment. In 2009, there were 26 active adopted a new National Environmental Law in 1993, which water quality trading programs worldwide (WRI 2009), 21 created a framework for environmental management located in the United States, and the rest in Australia, and autonomous regional environmental authorities. New Zealand, and Canada. The key to the solution was liquidation of the municipal wastewater utility and creation of a mixed-capital company ACUCAR, owned by a Spanish private company 46%, US: Low-cost financing and reinvestments through the Colombian state 50%, and the public 4%. ACUCAR the Revolving Fund implemented the infrastructure development program, which covered improving the water supply service; The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program improving drainage in high-value economic areas; in the United States is an independent and permanent improving water circulation in the lagoon; and collecting, source of low-cost financing to fund a wide variety of treating, and disposing Cartagena wastewater (Table 2). water quality infrastructure projects. Funds can be used Now Cartagena’s Caribbean beaches are essentially for nonpoint-source pollution management, watershed free of contamination from sewage, and Cartagena Bay protection and restoration, estuary management water quality is significantly improved. projects, and traditional municipal wastewater treatment projects. Funds for the CWSRF programs are provided through federal government grants and state matching Water quality trading in developed countries funds (20% of federal). As the loans are repaid, money becomes available to be used again for new financing - Water quality trading is a market-based instrument that is a true revolving fund. Building on a federal investment of gaining popularity as a mechanism to meet water quality over $39 billion, the state CWSRFs have provided more goals cost-effectively. It is premised on the fact that the than $111 billion to communities through 2015. costs of reducing pollution differ among individual entities, Table 2. Cartagena Water Infrastructure Development Program Water supply Water supply Sewerage Sewerage Wastewater Revenues Year coverage customer coverage customers treated COP-milliion 1995 73% 92,573 61% 77,553 0% 25,592 2013 99.9% 233,412 90.3% 211,022 >90% 165,889 Solving Marine Pollution | 12 Agricultural Runoff losses from corn and soybeans conventionally tilled (Howarth and Ramakrishna 2005). As the vulnerability to agricultural runoff and the cost • Practices to control nutrients runoff from sedimentation of prevention vary, it is important to identify runoff include maintaining natural vegetation along canals, hotspots and set policies on both local and regional rivers, and coastal wetlands to lessen soil erosion into levels. Nitrogen and phosphorus input-output cycle can coastal or riparian areas. be localized in the single field or have a transboundary • Reducing agricultural runoff (nonpoint source pollution) nature due to air and water movement and the global from irrigation includes measuring actual crop needs, increase in N2O concentrations. This requires solutions applying only the amount of water required, and using that consider local and regional conditions while higher efficiency irrigation equipment. addressing the necessary improvement in nutrient use • And, to reduce contamination from pesticides, farmers efficiency at the global scale. can use integrated pest management techniques - based on the specific soils, climate, pest history, and Determining and reducing the amount of nutrients crop conditions of a field - which include using natural in animal feed and crop fertilizers maximizes the pest barriers, reducing pesticide use, and minimizing efficiency of their use and brings economic benefits. pesticide movement from the field. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment estimated that the United States alone applies 20-30% more fertilizer Methods to reduce phosphorus runoff - which does to crops than is necessary (Howarth and Ramakrishna not spread nearly as far as nitrogen and thus affects 2005). Animals are also often given far more nutrients immediate ecosystems of freshwater and coastal lagoons than their bodies can absorb, leaving the rest to be - include tillage, planting along contours, and creating expelled out as manure. Reduction in phosphorus in cow buffer zones. Constructed wetlands that “soak up” all diets from 0.31% to 0.47% led to increased milk production types of nutrient runoff, and provide a complementary (42.4 g/da to 79 g/day) and reduction in phosphorus nature-based solution to conventional wastewater dissolved in runoff (from 79 g/ha to 7 g/ha). Strategies to treatments, are estimated to reduce between 11-49% reduce the surplus nitrogen in animal production include of phosphorous and 26-78% of nitrogen, and 5-90% of selecting and optimizing the feeds with appropriate N different pharmaceuticals (WWDR 2018; Zhen et al. 2011). concentration and an ideal protein composition. Technologies exist that can remove up to 95% of Good agricultural practices that reduce N and P runoff phosphorus and up to 90% of nitrogen from sewage, include planting perennial and winter crops, applying but they are quite expensive. The cost can be reduced fertilizers at the right time, conducting tillage, reducing if the treatment plant is built to treat sewage for nitrogen sedimentation, rational irrigation, and pesticides and phosphorus from the start. Furthermore, current management: sewage plants can be adjusted and new ones built in areas with a high population density, spreading the cost • Planting perennial crops instead of annual ones in of the new technology over a large amount of people. highly sensitive areas would retain nitrogen in the soil and greatly reduce the loss of groundwater. Planting Financial mechanisms, similarly to those found in winter crops would reduce the rate of nitrates leaching wastewater management, include taxes and water into the ground, which generally occurs in the winter quality trading. Selective sales taxes on “polluting items” and spring due to heavier rainfall. It can also provide raise revenue and can shift behavior away from polluting an economic benefit from increased agricultural products. Nutrient trading is an environmental market production and the added benefit of nitrogen fixation for a voluntary exchange between a buyer and a seller. provided by the winter crop. What is being exchanged is a unit of environmental • Fields with winter cover plowed under in the spring improvement, or nutrient credits. This market is driven have 55% less water runoff and 50% less soil loss by regulatory compliance of a set volume of nutrients annually than do fields with no winter cover. And soil allowable within water quality regulations for a given losses from corn or soybeans no-tilled into a vigorous water body. growth of rye or wheat can be 90-95% less than soil 13 | Solving Marine Pollution Solution Examples agricultural production in the EU. Using the CBA results, a translocation of agricultural production in the EU from northwest to east would create net social benefits in Danube/Black Sea partnership: nitrogen and both regions. The CBA analysis for the EU could be a phosphorus reduction in Romania good model for other regions. Danube/Black Sea Strategic Partnership on Nutrient Reduction was launched in 2001 with almost $100 million EU fertilizer controls: Voluntary and mandatory in combined funding from the GEF, The World Bank, planning and monitoring UNDP, UNEP, and other sources. The Investment Fund for Nutrient Reduction was established with $70 million Voluntary and mandated controls in the EU for fertilizers of GEF financing and $260 million of co-financing. It (FAO/ECE 1991), established in 1991, are still relevant and provided country-level investments during 2001-2013 can be used for nutrient management: for reducing nutrient pollution in the Black Sea and accelerating investments in sectors such as municipal Mineral fertilizers wastewater, agricultural run-off, and industrial pollution. • Taxes on fertilizer The funds for Calarasi region in the Southeast of Romania • Fertilizer plans were used for technology innovation, capacity building, • Preventing the leaching of nutrients after the growing and public awareness campaigns. These interventions season by increasing the area under autumn/winter achieved results on multiple scales: improved local green cover and by sowing crops with elevated water quality, leading to improved health and agricultural nitrogen practices, and reduced nutrient run-off on the radiational • Promoting and subsidizing better application methods, scale, thereby improving health of the Danube and the developing new, environmentally sound fertilizers, and Black Sea. At the end of the project, the area of the promoting soil testing region under improved nutrient management increased • Limiting the use of fertilizers in water extraction areas from zero to nearly 34%. Importantly, the Romanian and nature protection areas government in 2007 introduced nation-wide policies that replicated the best practices demonstrated in the Organic fertilizers Calarasi region. The success of the project, coupled Romania’s commitments to meet the EU Nitrates Directive • Maximum number of animals per hectare based on requirements, resulted in the loan support from the World the amount of manure that can be safely applied per Bank, as well as $5.5 million GEF grant for Integrated hectare of land Nutrient Pollution Control project for 2008-2017. In 2017, • Maximum quantities of manure that can be applied on the Romanian government collaborated with the World the land is fixed, based on the N and P content of the Bank to initiate another Nutrient Pollution Control project manure for 2017-2022 to support the baseline created under the • Holdings wishing to keep more than a given number of original GEF initiative. animals must obtain a license • The periods during which manure can be applied to EU policy for improving nitrogen use efficiency the land have been limited, and it must be worked into the ground immediately afterwards A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of nitrogen use efficiency, • Establishment of regulations on minimum capacity for conducted for 29 EU countries (Van Grinsven et al. 2013), manure storage facilities showed large potential to increase nitrogen efficiencies • Fertilizer plans and reduce runoff from manure and fertilizer use with • Taxes on surplus manure limited effects on agricultural production. Implementation • Areas under autumn/winter green cover extended, and of a policy targeting optimum N rates would initially green fallowing (uncultivated land) is being promoted reduce the total cereal production. This, in turn, could • Maximum amounts established for spreading of increase market prices of cereal and lead to a decrease sewage sludge on land based on heavy metal content in demand or an increase of production in areas where • Change in composition of feed to reduce amount of N input rates are lower. The EU Common Agricultural nutrients and heavy metals Policy, with an annual budget of €70 billion, along with • Research and implementation of means of reducing environmental directives, could provide the means, ammonia loss conditions, and instruments for a spatial optimization of Solving Marine Pollution | 14 and anaerobic digestion technologies - with 92 training Costa Rica, Colombia, and Nicaragua: pesticide courses and workshops held at national, provincial, reductions through best agricultural practices for district to commune levels for about 9,000 participants. pineapple and banana cultivation The project developed country-specific replication strategies to guide the process into the future. The Three GEF/UNEP RepCar6 projects in the Caribbean project reduced impacts of livestock-induced pollution (UNEP 2011a) towards applying best agricultural practices in fresh and marine surface waters and risks to human in pineapple and banana farms gained the following health through an estimate reduction of 3,600 ton of lessons in reducing the pesticide use: P, 6,200 ton of N, 41,100 ton of BOD was avoided from discharges into the South China Sea. • In banana cultivation, the achieved pesticides reduction was 33% of nematicides and 100% of herbicides, corresponding to 7.6% of all pesticides applied in Australia: reducing nutrient runoff through improved bananas compared with conventional management sugarcane cultivation practices practices. Although the cost-benefit analysis showed negative balance in the short term due to the initial cost As part of a global partnership between the Coca- of establishing the system, it is predicted to reverse Cola Company and the WWF to conserve freshwater once the system becomes more stable over the years. resources, Project Catalyst in Australia engages farmers • To mitigate the runoff of pesticides to water bodies, to improve sugarcane cultivation practices, while vegetation cover was established in the drainage measuring impacts on freshwater and reef ecosystems. channels and buffer areas. To complement the full The goal was to halve nutrient runoff to freshwater recovery of the plantation, work was done toward catchments in five years, and to use acquired knowledge improving soil and root health by reducing the use of sustainable farming for replication and scaling globally. of synthetic fertilizers and applying calcium, non- Project commenced in 2009 with 19 cane farmers and acidifying nitrogen sources, organic matter, and 4,800 ha of land and expanded more than four times. organic substrates highly colonized by beneficial It has improved the water quality of 101,725 megaliters microorganisms. (26 billion gallons) of runoff and provided the following • In pineapple cultivation, the achieved pesticides annual load reductions to the Great Barrier Reef: reduction was 70% of nematicides and 100% of particulate nitrogen - 72 tons; particulate phosphorous - herbicides in the control group (35% on average 34 tons; dissolved inorganic nitrogen - 64 tons; filterable over the entire cycle), 70% of fungicides, and 55% of reactive phosphorus - 13 tons; pesticide - 551 kg. insecticides. This represented 40% of all pesticides applied in pineapples. The cost-benefit analysis showed a reduction in the costs of alternative pest treatments due to the decrease in applications (both Chesapeake Bay, US: nutrient trading and nutrient supplies and labor costs); these represented 66% runoff reduction and 45% respectively of the costs of the conventional treatments. During 2001-11, four Chesapeake Bay states - Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia - introduced nutrient trading programs to provide wastewater Thailand, China, Vietnam: livestock waste treatment plants with flexible options for meeting and management technological solutions maintaining permitted nutrient load limits. Through these programs, wastewater treatment plants may purchase The GEF/IBRD Livestock Waste Management (LWM) in credits or offsets generated by other wastewater East Asia project helped develop pollution mitigation treatment plants or farms that reduce the nutrients technologies in China, Thailand, and Vietnam. It they release to impaired water bodies. States are also improved pollution control practices and regulations; exploring options for construction and urban stormwater altered the spatial distribution of livestock production programs to buy and sell credits and offsets. facilities; raised awareness and promoted information exchange on pollution threats and health problems from livestock waste. A total of 58 LWM systems supported by 10 proven LWM technological packages were constructed - covering composting, aeration processes 6 REPCar = Reduciendo el Escurrimiento de Plaguicidas al Mar Caribe, or Reducing Pesticide Runoff to the Caribbean Sea 15 | Solving Marine Pollution Marine Litter Australia, and Japan classify plastics as solid waste, treating them like food scraps or grass clippings – Arguably, solid waste reduction (particularly plastics) despite their harmful effects, toxicity, and ability to absorb is mainly a regulatory and policy issue.7 Meaning other pollutants. Heightened public awareness can the solution lies in providing an enabling environment change behavior through increased public access to for a new technology, investing in waste management rivers, streams, and beaches. Additionally, through public infrastructure, and changing consumer behavior. An land and use management programs, governments can example of such regulatory plastic reduction attempt buy conservation easements along the river/coast that is the adoption of first-ever Europe-wide strategy on prohibit development and require new developments to plastics in 2018.8 The strategy envisages recycling of control pollution stringently. all plastic packaging by 2030, reducing consumption of single-use plastics and restriction of the intentional use Economic incentives include: product take-back/buy- of microplastics. Another example is the G20 action plan back programs10 for items such as electronics, tires, on marine litter as of 2017, which aims to prevent and plastics bags, and packaging waste, providing access substantially reduce marine litter by 2025. Reducing to low-cost, recyclable inputs for future operations for the use of substances of concern and substituting them the manufacturer; environmentally preferred purchasing with less harmful alternatives is the first step of the waste programs - voluntary or mandatory for government hierarchy: prevention, which includes production and agencies and corporations, effectively stimulating consumption. Marine litter solutions presented below demand for recycled content products; and product bans are built into the plastics value chain: (1) production and taxes. Funds generated can support environmental and consumption of plastics (upstream measures) programs, including recycling or other waste activities. and (2) collection, recycling, conversion and disposal Plastic bags (LDPE) and styrofoam (polystyrene-PS) are (downstream measures).9 the most common plastic products subjected to bans and taxes. (1) Production and consumption Promoting better materials for packaging and single- Solution Examples use applications, as well as innovative products for multiple reuse and recycle can reduce about 30% Extended producer responsibility (EPR), packaging of plastic packaging that would otherwise never be directives, and product redesign reused or recycled (World Economic Forum and Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017). Policy mechanisms for • More than 35 countries worldwide and several packaging solutions include packaging directives, Canadian provinces have adopted EPR policies on product bans and taxes, and extended producer packaging waste and printed paper (SAIC 2012).11 responsibility, EPR (SAIC 2012). The latter aims to • The State of California began implementing the Rigid decrease a total environmental impact of a product by Plastic Packaging Container Law in 1991. Manufacturers making the manufacturer responsible for the entire life must meet one of five product requirements: (i) min of cycle of the product and especially for the take-back, 25% post-consumer material generated in California; recycling, and final disposal. (ii) weight reduced by 10%; (iii) refillable five times; (iv) reusable five times; (v) 45% recycling rate. Preventing waste can be also addressed via • In 2018, the number of companies working toward discouraging unnecessary consumption through 100% reusable, reusable, recyclable or compostable the classification measures, public awareness and packaging by 2025 or earlier has grown to 11 – Amcor, economic incentives. Classifying the most harmful Ecover, Evian, L’Oréal, Mars, M&S, PepsiCo, The Coca- plastics as hazardous would empower regulatory Cola Company, Unilever, Walmart, and Werner & Mertz agencies to prevent accumulation of marine debris - together representing more than 6 million tonnes of (Rochman et al. 2013). The United States, Europe, plastic packaging per year. 7 Many policy solutions in this section are drawn from Plastic Marine Litter and the Mitigation of Land-Based Sources report prepared by Ocean Recovery Alliance under the GPO partnership and the PMEH program 8 European Commission press-release on the first-ever Europe-wide strategy on plastics, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-5_en.htm 9 Private and investments solutions are largely drawn from the Sea of Opportunity report, 2017 10 Product Takeback presentation, at http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~horvath/NATO_ARW/FILES/Klausner.pdf 11 EPR is a policy mechanism that shifts financial and/or physical responsibility of managing products at the end of their useful life away from local government and onto product manufacturers. Solving Marine Pollution | 16 • WalMart introduced a scorecard in 2006 for suppliers to Missouri states prohibit local governments from banning self-evaluate against their peers based on packaging plastics bags, justifying it as protecting businesses from innovation, recycled content, product-to-package ratio, additional regulations. and recovery value. WalMart has reduced waste in its US operations by 80%+ and returned more than $231 Reusable coffee cups million to its business in 2011. • Aveda committed to use post-consumer recycled • In 2014, Hamburg, Germany, introduced refillable cups content in all packaging. from biodegradable material that can be returned to • LEGO committed in 2015 for the next 15 years to find any shop in the network for a refund. Customers can more sustainable plastics both for packaging and to also buy the cup with their own fitted lid. In New York, replace ABS as the single material used to make LEGO in 2014, students came up with a cup-sharing program bricks.12 that allows members to drop off their empty mug in a • Several organizations won the 2018 Ellen MacArthur collection bin near the subway or at another cafe. The Foundation competition for new recyclable and cup’s lid acts as a membership card. compostable packaging solutions: (i) the University • The UK opened two specialist plants for recycling of Pittsburgh and Aronax Technologies Spain used coffee cups in 2013, followed by the establishment nano-engineering to mimic the way nature uses of Simply Cups to help businesses segregate and molecular building blocks to create a large variety of transport their cups to these plants. As a trial, Simply materials; (ii) the VTT Technical Research Centre of Cups has been collecting cups from a few working Finland created a compostable multi-layer material Costa, Pret A Manger and McDonald’s stores, with from agricultural and forestry by-products, while the expansion planned into 2,000 stores. Having coffee Fraunhofer Institute for Silicate Research developed a cup recycling points in town centers is another fully compostable silicate and biopolymer coating for possible solution, piloted in Manchester with large a range of food packaging; (iii) Full Cycle Bioplastics, bins for the collection of cups. Waitrose, Greggs, KFC Elk Packaging and Associated Labels and Packaging and other coffee retailers have financially supported created a compostable, high-performance material the campaign. Yet there still needs to be greater from agricultural by-products and food waste to cooperation and investment from businesses to solve pack products varying from granola bars to laundry this problem, especially bigger businesses. detergent. (2) Collection, recycling, conversion, and disposal Plastic bag bans There are three main issues around collection. First, Governments all over the world have acted to ban optimizing collection and street sweeping includes the sale of lightweight bags, charge customers for vehicle routing, frequency of collection and street lightweight bags and/or generate taxes from the stores sweeping (based on litter loading and climate patterns), who sell them. The Bangladesh government was the first use of appropriate technologies (vehicles, hand carts), to do so in 2002, imposing a total ban on the bag. The and properly sized bins/bags. Second, supporting the trend is growing and currently plastic bags are banned in informal waste sector involves offering training and Rwanda, China, Taiwan, Macedonia Mexico City, Rwanda, micro-loans to help waste pickers, who are mostly women, UK (Modbury), Yangon (Myanmar), China (restricted use), to establish SMEs. Enhancing recycling, repurposing Bangladesh, Australia (12 towns, including Sydney)13 and (“upcycling”), and composting to better capture waste most recently (August 2017) Kenya. Other places have at each stage of the value chain provides income for discouraged use of plastic bags through financial means vulnerable populations in lower-income countries. Third, rather than a ban. Italy, Belgium, and Ireland have taxed clean-up campaigns and litter collection education plastic bags since before 2008. In Ireland, plastic bag can combine with increased convenience, such as use dropped by 94% within weeks of the 2002 ban. In bin placement in strategic public places, single stream Switzerland, Germany, and Holland, plastic bags come recycling and drop-off centers. Clean-up campaigns, with a fee. In US, the bans were adopted in California, whose benefits are temporary, should occur in parallel to coastal North Carolina, and the cities of Portland, Austin, waste prevention strategies. Seattle and Chicago; while Michigan, Arizona and 12 Fisher, G., Lego says its plastic pieces will be made with sustainable material by 2030, in Quartz. 2015, http:// qz.com/437264/lego-says-its-plastic-pieces-will-be-madewith-sustainable-material-by-2030/ 13 How Many Cities Have a Ban on Plastic Bags? Rachel Cemansky, http://people.howstuffworks.com/how-many-cities-have-a-ban-on-plastic-bags.htm roduct Takeback presentation, at http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~horvath/NATO_ARW/FILES/Klausner.pdf 17 | Solving Marine Pollution Incentives and methods for reduction, reuse and • Disposal limits incentivize recycling and can limit the recycle: number of bags per week collected or on the capacity of bins used. While this policy can drive generators to • Bottle bills14 or container deposits, promote recycling recycle more waste, it must be supported by effective or reuse by incentivizing the voluntary return of recyclables collection. Otherwise, generators that beverage containers to retail centers, redemption produce excess waste may seek alternative disposal centers, or depositories methods. • Advanced disposal fees put a surcharge on consumer goods to subsidize the otherwise cost-prohibitive In collection, litter traps can collect litter not captured action of recycling the product at its end of life. through street sweeping, waste collection, or storm • Variable pricing for waste generated, also known as drain grate systems. Grates on storm drain inlets in high pay-as-you-throw, and unit-based pricing - including litter-loading areas may require retrofits, installation, resident’s property taxes or a fixed monthly bill - and regular cleaning, but are often less expensive than drives customers to reduce the amount of waste they downstream interventions. Improving port reception, generate through billing structures that increase as the which lack proper facilities and treatment in many low- amount of solid waste thrown away increases.15 and middle-income countries, would also be beneficial. • Variable rate pricing for waste reduced, also known Developing organics management programs that as pay-for-success model - mean the borrower separate dry and wet wastes at the source improves (municipality or NGO) repays a debt with (lower) rates the quality of both organic waste (wet) sent to aerobic or based on the (higher) project’s success. For example, anaerobic processing and recyclables (dry waste). a municipality could issue an impact bond to fund the growth of zero waste-based informal waste collection. Integrated waste management solutions- combining With funds from an impact bond, the municipality could various methods of Collection, recycling, conversion, pay for training and infrastructure upgrades. It would and disposal - are especially important for countries repay the loan based on the program’s ability to save with low rates of waste capture and high leakage in money in the long run from reducing waste generated. areas of Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. • Recycling penalties, rewards, rebates, and waste Integrated solutions comprise collection, recycling and collection cessation can increase compliance with repurposing, and conversion and disposal. mandatory or voluntary source separation programs. Penalties, rewards, and rebates are applied to a generator’s waste bill, depending on whether the Solution Examples generator meets minimum recycling requirements. Rewards often are in the form of coupons to local Separation of organic materials during collection business. Waste collection cession programs discontinue service to generators that fail to comply In 2009, San Francisco became the first US municipality until they change their behavior. to universally require separation of organic material for • Tax abatements for recycling and waste processing composting. This was part of its ambitious goals to reduce facilities that generate renewable energy can greenhouse gas generation and achieve zero waste incentivize developers to construct new sites. by 2020. By 2014, San Francisco was diverting 80% of • Environmentally preferred purchasing programs - waste from landfills through recycling and composting. voluntary or mandatory - can be applied to the large purchasers of goods, such as government agencies and corporations, effectively stimulating demand for Trainings and micro-loans for women waste pickers recycled content products. • Disposal bans - prohibit the landfill disposal of • In Pune, India, Solid Waste Collection and Handling certain types of materials, but require that recycling (SWaCH) is the first wholly-owned cooperative of self- infrastructure and markets are in place. In the absence employed waste pickers. Pune’s waste pickers are of markets for banned materials, and stringently more than 90% women from the lowest caste (Dalit or enforced laws on dumping, waste can be hauled “untouchables”), and most are the sole breadwinners outside of the ban’s boundaries or be illegally dumped, for their families. In 2008, SWaCH partnered with the creating even larger problems for a community. Pune Municipal Corporation for door-to-door garbage 14 Bottle Bill Resource Guide at http://www.bottlebill.org/about/benefits/litter/bbstates.htm 15 Skumatz 2002. Solving Marine Pollution | 18 and recycling services for the city. This arrangement technology to avoid unwanted gear contact with seabed provides better working conditions (protective gear, and to track gear position; (ii) using gear products rolling bins, and even some motorized carts or trucks) that biodegrade; and (iii) marinas or others providing and workers can make the same or more money in incentives for fishermen to collect gear they find. For fewer hours compared to other jobs.16 example, the Global Ghost Gear Initiative addresses • In the Philippines, the Payatas Environmental lost and abandoned fishing gear worldwide, and the Net Development Programme and Vincentian Missionaries Works program in the Philippines aggregates fishing Foundation provided the women with micro-loans and nets collected by local people for an income to make waste-specific business consultancy and extension carpet at Interface. Likewise, the Steveston Harbor Net services, which resulted in several successful SMEs. Recycling Initiative collects nets and ships them to an ECONYL plant in Slovenia to be made into carpeting Cleanup and recycle banks and clothing. In the US, NOAA MDP sponsors Fishing for Energy where nets are collected from marinas and Plastic Bank, the Vancouver-based for-profit social then combusted for energy recovery in Hawaii and on enterprise pays poor people to pick up plastic from mainland United States. waterways, canals, beaches, and other access points to oceans. They redeem the items at collection centers for Microfiber capture in washing machines money, and goods and services like cooking fuel and phone charging. After testing a small project in Lima, Synthetic fabrics such as polyester may shed microfibers Peru, Plastic Bank is rolling out a larger project in Haiti at any time, however, the wash cycle has been identified with plans for Brazil and Indonesia as well. as both a moment when fibers are more readily shed and more readily collected. This is especially important as Repurposing waste for social impact or new products wastewater treatment does not clean all microplastics out of the water before discharge back into the environment. • In Ghana, the Recycle Not A Waste Initiative, “Recnowa,” The Rozalia Project is bringing a microfiber catcher trains street youth, people with disabilities, and women device to market to address this issue. The device can from urban slums to use waste plastic to create hand- capture microfibers in the washing machine prior to the crafted eco-friendly products, sold in international rinse cycle and prevent them from washing into the sea. markets.17 Similar programs exist in other African, Asian, and Latin American countries. Plastics waste management in Bogota, Colombia • Adidas and Parley for the Oceans created a running shoe made from plastic reclaimed from the ocean In 2012, Bogota launched the Basura Cero (Pollution around the Maldives. Zero) program to achieve zero waste within 15 years. • Method combined reclaimed ocean plastic and post- It has already achieved visible results, including new consumer recycled plastic to create bottles for its two- treatment facilities and incorporation of informal recycles, in-one dish and hand soap. but it faces challenges. See Annex 5 for details and next • Italian firm Aquafil is using reclaimed discarded nylon steps. fishing nets as feedstock for carpeting and to make clothing, including swimsuits. The following plastic reduction recommendations from • Bureo makes skateboards and sunglasses from fishing the GPO Colombia Magdalena-Basin Plastic Waste nets dropped off at its collection sites in coastal Chile. Management Pilot Program in Colombia would be useful for other geographies: Recycling of fishing gear • Enhance coordination with relevant policy making and Recycling and repurposing is part of the complex fishing regulatory departments. gear solution, which has three parts: (i) Losing less gear • Measure and classify solid waste streams, including through marking to identify ownership and using new by conducting formal litter studies18 that measure the 16 Carr, C. Untouchable to indispensable: the Dalit women revolutionizing waste in India. 2014 November 18, 2016]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/ global-development-professionals-network/2014/jul/01/india-waste-picking-women-waste-cities-urban 17 Recnowa. [cited 2017 January 23]; Available from: http://recnowa.org/ 18 A formal litter study identifies critical sources of litter (direct dumping, storm drains, landfills, etc.); identifies key polluters (specific communities, industries, etc.); quantifies litter (by weight, volume, and number of pieces) flowing at certain points of and from the river basin; quantifies plastic litter (by weight, volume, and number of pieces) flowing at certain points of and from the river basin; classifies litter (percentage by weight) by material type (paper, plastic, metal, garden, etc.) and resin type (PP, PET, PVC, etc.) flowing into and from the river basins; accounts for seasonal variation in litter flows; and establishes a model for projecting litter loading rates from other riparian or coastal cities. 19 | Solving Marine Pollution composition of waste streams and determine their There are divergent views on the economic and points-of-inflow to river basins. environmental viability of WTE technologies, including • Stimulate demand for recyclable post-consumer on their impact on human health. In some contexts, plastics by helping recycling cooperatives capture and WTE facilities may be able to use waste to generate deliver more consistent and larger volumes of clean, energy in a ‘double win’ for municipalities. In other plastic feedstock. cases, problems with energy generation, environmental • Enhance regulations and their effectiveness. outcomes, or financial weakness have led to the failure • Increase public awareness. of some WTE facilities, often with serious consequences • Improve collection and street sweeping services. for the municipalities that supported them. There are • Increase nationwide processing capacity for post- also concerns that WTE discourages waste reduction consumer plastics. as waste becomes seen as a needed feedstock. There • Expand collection of post-consumer plastics in rural is a need for more advanced technologies for cleaner, communities. safer, and more economically sound WTE, though they • Evaluate EPR policies and financial incentives that will require time and funding to be tested and scaled. divert plastics from landfills and increase recycling (packaging directives, advanced disposal fees, bottle Waste to Worth project by Procter & Gamble bills, recycling rebates, etc.). • Install secondary control measures along main rivers Waste to Worth (W2W) seeks to end consumer and and their tributaries. manufacturing waste from landfill in low- and lower-middle- income regions. It leverages multiple technologies to Zero Waste in the Philippines extract the value from waste - energy, fuels, gas and recyclables - for the local economy, while developing Several municipalities in the Philippines are investing in sustainable and economically viable waste infrastructure. comprehensive zero waste systems: It has four major projects in planning and development in the Philippines, expected to mitigate over 1,200 tons • The City of Fort Bonifacio in Taguig established per day of municipal solid waste. Additional projects are effective systems, built necessary infrastructure, expected to mitigate 1,600 tons per day in the Philippines created supportive policies, and inspired constituents and Indonesia. to cooperate. All households are now covered by door-to-door collection. • The City of San Fernando in Pampanga has a city- wide separate collection, recycling, and composting system, and has achieved high participation and a 73% diversion rate. San Fernando has saved almost 80% of the costs of its “collect and dump” model. • In the City of Malabon, Mother Earth Foundation (MEF) has worked in the low-income, industrial Barangay Potrero, which was rife with illegal waste dumping, to establish Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). It has reached 89% compliance with 65% waste diversion in less than a year. Building on this success, MEF is pursuing scale-up work in other cities in Metro Manila. Responsible waste-to-energy (WTE) conversion solutions19 has many methods, with the incineration being the most common. However, this category also includes other forms of thermal conversion of waste, such as gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc technologies. Although not directly WTE, byproduct gases generated from waste (e.g. through anaerobic digestion and landfill gas), can be used as a source of energy as well. 19Section taken from the Sea of Opportunity report. *Please note: waste-to-energy investments require extensive due diligence to assure their economic and environmental viability. There is much debate on the role of WTE in waste management and it is outside the scope of this report to determine exactly where, how, and with what existing or new technologies WTE may make sense, but they are considered a potential solution. Solving Marine Pollution | 20 Cost-Benefit Analysis Cost-benefit (or cost-effectiveness) analysis (CBA) The assessment in Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, covers a wide range of criteria from financing to level of Dominican Republic, Brazil, and Chile (Noyola et al. skills and resources, environmental friendliness, regional 2013) of wastewater technologies most frequently applicability, cultural acceptability, and barriers to entry. used among the installed treatment plants showed This section compiles CBAs to date, focusing on several stabilization ponds as dominant technologies, followed of these criteria. by activated sludge. These two also dominated when technologies were compared in terms of cumulative Wastewater volume of treatment (with total treated flow at 181 m3/s, or approximately 20% of the total wastewater discharge) Prevention is the highest priority on the cost-benefit (Figure 8). Most treatment plants in the countries analyzed scale among wastewater pollution management were small; medium-sized plants were the majority only strategies, which includes reducing production and flow in the Dominican Republic. of wastewater. The second priority is the treatment itself, either off-site or on-site (Table 3). Table 3. Wastewater treatment systems Priority Main System Approach Examples Highest Flow reduction (prevention) Elimination of extraneous flows; reduction of wastewater flows; 20 wastewater recycle/reuse system Lowest Off-site systems (centralized or de-centralized) Primary (mechanical), secondary (chemical), and tertiary (biolog- ical) treatment Aquatic systems: facultative lagoons, constructed wetlands, sand filters Terrestrial systems (“zero discharge” systems) On-site systems (several smaller units serving individual Pit latrine, pour-flush latrine, composting toilet, septic tank, houses, clusters of houses, or small communities) evapo-transpiration bed, tile field, soakway pit Figure 8. Number of wastewater treatment plants and flow volume by plant type, m3/sec (in Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Brazil, and Chile) Biodisks Submerged filters Adv. Primary filters Anaerobic filters Imhoff filters Tracking filters Wetlands Aireated lagoon UASB Activated sludge Stabilization ponds 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Water volume, m3/sec Number of plants Source: Noyola, Morgan-Sagastume, and Güereca (2013). Note: Technologies are ordered according to the number of installed plants. UASB = Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket. 20 For specific examples, see e.g. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Onsite Wastewater Treatment Manual 2002, http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owm/ upload/2004_07_07_septics_septic_2002_osdm_all.pdf 21 | Solving Marine Pollution In the Wider Caribbean region (WCR), a study conducted other factors for selecting wastewater treatment systems by the GEF-CReW Project of several wastewater presented below (Table 4, with additional details in treatment systems for the region, provided qualitative Annex 6). assessment of their costs, environmental effects, and Table 4. Wastewater treatment systems comparison in the Wider Caribbean region Appropriate technology Relative cost Environmentally friendly Activated sludge process High High Anaerobic ponds Low High Biodigester Low High Biodigester septic tank Low High Cistern-flush toilet Low Cluster systems Moderate Moderate Composting toilet Low Yes Constructed wetland Low High Conventional sewerage High Moderate Dual distribution (reticulation) systems High Moderate Ecological sanitation Low Facultative ponds Low Moderate Imhoff tanks Low Moderate Maturation ponds Low High Membrane reactor Moderate High Mound systems (raised bed) Low Pit latrine Low Low Pour-flush latrine Low Moderate Pour-flush toilet Low Rotating biological contractors High Yes Sanitary bio-latrine unit Moderate Septic tank Low Septic tank with evapo-transpiration bed Low High Sequential batch reactors High High Small bore (settled) sewerage Low Moderate Soakaway (seepage) pit Low Low to Moderate Tile field (with septic tank) Low to Moderate Moderate Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (USAB) reactor Low High Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) latrine Low Moderate 21 Source: GEF-CReW Report 64/2919 21 Ibid. Solving Marine Pollution | 22 The best choice, at first glance, would be BAPs benefits: environmentally friendly options with low costs. However, this option is not always feasible. As an • Increase and stabilization of profits (higher prices, example, the conventional sewage treatment systems access to sophisticated markets) appear expensive to establish and operate, but may be • Cost reduction (lower inventory costs, lower waste, the only feasible option, particularly in big cities along the higher efficiency on use of labor and other inputs) coast. Moreover, the cost of land is not included in the • Legal and behavioral incentives (avoid penalties for options that require large space, but is a potential barrier. environmentally harmful practices) This underlines the need for analysis that considers local • Enhancement of human capital (capacity building). conditions to find the best option. BAPs costs: Construction of a plant for secondary treatment serving 1 million people costs around $100 million in 2009, • New production techniques that could raise excluding substantial operation and management variable costs, reduce yields (less intensive use of (O&M) costs (The World Bank and Scheierling et al. 2010). agrochemicals), and require capital investments When compared with the costs of a disease outbreak • The lack of an institutional setting to support adoption and loss of crucial ecosystms services due to ecosystem • Human capital not adequate; capacity building required degradation, they are small: in the cholera outbreak of • High certification costs 1991 in Peru, wastewater impact costs (health service, prevention, tourism decline, and exports restrictions) In the short term, adoption of BAPs to reduce were in the range of $180-500 million in the first year. pesticides could cost more than conventional practices (CORBANA 2011). Production costs decreased Stabilization ponds and tracking filters are widely when using BAPs for medium-scale pineapple crops in recognized as the most cost-effective options that the Caribbean, but not for large-scale production. Costs comply with World Health Organization standards of applying BAPs to banana plantation increased in the (Reynolds 2002; Oakley and Salguero 2011). Underground initial investment phase, but are expected to decrease wetlands and the activated sludge are considered the over time. In other studies, the larger the scale, the lower most expensive solutions (Quintero et al. 2007). The the additional initial investment costs for implementing favor for stabilization ponds is also based on the fact that BAPs. inputs can be locally supplied and energy consumption is minimal: an activated sludge plant for 10,000 people Whether BAPs produce better results in the short term would require 1 million kilowatt-hours/year, whereas a can depend on parcel-specific conditions, including stabilization pond would require zero electricity. skilled labor, climate, and other. This is shown during BAPs adaption in banana production in the Caribbean region of Costa Rica (Table 5), which resulted in a short- Agricultural Runoff term loss of $1,860 in Balatana, while in San Pablo the balance was close to zero (-$3.90) (Table 5). This section provides examples of experiences in best agricultural practices (BAPs) and their costs compared As the balance is computed immediately after adopting to traditional practices. Agricultural practices vary BAPs, it includes higher labor costs and capital costs considerably between regions according to the type of due to adoption of new activities. In the medium term, crop, topographic and environmental conditions, rainy vs savings will increase due to even less intensive use, dry seasons, cultural traditions, etc. Adoption of BAPs is while adoption costs are usually incurred once. Thus, the limited by farmers’ (poor) knowledge, participation of their medium-term balance will favor BAPs, especially when harvest in export markets, and lack of consumer interest social and environmental benefits are included. for agricultural products obtained with BAP (González and Rodríguez 2010). 23 | Solving Marine Pollution Table 5. BAPs and conventional practices in Costa Rica, May 2010 – March 2011 Balatana, Costa Rica San Pablo, Costa Rica PRODUCTION BAPs Conventional BAPs Conventional Boxes/Ha/Year 2,752 2,763 2,793 2,554 Value/Ha ($7.00/Box) 19,263 19,342 19,550 17,874 Difference -79 1,675 Additional Expense 2,382 2,279 BALANCE -2,461 -604 Savings: Fertilization Program 450 450 Weeds Control Program 150 150 Total Savings 600 600 GENERAL BALANCE/HA -1,861 -1 Marine Litter This section compares the economic costs of litter- of plastics to fuel. While this information is valuable, more reducing strategies (see Table 6), and discusses some technical detail is needed to estimate costs for a stand- considerations for pollution abatement. Some strategies alone strategy. For instance, educational programs seem need to be combined for the management strategy to have low outreach costs, but more analysis is needed to be effective. For instance, waste collection may be to discover how well they reduce litter. accompanied by landfill disposal, recycling, or conversion Table 6. Economic cost of select litter-reducing and plastic waste management strategies Strategy Cost (lowest to highest) Education and public outreach 10-18¢/year Street sweeping $101/ton Waste collection and transportation $26/ton Landfill disposal $27/ton Plastics to fuel $127-152/ton Recycling $594/ton Storm drain grates (coupled with street sweeping) $754/ton SCS or UWEM type litter traps $261-783/ton Other litter traps $2,611-6,526/ton Removal of litter by hand from the riverbanks $2,611-3,916/ton Source: GPO (2013). Solving Marine Pollution | 24 Maximum impact comes from integration of different the most appropriate solution for pollution caused mainly pollution management techniques, which are spread by visitors during weekends and holidays. across collection, mitigation, and conversion (McKinsey A recent McKinsey study illustrates how integrated and Ocean Conservancy 2015). This integration depends measures could reduce plastic leakage to the ocean by largely on a country’s starting point. For instance, the around 65% in five countries and by approximately 45% Philippines, with high collection rates, would benefit worldwide by 2025 (McKinsey and Ocean Conservancy the most from improving open dump sites or finding 2015) (Figure 9). alternative treatment options such as gasification facilities. Conversely, Indonesia, which lacks proper The options for waste conversion are particularly collection facilities, would be most affected by improved complex, as there are many methods, which are collection services. The best pollution management in various stages of development and application. strategy targets sources of pollution. For example, McKinsey evaluated six options against five criteria educational campaigns and beach cleanups would be (Figure 10). Figure 9. Five measures that could yield the greatest impact across five countries to reduce total plastic leakage by approximately 45% China Indonesia Philippines Vietnam Thailand Collection services ü ü ü Close Leakage points within ü ü ü ü ü the collection system Gasification ü ü Incineration ü ü ü MRF- based recycling ü ü ü ü ü Source: McKinsey analysis from McKinsey and Ocean Conservancy 2015. Figure 10. Comparison of waste-treatment options Social/ Plastic Technical Commercial Pretreatment Treatment options environment elimination development attractiveness simplicity performance High Impact Recycling (waste to plastic) Low Impact Waste to oil (pyrolysis) Waste to gas (gasification) Waste to energy (refuse- derived fuel to cement kiln) Waste to energy (incineration) Sanitary landfill Note: Other chemical recycling methods are out of scope as they are not economical. Source: McKinsey & Company and Ocean Conservan- cy. 2015. Stemming the Tide. 25 | Solving Marine Pollution Investors interested in WTE solutions should carefully residual (e.g. ash) management are not yet addressed. consider all possible benefits, costs, and risks. In In most cases, however, WTE facilities are expected to individual cases, WTE has been shown to have life- meet all national and local regulations, although these cycle assessment (LCA) benefits (e.g. energy production differ and may not exist everywhere. These facilities can and offsets). However, results depend on the definition cost anywhere from $20 million to over $500 million, of system boundaries, functional units, and waste depending on their size and technology. Municipalities composition, as well as local environmental and with inadequate collection systems to accommodate regulatory conditions. The costs and environmental WTE facilities should budget another $5–$50 million. burdens associated with air pollution control (APC) or Solving Marine Pollution | 26 Recommendations There is no systematic tracking of a specific ocean • Improve efficiency of fertilizer, manure, and pesticides pollution indicator, and the geographic sources of marine (amount, time, weather-dependent, etc. pollution vary with pollution type. While insufficient • Adopt improved agricultural growing techniques wastewater treatment is mainly a problem in developing (planting perennial crops, applying fertilizer/manure/ countries, agriculture is the major focus to reduce nutrient pesticide at correct times to prevent runoff and erosion, runoff in developed countries. Marine litter (plastics, for and where relevant, grow winter crops. this paper) affects everyone. • Conduct tillages and planting along contours and create buffer zones (to reduce P runoff). Addressing the issue effectively requires customized • Consider nutrient trading as a financial incentive approaches, with a strong deference to local context to reduce use of polluting products and to provide and regional heterogeneity. The report recommends that wastewater treatment plants with flexible options for countries and their development partners consider the meeting and maintaining permitted nutrient load limits. following solutions to improve the health and productivity of coastal and ocean areas. Marine Litter Wastewater Adopt existing techniques to reduce plastic waste from polluting the ocean in three areas: • Reduce water usage and recognize the reuse of • Reduction: packaging directives; product ban/tax; treated wastewater and wastes from treatment extended producer responsibility; structural controls, processes as a renewable resource. and other policies. -- Improve wastewater treatment through enhanced • Collection: increased convenience mechanisms; sewage technologies, focusing on improving collection and street sweeping optimization; litter systems that do not operate at maximum capacity, education programs; cleanup campaigns; litter laws; groundwater recharge with treated wastewater, litter abatement grants; environmental courts; port and community control solutions. reception facilities; ocean-based waste collection. -- Promote treated water usage through legal • Recycling and disposal: mandatory recycling; recycling incentives (creation of and transfer of entitlements or diversion goals; recycling grants; advanced disposal to the freshwater being released) and economic fees; disposal bans; disposal limits; variable rate pricing; incentives (compensation for releasing freshwater). bottle bills; product take back/buy back; penalties, • In urban areas, adapt different treatment systems to rewards, rebates, and waste collection cessation; local conditions. Centralized wastewater systems may recycling education; environmentally preferred be more cost-effective due to restricted land availability purchasing; organics management programs; tax (high costs of land). In places with sewage collection abatements; regulatory and financial solutions. infrastructure but no treatment of collected wastewater, the incremental cost of an operating system with both Prevention of solid waste arguably is mainly a policy/ collection and treatment is relatively low. regulatory issue. Treatment is both a regulatory and • In less densely populated areas with low-cost land private issue with opportunities for investments across available – that is, without a high alternative value in the plastics value chain, across asset classes, and use for agriculture, forest, development, etc. – consider with different time horizons. These opportunities hold decentralized treatment systems, which may be more tremendous potential for impact on a problem with global cost-effective than the usual centralized ones. implications for the environment and for people. Agricultural Runoff We hope the review of the status of marine pollution issues along with solution options in this report will help Target interventions to regional pollution and design strategies to improve the health of coastal and agricultural practice (subsistence farming, large-scale ocean areas. intensive monoculture, and cattle grazing) as each gives rise to different problems. Move toward best practices For more information, please contact Olha Krushelnytska through the following interventions: at okrushelnytska@thegef.org 27 | Solving Marine Pollution Annexes Annex 1 - Acknowledgments The report was prepared by Olha Krushelnytska (the main author), with great help from Jostein Nygard, who helped design the document. This report benefited greatly from the technical inputs from the Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) Pollution Working Group (PWG). The GPO Pollution Working Group was active from October 2013 to January 2015 and represented the following organizations: UN Environment Programme, UN Development Programme, International Maritime Organization, Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Global Garbage, State Oceanic Administration of China, Ministry of Climate and Environment of Norway, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UK), Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Plastics SA (a South African NGO), and the World Bank. Special thanks to the following GPO PWG members: Dr. Mark Sutton and Dr. Clare Howard (International Nitrogen Initiative), Dr. Peter Kershaw (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), Dr. Marcus Eriksen (5Gyres), Laurent Lebreton (Dumpark), Stephanie Adrian and Sasha Koo-Oshima (US Environmental Protection Agency), Fabiano and Eva Baretto (Global Garbage, a Brazilian NGO), Dr. Kristin Magnussen (Vista Analyse AS), Leif Birger Lillehammer (Multiconsult), and Dr. Carlos Lopez (Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico). The report was designed in 2014 under the GPO, whose Secretariat was hosted in the World Bank from 2012 to 2015, prepared in 2015 under the World Bank’s Pollution and Environmental Health (PMEH) program, and updated and published in August 2018. Many thanks to the reviews and contributions from Marco Alcaraz, Friederike Mikulcak, Leah Bunce Karrer, Christian Severin and Steffen Hansen. Mark Foss edited the earlier version of the document. Rahayu Novianty provided the graphic design. The author wishes to thank the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for providing financial assistance through the GPO for this report. Solving Marine Pollution | 28 Annex 2 - Legal and Institutional Content International law, as reflected in the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and elsewhere, sets forth rights and obligations of states and provides the international basis upon which to pursue the protection and sustainable development of the marine and coastal environment and its resources. In accordance with general international law, while states have the sovereign right to exploit their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies, the enjoyment of such right shall be in accordance with the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment from all sources of pollution, including land-based activities. The provisions contained in Article 207 of UNCLOS, “Pollution from land-based sources,” and Article 213, “Enforcement with respect to pollution from land-based sources” were of significance for this paper. The duty of states to preserve and protect the marine environment has been reflected and elaborated upon in numerous global conventions and regional instruments, including the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Regional Seas Conventions, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78). Innovative new principles and approaches applicable to the prevention of the degradation of the marine environment from land-based activities have been included in several such agreements. In 1982, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) took the initiative to develop advice to governments on addressing impacts on the marine environment from land-based activities. This initiative resulted in the preparation of the Montreal Guidelines for the Protection of the Marine Environment against Pollution from Land-based Sources in 1985. The duty to protect the marine environment from land-based activities was placed squarely in the context of sustainable development by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. Paragraph 17.23 of Agenda 21, a voluntary non-binding action plan produced at this conference in Rio, says that states agree that access to cleaner technologies and relevant research, as well as provision of additional financial resources, would be necessary to support action by developing countries to implement this commitment. International commitments have been made to prevent, reduce, and control marine pollution to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function, services, and biodiversity (though specific global reduction targets are still lacking). Since the Rio Conference in 1992, progress has been made in leveling off and even reducing marine pollutants from several sources. However, pollution from nutrients, marine litter, and wastewater continuously worsened from 1995 to 2012, according to the Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (GPA). The problem of pollution is incorporated in the UN-Habitat mandate and its 2014–19 strategic plan, as well as in the strategic objectives of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Its Strategic Objective 2 aims to increase and improve provision of goods and services from agriculture, where the key challenges are high levels of pollution that lead to natural resource depletion and degradation and associated cost increases. In early 2011, in response to growing calls for increased investment and cooperation in healthier oceans, the World Bank reviewed its support for this effort. In September 2011, several governments and organizations convened a side event at the Annual Meeting of shareholders to discuss the possibility of establishing a global support mechanism for healthier oceans. For this reason, in February 2012 at the World Oceans Summit in Singapore, the World Bank announced the interest of several governments, international organizations, civil society groups, and private sector interests to form a Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO), with the objective of promoting healthier oceans that could make a greater and more sustainable contribution to the global economy. The GPO was launched at the Rio+20 Summit in 2012 and stayed active until January 2015. The GPO pollution team, including the international Pollution Working Group, worked during 2012-2015 to meet international commitments and proposals made within, for example, the GPA, including the January 2012 Manila Declaration during the Third Intergovernmental Review of the GPA. In April 2015, the World Bank established the Pollution Management and Environmental Health (PMEH) program to help client countries significantly reduce air, land, and water pollution levels. The component that focuses on water pollution – Land-Based Pollution Management to Protect Marine Environments – builds on the success of the pollution component of the Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO) and the work of the GPO Pollution Working Group. 29 | Solving Marine Pollution Annex 3 - Nutrient Threats and Policy Solutions Main nutrient threats Status of key drivers: Status of key drivers: Key needs for future Agricultural sources Sewage sources policies Sub-Saharan Africa • Lack of access by Very low per capita con- Very low per capita con- Commitment to improve farmers to N and P sumption of animal prod- sumption, but lack of pol- infrastructure for ade- limits food production ucts, with low fertilizer and icies and implementation quate N and P supply to and exacerbates land feed inputs; high level of of basic water treatment farmers, while developing degradation recycling practices, but existing recycling best • Little investment in recycled inputs limited in practices and improving fertilizer production, quantity and quality; avail- NUE with existing facilities able P-rock deposits lack focused on export investment to support production Latin America • Lack of access by small Social dynamics contrast Basic sewage treatment is Commitments to improve land- holders to both traditional small landhold- increasing, as well as per infrastructure for ade- N and P limits food ers with modern agribusi- capita consumption, but quate N and P supply production, especially ness, leading to uneven basic water treatment is to small landholders, to exacerbating the deg- fertilizer use; increasing not equally distributed in reduce surpluses, and radation of extensive bioenergy production and the region to increase full-chain pastureland consumption of animal NUE (given increasing • Nutrient pollution from products, with low fertiliz- per capita consumption), intensive farming, urban er and feed inputs (grass- including recycling of areas, and sewage fed beef); little focus on nutrients from wastes and affects ecosystem and low-emission methods stabilizing consumption of human health animal products Europe and North Amer- • High pollution impacts Very high per capita Very high per capita Commitment to reduce ica on health and envi- consumption of animal consumption, with basic nutrient surpluses and in- ronment from N and P products, requiring large sewage treatment, but crease NUE in agriculture; losses from combus- fertilizer input and net little recycling of sewage recycling of N and P in tion, agriculture, and feed import in many coun- N, P and little tertiary N wastewater; reducing per sewage tries; wide range of prac- treatment in United States capita overconsumption • High exposure to tices, including adoption of animal products toward potential risk of future P of low-emission methods environmental and health shortage in a few countries guidelines South and Central Asia • Deterioration of ag- Uneven fertilizer use, Increasing sewage Commitment to reduce ricultural soils due to food consumption shifting loading due to rising per surpluses and increase underuse, imbalanced from coarse grains to fine capita consumption, un- full-chain NUE for plant use (excess N relative grains and from vegetari- even treatment policies/ and animal foods, assum- to other nutrients), and anism to meat; high level strategies, and their poor ing increased per capita overuse of recycling practices implementation consumption, including • Pollution impacts from adaptable for emission recycling of nutrients from N and P on environ- reduction wastes and stabilizing ment and health consumption of animal products South-East Asia • Very high pollution im- Rapidly increasing per Increasing per capita Commitment to reduce pacts on human health capita consumption of consumption, decreasing surpluses and increase and environment from animal products, with focus on recycling, and full-chain NUE for plant high N and P releases increasing fertilizer and lack of wastewater treat- and animal foods under to air, soil, and wate feed inputs; low attention ment policies the anticipation of • Varying exposure to to recycling and low emis- increasing per capita potential risk of future P sion opportunities consumption shortage Source: Sutton, M.A. et al. (2013) Solving Marine Pollution | 30 Annex 4 - Green Infrastructure Solutions for Water Resources Management Location Corresponding Grey Infrastructure Watershed Floodplain Water management issue Coastal Green Infrastructure Solution solution (at the primary service Urban (primary service to be provided) level) Re/afforestation and forest conservation Reconnecting rivers to floodplains Wetlands restoration/conservation Water supply regulation (incl. Dams and groundwater pumping Constructing wetlands drought mitigation) Water distribution systems Water harvesting* Green spaces (bioretention and infiltration) Permeable pavements* Re/afforestation and forest conservation Riparian buffers Reconnecting rivers to floodplains Water Wetlands restoration/conservation Water treatment plant purification Constructing wetlands Green spaces (bioretention and infiltration) Permeable pavements* Re/afforestation and forest conservation Erosion control Riparian buffers Reinforcement of slopes Reconnecting rivers to floodplains Water quality Re/afforestation and forest conservation regulation Riparian buffers Biological Reconnecting rivers to floodplains Water treatment plant control Wetlands restoration/conservation Constructing wetlands Re/afforestation and forest conservation Riparian buffers Water Reconnecting rivers to floodplains temperature Dams control Wetlands restoration/conservation Constructing wetlands Green spaces (shading of water ways) Re/afforestation and forest conservation Riparian buffers Riverine flood Reconnecting rivers to floodplains Dams and levees control Wetlands restoration/conservation Constructing wetlands Moderation of Establishing flood bypasses extreme events Green roofs (floods) Urban Green spaces (bioretention and infiltration) stormwater Urban stormwater infrastructure runoff Water harvesting* Permeable pavements* Protecting/restoring mangroves, coastal Coastal flood marshes and dunes Sea walls (storm) control Protecting/restoring reefs (coral/oyster) *Built elements that interact with natural features to enhance water-related ecosystem services. Source: UNEP-DHI/IUCN/TNC (2014, table 1, p. 6). 31 | Solving Marine Pollution Annex 5 - Plastics Waste Management in Bogota, Colombia In 2012, Bogota launched the Basura Cero program to achieve zero waste within 15 years. Priorities included: • Construction of new treatment facilities and waste collection centers, including a sorting facility and a 40 TPD plastic processing facility, with discussion on the inclusion of plastics to fuel technology, bioreactors, biomass use, composting, and construction and demolition reuse. • Public education campaigns on source separation. • Introduction of waste disposal tariffs. • Formation of strategic alliances with recycling organizations. • Incorporation of informal recyclers through the establishment of a public recycling company owned and operated by the workers. • Acquisition of new collection vehicles. The program has faced some challenges: -- Recyclers break open bags at the curb and select the highest-value materials, leaving behind less valuable recyclables and litter in the streets. -- Cleanup is time-consuming for mixed waste collection crews, reduces collection efficiency, and increases the overall cost of service. Additionally, if street sweeping schedules are not aligned with set-out practices, or if rains arrive before street sweeping occurs, plastics can be washed into local stormwater drains. By developing processing facilities and markets for plastics that are not being selected, Bogota could decrease its amount of street litter and increase the efficiency of its collection fleet. Incentive structures that reward the collection and delivery of non-value plastics should be seriously explored. Opportunities to convert waste to energy should be further explored. Cemex operates a cement kiln in Bogota, which could be a potential end-user of post-recycling refuse-derived fuel. Additionally, given the high quantity of plastic film (low-density polyethylene, LDPE) in Bogota’s waste stream, polymer-thick film (PTF) technology should continue to be monitored for commercial viability and evaluated for local application. While plastic film is an ideal feedstock for PTF, existing facilities are small (<50 TPD), and therefore PTF will likely be unable to absorb the entire LDPE or other non-value plastic streams. Based on conversations with plastics reclaimers, the primary constraint to expanding business is access to high-quality feedstock. This will be improved through the enhancement of source separation programs. Additional challenges to waste collection are lack of education, unreliable collection infrastructure (vehicles), enforcement of laws, and the presence of illegal settlements along the river. Bogota should explore establishing drop-off centers in hot spots along the Bogota River in conjunction with localized education campaigns in illegal settlements. Solving Marine Pollution | 32 Annex 6 - Selection of Wastewater Treatment Technology A study conducted by the GEF-CReW Project evaluated several wastewater treatment systems for the wider Caribbean region, providing qualitative assessment of their costs, effects, and other relevant factors for selecting the appropriate technology. Appropriate Relative cost Level of operation Environmentally Cultural Use in WCR Potential barriers to technology (high, medium, and maintenance friendly acceptability implementation low) (O&M) Rotating biological High Skilled labor Yes Yes Not widely used. High energy requirement contractors required Used successfully Energy required on a in St. Kitts and St. 24/7 basis for bacterial Lucia activity Sequential batch High High O&M High Yes Limited use. Requires electricity reactors Requires skilled Growing use in Only receives liquid installation Antigua, St. Kitts, waste Requires reliable T&T, Barbados water supply and St. Lucia Membrane reactor Moderate High Yes Increasing use Requires electricity within the region Requires reliable water supply Imhoff tanks Low Requires removal Moderate Yes Limited use in the Effluent requires tertiary of scum and Caribbean treatment sludge at regular intervals Activated sludge High Skilled labor High Yes Widely used High energy requirement process required for bacterial activity Constructed Low Low. Plants High Yes. Growing Moderate use (St. Large land area wetland require Lucia, Grenada, Pest/insect control maintenance/ Jamaica) manual harvesting Anaerobic ponds Low Low High Yes Increasing use in Land space the region Pest and odor control Facultative ponds Low High Moderate Yes Increasing use in Land space the region High energy use if mechanical aerators are used Maturation Ponds Low Low High Yes Increasing use in Land space the region Upflow anaerobic Low Low High Limited In Jamaica for Start up time not sludge blanket agro-industrial immediate (USAB) Reactor wastewater and centralized sewerage systems Conventional High High Moderate Yes Widely used in Technology requiring sewerage major cities skilled engineers High, reliable water supply Small bore Low High. Skilled Moderate Yes Increasing use Technology requiring (settled) Personnel e.g. Grenada skills Sewerage required. Engineers. High, reliable Maintenance and piped water supply cleaning of septic tanks Cluster systems Moderate Low Moderate Yes Used in the region More than one collection and disposal system 33 | Solving Marine Pollution Appropriate Relative cost Level of operation Environmentally Cultural Use in WCR Potential barriers to technology (high, medium, and maintenance friendly acceptability implementation low) (O&M) Dual distribution High High Moderate Yes Used in US Virgin Technology requiring Systems Islands, Turks skilled expertise and Caicos, the Bahamas, Cayman Islands Cistern-flush Toilet Low Moderate Yes Used extensively High, reliable water supply Pour-flush toilet Low Low Limited use in the Requires storage and region handling of water Ecological Low Moderate Not widely used Sanitation Pit latrine Low Low Low Yes Widely used especially in rural areas Ventilated Low Low Moderate Actively promoted improved Pit (VIP) Latrine Pour-flush Latrines Low Low Moderate Yes Not commonly used Septic tank Low Yes Used extensively Effluent requires further treatment Septic tank Low Low High Yes Widely used Large land area required with evapo- transpiration Bed Biodigester Low Low High Yes Widely used (e.g. Skilled labor required for Jamaica, Guyana, construction Barbados, T&T, Grenada) Sanitary bio-latrine Low Moderate Yes Limited use in Effluent requires tertiary unit Jamaica in treatment camping sites and inner city and rural communities Biodigester septic Low Low. Relatively High Yes Used in Jamaica Effluent requires tertiary tank skilled personnel in single treatment required households, apartments and townhouse complexes Tile field (with Low to Low if constructed Moderate Yes Low usage Large space septic tank) moderate properly requirements Soakaway Low Low Low to Moderate Yes Used extensively (seepage) Pit Mound systems Low Low Yes Low usage in the Large space requirement (Raised bed) Caribbean Composting toilet Low Requires Yes No Used to a limited Time for maturation of occasional extent in Dominica compost manual removal of finished composting material 22 Source: GEF-CReW Report 64/2919 22 Ibid. Solving Marine Pollution | 34 References 1. Andreoli, C.V. (1993). The influence of agriculture on water quality. In: Prevention of Water Pollution by Agriculture and Related Activities. Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation, Santiago, Chile, 20-23 Oct. 1992. Water Report 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 53-65. 2. Armitage, N., Rooseboom, A. (2000). “Removal of urban litter from stormwater conduits and streams: Paper 1- the quantities involved and catchment litter management options”, Water SA Vol 26 No. 2 April 2000, pp. 183. 3. Beaumont, N., Townsend, M., Mangi, S., Austen, M.C. (2006). Marine biodiversity: An economic evaluation. Report. Plymouth: Plymouth Marine Laboratory. 4. Michael Beman J1, Arrigo KR, Matson PA. (2005). Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton blooms in vulnerable areas of the ocean. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03370 5. Blackman, A. (2010). Economic incentives to control water pollution in developing countries. 6. Conagua (2008). Planta de tratamiento de aguas residuales. Municipio de Atotonilco de Tula, http://www.cmic. org/mnsectores/agua/PTAR/CMIC%20mayo%2008.pdf 7. CORBANA (2011). Implementación de buenas prácticas agrícolas para reducir el escurrimiento de plaguicidas en el cultivo de banana de la region Caribe costarricense, CORBANA. http://cep.unep.org/repcar/proyectos- demostrativos/costa-rica-1/publicaciones-corbana/Estudio%20de%20caso%20Corbana.pdf 8. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Opportunities for and Benefits of Combined Heat and Power at Wastewater Treatment Facilities.” EPA Combined Heat and Power Partnership, http://www.epa.gov/chp/ documents/wwtf_opportunities.pdf 9. Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Accessed 2 September 2011: http:// water.epa. gov/grants_funding/cwsrf/cwsrf_index.cfm 10. Eriksen, M., et al. (2014). PLOS ONE. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913 11. European Commission (2016) Waste prevention: European Commission - Environment. Available at: http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/index.htm 12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) / The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) (1991). Legislation and Measures for the Solving of Environmental Problems Resulting from Agricultural Practices (With Particular Reference to Soil, Air and Water), Their Economic Consequences and Impact on Agrarian Structures and Farm Rationalization. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and FAO, Agri/Agrarian Structures and Farm Rationalization Report No. 7. United Nations, Geneva. 13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2010). The Wealth of Waste. The Economics of Wastewater Use in Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1629e/i1629e.pdf 14. González, J., Rodríguez E.M. (2010). Factores que condicionan la aplicación de buenas prácticas agrícolas: un enfoque cualitativo, Nexos 17(27), pp. 19–26. 15. GPO (2013), Plastic Marine Litter and the Mitigation of Land-Based Sources: Case Study of the Magdalena River Basin, Draft Report. The World Bank. 16. Hall, K. (2000) Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil: Economic and Social Costs to Coastal Communiti es. Available from: htt p://www.kimointernati onal.org/Portals/0/Files/Karensreport.pdf 17. Hansen, A.M., L Zavalla, A. Inclán, L.B. (1995). Fuentes de contaminación y enriquecimiento de metals en sedimentos de lacuenca Lerma-Chapala. Ingeniería Hidráulica en México X(3), pp. 55–69. 18. Howarth, R., Ramakrishna, K. (2005). Nutrient Management. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses, pp. 295–311. Washington, DC: Island Press. 19. International Atomic Energy Agency (2008). Guidelines for Sustainable Manure Management in Asian Livestock Production Systems. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-TECDOC-1582. Vienna, Austria. 35 | Solving Marine Pollution 20. IPRC Climate (2008). Tracking marine debris. IPRC Climate, 8, International Pacific Research Center, pp. 14–16. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/onlineproceedings/ec/05/pdf/PR_05251.pdf 21. Jambeck, J.R. et al. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, Science 13 February 2015, Vol. 347 no. 6223. pp. xxx-xxx. 22. Jang, Y.C., et al (2014). Estimation of lost tourism revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in South Korea. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.021 23. Lebreton, L., Van der Zwet, J., Slat, B., Andrady, A., Reisser, J. (2017) River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nature Communications, volume 8, Article number: 15611 24. Lebreton, L., Greer, S., Borrero, J. (2012). Numerical modeling of floating debris in the world’s oceans. http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11005674 25. Lee, Y. Rosalynn, Seitzinger S., Mayorga E. (2015) Land-based nutrient loading to LMEs: A global watershed perspective on magnitudes and sources https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.006 26. Lithner, D., Larsson, A., Dave, G. (2011). Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical composition. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969711004268 27. López Macías, F.J., Correa Díaz, L.H. (2006). Caracterización agroeconómica de la adopción de buenas prácticas agrícolas en el cultivo de café en el municipio de Manizales (Caldas, Colombia), agron. 14(2), pp. 85–104. 28. McKinsey & Company and Ocean Conservancy (2015). Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic- free ocean https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/full-report-stemming-the.pdf 29. Mannering, J.V., Griffith, D.R., Johnson, K.D. (2007). Winter cover crops – their value and management. West Lafayette. In: Agronomy Extension, Purdue University. 30. Masó, M., Garcés, E., Pagès, F., Camp, J. (2003). “Drifting plastic debris as a potential vector for dispersing Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) species,” Scientia Marina 67 (1), pp. 107–11. 31. Maximenko, N.A., Melnichenko, O.V., Niiler, P.P., and Sasaki, H. (2008). Stationary mesoscale jet-like features in the ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08603, doi:10.1029/2008GL033267. 32. McIlgorm, A., Campbell, H.F., Rule, M.J. (2011). The economic cost and control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean Coastal Manage. 54 (9), pp. 643–651. 33. Mekala, G.D., M.G., Samad, M., Davidson, B., Boland, A-M. (2008). International Water Management Institute. A Framework for Efficient Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Systems. 34. Mekala, G.D. , Samad, M., Davidson, B., Boland, A-M. (2009). Melbourne School of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne. Valuing a Clean River. A case study of Musi River, Hyderabad, India. 35. Mettang, T., et al. (1996). Uraemic pruritus and exposure to di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in haemodialysis patients. http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/12/2439 36. http://mail.cleanwateraction.org/files/publications/C%20Moore%20et%20al%202%20urban%20rivers.pdf 37. Moss, E., Eidson, A., Jambeck J. (2017). Sea of Opportunity: Supply Chain Investment Opportunities to Address Marine Plastic Pollution, Encourage Capital on behalf of Vulcan, Inc., New York, New York. February 2017. 38. Moxey, A. (2012). Agriculture and Water Quality: Monetary Costs and Benefits across OECD Countries. http://www. oecd.org/tad/sustainable-agriculture/49841343.pdf 39. National Academy of Sciences (2008). Marine Debris Will Likely Worsen in the 21st Century. Science Daily. 40. National Research Council (2009). Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12486 41. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2008). Interagency Report on Marine Debris Sources, Impacts, Strategies & Recommendations. Silver Spring, MD. Solving Marine Pollution | 36 42. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2015). Marine Debris Program. 2015 Report on the impacts of “ghost fishing” via derelict fishing gear. Silver Spring, MD. http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ publications-files/Ghostfishing_DFG.pdf 43. Noyola, A.,Morgan-Sagastume, J.M., Güereca, L. (2013). Selección de tecnologías para el tratamiento de aguas residuales municipales. Guía de apoyo para ciudades pequeñas y medias, Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM, México DF 44. Oakley, S., Salguero, L. eds. (2011). Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Central America: A Manual of Experiences, Design, Operation and Sustainability. US Agency for International Development, Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo, and US Environmental Protection Agency. San Salvador, El Salvador. 45. ORA (2016). Plastic Marine Pollution and Land-Based Mechanisms, Ocean Recovery Alliance. Draft 46. Ofiara, D.D., Brown, B. (1999). Assessment of economic losses to recreational activities from 1988 marine pollution events and assessment of economic losses from long-term contamination of fish within the New York Bight to New Jersey. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38(11): 990-1004. 47. Pargal, S., Wheeler, D. (1995). Informal regulation of industrial pollution in developing countries evidence from Indonesia. The World Bank. Peconic river remedial alternatives wetlands Restoration/Constructed wetlands. Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.bnl.gov/erd/peconic/factsheet/wetlands.pdf 48. Quintero et al. (2007). “Modelo de costos para el tratamiento de aguas residuals en la region” (“Costs model for the treatment of waste water in the Coffee Region”). Sciencia et Technica, 37, Año XIII, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira 49. Rabalais, N.N. et al. (2010). Dynamics and distribution of natural and human-caused hypoxia. Biogeosciences 7, pp. 585–619. http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/585/2010/bg-7-585-2010.pdf 50. Radcliff, J. (2003). An overview of water recycling in Australia-results of a recent ATSE study. In: Proceedings of Water Recycling Australia: Second National Conference, Brisbane, 1-3 September 2003 (CD-ROM). 51. Ragsdale, D. (2007). Advanced wastewater treatment to achieve low concentration of phosphorus. Report: Environmental Protection Agency. 52. Reynolds, C.S., Huszar, V., Kruk, C., Naselli-Flores, L., Melo, S. (2002). Towards a functional classification of the freshwater phytoplankton. Journal of Plankton Research 24(5), pp. 417–428. 53. Rochman, C.M., Hoh, E., Kurobe, T., Teh, S.J. 2013a. Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Scientific Reports 3, article 3263. 54. Rochman, C.M., et al. (2013b). Policy: Classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 494, pp. 169–171. 55. SAIC. 2012. Evaluation of Extended Producer Responsibility for Consumer Packaging. https://www.gmaonline.org/ file-manager/Sustainability/GMA_SAIC_EPR_Report_091112.pdf Santos, I.R., Friedrich, A.C., Wallner-Kersanach, M., Fillmann, G. (2005). Influence of socio-economic characteristics of beach users on litter generation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48, pp. 742–752. 56. Sato, T., Qadir M., Yamamoto, S., Endo, T., Zahoor, A. (2013). Global, regional, and country level need for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and use. Agricultural Water Management 130 (2013) 1–13. http://inweh.unu.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2013-AGWAT_Sato-et-al_Global-Wastewater-Data.pdf 57. Scheierling, S.M., Bartone, C., Mara, D.D., Drechsel, P. (2010). Improving Wastewater Use in Agriculture: An Emerging Priority, Policy Research Working Paper 5412. Washington, DC: World Bank. 58. Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., Wagner, S. (2017)- Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 51, No. 21 59. Sharpley, A.N., Sims, D., Lemunyon, J., Stevens, R., Parry, R. (2003). Agricultural phosphorus and eutrophication second edition (Issue Brief: USDA). 60. Skumatz, L (2012). Variable Rate: “Pay as you throw” Waste Management. 37 | Solving Marine Pollution 61. Stickel, B.H., Jahn, A., Kier, W. (2012). The Cost to West Coast Communities of Dealing with Trash, Reducing Marine Debris. Prepared by Kier Associates for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, pursuant to Order for Services EPG12900098. 62. Sutton, M.A. et al. (2013). Our Nutrient World: The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution. Global Overview of Nutrient Management. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh on behalf of the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management and the International Nitrogen Initiative. 63. Swanson, R.L., Bell, T.M., Kahn, J., Olha, J. (1991). Use impairments and ecosystem impacts of the New York Bight. Chemistry and Ecology 5(1), pp. 99–127. 64. Teuten, E.L. et al. (2009). Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, pp. 2027–2045. 65. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/environment/outlookto2050 66. Thompson, R.C., La Belle, B.E., Bouwman, H., Neretin, L. (2011). Marine Debris: Defining a Global Environmental Challenge. A STAP Advisory Document, GEF/C.40/Inf. 14, GEF Council Meeting, May 24–26, 2011, Washington, D.C. 67. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water. 2018. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water. Paris, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0026/002614/261424e.pdf 68. United Nations Environment Programme (2011). REPCar en Costa Rica. Experiencias exitosas para reducir el impacto de la agricultura sobre los ecosistemas costeros. Resumen de resultados y logros 69. United Nations Environment Programme (2011). UNEP Year Book 2011: Emerging issues in our global environment. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi pp. 79. 70. United Nations Environment Programme (2009). Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Nairobi. 71. United Nations Environment Programme (2005). Marine Litter, an analytical overview. http://www.unep.org/ regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/anl_oview.pdf 72. The United Nations (2017). World Water Development Report. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0024/002475/247553e.pdf 73. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2003). How bad is eutrophication at present? Executive summary costs associated with development and implementation of comprehensive nutrient management plans. 74. Van Grinsven, H.J.M. et al. (2013). Costs and Benefits of Nitrogen for Europe and Implications for Mitigation. American Chemical Society. 75. World Bank (2012). What a Waste: Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington, DC. 76. World Economic Forum and Ellen MacArthur Foundation, The New Plastics Economy – Catalysing action (2017). http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications 77. World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company, The New Plastics Economy – Rethinking the future of plastics (2016). http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications. 78. World Ocean Review, 2010. Living with The Oceans. – A Report on The State Of The World’s Oceans. http:// wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8734 79. World Resources Institute (2009). Water Quality Trading Programs: An International Overview, Issue Brief no. 1, http://pdf.wri.org/water_trading_quality_programs_international_overview.pdf. 80. Zhen, W.B. et al. (2011). Removal efficiency and balance of nitrogen in a recirculating aquaculture system integrated with constructed wetlands. Journal of Environmental Science & Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, GreenFile (46.7), pp. 789–794. Solving Marine Pollution | 38 SOLVING MARINE POLLUTION Olha Krushelnytska September 2018