Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SR 08-14-2018 7E
City Council Report City Council Meeting: August 14, 2018 Agenda Item: 7.E 1 of 17 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Office of Sustainability & the Environment Subject: Introduction for First Reading of an Ordinance Modification Prohibiting Distribution of Non-Marine Degradable Food Service Ware by Santa Monica Food Providers Recommended Actions Staff recommends the City Council Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance modifying Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 5.44 to prohibit the distribution of certain non-marine degradable disposable food service ware and polystyrene beverage lids by food and beverage providers. Executive Summary Santa Monica has a long-standing commitment to the environment, which includes a goal to achieve Zero Waste through diversion, composting, and recycling by 2030. Other cities with similar commitments have begun moving forward on the issue of curtailing plastic waste from food service. On June 13, 2017, Council directed staff to review the Non-Recyclable Plastic Food Service Container Ordinance and recommend modifications that would align with the City’s sustainability goals. In response, staff recommends modifying the 2007 Non- Recyclable Plastic Food Service Container Ordinance to prohibit the distribution of non- marine degradable disposable food service ware (including plates, bowls, trays, containers, straws, utensils, stirrers, cups, and lid plugs, but excluding beverage lids) by all food and beverage providers in the City. Beverage lids could be non-marine degradable but may not be made of polystyrene. The revisions to the ordinance would protect the Santa Monica Bay from plastic pollution while reducing landfill waste. 2 of 17 The ordinance would further require that all marine degradable disposable straws and utensils be provided to customers only upon request. The ordinance would apply to all food and beverage providers, including but not limited to restaurants, delicatessens, grocery stores, non-profit and for-profit organizations, groups and individuals serving prepared food in Santa Monica as part of their services. The ordinance would also apply to all City facilities, City sponsored events, and City permitted events that serve prepared food. The Director of Public Works may authorize food and beverage providers as well as City facilities, City-managed concessions, City-sponsored events, and City-permitted events to retain and dispense upon request a limited number of disposable plastic drinking straws to customers with medical conditions for whom flexible marine degradable straws are unsuitable or to the caretakers of such customers. Current Ordinance Proposed Revisions Upon Request Only (Proposed Ordinance) Upon Request Medical Conditions (Proposed Ordinance) Plastic #1-5 (Polyethylene, Polypropylene) (Plates, Bowls, Trays, Hinged/Lidded Containers, Stirrers, Lids Plugs, Utensils, Cups) Plastic #1-5 (Polyethylene, Polypropylene) (Straws) Plastic #1-5 (Beverage Lids Only) Plastic #6 (Polystyrene) (Containers, Plates, Bowls, Trays, Cups) Plastic #6 (Polystyrene) (Straws, Lids, Utensils, Lids Plugs, Stirrers) Plastic #7 (Bioplastic) Metal/Tin/Foil Paper/Fiber/Wood (Marine Degradable – includes straws and utensils) = Allowed/Yes = Prohibited/No 3 of 17 In alignment with the proposed prohibition, staff would launch an educational campaign encouraging members of the public to reduce disposable food ware, refuse items when not needed, and switch to products they can reuse. Approving the recommendation would impact all food and beverage providers operating in Santa Monica. As of the 2017-2018 fiscal year, over 800 business licenses were issued to food- or beverage-related businesses. Staff anticipates those businesses could see minor cost increases related to compliance with the ordinance. Staff interviewed local food service providers who reported their largest expenses were for rent and labor costs and that food service ware costs typically ranged between one and eight percent of their overall expenses, depending on the specific type of business and their operations. Background The City has long demonstrated stewardship of the natural environment and taken a leadership role with sustainability initiatives: Past Council Actions 09/20/94 (Attachment A) Sustainable City Plan affirming the City's commitment to protecting, preserving and restoring the natural environment 01/14/14 (Attachment B) Zero Waste Strategic Plan to divert 95 percent of the City's waste from the landfill by 2030 01/09/07 (Attachment C) Non-Recyclable Plastic Food Service Container Ordinance The Non-Recyclable Plastic Food Service Container Ordinance adopted in 2007 prohibits food and beverage providers from dispensing prepared food to customers in polystyrene and expanded polystyrene food service containers such as plates, bowls, cups, trays, and hinged or lidded containers. Other food service ware including straws, utensils, lid plugs and lids are not addressed in the existing ordinance. Since the food service container ordinance was adopted in 2007, the City’s Code Enforcement Division has issued five citations and written 69 warning letters 4 of 17 representing an average of seven warning letters per year. Before the ordinance was adopted, staff identified 16 types of containers on the market and available to food service providers that complied with the ordinance. Two years after adoption, staff identified 76 types of containers that complied with the ordinance. With the trend of municipalities prohibiting polystyrene, the disposable food service ware market has expanded to provide more non-polystyrene materials. Discussion Ocean Pollution Single-use plastics are not just a problem in Santa Monica, but across the globe. Plastic products in the ocean could take up to several hundred years to decompose and pose a threat to the marine environment. The increase in usage of disposable plastic products over the years coincides with the increase in ocean pollution. With the current trend, The World Economic Forum predicts that by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish by weight (Attachment D). Straws, stirrers, take-out containers and lids are among the top 10 most common items found on the beach, according to the 2018 Ocean Conservancy Report (Attachment E). The increased use of disposable straws is directly impacting Santa Monica beaches. According to Heal the Bay’s Marine Debris database, the number of straws collected during their Santa Monica beach cleanups has increased over 43 percent since 2014 (Figure 1). Additionally, these small items are ending up on the streets, in storm drains, on the beach, and in the ocean. Disposable food service ware, such as straws, utensils, and lids, are made with different types of plastic, not just polystyrene. Prohibiting polystyrene straws, utensils, and lids would eliminate the number of polystyrene products currently being distributed by Santa Monica food and beverage providers, but it would not solve the problem of plastic pollution. 5 of 17 Waste Management The recycling of small items such as straws, utensils, lids, stirrers and lid plugs is not economically viable at the municipal level. Items that are sent to the recycling facility are sorted on a conveyor belt and baled before being shipped to buyers. Small, lightweight items easily fall off the conveyor belt or become stuck in confined spaces within the equipment. The operational and labor costs of bundling these items exceeds the value of the items and therefore they are typically sent to the landfill rather than recycled. Recyclable plastic food service ware soiled with food residue is considered contaminated and no longer recyclable. Currently, 20 percent of the materials collected for recycling by the City is contaminated and sent to the landfill. It is unknown how much of that percentage is related to food service ware. Additionally, the recycling market has recently experienced a huge disruption. Earlier this year, China—traditionally the largest importer of U.S. recyclable material—began enforcing stricter requirements for importing solid waste. Since January 1, 2018, China has prohibited 24 types of solid waste materials, including household waste plastics such as food service ware. This has significantly impacted the recycling industry in the U.S., making recycling of many waste streams including plastics and mixed paper uneconomical. Bioplastics Some disposable food service ware is made with plant-based polymers known as bioplastics. Unlike petroleum-based plastics, bioplastics are made from renewable resources such as corn, sugar, and soy protein and are often labeled “compostable.” Bioplastics are not recyclable like petroleum-based plastics; however, they are capable Figure 1: Marine Debris Data from Heal the Bay 6 of 17 of decomposing in some industrial compost facilities (but not in the natural environment). Santa Monica’s compost facility does not accept these materials, and there is no facility in the Southern California region that can compost them. When the food service container ordinance was originally adopted in 2007, bioplastics were fairly new to the market. The ordinance did not prohibit bioplastics at the time because they represented a very small percentage of the food service packaging market, they were very expensive relative to other alternative products, and because of their potential to be composted in the future. Since that time, many more of these bioplastic food service products have come on the market and their usage has increased. However, there has not been a significant change in the compost market in Southern California in the last 11 years, so after disposal these items are still being sent to the landfill. Because bioplastics look and feel very similar to petroleum-based plastics, it can be difficult for consumers and sorters to distinguish them from recyclable plastics. However, because they are not recyclable like petroleum-based plastics, bioplastics are viewed as contaminants by recycled materials processers. Bioplastics that end up in recycling and composting bins are separated and sent to landfills. Marine Degradable Ware Marine degradable disposable food service ware refers to products designed to biodegrade under the marine environmental conditions of aerobic marine waters or anaerobic marine sediments. This specification excludes products predominantly made with either petroleum based or biologically based plastics. Some examples of marine degradable material include, but are not limited to, paper, fiber, bagasse (fibrous matter that remains after sugarcane or sorghum stalks are processed), wheat straw, seaweed, wood and food (pasta and licorice straws). Disposable food service ware made from this type of material can be disposed of in the City’s organics collection containers and composted whether or not food residue is present. By requiring marine degradable disposable food service ware, the City would create a more uniform stream of material 7 of 17 that can be repurposed into compost, would reduce contamination of the recycled waste stream, and would reduce the amount of food service ware going to the landfill. Figure 2 below shows the current disposal options for a variety of food service ware based on material type and on the City’s current recycling and recovery operations: Recycle Bin Organics Bin Landfill Bin Plastic #1-5 (Large/Clean) (Containers, Cups, Plates, Bowls, Trays) Plastic #1-5 (Large/Dirty) (Containers, Cups, Plates, Bowls, Trays) Plastic #1-5 (Small) (Straws, Utensils, Lids, Stirrers, Lid Plugs) Plastic #6 (Polystyrene/Styrofoam) Plastic #7 (Bioplastic) Paper/Fiber/Bagasse/Wood = Appropriate Bin = Inappropriate Bin Figure 2: Appropriate Bins for the Different Food Service Ware Materials Policy Recommendations Staff recommend the following additions and modifications to the Food Service Container Ordinance to address environmental impacts related to disposable products not included in the original version of the ordinance. The revised ordinance requires that: All disposable food service ware distributed by food and beverage providers must be marine degradable to reduce or eliminate the amount of disposable food service ware that is sent to the landfill and the amount of plastic pollution in the ocean and on the beach. The revised ordinance would also add utensils, straws, stirrers, and lid plugs to the Disposable Food Service Ware definition. Disposable food service ware made from bioplastics would also be prohibited. Beverage lids are excluded from the definition of disposable food service ware because there is not a suitable marine degradable alternative at this time. 8 of 17 However, food and beverage providers would be prohibited from distributing all polystyrene beverage lids. Marine-degradable disposable straws and utensils may only be provided to customers upon request. In other words, disposable straws and utensils would be prohibited from being distributed automatically or from being on display over the counter. This change would reduce the amount of disposable food service ware being distributed and thereby reduce the amount of debris that would end up polluting the environment. The ordinance would also authorize the Director of Public Works to promulgate rules consistent with this Chapter to implement its policies and effectuate its purpose. New disposable food service ware products and materials could enter the market at any given point. The Director of Public Works would be able to address those new products without having to amend the ordinance each time. The ordinance contains updated language regarding enforcement to align with other sections of the Code as they have been updated in recent years. Because the modified ordinance would now require marine degradable materials and no longer just prohibit non-recyclable plastic, staff also recommends revising the name of the ordinance to Disposable Food Service Ware. This language is commonly used among other cities implementing similar ordinances. The term “ware” is more inclusive than the term “container.” Community Engagement On January 22 and March 19, 2018, staff presented the proposed recommendations to the Task Force on the Environment. On March 20, 2018, staff presented the proposed recommendations to the following organizations to solicit feedback: Surfrider, 5 Gyres Institute, Heal the Bay, The Bay 9 of 17 Foundation, Sustainable Works, Climate Action Santa Monica, Measure V Oversight Committee, Shark Allies, Algalita Marine Research and Education, Plastic Free SMC, and Team Marine (Santa Monica High School Club). There was a general consensus among the groups in attendance that they support prohibiting single-use plastic food ware, including bioplastics. On May 31, 2018, staff hosted a public meeting and presented the draft policy recommendations and answered questions. Over 40 members of the public attended the meeting, including a number of food service industry businesses. There were no significant concerns raised by businesses in attendance. One attendee recommended that the ordinance be expanded to include a ban on plastic bottles. On June 19, 2018, the City of Santa Monica co-hosted a business mixer with Sustainable Works titled “The Future of Santa Monica Restaurants: Food and Sustainability.” The purpose of the mixer was to inform businesses about the proposed revisions to the disposable food service ware ordinance, state legislation on organics collection, the City’s Sustainable Food Commitment, and the Green Business Certification Program. There were 32 businesses in attendance. Staff answered any questions about the ordinance revisions. In addition, staff mailed surveys to over 500 food and beverage providers with physical locations in Santa Monica (some food and beverage providers offer services here but do not have physical locations within the City), requesting information about what disposable food service ware items are distributed to customers regularly. Out of those businesses, 56 businesses responded (Figure 3). 10 of 17 Figure 3: Disposable Items Santa Monica Businesses Are Distributing Businesses were also asked if they are in support of a “Straw Upon Request” policy. Of the businesses that responded to the survey (56), over 85% indicated that they are in support of such a policy. Several businesses also indicated that they are already dispensing straws only when requested. Several Santa Monica businesses have already transitioned to non-plastic straws. Currently, there are 13 food or beverage providers in Santa Monica distributing non- plastic straws. Santa Monica College recently removed plastic straws on campus. The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce works with the City to recognize businesses’ efforts in sustainability. The City will coordinate its outreach efforts with the Chamber in regard to the requirements of the proposed ordinance. Additionally, Surfrider Foundation’s West Los Angeles Chapter certifies restaurants as Ocean Friendly Restaurants. This certification program encourages restaurants to reduce plastic use in their food or beverage service by implementing policies such as a Straw Upon Request policy and switching to non-plastic straws. Currently, there are 17 Ocean Friendly certified businesses in Santa Monica. 11 of 17 Focus Group The City of Santa Monica worked with contracted partner Sustainable Works to conduct a focus group of local food and beverage providers. The intent of the focus group was to gather feedback about the businesses’ current practices and impressions of straw alternatives and policies. Sustainable Works provided staff with a report detailing their findings (Attachment F). Twelve businesses participated in the focus group. They provided details about the type of straws distributed, the number of straws distributed per month and the amount of money spent on straws per unit and per month. Based on the survey responses mentioned in Figure 3, the questions were primarily focused on straws. Additionally, the cost comparison between plastic and non-plastic straws was much greater than the cost comparison between other plastic and non-plastic disposable food service items (Figure 4). St r a w s Fo r k s St i r r e r s Pl a t e s ( 9 ” ) Bo w l s ( 1 6 o z . ) Tr a y s Co n t a i n e r s Cu p s ( 1 2 o z . ) Styrofoam - - - $51.12 $54.58 $33.56 $117.40 $45.80 Plastic $7.16 $16.02 $6.58 $63.42 $87.38 - $159.96 $67.80 Paper/Fiber/Wood $38.40 $33.45 $7.18 $55.22 $57.64 $30.26 $138.25 $51.45 Bio-Plastic $22.48 $45.68 - - - $107.80 Figure 4: Cost Comparison Chart of Different Disposable Food Service Ware and Materials. Dollar amount based on the purchase of a thousand units. Prices reflect an average taken from multiple sources. When businesses were asked whether they had considered switching from a plastic straw to an alternative, eight businesses considered switching or had already switched (Figure 5). Exemption 12 of 17 The ordinance would allow for a one-year renewable hardship exemption if it can be demonstrated that compliance with the ordinance would cause undue economic hardship to a food and beverage provider. An undue hardship would include any situation where no reasonably feasible available alternatives exist for a specific and necessary marine degradable disposable food service ware. The decision to provide an exemption would be made by the Director of Public Works or her/his designee and would be based on review of an exemption request that includes documentation showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Director of Public Works may authorize food and beverage providers as well as City facilities, City-managed concessions, City-sponsored events, and City-permitted events to retain and dispense upon request a limited number of disposable plastic drinking straws to customers with medical conditions for whom flexible marine degradable straws are unsuitable or to the caretakers of such customers. 13 of 17 Other Cities and Corporations Currently, over 100 California cities have adopted polystyrene disposable food service ware ordinances. Of these cities, more than 28 cities also prohibit the distribution of polystyrene straws, utensils, and lids in their ordinance. Figure 5: Summary of Focus Group Response For example, the City of Culver City adopted an ordinance to regulate the sale and distribution of polystyrene disposable food service ware on May 8, 2017. This ordinance also prohibits the distribution and sale of polystyrene straws, utensils, and lids, as well as a “Cutlery Upon Request” policy. Other cities have recently taken additional measures to reduce the environmental impact of plastic straws and utensils. In 2017, both the City of Davis and the City of San Luis Obispo adopted a “Straw Upon Request” ordinance impacting only dine-in customers. On February 26, 2018, the City of Malibu adopted an ordinance to prohibit the sale and distribution of plastic straws, utensils, and stirrers within its City limits. On April 24, 2018, the City of Berkeley proposed an ordinance to prohibit dine-in restaurants from serving food in disposable food ware. Berkeley proposes that businesses charge customers $0.25 for each take-out container and to-go cup distributed. The proposed ordinance is still pending. On June 5, 2018, the City of Manhattan Beach adopted a revision to their existing ordinance to prohibit the sale and distribution of plastic straws, utensils, and stirrers within its City limits. Already Switch, 2 Yes, 6 Only If Required, 3 No, 1 SWITCH TO ALTERNATIVE? 14 of 17 On July 1, 2010, the City of Seattle authorized its General Manager/CEO of Public Utilities to promulgate rules in accordance with the Chapter on Disposable Food Service Ware. Effective July 1, 2018, the City of Seattle adopted Director Rule SW-500.1 prohibiting the distribution of non-compostable straws and utensils. Corporations have recently adopted or pledged to adopt similar policies in their food service and operations. Alaska Airlines began serving paper straws upon request July 16, 2018. Starbucks plans to remove plastic straws by 2020. The Walt Disney Company plans to eliminate plastic straws and stirrers from their parks by the middle of 2019, as did the hotel chain, Marriott. Alternatives There are several alternatives to the recommended ordinance changes, most of which involve adoption of some of the recommendations, but not others. These are presented below. 1. Moderation: Council could approve portions of the modifications reducing the specific types of food service ware prohibited, reducing the types of plastics prohibited, or modifying the types of businesses the “Upon Request” policy would apply to. These options would be less stringent on businesses and there would be less financial impact on businesses. 2. Prohibition of Sale: Council could approve prohibition of the sale and distribution of non-marine degradable disposable food service ware items. Currently, the ordinance only prohibits the distribution of specified disposable food service ware at establishments distributing prepared food. By prohibiting the sale of non- marine degradable disposable items, the ordinance would prohibit grocers, markets and retail businesses from selling the disposable food service ware item itself. While this alternative would have the largest environmental benefit, it would also impact a larger segment of businesses in Santa Monica. This alternative would also impact people with disabilities. People with disabilities who require a straw to drink would have to purchase disposable plastic straws outside of Santa 15 of 17 Monica. Food and beverage providers wouldn’t be able to purchase disposable plastic straws in Santa Monica for their customers with disabilities. 3. Provision for a Charge: Council could direct staff to return with a provision that approves a $0.25 charge to customers for compliant take-out containers or to-go cups in conjunction with a requirement for dine-in restaurants to provide reusable food service ware to customers. This alternative would encourage customers to bring reusable cups and containers, which is the best food ware option for the environment. However, this alternative would require additional staff time to plan implementation and assess any possible consequences as a result of this ordinance. Additional staff time would be required to enforce this measure. Additional legal issues may also arise from an ordinance mandating a charge, and these must be carefully evaluated. Currently, no other city has adopted a similar ordinance for disposable food service ware. 4. Required Receptacles: Council could approve the requirement for food and beverage providers to provide specific bins for the specific food ware items they are distributing. For example, if a food and beverage provider sold glass soda bottles, they would be required to have recycling bins for customers. However, this option would require additional staff time for implementation, education, and enforcement. Additional equipment and resources may also be required for businesses to implement, adding to their financial impact. If approved, staff recommends starting enforcement at a later date for this specific measure. 5. No Approval: Council could not approve any of the modifications to the current ordinance and move to not make any revisions to the ordinance at this time. This alternative would not reduce the environmental impacts of disposable food service ware. If current trends continue, plastic pollution on Santa Monica beaches would continue to increase. Enforcement and Outreach 16 of 17 The Code Enforcement Division would have primary responsibility for enforcement of the ordinance. Violations are subject to administrative citations and are punishable as infractions. Any violation of this Ordinance would be subject to the default administrative citation fine amount of $75 per violation. If Council wishes to raise this amount, it may do so by resolution at a future date. If approved, the requirements of the ordinance would go into effect January 1, 2019 for all food and beverage providers. The proposed modifications would be implemented for City facilities, City-managed concessions, City-sponsored events and City-permitted events beginning January 1, 2019. The Office of Sustainability and the Environment staff would conduct workshops and other outreach activities during the interim to provide information and assistance to food and beverage providers in identifying disposable food service ware that is marine degradable and locating suppliers of alternative products. The outreach program would strongly encourage the use of the most sustainable packaging types from a resource use and marine debris perspective. Staff will continue outreach to members of the public about reducing and refusing use of disposable food service ware through a marketing campaign. Environmental Analysis The City’s action to adopt an ordinance that prohibits food and beverage providers from dispensing prepared food in non-marine degradable disposable food service ware is exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3) [project is exempt when it can be determined with certainty that there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment] and Section 15308 (Class 8) [action is taken by regulatory agency to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where regulatory process involves procedures for the protection of the environment.] Financial Impacts and Budget Actions Some City departments may experience a minimal fiscal impact if they are purchasing disposable food service ware for staff and internal events. Departments should look for 17 of 17 alternative reusable options. The Office of Sustainability and the Environment loans reusable food ware to other departments. City facilities, City-sponsored events, and City-permitted events would also comply with this ordinance once adopted. This may impact the cost of those events and programs. City staff should look to reduce disposable food ware items distributed or use a reusable alternative. The Citywide Administrative Instruction would be updated, and the purchasing guide would be available to departments. Prepared By: Amanda Grossman, Sustainability Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. September 20, 1994 Staff Report - Sustainable City Plan B. January 14, 2014 Staff Report - Zero Waste Strategic Plan C. January 9, 2007 Ordinance - Non-Recyclable Plastic Food Service Container Ordinance D. World Economics Forum Report - The New Plastics Economy E. 2018 Ocean Conservancy Report F. Sustainable Works Focus Group Report G. Ordinance - Sustainability - Marine Degradable Disposable Food Service Ware - 08142018 H. Written Comments 1 City of Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan Adopted September 20, 1994 Updated February 11, 2003 Revised October 24, 2006 Updated January 14, 2014 Using the power of community to enhance our resources, prevent harm to the natural environment and human health, and benefit the social and economic well-being of the community for the sake of current and future generations. 2 Introduction We live in a time in which increased population growth, high levels of consumption and the desire to feed growing economies have created escalating demands on our resources - natural, human and social - on a local, regional, and global scale. We live in a time in which increased population growth, high levels of consumption and the desire to feed growing economies have created escalating demands on our resources - natural, human and social - on a local, regional, and global scale. These demands negatively impact the natural environment, our communities and the quality of our lives. In the face of these challenges, people worldwide have developed a growing concern for the environment and a desire to live sustainably. In 1994, the Santa Monica City Council took steps to address these pressures locally by adopting the Santa Monica Sustainable City Program. The Sustainable City Program was initially proposed in 1992 by the City’s Task Force on the Environment to ensure that Santa Monica can continue to meet its current needs – environmental, economic and social - without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. It is designed to help us as a community begin to think, plan and act more sustainably – to help us address the root causes of problems rather than the symptoms of those problems, and to provide criteria for evaluating the long-term rather than the short- term impacts of our decisions – in short, to help us think about the future when we are making decisions about the present. The program includes goals and strategies, for the City government and all sectors of the community, to conserve and enhance our local resources, safeguard human health and the environment, maintain a healthy and diverse economy, and improve the livability and quality of life for all community members in Santa Monica. To check our progress toward meeting these goals, numerical indicators were developed and specific targets were set for the city to achieve by the year 2000 in four goal areas – 1) Resource Conservation, 2) Transportation, 3) Pollution Prevention and Public Health Protection, and 4) Community and Economic Development. In reviewing the progress made since the 1994 adoption of the program, the Task Force on the Environment recognized the need to update and expand the Sustainable City goals and indicators to provide a more complete picture of community sustainability, and to develop new indicator targets for 2010. The Task Force felt that a compre hensive update would allow Santa Monica to build on its initial success and to better address the challenges to sustainability that remain. 3 The update process began in July 2001 with the formation of the Sustainable City Working Group - a large group of community stakeholders that included elected and appointed officials, city staff, and representatives of neighborhood organizations, schools, the business community and other community groups. The Working Group met numerous times over the course of 15 months to discuss the myriad issues related to the sustainability of the community. They evaluated the long-term sustainability of Santa Monica using a framework comprised of three forms of community capital, that need to be managed with care, in order to ensure that the community does not deteriorate. These include natural capital – the natural environment and natural resources of the community; human and social capital – the connectedness among peo ple in the community and the education, skills and health of the population; and financial and built capital – manufactured goods, buildings, infrastructure, information resources, credit and debt. The group proposed significant changes to the initial Sustainable City Program goals and indicators, and assisted with the creation of new indicator targets. Early drafts of the proposed update were revised based on a large amount of public input received during the summer of 2002. The result of this process was the updated, Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan, which represents the community’s vision of Santa Monica as a sustainable city. The change in name from Sustainable City Program to Sustainable City Plan was made to better reflect the long-term comprehensive nature of Santa Monica’s vision and the community’s efforts to become a sustainable city. Since its inception, the Santa Monica Sustainable City Program has achieved much success. Many of the initial targets have been met or exceeded and Santa Monica is now recognized worldwide as a role model for sustainability. However, we are not “there” yet. While we have made progress in the right direction, Santa Monica’s economy and the activities of its residents, businesses, institutions and visitors continue to negatively impact human health and the environment. And our community does not yet provide for the basic needs of all its members. Many challenges remain before Santa Monica can truly call itself a Sustainable City. The Sustainable City Program is a call to action for all of us to work together as a community and create change that will realize a Sustainable Santa Monica. “I think any goal this community sets for itself, and is willing to work to accomplish, will be accomplished... whether in my time or another time. That’s the beauty of this city.” Ken Edwards, 1941-1985 City Council Member and Mayor 4 The City’s Task Force on the Environment (ETF) assumed the initial leadership role on behalf of the community for the Sustainable City Plan (SCP). With the update and expansion of the SCP into new and more diverse goal areas, the ETF recommended the creation of a Sustainable City Task Force (SCTF) that includes broad representation from community stakeholders with expertise in all of the SCP goal areas The SCTF was created in 2003 to provide leadership and guidance for implementation of the SCP. In 2009, the SCTF sunset and this role was again assumed by the ETF. At the city staff level, an interdepartmental Sustainability Advisory Team (SAT) was created to coordinate existing city activities so they are consistent with the Sustainable City goals and facilitate the future implementation of innovative programs and policies to achieve the goals. Members of this group serve as Sustainable City liaisons to their respective departments. Together, these groups are responsible for developing a comprehensive implementation plan, both interdepartmentally, and between the City and community stakeholder groups. Leadership, Guidance and Implementation of the Sustainable City Plan Reporting The city developed two reporting tools. The tools are intended to provide useful information to City Council, City staff, and community members on progress being made toward meeting goals and targets of the Plan, and will provide a basis for decision-making about policies and actions that influence the City’s ability to meet the goals and targets. The first tool is the Sustainable City Progress Report. The second tool is the Sustainable City Report Card. • The Sustainable City Progress Report is a web based tool that provides current, detailed analysis of the data for each indicator in the Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan. Visit www.sustainablesm.org/scpr • The Sustainable City Report Card is a summary document that provides an overview of our progress toward, and challenges to, becoming a sustainable community. The Report Card presents goal area summaries and grades based on the specific indicator data. Together, these two tools are the definitive resource for community decision makers. In order to become a sustainable community all community members must be educated and empowered to achieve our sustainability goals. 5 GOALS: Within each Goal Area are specific goals which comprise the core of the community vision and represent what Santa Monica must achieve in order become a sustainable city. INDICATORS: For each goal area specific indicators have been developed to measure progress toward meeting the goals. Indicators are tools that help to determine the condition of a system, or the impact of a program, policy or action. When tracked over time indicators tell us if we are moving toward sustainability and provide us with useful information to assist with decision- making. Two types of indicators are tracked as part of the Sustainable City Plan: 1) System level indicators measure the state, condition or pressures on a community-wide basis for each respective goal area. 2) Program level indicators measure the performance or effectiveness of specific programs, policies or actions taken by the city government or other stakeholders in the community. Specific Targets have been created for many of the indicators. The targets represent aggressive yet achievable milestones for the community. Unless otherwise noted, the targets are for the year 2020 using 2010 as a baseline. For some indicators no specific numerical targets have been assigned. This was done where develop- ment of a numerical target was determined to be not feasible or where limits on data type and availability made it difficult to set a numerical target. In many of these cases a trend direction was substituted for a numerical target. Terms throughout this document that may be unfamiliar to the general reader are defined in the Glossary. The Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan is organized into nine Goal Areas: Sustainable City Plan Structure Housing Community Education and Civic Participation Human Dignity Arts and Culture Resource Conservation Environmental and Public Health Transportation Sustainable Local Economy Open Space and Land Use Goal Areas 6 Guiding Principles The Concept of Sustainability Guides City Policy Santa Monica is committed to meeting its existing needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The long-term impacts of policy choices will be considered to ensure a sustainable legacy. Protection, Preservation, and Restoration of the Natural Environment is a High Priority of the City Santa Monica is committed to protecting, preserving and restoring the natural environment. City decision- making will be guided by a mandate to maximize environmental benefits and reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts. The City will lead by example and encourage other community stakeholders to make a similar commitment to the environment. Environmental Quality, Economic Health and Social Equity are Mutually Dependent Sustainability requires that our collective decisions as a city allow our economy and community members to continue to thrive without destroying the natural environment upon which we all depend. A healthy environment is integral to the city’s long-term economic and societal interests. In achieving a healthy environment, we must ensure that inequitable burdens are not placed on any one geographic or socioeconomic sector of the population and that the benefits of a sustainable community are accessible to all members of the community. All Decisions Have Implications to the Long-term Sustainability of Santa Monica The City will ensure that each of its policy decisions and programs are interconnected through the common bond of sustainability as expressed in these guiding principles. The policy and decision- making processes of the City will reflect our sustainability objectives. The City will lead by example and encourage other community stakeholders to use sustainability principles to guide their decisions and actions. Community Awareness, Responsibility, Participation and Education are Key Elements of a Sustainable Community All community members, including individual citizens, community-based groups, businesses, schools and other institutions must be aware of their impacts on the environmental, economic and social health of Santa Monica, must take responsibility for reducing or eliminating those impacts, and must take an active part in community efforts to address sustainability concerns. The City will therefore be a leader in the creation and sponsorship of education opportunities to support community awareness, responsibility and participation in cooperation with schools, colleges and other organizations in the community. 1 2 3 4 5 The Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan is founded on eleven Guiding Principles that provide the basis from which effective and sustainable decisions can be made. These Guiding Principles have been revised and updated from the versions initially adopted in 1994. 7 Santa Monica Recognizes Its Linkage with the Regional, National, and Global Community Local environmental, economic and social issues cannot be separated from their broader context. This relationship between local issues and regional, national and global issues will be recognized and acted upon in the City’s programs and policies. The City’s programs and policies should therefore be developed as models that can be emulated by other communities. The City will also act as a strong advocate for the development and implementation of model programs and innovative approaches by regional, state and federal government that embody the goals of sustainability. Those Sustainability Issues Most Important to the Community Will be Addressed First, and the Most Cost-Effective Programs and Policies Will be Selected The financial and human resources which are available to the City are limited. The City and the community will reevaluate its priorities and its programs and policies annually to ensure that the best possible investments in the future are being made. The evaluation of a program’s cost-effectiveness will be based on a complete analysis of the associated costs and benefits, including environmental and social costs and benefits. The City is Committed to Procurement Decisions which Minimize Negative Environmental and Social Impacts The procurement of products and services by the City, and Santa Monica residents, businesses and institutions results in environmental, social and economic impacts both in this country and in other areas of the world. The City will develop and abide by an environmentally and socially responsible procurement policy that emphasizes long-term values and will become a model for other public as well as private organizations. The City will advocate for and assist other local agencies, businesses and residents in adopting sustainable purchasing practices. Cross-sector Partnerships Are Necessary to Achieve Sustainable Goals Threats to the long-term sustainability of Santa Monica are multi-sector in their causes and require multi-sector solutions. Partnerships among the City government, businesses, residents and all community stakeholders are necessary to achieve a sustainable community. The Precautionary Principle Provides a Complimentary Framework to Help Guide City Decision-Makers in the Pursuit of Sustainability The precautionary principle requires a thorough exploration and careful analysis of a wide range of alternatives, and a full cost accounting beyond short-term and monetary transaction costs. Based on the best available science, the precautionary principle requires the selection of alternatives that present the least potential threat to human health and the City’s natural systems. Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to not adopt mitigating measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Public participation and an open and transparent decision making process are critical to finding and selecting alternatives. Santa Monica is Committed to Sustainable Rights for its Residents, Natural Communities and Ecosystems The Sustainability Bill of Rights codifies the commitments made in the Sustainable City Plan and asserts the fundamental rights of all Santa Monica residents regarding sustainability. It establishes the rights of natural communities and ecosystems to exist and flourish in Santa Monica and asserts the rights of residents to enforce those rights on behalf of the environment. 7 8 9 10 6 11 8 1. Significantly decrease overall community consumption, specifically the consumption of non-local, non-renewable, non-recyclable and non-recycled materials, water, and energy and fuels. 2. The City should take a leadership role in encouraging sustainable procurement, extended producer responsibility and should model innovative strategies to become a zero waste city. 3. Within renewable limits, encourage the use of local, non-polluting, renewable and recycled resources (water, energy, and material resources). Goals Indicators – System Level Targets Solid Waste • Generation • Landfilled • Diversion Solid Waste • Do not exceed year 2000 levels • Reduce per capita generation to 2.4 lbs/person/day • Achieve 85% diversion rate Water Use • Total citywide use (Self Sufficiency) • Total citywide use (Per Capita) • Percent local vs. imported • Potable vs. non-potable Water Use • Reduce water demand by 1,300,000 gallons per day (GPD) • Reduce per capita use to 123 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) (500,000 GPD) • Increase to 100% local • Upward trend in non-potable use Energy Use • Total municipal use • Total citywide use • Efficiency • Efficiency Energy Use • Reduce use 10% • Reduce use 10% • Demonstrate incremental progress towards achieving reduction in energy use intensity • Increase efficiency in existing buildings to achieve reductions of 1 million kWh annually Indicators Targets for 2020 Resource Conservation 9 Indicators – System Level Targets Renewable Energy use • Total use • Total use from clean distributed generation in Santa Monica Renewable Energy use • At least 50% of all electricity should come from renewable sources • Total use from clean distributed generation in SM- Install 7.5MW of solar citywide • Total use from clean distributed generation in SM – Install 1 MW of solar on city operated facilities Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Community • Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) • Reduce community GHG emissions 20% below 1990 levels • Reduce corporate GHG emissions 30% below 1990 levels Ecological Footprint Ecological Footprint • No net increase Green Construction • New Construction • O&M • Residential • Non-Residential Green Construction • 100% of new municipal buildings achieving LEED GOLD certification • Demonstrate 100% of existing municipal buildings achieving LEED GOLD certification • Demonstrate incremental increase in the percentage of residential buildings achieving energy efficiency and green construction certifications • Demonstrate incremental increase in the percentage of non-residential buildings achieving energy efficiency and green construction certifications Indicators Targets for 2020 10 1. Protect and enhance environmental health and public health by minimizing and where possible eliminating: a. The use of hazardous or toxic materials by residents, businesses and city operations; b. The levels of pollutants entering the air, soil and water; and c. The risks that environmental problems pose to human and ecological health. 2. Ensure that no one geographic or socioeconomic group in the city is being unfairly impacted by environmental pollution. 3. Increase consumption of fresh, locally produced, organic produce to promote public health and to minimize resource consumption and negative environmental impacts. Indicators – System Level Targets Santa Monica Bay • Wet weather: No rain • Wet weather: Rain event • Dry weather Santa Monica Bay • No rain - 3 days • Rain event - 17 days • Zero days Marine Debris • Trash: Presence of cigarettes, plastic packaging, single-use bags, lids and straws Marine Debris • Zero trash (cigarettes, plastic packaging, single-use bags, lids and straws) Air Quality • # Days ambient air quality standards exceeded Air Quality • Zero days ambient air quality standards exceeded Residential Household Hazardous Waste • Total volume collected • Number and percent of households participating • Cumulative number of participants Residential Household Hazardous Waste • No target • Number and percent of households participating- Upward trend • Cumulative number of participants - 50% cumulative participation City Purchase of Sustainable Products • Proportion of procurement budget spent on sustainable products annually City Purchase of Sustainable Products • Upward trend Indicators Targets for 2020 Environmental and Public Health Goals 11 Indicators – Program Level Targets Urban Runoff Reduction • Effective impervious area • Total acreage treated • Gallons polluted runoff treated Urban Runoff Reduction • Annual reduction • Annual increase • Annual increase Fresh, Local, Organic Produce • Percent of fresh, local, organic produce served at city facilities • Percent fresh, local, organic produce served at community institutions: (SMMUSD, SMC, Hospitals) • Sustainable food commitment Fresh, Local, Organic Produce • 15% of total • 15% of total • 100% of City food purchases comply with Santa Monica Sustainable Food Commitment Farmers Markets • Total sales • Percent organic • Percent low chemical • Percent conventional Farmers Markets • Annual increase • Annual increase • Annual increase • No target Food Choices • Residential reduction in meat and dairy consumption Food Choices • 15% reduction Community Gardens • Number of people participating • Average wait time for plot • Number of gardens connected Community Gardens • Tracking number of people • Annual decrease • Annual increase Indicators Targets for 2020 12 1. Create a multi-modal transportation system that minimizes and, where possible, eliminates pollution and motor vehicle congestion while ensuring safe mobility and access for all without compromising our ability to protect public health and safety. 2. Facilitate a reduction in automobile dependency in favor of affordable alternative, sustainable modes of travel. Indicators – System Level Targets Modal Split • Number of trips by type, citywide • Average vehicle ridership (AVR) of Santa Monica businesses with more than 50 employees • Pedestrian travel volumes • Bike traffic volumes Modal Split • An upward trend in the use of sustainable (bus, bike, pedestrian, rail) modes of transportation - Drive alone max: 60%, Bike + Walk + Transit minimum: 25%, Bike + Walk: 15% • 2 for Santa Monica businesses with more than 50 employees • Annual increase • Annual increase Vehicle Miles Traveled • Total • Total per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled • Downward trend • Downward trend Residential Use of Sustainable Transportation • Percent of residents who have intentionally not used their car but have instead used a sustainable mode of transportation in the past month Residential Use of Sustainable Transportation • Upward trend Sufficiency of Transportation Options • Percent of households with high quality transit service within ½ and ¼ mile Sufficiency of Transportation Options • 100% of households within ½ mile Pedestrian Facilities • Complete sidewalks • Public/private pathways • Crosswalk enhancements • Signal Timing enhancements Pedestrian Facilities • Annual increase Indicators Targets for 2020 Transportation Goals 13 Indicators – Targets Bike Facilities • Percent of bike network completed • Total miles of bike lanes and paths installed or upgraded • Total Bikeshare usage • Number of bikes parked by bike valet Bike Facilities • 100% • Annual increase • Annual increase • Annual increase Vehicle Use • Total number of automobiles maintained per person • Percent of total automobiles that are qualified ZEV/PZEV or better • Total Carshare usage Vehicle Use • 10% reduction • Annual percentage increase • Annual increase Transit Service • Annual ridership on Santa Monica Big Blue Bus (BBB) • Percent of residents who have ridden the BBB in the past year • Annual ridership on MTA routes originating in Santa Monica • Annual Expo light rail ridership Transit Service • Annual increase • Annual increase • Annual increase • Annual increase Alternative Fueled Vehicles • Percent of the city fleet vehicles using alternative fuels Alternative Fueled Vehicles • 80% of fleet Travel Volumes • Auto corridor travel times • Peak Hour Trips • Signal Timing • Bus travel time Travel Volumes • No increase • No net new PM trips • 100% completion • No increase Street Safety • Number of collisions o Vehicle-Vehicle o Vehicle-Pedestrian o Vehicle-Bicyclist o Bicyclist-Pedestrian o Bicyclist-Bicyclist Street Safety • Downward trend Traffic Impacts to Emergency Response Average emergency response times for public safety vehicles • Police • Fire Traffic Impacts to Emergency Response • No increase • No increase Indicators Targets for 2020 14 1. Nurture a diverse, stable, local economy that supports basic needs of all segments of the community. 2. Businesses, organizations and local government agencies within Santa Monica continue to increase the efficiency of their use of resources through the adoption of sustainable business practices. Indicators – System Level Targets Economic Diversity • Percent of total economic activity/output by business sector (expressed as a percent of total wages) Economic Diversity • No single sector shall be greater than 25% of total economic activity/output; and the top three sectors shall not be greater than 50% of total economic activity/output Jobs / Housing Balance • Ratio of the number of jobs in Santa Monica to the amount of housing • Percent of Santa Monica employees who reside in Santa Monica Jobs / Housing Balance • Ratio should approach 1 • Upward trend Cost of Living • Median household income in relation to cost of living • Median household income in relation to living wage standard • Percent of tenants rent-burdened Cost of Living • No target • 90% of median household incomes meet or exceed the living wage standard Quality Job Creation • Percent of new jobs created in Santa Monica that pay greater than or equal to the cost of living Quality Job Creation • Upward trend Income Diversity • Percent of Santa Monica households earning less than $35,000/year • Percent of households earning more than $100,000/year Income Diversity • No target Indicators Targets for 2020 Sustainable Local Economy Goals 15 Indicators – System Level Targets Economic Health • Number of businesses • Number of employees • Annual payroll Economic Health • No net loss • No net loss • Increasing trend Resource Efficiency of Local Business • Ratio of energy use to total economic activity by business sector • Ratio of total water use to total economic activity by business sector Resource Efficiency of Local Business • Downward trend • Downward trend Local Employment of City Staff • Percent of city employees who live in SM • Distance city employees travel to work Local Employment of City Staff • No target Sustainable Business Community • Number of Certified Green Businesses • Number of Business Greening Program participants • Number of Buy Local business participants • Number of Sustainable Quality Award winning businesses • Number of Santa Monica Alliance events Sustainable Business Community • 200 total • 200 total • 10% annual increase • No target • 5 % annual increase Indicators Targets for 2020 16 1. Develop and maintain a sufficient open space system so that it is diverse in uses and opportunities and includes natural function/wildlife habitat as well as passive and active recreation with an equitable distribution of parks, trees and pathways throughout the community. 2. Implement land use and transportation planning and policies to create compact, mixed-use projects, forming urban villages designed to maximize affordable housing and encourage walking, bicycling and the use of existing and future public transit systems. 3. Residents recognize that they share the local ecosystem with other living things that warrant respect and responsible stewardship. Indicators – System Level Targets Open Space • Number of acres of public open space by type (including beaches, parks, public gathering places, gardens, and other public lands utilized as open space) • Percent of open space that is permeable Open Space • Upward trend • Upward trend Trees • Total trees planted • Net tree gain • Percent of tree canopy coverage by neighborhood Trees • 2,000 total trees • 750 total trees • Upward trend Parks Accessibility • Percent of households and population within ¼ and ½ mile of a park by neighborhood Parks Accessibility • Percent of residents within ½ mile - 95% of residents • Percent of residents within ¼ mile- 90% of residents Land Use and Development • Percent of residential, mixed-use projects that are within ¼ mile of transit nodes and are otherwise consistent with Sustainable City Plan goals Land Use and Development • Upward trend Regionally Appropriate Vegetation • Percent of new or replaced, non-turf, public landscaped area and non-recreational turf area planted with regionally appropriate plants Regionally Appropriate Vegetation • 80 percent of new or replaced, non-turf, public landscaped area and non-recreational turf area Indic ators Targets for 2020 Open Space and Land Use Goals 17 1. Achieve and maintain a mix of affordable, livable and green housing types throughout the city for people of all socioeconomic/cultural/household groups (including seniors, families, singles, and disabled). Indicators – System Level Targets Production of Affordable Housing • Number of new housing units produced in Santa Monica affordable to: o Very low income households o Low income households o Moderate o Market rate Production of Affordable Housing • Number of new housing units produced in Santa Monica affordable to: o At least 428 o At least 263 o At least 283 o At least 700 Availability of Affordable Housing • Percent of existing housing in Santa Monica affordable to: o Very low income households o Low income households o Moderate income households o Upper income households Availability of Affordable Housing • No target Distribution of Affordable Housing • Distribution of low income housing by neighborhood Distribution of Affordable Housing • No target Affordable Housing for Special Needs • Number of new or rehabilitated affordable housing units for families, seniors, the disabled and other special needs groups as a percentage of all new or rehabilitated affordable housing development Affordable Housing for Special Needs • Upward trend Production of “Livable” Housing • Percent of new units within ¼ mile of: o Transit stop o Open space o Grocery store Production of “Livable” Housing • Upward trend Production of Green Housing • Percent of new and substantially-rehabilitated housing that achieves LEED certification at LEED Silver or higher Production of Green Housing • Upward trend Indicators Targets for 2020 Housing Goal 18 1. Community members of all ages participate actively and effectively in civic affairs and community improvement efforts. 2. Community members of all ages understand the basic principles of sustainability and use them to guide their decisions and actions - both personal and collective. Indicators – System Level Targets Voter Participation • Percent of registered Santa Monica voters who vote in scheduled elections Voter Participation • Increase to 68% in off year elections Participation in Civic Affairs • Attendance at a city-sponsored meeting of any kind in the past year, including City Council meetings, city commission meetings, or special-topic workshops Participation in Civic Affairs • Upward trend Empowerment • Percent of Santa Monica residents who feel they have the opportunity to voice their concerns in the city on major community decisions that affect their lives Empowerment • Upward trend Resident Satisfaction • Percent of Santa Monica residents who are positive about the city as a place to live Resident Satisfaction • 95% of residents surveyed Participation in Neighborhood Organizations • Percent of Santa Monica residents that are represented by an active neighborhood organizations Participation in Neighborhood Organizations • Upward trend Sustainable Community Involvement • Number of residents who participate in Residential Greening Program • Number of Santa Monica College students who participate in Student Greening Program • Number of residents who participate in Community Sustainability Programs Sustainable Community Involvement • 1,500 residents • 3,000 students • 1,000 residents Indicators Targets for 2020 Community Education and Civic Participation Goals 19 Community Education andCivic Participation 20 1. Community members are able to meet their basic needs and are empowered to enhance the quality of their lives; 2. There is access among community members to housing, health services, education, economic opportunity, and cultural and recreational resources; and 3. There is respect for and appreciation of the value added to the community by differences among its members in race, religion, gender, age, economic status, sexual orientation, disabilities, immigration status and other special needs. Indicators – System Level Targets Homelessness • Number of homeless living in Santa Monica • Number of homeless served by city shelters • Number of previously homeless individuals assisted by Project Homecoming Homelessness • No target • Upward trend • Upward trend Public Safety • Crime rate per capita – report by district and by type (property, violent, hate) Public Safety • Downward trend Residents’ Perception of Safety • Percent of Santa Monica residents who are satisfied with city efforts to reduce crime and protect public safety Residents’ Perception of Safety • Upward trend Incidents of Abuse • Number of incidents of abuse (domestic, child, youth and elder abuse) Incidents of Abuse • Downward trend Indicators Targets for 2020 Human Dignity Goals 21 Indicators – System Level Targets Youth Education • Grade 3 students proficient in language arts • SMMUSD student graduation rate • SMMUSD student suspension rates • Percent of SMMUSD students who attend school daily • Percent of SMMUSD students who feel safe at school • Percent of SMMUSD students that complete college admission requirements • Percent of SMMUSD students that receive environmental education consistent with the Education and the Environment Initiative Youth Education • At least 85% • At least 91% • Not to exceed 4.4% • At least 87% • At least 67% • At least 77% • At least 50%, per grade Empowerment • Women, minorities and people with disabilities in leadership positions Empowerment • Upward trend Ability to Meet Basic Needs • Percent of Santa Monica Residents who are satisfied with services for: o Emergency services o Affordable housing o Services for seniors o Services for youth o Public transportation o Mobility Ability to Meet Basic Needs • Percent of Santa Monica Residents who are satisfied with services for: o Upward trend o Upward trend o Upward trend o Upward trend o Upward trend o Upward trend Indicators Targets for 2020 22 1. Retain and nurture Santa Monica’s arts community and resources. 2. Increase cultural participation and provide greater access to a diversity of cultural programs for all ages. 3. Enhance the long-term sustainability of the Santa Monica creative sector. Indicators – System Level Targets Presence of artists Presence of artists No net loss Creative Sector Activity • People employed in the creative sector • Number of businesses • Revenue produced Creative Sector Activity • Annual Increase • No net loss • No net loss Presence of Opportunities for Cultural Participation • Number of non-profit cultural organizations • Number of retail arts venues • Classes for life-long learning in the arts Presence of Opportunities for Cultural Participation • Annual Increase (blended) Support for the Arts • Financial support for city arts grants • Charitable giving in the arts • Square footage of city property leased for cultural uses at below market rates Support for the Arts • Annual Increase (blended) Attendance and Participation • Number of families in SM who subscribe, buy tickets, etc. to cultural events (LA Stage Alliance data/study) • Participation at city or city-funded cultural events • Participation at non city-funded cultural events Attendance and Participation • At least 50% of adults attend a live performance annually and at least 30% attend a museum annually • Annual increase • Annual increase Indicators Targets for 2020 Arts and Culture Goals 23 24 active recreation: recreational opportunities including sports and other activities that typically require playing fields, facilities or equipment. affordable housing: any housing that is deed restricted for, and occupied by, households earning less than 120% of the Los Angeles County median family income. alternative fuel vehicles: vehicles that operate on fuels other than gasoline or diesel in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Alternative fuel vehicles include those that operate using compressed natural gas (CNG), liquid natural gas (LNG), propane, electricity, hybrid of gasoline and electricity, and hydrogen. alternative (and/or sustainable) modes of transportation: transportation by public transit (bus or rail), bicycle or walking. average vehicle ridership (AVR): a measurement of vehicle occupancy indicating the average number of persons traveling in a measured number of vehicles. AVR is an indicator of the effectiveness of and participation in ridesharing programs. bike lane/path/route/sharrow: As defined in the City’s Bike Action Plan, a bike lane is a signed and striped lane along a roadway for use by bicycles. Other types of bicycle ways in the city are bike paths and bike routes. A bike path is a dedicated bicycle way that completely separates bicycles from motor vehicles. Bike routes are signed routes which bicyclists share with motor vehicles. Bike routes differ from bike lanes in that routes do not include any striping on the roadway - they are only desig- nated by signage. Sharrows are a pavement mark- ing consisting of a directional arrow or “chevron,” and a bicycle symbol similar to those seen in bicycle lanes. Sharrows demonstrate that bicyclists should “take the lane” by directing them into safe, shared-lane positioning. Sustainable City Plan Glossary business greening: program that involves consul- tation and implementation of measures to reduce energy and water use and waste, purchase envi- ronmentally preferable products, and educate staff and customers. community: for the purpose of this document, whenever the term community is used it is meant to include the following groups: individuals of all ages, races and abilities; organizations; government agencies; businesses; employers; employees; residents; property owners; renters; visitors; schools; students; public and private service agencies; faith communities; and local media. clean distributed generation: distributed generation refers to generation of electricity at or near the location where that electricity will be used. This differs from traditional electricity gener- ation, which occurs at centralized power plants and is distributed over hundreds of miles to millions of customers through the electricity “grid”. For the purpose of this document, clean distributed gener- ation (in order of preferred technology type) refers to: 1) renewable distributed generation, including electricity generated by solar photovoltaic systems, fuel cells (powered by hydrogen generated from solar, wind, or other non-fossil fuel, renewable energy technologies), and small wind generators; 2) electricity generated by high efficiency (i.e., meeting or exceeding efficiency of large natural gas power plants) natural gas generators and fuel cells using hydrogen generated through a natural gas catalyst; and 3) medium scale, high-efficiency co-generation systems (powered by natural gas) serving many properties located within close proximity of each other. Clean distributed generation does not include electricity generated by gasoline or diesel powered generators. diversion: in reference to solid waste, diversion refers to all waste that is kept out of a landfill through recycling, beneficial reuse, composting, or other means. 25 ecological footprint: The ecological footprint is a tool to help measure human impacts on local and global ecosystems. The ecological footprint of a given population (household, community, country) is the total area of ecologically produc- tive land and water used exclusively to produce all the resources (including food, fuel, and fiber) consumed and to assimilate all the wastes gen- erated by that population. Since we use resourc- es from all over the world and affect faraway places with our wastes, the footprint is a sum of these ecological areas — wherever that land and water may be on the planet. Thus the ecological foot¬print of Santa Monica is that area of pro- ductive land inside and outside its borders that is appropriated for its resource consumption or waste assimilation. There is a finite area of eco- logically productive land and water on the Earth, which must be shared among 7 billion people as well as all of the planet’s other species. The amount of ecologically productive land available globally at today’s current population is approxi- mately 5 acres per person. The ecological foot- print of the average American is approximately 25 acres, far exceeding the “fair earthshare”. The ecological footprint is an excellent tool for illustrating the magnitude of the change neces- sary for our world to become sustainable. It is also useful for evaluating and comparing the total environmental impact of specific activities and in this way, helpful for decision-making. environmentally preferable: a product, service, activity or process that has a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared to other products, services, activities or processes that serve the same purpose. extended producer responsibility: responsibility of producers or manufacturers across the entire life cycle of their products, particularly to the post-consumer stage (after products are discard- ed and become waste). Typically once a product is sold to a consumer, the responsibility of disposing of that product becomes the respon- sibility of the consumer. Extended producer responsibility requires that the producer of the product maintain responsibility for recycling or proper disposal of the product once it has surpassed its useful life. green: for the purpose of this document, green is used as shorthand to refer to any environmentally preferable product, activity, service or process. (certified) green business: Santa Monica businesses that have met a higher standard of environmental performance, verified by SustainableWorks and the City of Santa Monica. Businesses must complete mandatory and additional measures in areas concerning staff education, waste reduction, energy efficiency, water efficiency, pollution prevention, sustainable procurement and transportation. green housing: housing that meets or exceeds the requirements of the City’s Green Building Standards Code. greenhouse gas (GHG): greenhouse gases are natural and man-made gases in the earth’s atmosphere that allow incoming solar radiation to pass through the atmosphere and warm the earth but trap radiant heat given off by the earth. The radiant heat absorbed by these gases heats the atmosphere. This is a natural process known as the “greenhouse effect” that keeps the earth habitable. The four primary greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Since the industrial period, human activities have led to sharp increases in the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere, enhancing the greenhouse effect and contributing to rising global temperatures. hazardous material: a material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. hazardous waste: a waste or combination of wastes which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness or pose a substan- tial present or potential hazard to human health, safety, welfare or to the environment when improp- erly treated, stored, transported, used or disposed of, or otherwise managed. 26 household hazardous waste (HHW): hazardous waste that is generated by residents through the use of hazardous or potentially hazardous products in the home. Typical household hazardous wastes include spent batteries, cleaning products, pesticides, paints and solvents. HHW programs: refers to City operated programs to reduce use of hazardous materials and safely collect and dispose of community-generated HHW. These programs include the HHW Center, which was permanently closed in 2013, home collection services, used oil collection, pharmaceutical disposal, sharps collection and establishment of local drop-off sites. income levels: With respect to the indicators of housing affordability the following are definitions of the income levels mentioned in this document: Very low income: annual earnings between 0 and 50% of the Los Angeles County Median Family income (MFI) Low income: annual earnings between 51 and 80% MFI Moderate income: annual earnings between 81 and 120% MFI Upper income: annual earnings above 120% MFI LEEDTM certification (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design): A rating system developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) that sets definitive standards for what constitutes a green or environmentally preferable building. The certification system is self- assessing and is designed for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings. It evaluates environmental performance of the entire building over the building’s life cycle. LEED certifications are awarded at various levels (certified, silver, gold, and platinum) according to a point-based scoring system. livable housing: housing that is within close proximity to neighborhood serving commercial areas, transit stops and community resources such as parks and open space. local: the term local has different definitions depending upon the context in which it is used in this document. These are described below: 1) Where local is used in reference to the economy (“local economy” or “local businesses”) it refers to Santa Monica’s economy or businesses located within Santa Monica. 2) Local government agencies refer to any agencies or departments of the Santa Monica city government. 3) Where local refers to food production (“locally produced”) it refers to food grown in the southern half of the state of California. 4) Where local refers to resources, it refers to resources obtained or impacted within a 500-mile radius of Santa Monica. mixed-use projects: developments which incorporate both residential and commercial uses. modal split: the split in use of various transportation modes including: single passenger vehicles; carpools of more than one passenger; bus; rail; bicycle; and pedestrian modes. multi-modal transportation system: a transportation system that includes affordable, alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, and infrastructure and access for alternative fueled vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, in addition to standard vehicular transportation. native species: plant or animal species native to the Southern California bioregion. 27 natural function/wildlife habitat: geographic areas that provide life-supportive functions associated with atmospheric, biological, biochemical and hydrological processes that keep our air and water clean, process waste, and support survival and reproduction of plant and animal life. non-renewable resources: natural resources that have a finite availability worldwide. Examples include coal, oil and other petroleum products. open space: for the purpose of this document open space refers to all land uses defined as open space in the Open Space Element of the City of Santa Monica’s General Plan. These include beaches, parks, public gathering places, usable green open space in street medians, scenic highway corridors, gardens, and other publicly accessible land. passive recreation: recreational opportuni- ties that occur in a natural setting which require minimal development or facilities, and the importance of the environment or setting for the activities is greater than in developed or active recreation settings. PBTs (persistent bioaccumulative toxics): chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in food chains and, thus, pose risks to human health and the environment. The term PBT is used primarily by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as part of its preparation of a list of such chemicals that will receive special regulatory emphasis in the United States. POPs (persistent organic pollutants): Organic chemical substances that persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in food chains and pose a risk of causing adverse effects to human health and the environment. The term POPs is commonly used in the context of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and are subject to international negotiations aiming toward their global elimination. Note: The primary difference between PBTs and POPs is that the list of PBTs includes non-organic toxins that are not included on the list of POPs. potable: suitable for drinking. qualified low emission / alternative fuel vehicles: Vehicles recognized by the State of California as being low emission and/or alternative fuel vehicles. These vehicles exceed the basic standards all new vehicles must meet to be sold in California and include low emission vehicles (LEVs), ultra low emission vehicles (ULEVs), super ultra low emission vehicles (SULEVs) and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). rainy day: for the purpose of this document, a rainy day is any day with recorded precipitation greater than .1” in 24 hours. regionally appropriate vegetation: plant and tree species that are environmentally appropriate for the Southern California region and that do not negatively impact native plants or animals. rehabilitated housing: rehabilitation that increases by 25% or more the after-rehab value of the property; or a rehabilitation in which at least fifty percent of exterior walls have been removed or relocated for any duration of time. renewable limits: harvesting resources within renew- able limits refers to harvesting a renewable resource at a rate that is lower than the rate the resource can replace itself (e.g. catching fish at a rate that will allow the fish population to be maintained over time. If too many fish are caught, exceeding renewable lim- its, the fish population will decline). The terms renew- able limits and sustainable limits are synonymous. renewable resources: natural resources that have an unlimited supply (such as solar radiation) or that can be renewed indefinitely if ecosystem health is main- tained (e.g. fisheries or forests). rent-burdened: households that spend more than 30 percent of gross income on rent. 28 routine: for the purpose of this document, routine, when describing generation of hazardous waste by City government operations, refers to regular and consistent operational practices such as vehicle maintenance, regular cleaning procedures, etc. Non-routine refers to hazardous waste generated during unanticipated events such as chemical spills or leaks. significant emissions source: sources of toxic air contaminants and other air emissions that pose a threat to human health and the environment. SMMUSD: Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. special needs groups: with respect to affordable housing, special needs groups refers to the elderly, disabled persons, large families, female-headed families, and the homeless. sustainable: sustainable can mean slightly different things depending on the context in which it is used. For the purpose of this document, the following definitions are used: sustainable (in reference to resource use): a method of harvesting or using a resource so that resource is not depleted or permanently damaged. sustainable business: for the purpose of this document, sustainable business refers to a business that provides goods and services, and/or has incorporated into its daily operations practices that result in cleaner air and water, less waste and pollution, conservation of energy and natural resources, less traffic, improved quality of life for residents and workers, and contribute to a strong and viable local economy. sustainable community/city: a community or city that meets its present needs without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. More specifically, a sustainable community is one that improves and enhances its natural, social and economic resources in ways that allow current and future members of the community to lead healthy, productive and satisfying lives. sustainable modes of transportation/travel: same as alternative modes of transportation above. sustainable procurement: procurement of environmentally preferable goods and services in a way that also takes into consideration social responsibility and sustainable economic development issues in the manufacture, transportation, sale and use of those goods and services. Sustainable Quality Awards (SQAs): The SQA is an annual event that promotes the efforts of local businesses that have made significant achievements in the areas of sustainable economic development, social responsibility, and stewardship of the natural environment. By recognizing these achievements, this awards program educates and inspires other businesses to adopt their own sustainable practices, thus helping Santa Monica become a model sustainable community, providing its residents and visitors with a healthy economy and environment. toxic material: a substance that causes illness, injury or death by chemical means. A poison. toxic air contaminants (TACs): air pollutants which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. transit node: a station for public transportation along a regional transit corridor (usually rail or rapid bus) with access routes for buses, taxis, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. urban villages: mixed-use developments in walkable, livable and transit-oriented districts that balance the need for sufficient density to support convenient, high-frequency transit service within the scale of the adjacent community. 29 vehicle miles traveled (VMT): one vehicle traveling one mile constitutes a vehicle mile. VMT is primarily an indicator of automobile use. Increasing VMT typically corresponds with increases in traffic and vehicle-related pollution. zero emissions vehicle (ZEV): motor vehicle that produces neither tailpipe nor evaporative pollutant emissions. zero waste: recycling or reusing over 90% of all natural and man-made materials back into nature or the marketplace rather than sending those materials to landfills or similar disposal options. 30 On September 20, 1994 Santa Monica’s City Council adopted the city’s first Sustainable City Program to ensure that Santa Monica can continue to meet its current environmental, economic and social needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. The program has evolved since its adoption and has been responsible for many positive changes in the community. In 2003, City Council adopted an expanded version of the program called the Sustainable City Plan (SCP), which was developed by a diverse group of community stakeholders and lays out far reaching sustainability goals for the community. Visit www.sustainablesm.org for more details. For more information please visit sustainablesm.org Measuring Sustainability Background Photographs provided by Greg Peterson, David Cowan, Amy Williams and City Staff Sustainable City Report Card: The Report Card, which is issued bi-annually, summarizes and grades our progress in meeting the Sustainable City Plan goals. The summaries are very helpful in providing a snapshot of the community’s efforts to date, and the grades are a tough-minded and fair assessment of how far we have come and what challenges lay ahead. Sustainable City Progress Report: The Progress Report is a comprehensive, web-based repository of all the data available to date on indicators used to measure our progress toward sustainability. The Progress Report website is the definitive resource for community decision makers and residents. In order to reach our goals, community members must be informed, empowered and motivated. Informing the public is our primary job, and two tools were developed for accomplishing this task: the Sustainable City Report Card and the Sustainable City Progress Report. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan Attachment 1 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan DRAFT Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan Prepared for: City of Santa Monica Public Works Department Resource Recovery & Recycling 2500 Michigan Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90404 Prepared by: . 251 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000 Pasadena, CA 91101 626-584-1700 In conjunction with: 19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 360 Irvine, California 92612 (949) 251-8628 January 2013 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan i Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 What Is Zero Waste? ........................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Zero Waste Policy .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 Goal Areas, Goals, Indicators and Targets .......................................................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 Current Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.1 Resource Recovery and Recycling Division ....................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.1.1 Residential Collection Services ...................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.1.2 Commercial Collection Services .................................................................................................................................. 2-15 2.1.3 Household Hazardous Waste ....................................................................................................................................... 2-18 2.1.4 Zero Waste Events ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-20 2.2 City Policies and Programs ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-20 2.2.1 Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) .................................................................................................................... 2-20 2.2.2 Extended Producer Responsibility ............................................................................................................................ 2-24 2.2.3 Recycled Products Procurement Policy .................................................................................................................. 2-24 2.2.4 Sustainable City Plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-25 2.2.5 Green Business Certification Program ..................................................................................................................... 2-26 2.2.6 Sustainable Quality Awards .......................................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.2.7 US Conference of Mayors/California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Buy Recycled Campaign ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.2.8 City’s Purchase and Use of Tropical Forest Wood Products .......................................................................... 2-27 2.2.9 Print Shop Purchasing Policy ....................................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.2.10 Electronic Waste ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-27 2.2.11 Used Oil and Filter Collection .................................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.2.12 Christmas Tree Recycling ........................................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.2.13 Catalogue Choice ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-29 2.2.14 Scheduled Events ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-29 2.3 Resource Recovery and Recycling Processing Facilities ........................................................................................... 2-29 2.3.1 Santa Monica Community Recycling Center.......................................................................................................... 2-29 2.3.2 Southern California Disposal Transfer Station .................................................................................................... 2-30 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan ii 2.4 Educational Outreach................................................................................................................................................................ 2-30 2.4.1 Sustainable Works ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-30 2.4.2 Community Sustainability Liaison ............................................................................................................................. 2-31 2.4.3 Educational Outreach Tools ......................................................................................................................................... 2-31 2.4.4 Educational Outreach Events ....................................................................................................................................... 2-32 3.0 Generation and Characterization ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Existing Generation....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Waste Diversion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Disposal .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.4 Discarded Materials Characterization .................................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4.2 Single-Family Residential Waste Composition ....................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4.3 Multi-Family Residential ................................................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.4.4 Commercial ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-7 3.4.5 Self-Haul ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5 Disposal Projections ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.5.1 Population Projections....................................................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.5.2 Future Disposal ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-9 4.0 Zero Waste Options ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Initial List of Potential Options ................................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Recommended Strategies .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.1 Mandatory ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.2 Collection ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.2.3 Rate Setting .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.4 Upstream ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.5 Downstream ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4-13 4.2.6 Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4-16 5.0 Diversion and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Estimates .............................................. 5-1 5.1 Diversion Estimates ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Estimates ............................................................................................................ 5-3 6.0 Financial and Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Financial Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.3 Customer Rate Impact Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 6-5 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan iii 6.4 Program Impact Observations ................................................................................................................................................. 6-7 7.0 Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Exhibits Exhibit 2-1. Map of SF Residences Participating in the Pilot Food Scraps Collection Program ........................... 2-12 Exhibit 2-2. Used Oil and Oil Filter Collection Locations ....................................................................................................... 2-28 Exhibit 3-1. Single Family Residential Disposed Waste Composition ................................................................................ 3-5 Exhibit 3-2. Multi-Family Residential Disposed Waste Composition ................................................................................. 3-6 Exhibit 3-3. Commercial Disposed Waste composition- Percentages ................................................................................ 3-7 Exhibit 3-4. Self-Haul Disposed Waste Composition Percentages ....................................................................................... 3-8 Exhibit 7-1. Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................................................................. 7-2 Tables Table 1-1. Goal Areas, Indicators and Targets ................................................................................................................................ 1-5 Table 2-1. Residential Tonnages (2011) .......................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Table 2-2. Items Accepted in the City’s Recycling Program ................................................................................................. 2-10 Table 2-3. Bi-Monthly Single-Family Residential Collection Rates ................................................................................... 2-11 Table 2-4. Bi-Monthly Multi-Family Residential Collection Rates ................................................................................... 2-14 Table 2-5. Commercial Tonnages (2011) ..................................................................................................................................... 2-15 Table 2-6. Bi-Monthly Commercial Collection Rates (FY 2011/2012) .......................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-7. Materials accepted at the City’s HHW Center ....................................................................................................... 2-19 Table 2-8. Approved C&D Recycling Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 2-23 Table 2-9. City-Approved Mixed C&D Recycling Facilities ................................................................................................... 2-24 Table 2-10. 2010 Sustainable Report Card Grades .................................................................................................................. 2-26 Table 2-11. Educational Outreach Media ..................................................................................................................................... 2-31 Table 2-12. Citywide Environmental Events .............................................................................................................................. 2-32 Table 3-1. Overall Generation 2011 (tons) ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Table 3-2. 2011 Diversion Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 3-2 Table 3-3. 2011 Disposal Summary (tons) ..................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-4. Composition by Material Category and Generator Sector ................................................................................. 3-4 Table 3-5. Population Forecasts (2010-2030) .............................................................................................................................. 3-9 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan iv Table 3-6. Waste Disposal Projections (2013-2030), Tons .................................................................................................. 3-10 Table 5-1. Diversion Estimates by Implementation Phase ...................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2. Zero Waste Strategic Plan Diversion Estimates ..................................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-3. Zero Waste Strategic Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates (MTCE) ................................................ 5-3 Table 6-1. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – All Sectors ................................................................................................ 6-2 Table 6-2. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – Single Family Sector ...................................................................... 6-2 Table 6-3. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – Multi-family Sector ........................................................................ 6-3 Table 6-4. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – Commercial Sector ......................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-5. Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Selected Zero Waste Programs ............................................................... 6-5 Table 6-6. Customer Rate Impacts for Selected Zero Waste Programs ............................................................................. 6-6 Table 6-7. Most Cost Effective Zero Waste Programs Based on Incremental Annual Program Savings ............. 6-7 Table 6-8. Programs with Net Cost Increases Sorted by Lowest to Highest Cost Per Ton ........................................ 6-8 Appendices A. Waste Characterization Analysis B. Population Projections C. Summary List of Recommended Strategies D. Diversion Potential by Option E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assumptions and Calculations F. City Solid Waste Revenue and Expense Data G. Planning Level Cost Estimates H. List of Plan Contributors and Preparers city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background The City of Santa Monica prides itself on being an environmental leader. It’s Resource Recovery and Recycling Division (RRR) and Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) have implemented many cutting edge environmental initiatives and programs. The City’s state-of-the-art waste diversion strategies contributed to the City reaching a 74% diversion rate in 2009. As another indicator of the City’s diversion accomplishments, the City’s calculated per capita disposal rate in 2010 was 3.6 pounds per person per day, well below the targeted rate of 10.9 pounds per person per day. The per capita disposal target, as established by CalRecycle, is the amount of disposal that is approximately equivalent to the 50 percent diversion requirement, and represents an average of 50 percent of total waste generation in 2003 through 2006 expressed in terms of per capita disposal On June 23, 2009, the City Council directed staff to develop a Zero Waste Strategic Plan. The creation of the Plan would allow the City to strengthen and refine its current waste diversion operations while adding significant opportunities and emerging technologies. The City established the Zero Waste Planning Committee to effectively design and implement a zero waste program. This Committee was comprised of the Resource Recovery & Recycling Division (RRR), the Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) and the City’s private partners, Southern California Disposal and Allan Company. Numerous meetings were held between September 2009 and August 2010 to establish methodologies to develop a Zero Waste Strategic Plan. Out of this collaborative effort, several processes and programs were discussed and implemented including a pilot residential yard trimmings and food scraps program, expansion of the commercial food scraps program, and audits of landfills to determine diversion rates. In addition, the committee determined that a consultant would be needed to develop a long term Zero Waste Strategic Plan which would include identifying new and expanded operational programs, including producer responsibility, product stewardship, client responsibility, council ordinances and resolutions as well as identifying impacts of all programs on future materials processing requirements and disposal rates. A Request for Proposals for a consultant was issued in June 2011, and in December 2011, the City began a Zero Waste Strategic Planning process to identify the new policies, programs and infrastructure that will enable the City to reach its Zero Waste goal of 95% diversion by 2030, or a per capita disposal rate of 1.1 pounds per person per day. The Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan will help the City strengthen its existing diversion operations while addressing significant fiscal challenges and emerging trends and technologies. The Plan will serve as a broad environmental and policy framework and will guide the future development of the City’s resource recovery and recycling policies, programs, and infrastructure. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-2 1-2 The Zero Waste Strategic Planning process included the following tasks: 1. Review and summary of existing policies, programs, facilities, and rate structure. 2. Review and compilation of existing zero waste guiding principles, and development of zero waste guiding principles relevant to the City. 3. Compilation of existing and projected waste generation and composition data. 4. Identification, evaluation, and selection of policy, program, and infrastructure options. 5. Calculation of potential diversion and greenhouse gas emission reductions. 6. Analysis of program costs and rate structure impacts. 1.1.1 What Is Zero Waste? Zero waste is a change of perspective. It requires rethinking what we have traditionally regarded as trash and instead treating all materials as valued resources. Zero waste entails shifting consumption patterns, more carefully managing purchases, and maximizing the reuse of materials at the end of their intended use. Zero waste takes into consideration the entire materials management system, from extraction of natural resources, to product design, manufacturing and distribution, to product use and reuse, to recycling, composting, energy recovery, or disposal. In developing policies, programs and infrastructure to achieve zero waste, the City can both maximize diversion from landfills and reduce generation of waste. Achieving zero waste entails encouraging the City, its residents, businesses, and visitors to reevaluate what we consider waste. Ultimately, zero waste contributes to the development of a greener local economy and a more sustainable community. In order to reach true sustainability, the strategies identified in the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan must consider “People, Planet, and Profit” as the triple bottom line achieving social, environmental, and economic sustainability. The City has defined it Zero Waste goal to mean achieving 95% diversion or a per capita disposal rate of 1.1 pounds per person per day. 1.2 Guiding Principles The Santa Monica Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan (Plan) is based on ten Guiding Principles that provide a framework for the policies, programs and actions identified for implementation. These Zero Waste Guiding Principles are consistent with the Guiding Principles developed for the Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan. The Guiding Principles were presented to the public at the Santa Monica festival in May 2012. Nearly 400 residents provided input during the event. The residents indicated their top three priorities are: healthy community; waste reduction; and education and outreach. The Guiding Principles are detailed below: city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-3 1-3 1. The Health of the Community and the Environment Guides all Policy Decisions Santa Monica is committed to protecting, preserving and restoring the natural environment and safeguarding the health of all members of the community. All program and policy decisions related to achieving our zero waste goals will be developed based on these commitments. 2. The Hierarchy for Managing Discarded Materials is to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and then Recover The City has adopted an environmental hierarchy for ‘highest and best use’ of discarded materials. It will follow this hierarchy by prioritizing waste prevention and reduction, then encouraging reuse prior to treatment through recycling and composting. The City will recover energy and economic value from residual materials that cannot be recycled or composted through environmentally sound treatment prior to disposal. 3. Economic and Social Benefits are Integral to Zero Waste The programs and policies in this Plan will promote economic benefits, including job creation, cost savings and business opportunities, and will ensure that inequitable burdens are not placed on any one geographic or socioeconomic sector of the population. 4. The City Leads By Example Santa Monica will model the behavior it seeks from its residents, businesses and institutions by incorporating zero waste principles into local policies and operations; through advocacy for zero waste policies and initiatives at the regional, state and federal level; and through support to the community in striving for zero waste. 5. Brand Owners, Producers and Manufacturers Contribute to the Management of their Products and Packaging The City will pursue policies at all levels of government (State/ Regional/Local) for producers to take responsibility for the end of life management of products and packaging. Consumers need to be part of the solution and will be educated on alternative purchasing practices. 6. Regional Partnerships Leverage the City’s Efforts in Pursuing Zero Waste Santa Monica recognizes that to be successful it must work with other cities in the region in order to promote a robust zero waste infrastructure and culture. The City will collaborate on programs, public outreach, legislation, infrastructure and new technologies that help to achieve zero waste goals throughout the region. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-4 1-4 7. Municipal Management of Local Collections and Processing Programs Ensures Local Control and Responsiveness The City’s operations are a model of materials management. New programs and infrastructure will be developed to ensure that residents, businesses and visitors become zero waste champions. 8. Education, Outreach and Marketing are Essential to Achieving Cultural Change Santa Monica recognizes the power of community-based social marketing, social networks, community organizing and grassroots support for its education and outreach programs. The City will empower the community by providing the tools and techniques for enabling the culture to achieve zero waste. 9. Research and Development of New Technologies, Collection Systems and Infrastructure are Needed to Maximize Diversion of Discarded Materials The City recognizes current approaches to managing materials are inadequate to maximize diversion from disposal. The City will closely monitor new developments and will invest in pilot programs and facilities for achieving zero waste. 10. Local Market Development for Reusable and Recyclable Materials Ensures Sustainability Santa Monica is part of the global economy, but recognizes that local business development is the key to a sustainable community. Wherever possible, the City will invest in local reuse and recycling markets and support local businesses in providing markets for discarded materials. 1.3 Zero Waste Policy The City will develop a zero waste policy to be adopted concurrent with the adoption of the zero waste strategic operations plan. The policy will establish the City’s goal of reaching zero waste by 2030, and the strategies and actions the City will take to attain that goal. Other aspects of the policy may include the definition of zero waste, specific goals for the residential and commercial sectors, the roles and responsibilities of City departments and divisions, and references to relevant sections of the City’s municipal code, ordinances, and resolutions. The policy will be drafted for review by City staff and legal counsel, and for consideration by the City Council. 1.4 Goal Areas, Goals, Indicators and Targets The Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan is organized around six goal areas: 1. Waste Reduction 2. Environmental Benefits 3. Economic Benefits 4. City Leadership 5. Producer Responsibility 6. Zero Waste Culture Change city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-5 1-5 Specific goals are established in each goal area representing what Santa Monica must achieve in order to become a zero waste community. For each goal, indicators have been developed to measure progress toward meeting the goals. The indicators will help determine the impact of a program, policy or action, and when tracked over time, will reflect the accomplishments and challenges of implementing the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan. The indicators will measure the performance or effectiveness of specific policies or programs, and will be used to determine the need for future modifications to the Plan. For some goals, numeric targets have been established to further evaluate the accomplishments of the Plan. The goal areas, indicators and targets are listed in Table 1-1. Table 1-1. Goal Areas, Indicators and Targets Goal Area/Indicator Targets 1. Waste Reduction • Total citywide generation (also report per capita and by sector) • Amount landfilled • Amount diverted (recycled and composted, etc.) from landfill • 80% diversion by 2015 • 95% diversion by 2030 • Per capita disposal rate of less than 3.6 pounds/person/day by 2020 • Per capita disposal rate of less than 1.1 pounds/person/day by 2030 2. Environmental Benefits • Greenhouse gas emissions reduction through waste reduction and recycling programs • Conversion of City fleets to clean fuels/renewable • 30% contribution to greenhouse gas reduction goal through waste prevention and recycling by 2015 • 50% contribution to greenhouse gas reduction goal through waste prevention and recycling by 2020 • 100% of all City fleet vehicles to clean fuels by 2030 3. Economic Benefits • Creation of new jobs • Local market development • 20% increase in local jobs from waste prevention and recycling • Local market development o 3 new local partnerships by 2015 o 5 new partnerships by 2020 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-6 1-6 Goal Area/Indicator Targets 4. City Leadership • Zero waste at City offices and facilities • Establish baseline • Recycling and composting at all City facilities by 2015 • 80% diversion rate at City facilities by 2015 • 95% diversion rate at City facilities by 2030 5. Producer Responsibility • Producer responsibility for problem products (advocacy at state level or implementation of City ordinances) • State legislation or City ordinance to address pharmaceuticals, sharps, batteries, fluorescent bulbs by 2020 6. Zero Waste Culture Change • Customer participation and reduced contamination • Zero waste awareness at home, at work, at school, at play • 80% participation in City programs by 2015 • 90% participation in City programs by 2020 • 100% participation in City programs by 2025 • Contamination reduced to 2% by 2015 • Contamination reduced to 1% by 2020 • 80% of residents and businesses aware of Zero Waste by 2015 • 90% of residents and businesses aware of Zero Waste by 2020 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-7 2.0 Current Conditions An important step in the planning process is to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the existing policies, programs, and infrastructure in the City. This helps ensure the Zero Waste Plan is in line with the City’s established goals and efforts. 2.1 Resource Recovery and Recycling Division This section provides a description of the existing services provided by the City’s Resource Recovery and Recycling Division. 2.1.1 Residential Collection Services The City’s Resource Recovery and Recycling Division provides collection services for all single- family (SF) and multi-family (MF) residences. There are approximately 50,000 total housing units in the City1. Approximately 77% of the housing units are designated by the City as MF, which is defined as more than 2 units. In 2011, the City collected an estimated 43,300 tons from residential customers, including approximately 27,600 tons of refuse, 8,500 tons of recyclables, and 7,000 tons of yard trimmings/ food scraps. A breakdown of the quantities and types of materials collected from single-family and multi-family residences is shown in Table 2-1 2. Table 2-1. Residential Tonnages (2011) Single-Family Multi-Family Total Refuse 6,976 20,692 27,667 Recycling 4,099 4,479 8,578 Yard Trimmings/Food Scraps 6,428 613 7,041 TOTAL 17,503 25,783 43,287 1 US Census, 2010; http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk 2 The City does not have separate collection routes by customer type, and therefore percentage estimates have been calculated based on the 2009 container audit and weighted averages. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-8 2-8 2.1.1.1 Single-Family Residences Single-family residences are provided with refuse, recycling, and yard trimmings collection services on a weekly basis, that utilizes an automated, 3-cart system. Residents can choose between 68- and 95-gallon sized black carts for refuse, and are provided 95-gallon blue carts for recyclables and 95-gallon green carts for yard trimmings. Items that are accepted in the blue recycling container are summarized in Table 2-2. Yard trimmings are composted at Community Recycling, located in Lamont, California, for agricultural use. The materials accepted in the yard trimmings carts include grass, leaves, weeds, tree trimmings, and small branches not more than 3 feet long. Currently, there are no restrictions or fees on the number of recycling or yard trimmings carts available to residents. Residents may request as many containers as they need. Single-family residents pay for collection services bi-monthly, based on the frequency of service, the number of carts, and the size of the refuse cart(s). The current collection rates for single-family residences are included in Table 2-3. Beginning in August 2010, the City began a pilot SF residential food scraps collection program for approximately 600 households. The program allowed residents to place food scraps in their yard trimmings cart(s). In late 2010, the City conducted a survey of 150 participants to collect feedback on the food scraps collection program. Of the responses received, 40% were participating in the program while 60% were not participating. Of the 60% of residents who were not participating in the program, 67% indicated they were not aware of the city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-9 2-9 program and stated they would begin to participate in the program now that they were aware. In August 2011, the pilot program expanded to 330 households, in February 2012 to an additional 370 households, and in April 2012, a total of 1,300 households were participating in the program. Beginning June 30, 2012, all single-family residences were eligible to participate in the program. A map of the pilot program areas is shown in Exhibit 2-1. The co-collected food scraps and yard trimmings are taken to Southern California Disposal (SCD), where they are placed in transfer vehicles that are hauled to Community Recycling for composting. The City also offers home composting and vermicompost bins at a subsidized price as another measure to decrease the amount of organic materials that go to landfills. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-10 2-10 Table 2-2. Items Accepted in the City’s Recycling Program Glass All glass bottles and jars (mayonnaise, apple juice bottles, wine bottles, etc.) CA redemption bottles (soda, beer, wine coolers, etc.) Metal Aluminum beverage cans and aluminum food cans (e.g., cat food cans) Steel/tin food and beverage cans Clean aluminum foil and foil food trays Paper Newspaper (including inserts) Office paper (white and colored) Computer paper Corrugated cardboard Cardboard boxes and paper bags Phone books Magazines and catalogs Food/detergent boxes Mixed office paper (file folders, fax paper, envelopes, advertisements, flyers, etc.) Junk mail, bulk mail, and scrap paper Paper bound with non-water soluble glue (paperback books, hardback books, overnight mail packages, etc.) Milk cartons (clean and rinsed) Aseptic Packages (juice boxes) Plastics Plastics Numbered 1-5, and 7 Water/juice/soda bottles Food containers Milk and water jugs Detergent/cleaning product bottles Personal care bottles Plastic bags (shopping bags, dry cleaner bags and other plastic bags) city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-11 2-11 Table 2-3. Bi-Monthly Single-Family Residential Collection Rates (FY 2011/2012) Quantity, Size Refuse Cart Frequency Rate 1-68 gallon cart 1x weekly $64.85 2-68 gallon cart 1x weekly $129.70 3-68 gallon cart 1x weekly $194.55 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $83.76 2-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $167.54 3-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $251.31 1-68 & 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $148.63 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $335.06 300 gallon container 1x weekly $252.33 Shared container service $25.67 A bulky item collection service is offered by the City. Bulky items include large objects that do not fit in a refuse container, such as refrigerators, stoves, and furniture. The service is available to residents for a fee, depending on the size and amount of items discarded. The fees can range from $25 for small items, to $250 for large items. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-12 2-12 Exhibit 2-1. Map of SF Residences Participating in the Pilot Food Scraps Collection Program city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-13 2-13 2.1.1.2 Multi-Family Residences The City collects refuse from an estimated 40,000 multi-family (MF) units. Multi-family buildings are provided with either 68- or 95-gallon carts; 300-gallon containers; or 2-, 3-, or 4- cubic-yard bins for refuse collection. Residents of multiple unit dwellings and condominiums have a commingled recycling collection program. Blue 300-gallon containers, or 2, 3, or 4 cubic yard bins are placed throughout the alley ways for the collection of commingled recyclables from MF complexes. The containers and bins are either designated to specific complexes, or are shared by neighboring complexes. In 2012, there were approximately 400 large (more than 5 units) buildings that did not have recycling services. The City has been working to address this issue, and during 2013, all 400 buildings will be provided with recycling opportunities. A list of recyclables accepted by the City was provided in Table 2-2. The City also offers home composting and vermicompost bins at a subsidized price to multi-family residences as a measure to decrease the amount of organic materials that go to landfills. The current collection rates for multi-family residences are shown in Table 2-4. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-14 2-14 Table 2-4. Bi-Monthly Multi-Family Residential Collection Rates (FY 2011/2012) 68, 95 Gallon Refuse Carts 3 Cubic Yard Refuse Bin Quantity, Size Frequency Rate Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 1-68 gallon cart 1x weekly $51.35 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $226.49 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $67.55 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $453.02 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $679.52 300 Gallon Refuse Container 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $906.03 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $1,132.54 300 gallon container 1x weekly $147.27 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $1,358.97 300 gallon container 2x weekly $294.54 300 gallon container 3x weekly $441.82 4 Cubic Yard Refuse Bin 300 gallon container 4x weekly $589.10 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 300 gallon container 5x weekly $736.38 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $300.26 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $600.51 2 Cubic Yard Refuse Bin 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $900.77 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,201.03 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $154.03 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $1,501.28 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $308.07 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $1,801.54 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $462.09 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $616.11 Refuse Bin Roll Out 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $770.16 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $924.17 Bin roll out 1x weekly $41.89 Bin roll out 2x weekly $83.76 Miscellaneous Bin roll out 3x weekly $125.65 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate Bin roll out 4x weekly $167.54 Livable Unit Charge $8.11 Bin roll out 5x weekly $206.35 No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 Bin roll out 6x weekly $251.31 Lock Charge/Per Bin $17.58 City bin on City Property Per Bin $86.47 Refuse Bin Truck Roll Out Share Bin/Cart Service $37.84 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate Bin truck roll out 1x weekly $47.38 Bin truck roll out 2x weekly $94.76 Bin truck roll out 3x weekly $144.44 Bin truck roll out 4x weekly $189.52 Bin truck roll out 5x weekly $236.91 Bin truck roll out 6x weekly $284.29 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-15 2-15 2.1.2 Commercial Collection Services The City provides collection services for all 3,000 commercial accounts, representing approximately 14,000 businesses. A breakdown of the quantities and types of materials collected from commercial accounts is shown in Table 2-5. The container sizes available to commercial businesses for refuse include: 68- or 95- gallon carts; 300-gallon containers; or 2, 3 or 4-cubic- yard bins. Extra refuse collection containers are available for an additional fee, depending on the size and number of containers requested. The summary of commercial rates for collection services is included in Table 2-6. Commercial customers also pay for street sweeping services. In the future, street sweeping services may be incorporated into the City’s overall rate structure. Table 2-5. Commercial Tonnages (2011) Tons Refuse 38,199 Recycling 3,882 Food Scraps/Yard Trimmings 2,316 TOTAL 44,398 The City provides commingled recycling collection services to all commercial customers at no additional charge. Approximately 820 businesses currently participate in recycling. Private haulers also provide recycling services to some commercial businesses. Table 2-2 includes the list of items collected in the commercial recycling program. Food scraps recycling collection is available to restaurants, grocery stores and other establishments with food services. Presently, the service is offered at no additional charge. In the future, the program will be incorporated into the City’s overall rate structure. Participants are required to source separate all food scraps and place them into designated containers provided by the City. Currently, 98 businesses are participating in the program and another 471 businesses are eligible to participate. The City takes the food scraps to SCD, where it is loaded into roll-off containers and picked up by Community Recycling for transport to their composting facility it Lamont, California. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-16 2-16 Partnering with GeoGreen Biofuels, the City offers a fats, oil, and grease (FOG) collection program that is free of charge. Collection containers are located Downtown in parking structures 2 through 6. Restaurants that are not located Downtown can request a separate collection container by contacting the City. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-17 2-17 Table 2-6. Bi-Monthly Commercial Collection Rates (FY 2011/2012) 68 Gallon Refuse Cart 2 Cubic Yard Refuse Bin Quantity, Size Frequency Rate Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 1-68 gallon cart 1x weekly $35.13 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $110.79 1-68 gallon cart 2x weekly $70.25 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $221.59 1-68 gallon cart 3x weekly $105.39 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $332.37 1-68 gallon cart 4x weekly $140.52 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $443.16 1-68 gallon cart 5x weekly $175.64 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $609.37 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $664.76 95 Gallon Refuse Cart 2 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $775.55 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $50.00 3 Cubic Yard Refuse Bin 1-95 gallon cart 2x weekly $99.98 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 1-95 gallon cart 3x weekly $149.98 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $149.98 1-95 gallon cart 4x weekly $199.97 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $299.94 1-95 gallon cart 5x weekly $249.96 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $449.93 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $599.91 300 Gallon Refuse Container 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $749.88 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $899.85 300 gallon container 1x weekly $102.68 3 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $1,049.83 300 gallon container 2x weekly $205.36 300 gallon container 3x weekly $318.53 Refuse Bin Roll Out 300 gallon container 4x weekly $424.71 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 300 gallon container 5x weekly $530.88 Bin roll out 1x weekly $24.32 Bin roll out 2x weekly $48.64 Miscellaneous Bin roll out 3x weekly $72.96 City bin on City property Per Bin $59.45 Bin roll out 4x weekly $97.28 Lock Charge Per Bin $17,58 Bin roll out 5x weekly $121.59 Non-Semi Auto Service 2x/week $45.94 Bin roll out 6x weekly $145.93 Bin roll out 7x weekly $170.23 Street Sweeping Rates (based on water meter size) Refuse Bin Truck Roll Out 0.75” Per Unit $74.32 Quantity, Size Frequency Rate 1.00” Per Unit $101.34 Bin Truck roll out 1x weekly $35.13 1.5” Per Unit $148.63 Bin Truck roll out 2x weekly $70.25 2.00” Per Unit $198.61 Bin Truck roll out 3x weekly $105.39 3.00” Per Unit $297.24 Bin Truck roll out 4x weekly $140.52 4.00” Per Unit $397.24 Bin Truck roll out 5x weekly $175.64 6.0” Per Unit $595.86 Bin Truck roll out 6x weekly $210.77 Bin Truck roll out 7x weekly $270.23 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-18 2-18 2.1.3 Household Hazardous Waste Residents have access to a free drop-off service for Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) at the City’s HHW Collection Center, located at the City Yards on 2500 Michigan Avenue. The operating hours of the HHW Center are the 1st Saturday of the month, between 9 am and 2 p.m. Small businesses, those that generate less than 27 gallons of hazardous waste per month can make an appointment to bring hazardous waste to the City’s HHW Collection Center on the Friday before the 1st Saturday of the month. There is a fee for small businesses to use the HHW Collection Center. A list of the HHW accepted is provided in Table 2-7. To supplement the services provided at the drop-off center, the City began a HHW Home Collection Program in August 2011. The HHW Home Collection Program is provided on a free and unlimited basis to homeowners and tenants in the City. Participants in the program must contact the City’s contractor to reserve the service and request a collection kit. On collection day, residents are instructed to leave their HHW at their doorstep where it is collected. Materials accepted in the HHW Home Collection Program include: • Aerosols • Art Supplies • Automotive Products • Batteries • Cleaners/Wax • Garden Chemicals • Lubricants • Mercury Containing Devices • Other Household Products • Paints • Personal Care Products • Pesticides • Sharps • Electronics • Pool Chemicals • Auto Batteries: Up to 4 • Fluorescent Light Tubes (Straight): Up to 10, tubes must be taped • Televisions: 1 • Computer Monitors: 1 • Empty paint cans and/or dried latex paint not hazardous Other Consumer Electronics with Circuit Boards • Desktop or laptop computers: 1 • Microwave ovens: Up to 2 • Desktop scanners, printers, copiers: Up to 2 • Fax machines: Up to 2 • Telephones, cell phones, portable phones, keyboards, mice, VCR’s, CD players, stereos disc drives, cables: No limit city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-19 2-19 Table 2-7. Materials accepted at the City’s HHW Center Category Materials Included Aerosol Products Aerosol air fresheners, aerosol antibacterial sanitizers Art Supplies Adhesives, paint, cleaners, correction fluids, photography chemicals Automobile Batteries Automobile batteries Automotive Products Cleaners, lubricant, solvent, fuel, brake fluid, antifreeze, carburetor cleaner, metal conditioner, engine degreaser, fuel additives, refrigerants, transmission fluid, window washer fluid, used motor oil, used motor oil filters Batteries All household types Chemicals Garden chemicals, pesticides Cleaners/Wax Polish, degreasers, rug/upholstery cleaners, oven cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners E-waste Computer monitors, televisions, cell phones, DVD players Fats, Oil, and Grease Cooking oil Fluorescent Straight Light Tubes Fluorescent lamps Lubricants Automotive/household compressor oil, cutting oil Paint Aerosols, hobby/automotive/household latex and oil-based, thinners, strippers, wood preservatives, lacquers, linseed oil, primers, stains, varnishes Personal Care Personal Care - nail polish, polish remover, rubbing alcohol, shoe polish, spot remover Poisons Household/garden poisons, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, baits traps, fertilizers, pet care, pool chemicals Other Household Fluorescent tubes/bulbs, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), thermostats, thermometers, propane tanks, moth balls, rust remover, kerosene Sharps Medical Waste Needles, lancets Oil and Oil Filters Used motor oil, oil filters city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-20 2-20 2.1.4 Zero Waste Events To promote and implement recycling, reuse and composting practices at special events, the Resource Recovery and Recycling Division offers assistance to help organizations implement Zero Waste events. The assistance includes a planning guide with information and recommendations on vendor involvement, food service, site planning, decorations and giveaways, education, volunteers, signage, and collection containers. 2.2 City Policies and Programs The City has implemented numerous policies and programs that support the City’s resource recovery and sustainability efforts. These policies and programs were incorporated into the Zero Waste Planning process to ensure the goals and visions were aligned. 2.2.1 Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) 2.2.1.1 Disposable Food Service Containers Chapter 5.44 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) prohibits the distribution of disposable food service containers made of nonrecyclable plastic or expanded polystyrene foam from all food providers and at City events. The ban applies to single-use disposable containers intended for serving or transporting prepared, ready-to-eat food or beverages. The ban helps reduce the amount of plastic that ends up on the City’s beaches, reduces materials that go to the landfill, and also reduces the amount of natural resources used to manufacture and transport the disposable products. 2.2.1.2 Single-Use Carry Out Bags Chapter 5.45 of the SMMC prohibits retail establishments, grocery stores, convenience stores, mini-marts, liquor stores, pharmacies, and any City events, from distributing petroleum and bio- based single-use carryout plastic bags. The code imposes a $0.10 fee for each paper bag that is distributed, and requires paper bags to be 100% recycled content paper, with a minimum of 40% post-consumer, recycled content. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-21 2-21 The City has implemented a Share a Bag Program. The program enables the community to donate extra, reusable bags at designated locations throughout the City for those who cannot afford reusable bags or for those who forget their reusable bags. There are 10 Share a Bag Program locations citywide The locations are listed below and shown on Exhibit 2-2. • Santa Monica City Hall Help Desk, 1685 Main Street • Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, 1234 6th Street #100 • Downtown Santa Monica Ambassador's Desk, Parking Structure 4, 1321 2nd St. • Santa Monica Convention & Visitors Bureau, 1920 Main Street • Santa Monica Place, The Market on Level Three • Real Offices Center Santa Monica, 604 Arizona Ave • Sustainable Works, 1744 Pearl Street • Assistance League of Santa Monica Thrift Shop, 1453 15th Street • Cherry Picked Boutique, 2807 Pico Blvd. • Virginia Avenue Park, 2200 Virginia Ave. Exhibit 2-2. Share a Bag Locations city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-22 2-22 2.2.1.3 Construction and Demolition Material Waste Management Plans Chapter 8.108, Subpart C, requires all City-sponsored construction and demolition (C&D) projects, as well as private C&D projects that are $50,000 or greater in value, or are 1,000 square feet or greater, to meet a minimum 70% diversion rate. Covered projects must submit a waste management plan (WMP) for City approval that includes the tonnages of materials that are disposed and diverted, and the methods implemented to reuse and/or recycle the materials,. Applicants must provide a security deposit equal to 3% of the project value, or $30,000, whichever is less. Upon project completion, a final compliance report must be submitted for the security deposit to be refunded to the applicant. A number of methods can be used to comply with the C&D diversion requirements. On -site reuse is allowed on a case by case basis, as approved in the WMP. Materials that are source- seperated on site, such as wood, concrete, or asphalt, can be sent to an approved C&D facility for reuse or recycling. All mixed C&D materials are required to be sent to an approved mixed C&D recycling facility. A list of the City-approved C&D recycling facilities is included in Table 2-8. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-23 2-23 Table 2-8. Approved C&D Recycling Facilities (2010) METAL companies listed below accept both ferrous & non-ferrous metals, unless otherwise noted. MIXED C&D RECYCLERS Process mixed C&D to extract recyclables SALVAGED ITEMS (USED BUILDING MATERIALS) A&S Metal Recycling 2261 E. 15th Street Los Angeles, CA 90021 213-623-9443 Community Recycling & Resource Recovery, Inc. 9189 DeGarmo Avenue Sun Valley, CA 91352 818-767-0675 Freeway Building Materials 1124 S. Boyle Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90023 323-261-8904 Alpert & Alpert Iron & Metal 1815 Soto Street Los Angeles, CA 90023 323-265-4040 Direct Disposal 3720 Noakes Street Los Angeles, CA 90023 323-262-1604 Santa Fe Wrecking & Salvage 720 E. 18th Street Los Angeles, CA 90021 213-765-8166 Atlas Iron & Metal 10019 Alameda Street Los Angeles, CA 90002 323-566-5184 East Valley Diversion 11616 Sheldon Street Sun Valley, CA 91352 818-252-0019 Scavenger’s Paradise 5453 Satsuma Avenue N. Hollywood, CA 91601 323-877-7945 Kramer Metals 1760 E. Slauson Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90058 323-587-2277 Downtown Diversion 2424 E. Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90021 213-612-5005 WOOD North Hills Recycling, Inc. 11700 Blucher Avenue Granada Hills, CA 91344 818-831-7980 A-1 Metals Recycling, Inc. 8250 Tujunga Avenue Sun Valley, CA 91352 818-767-4388 California Waste Services 621 W. 152nd Street Gardena, CA 90247 310-538-5998 Recycled Wood Products 1313 E. Phillips Blvd Pomona, CA 91766 909-868-6882 INERT MATERIAL Southern California Disposal 1908 Frank Street Santa Monica, CA. 90404 310-828-6444 CARPET PADDING Hanson Aggregates 5625 Southern Avenue South Gate, CA 90280 800-300-6120 Carpet Pad Recycling 1923 Rosemead Blvd South El Monte, CA 91733 626-444-6048 Arcadia Reclamation, Inc. 12321 Lower Azusa Road Arcadia, CA. 91006 909-392-8510 Interior Removal Specialist, Inc. 9309 Rayo Avenue South Gate, CA 90280 323-357-6900 CARDBOARD Allan Company 2411 Delaware Avenue Santa Monica CA 90404 310-453-9677 Vulcan Materials Company 11520 Sheldon Blvd Sun Valley, CA 90052 818-768-4157 INERT MATERIAL BRICK & ROOFING TILES Valley Base Materials 2121 E. 25th Street Los Angeles, CA 90058 323-583-7913 Bourget Bros Building Materials 1636 11th Street Santa Monica, CA 90404 310-450-6556 Chandler’s Sand Gravel 26311 Palos Verdes Drive East Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 310-784-2900 Nu-Way Arrow Reclamation 1270 E. Arrow Highway Irwindale, CA. 91706 626-305-5308 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-24 2-24 In 2010, the City conducted an audit of the mixed C&D recycling facilities. The results of the audit indicated a total of 35,308 tons of C&D materials originating in the City were processed at these facilities, with 31,116 diverted from landfilling, for an average of 88% diversion. Table 2- 9 includes the approved mixed C&D recycling facilties, along with the facility diversion rates, and tons of materials processed from the City in 2010. Table 2-9. City-Approved Mixed C&D Recycling Facilities (2010) Facility Name and Location Tons Originating in Santa Monica Diversion Rate Tons Diverted California Waste Services 5,922 87% 5,152 Community Recycling 16,742 93% 15,570 Direct Disposal 311 73% 227 Downtown Diversion 10,087 83% 8,372 East Valley Diversion 62.6 85% 52.4 Interior Removal Specialists 1,190 78% 928 Southern California Disposal 994 82% 815 TOTAL 35,308 88% 31,16 2.2.2 Extended Producer Responsibility Resolution 10412, signed on June 23, 2009, documents the City’s support for an extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework in State legislation by way of urging the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and CalRecycle to advocate for more EPR policies. The resolution states that the City will encourage all manufacturers to take part in the responsibility of their products, from the processing, collection, recycling, and disposal of the materials. 2.2.3 Recycled Products Procurement Policy The Recycled Products Procurement Policy was developed in 1991 to help the City make responsible decisions in purchasing products with recycled content. The main guidelines of the policy include the following: • The priority in which products should be purchased based on the highest content of post-consumer material, pre-consumer material, and minimum recycled content. • The ability of a product and its packaging to be reused, reconditioned for reuse, or recycled, and the amount of waste the product and its packaging generates. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-25 2-25 • Equipment purchased or rented by the City are to be compatible with the use of recycled-content products. • Product specifications, requisitions, and performance standards must not require the use of products made from virgin materials or exclude recycled-content products. 2.2.4 Sustainable City Plan In September 1994, the City Council took steps to address sustainability concerns in the community by adopting the City of Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan. The Sustainable City Plan provides a roadmap to ensure the City meets its environmental, economic, and social needs without compromising the quality of life for the community and for future generations. The plan has concrete goals and targets for tracking the City’s progress in the following nine areas: 1. Resource Conservation 2. Environmental and Public Health 3. Transportation 4. Economic Development 5. Open Space and Land Use 6. Housing 7. Community Education and Civic Participation 8. Human Dignity 9. Arts and Culture The Sustainable City Plan includes goals and strategies, for the City government and all sectors of the community, to conserve and enhance local resources, safeguard human health and the environment, maintain a healthy and diverse economy, and improve the livability and quality of life for all community members in the City. Under the Resource Conservation area, the City established the following goals for solid waste generation: • Total citywide generation to not exceed year 2000 levels by 2010 • Increase amount diverted to 70% of total by 2010. The goals of the Sustainable City Plan are tracked through a Sustainable City Progress Report and Report Card. In 2005, a Progress Report website was launched to provide updates on the status of the Plan as well as a letter grade that rates the City on its efforts in the initial eight target areas. In 2012, a ninth target area, Arts and Culture, was added to the Sustainable City Plan. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-26 2-26 The Sustainable City Report Card is a document that provides a summary of the grades that are also posted on the Progress Report website. The most recent Sustainable City Report Card was released in 2012, a summary of those grades are provided in Table 2-10. The 2010 waste diversion goal was exceeded in 2009 with a diversion rate of 74%. Table 2-10. 2010 Sustainable City Report Card Grades # Category Overall Grade Effort 1 Resource Conservation B- A- 2 Environmental and Public Health C+ A- 3 Transportation C+ A 4 Economic Development B A- 5 Open Space and Land Use A- A 6 Housing C A 7 Community Education and Civic Participation A- A 8 Human Dignity B A 9 Arts and Culture1 N/A N/A 1 The Arts and Culture category was added in 2012 and grades were not included in the 2012 report card. 2.2.5 Green Business Certification Program The City, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Sustainable Works non-profit organization have joined together to certify and recognize green businesses in the community through the Green Business Certification Program. The Program recognizes and certifies businesses that have taken steps to incorporate sustainable practices into their operations. In order to apply for a green certification, businesses must have a physical location in the City, a minimum of five employees, and occupy a minimum of 500 square feet of commercial business space. Eligible businesses must fall under one of the following categories: • Office • Retail Store • Restaurant • Grocery • Hotel • Motel Businesses that successfully pass the verification process are green certified for a period of 2 years. A city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-27 2-27 total of 19 businesses were certified in the latest (2011-2013) Business Certification Program. 2.2.6 Sustainable Quality Awards The Sustainable Quality Awards (SQA) event was developed to identify and recognize businesses in the City that are successfully incorporating sustainable practices into their operations. The SQA is an annual event that promotes the efforts of local businesses that have made significant achievements in the areas of sustainable economic development, social responsibility, and stewardship of the natural environment. 2.2.7 US Conference of Mayors/California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Buy Recycled Campaign In September 1995, the City adopted a resolution for the US Conference of Mayors/California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Buy Recycled Campaign. In the resolution, the City agreed to purchase paper that contains a minimum of 20% post-consumer recycled content, increasing the amount of post-consumer recycled content to 30% beginning in 1998. The City currently exceeds these standards by using paper containing a minimum of 50% post-consumer recycled content. 2.2.8 City’s Purchase and Use of Tropical Forest Wood Products Ordinance 2.28 bans the purchase or use of any tropical hardwood product within the City, or at any City-sponsored events. The ordinance requires all contracts between the City and any supplier of wood products to include provisions that restrict the use of tropical wood. 2.2.9 Print Shop Purchasing Policy The City’s print shop has a policy to exclusively purchase and use recycled paper and vegetable- based printing inks, unless a printing request is submitted that cannot be completed using those products. It is estimated that 99% of all printing jobs are completed using recycled paper and vegetable-based inks. 2.2.10 Electronic Waste Electronic waste (E-waste), such as computers and televisions, is collected through a drop-off program for residents and businesses at the Santa Monica Community Recycling Center, located at 2411 Delaware Avenue. The drop-off program is free to residents and fee-based for businesses. 2.2.11 Used Oil and Filter Collection Collection centers are located throughout the City for residents to drop off used oil and oil filters. Exhibit 2-3 provides a map of the drop off locations. 2.2.12 Christmas Tree Recycling During the month of January each year, Christmas trees can be taken and recycled at four local parks or at the SCD Transfer Station in the City for free. The trees collected at the parks are turned into mulch and used throughout the City. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-28 2-28 Exhibit 2-3. Used Oil and Oil Filter Collection Locations city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-29 2-29 2.2.13 Catalogue Choice City residents can sign up for a free account to opt-out of unwanted catalogs, phone books, coupons, circulars, credit card offers, and donation solicitations. The website is accessed through https://santamonica.catalogchoice.org/login. 2.2.14 Scheduled Events The City schedules a variety of waste reduction, re-use, recycling and composting events on a quarterly basis: • E-Waste collection • Textile recycling • Paper shredding • Compost give-away days and workshops • Re-use workshops • Annual Citywide yard sale 2.3 Resource Recovery and Recycling Processing Facilities There are two resource recovery and recycling processing facilities located within the City limits: the Santa Monica Community Recycling Center and the SCD Transfer Station. 2.3.1 Santa Monica Community Recycling Center The Santa Monica Community Recycling and Buy-Back Center is located at 2411 Delaware Avenue. The property is owned by the City and leased to the Allan Company, who owns and operates the facility equipment. The Center is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The Center may close earlier due to maximum daily tonnage restrictions. The Community Recycling Center accepts the following items: • Cans – aluminum, steel • Glass – bottles and jars • Plastic • Mixed Paper • Scrap Metal • Electronics • White goods - stoves, refrigerators and other appliances • Used motor oil and oil filters city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-30 2-30 2.3.2 Southern California Disposal Transfer Station The SCD Transfer Station is a privately owned facility that is open to the public. The transfer station is located at 1908 Frank Street, and is open Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 6:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Items that are accepted at the facility include: • Refuse • Food scraps • Yard trimmings • C&D debris • Street sweeping collections In addition, SCD receives and transfers all refuse, yard trimmings, and food scraps that are collected by the City. SCD transfers refuse to a number of facilities, including Puente Hills landfill, Sunshine Canyon Landfill, Chiquita Canyon Landfill, Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF), and Commerce Refuse to Energy Facility. Yard trimmings, food scraps, and street sweepings are transferred to Community Recycling for composting at its compost facility in Lamont. Community Recycling receives the City’s food scraps at the SCD transfer station, and transfers the material to its composting facility in Lamont, California. Construction and demolition debris generated from City projects is also transferred through SCD to Community Recycling for processing, recycling, and disposal. 2.4 Educational Outreach 2.4.1 Sustainable Works Sustainable Works, a project of Community Partners, is a non-profit environmental education organization within the City. The organization offers four different sustainability programs: Business Greening, Community Sustainability, Residential Greening, and Student Greening. The Business Greening Program is free to Santa Monica businesses through a subsidy provided by the City’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment. The Program assists businesses in greening their bottom line by helping them save money and resources through increased efficiency and employee education. Sustainable Works performs on-site environmental assessments to evaluate current business practices and provides sustainable recommendations. The Community Sustainability Program facilitates the adoption of sustainable practices in the community and engages stakeholders to help meet sustainability goals. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-31 2-31 The Residential Greening Program offers free Green Living Workshops for residents in the City, and to non-residents for a fee. The series features six workshops offered once a week, for six weeks, covering topics that include resource recovery and recycling, water, energy, transportation, chemicals, and responsible purchasing. A Sustainable Works book is provided to each participant, which includes comprehensive resources for sustainable living. The Student Sustainability Workshop is a program that provides educational, student leadership, and community building opportunities to its participants while shaping the next generation of environmental leaders. 2.4.2 Community Sustainability Liaison The role of the Community Sustainability Liaison is to provide Santa Monica residents and community organizations with information and resources needed to help meet the goals of the Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan. The Liaison also helps coordinate educational outreach events within the community and produces a monthly electronic newsletter that highlights local sustainable news and events. 2.4.3 Educational Outreach Tools The City provides updates and information on its programs, policies, and events through a variety of outreach tools. Information is dispersed online (City websites and emails), via mail, television programming, workshops, advertisements in public spaces, and through citywide events. A list of some of the media available to the City for public outreach and education is provided in Table 2-11. The Environmental Directory includes a thorough list of local resources for topics that range from energy efficiency programs to environmentally preferred purchasing. The booklet also includes resources for refuse, recycling, composting, and hazardous waste. Table 2-11. Educational Outreach Media Media Resource Recovery and Recycling Division Website Office of Sustainability and the Environment Website Sustainable Santa Monica Electronic Newsletters Sustainable Santa Monica Facebook Page Santa Monica Resource Recovery and Recycling Facebook Page and Twitter City Emails Press Releases/Media Lists (i.e., Santa Monica Daily Press, Santa Monica Mirror, Santa Monica Observer, the Argonaut, etc.) CityTV Programming Community Events/Workshops City Hall Public Information Desk Libraries Farmers Markets Display Advertising (Big Blue Bus Advertising, etc.) City Collection Truck Advertising city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS 2-32 2-32 2.4.4 Educational Outreach Events The City hosts a variety of environmental events throughout the year. These events provide the City an opportunity to directly reach out to community members, support local businesses, and promote sustainability efforts. The Santa Monica Festival is the largest festival in the City, and is held each year in May at Clover Park. The City also dedicates the month of September as Sustainability Awareness Month, in which key messages are targeted to residents, businesses, and the City Council regarding sustainability topics. Events that take place during Sustainable Santa Monica Awareness Month include: • Business Mixers • Residential Workshops • Film Screenings • A Sustainable Food Event • Report Card Launch • Student Poster Contest • Green Prize for Sustainable Literature A summary of annual sustainability events hosted by the City is provided in Table 2-12. Table 2-12. Citywide Environmental Events Event Month Buy Local Expo March Sustainable Industries Economic Forum April Santa Monica Festival May AltBuild Expo May Sustainable Quality Awards May Main Street Festival June Solstice Festival June Sustainable Santa Monica Awareness Month September AltCar Expo October Pico Festival October city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-1 3.0 Generation and Characterization 3.1 Existing Generation Analyzing the City’s generation provides an understanding of which areas to target in the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan. Utilizing both the generation data and the inventory of existing programs and infrastructure, zero waste options were developed that will provide the most significant impact on reducing waste and increasing diversion. In 2011, the City’s generation, as calculated by CalRecycle, was approximately 360,000 tons of materials. Out of the total tons generated, 77% was diverted through waste prevention, recycling, and composting, and 23% was disposed in landfills or waste-to-energy facilities. The Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan prioritizes source reduce, reuse, recycling, and composting materials before landfilling or processing at waste-to-energy facilities. The total amount of materials generated is calculated using the City’s average generation rate from the years 2003 through 2006. This methodology is consistent with the CalRecycle per capita disposal equivalent methodology (as set forth in state statute). The City’s 2011 per capita disposal was 5.0 pounds per person per day (PPD). Compared to the per capita disposal target of 10.9 PPD, the City was well within the target goal. The City’s overall 2011 generation is included in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Overall Generation 2011 (tons) Disposal Diversion Total 82,997 275,355 358,351 3.2 Waste Diversion In 2011, the City diverted approximately 275,355 tons of material, or 77% of the total materials generated. The diversion programs provided by the City, and waste prevention and recycling efforts undertaken by individual residents and businesses, all contribute to the City’s diversion rate. A summary of the activities that contribute to diversion in the City is provided in Table 3- 2. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-2 Table 3-2. 2011 Diversion Summary Source/Program Diversion (Tons) SF Residential 10,527 Curbside Recycling 4,099 Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps 6,428 MF Residential 5,092 Recycling 4,479 Yard Trimmings 613 Commercial 6,412 Recycling 3,882 Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps 2,530 Self-Haul 3,356 Recycling 3,248 Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps 108 C&D 41,919 Commercial 2,861 Self-Haul 7,945 Private C&D Recycling 31,113 Street Sweeping 2,627 Other City Programs 3 17,790 Residential Drop-Off 164 Residential Buy-Back 17,484 Tires 13 White Goods 7 Scrap Metal 78 E-waste 8 HHW 36 Diversion at Landfills (alternative daily cover, beneficial reuse, etc.) 12,601 Other Source Reduction & Recycling Programs 4 175,031 Total 275,355 3 City of Santa Monica 2010 Annual Report to CalRecycle 4 This figure was estimated based on CalRecycle’s calculation of citywide generation, and includes waste prevention and recycling efforts undertaken by individual residents and businesses in the City. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-3 3.3 Disposal In 2011, 82,997 tons of materials were disposed in landfills or processed at waste-to-energy facilities. Commercial waste comprised approximately 50% of the disposed waste, MF residential waste comprised almost 25% of disposal, and SF residential waste made up 8%. The remaining disposal consisted of self-haul construction and demolition (C&D) debris and additional materials that were disposed by private companies or individuals. A summary of the disposed waste is provided in Table 3-3. . Table 3-3. 2011 Disposal Summary (tons) Source Tons SF Residential 6,976 MF Residential 20,692 Commercial 39,931 Self-Haul (City controlled) 7,494 Self-Haul (Not City controlled)5 7,905 Total 82,997 3.4 Discarded Materials Characterization Understanding the types and quantities of materials that make up the discarded materials generated in the City is an important element of the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan. The data helps guide the development and selection of policies, programs and facilities, and to target specific material types and/or products. Since discarded materials vary by generator type, it is important to analyze the materials generated by each sector. 3.4.1 Methodology For this study, the waste composition percentages contained in the California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study were applied to the City’s discarded materials quantities to 5 Consists of disposal by private companies and individuals outside of the City’s control. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-4 identify the types and quantities of materials disposed by sector 6. The specific data used for Santa Monica was taken from the “Overall Disposed Waste Composition: Southern Region.” The study characterizes the waste into 10 categories and 62 material types. Table 3-4 shows the overall waste characterization by material category for each sector. The detailed data for all material categories and types for each sector is included in Appendix A. Table 3-4. Composition by Material Category and Generator Sector Category SF Residential MF Residential Commercial Self- Haul Paper 18.3% 22.2% 20.1% 5.1% Glass 2.2% 2.9% 1.2% 0.4% Metal 3.7% 3.4% 4.3% 4.4% Electronics 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% Plastic 9.9% 7.0% 10.5% 5.7% Other Organic 47.0% 41.8% 31.9% 10.1% Inerts and Other 14.7% 17.7% 28.1% 62.9% Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% Special Waste 0.2% 3.8% 3.5% 11.0% Mixed Residue 3.5% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% Source: CalRecycle, 2008 State-wide Waste Characterization Study, Southern Region 6 Cascadia Consulting Group, for the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now “CalRecycle”). city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-5 3.4.2 Single-Family Residential Waste Composition Within the single-family residential sector, the following key findings are identified: • Other Organic makes up 47% (3,280 tons) of the sector’s total disposed wastestream. Food waste was the largest material type in this category, which made up 24% (1,687 tons) of the overall waste disposed within this sector; followed by leaves and grass at approximately 8% (540 tons); and remainder/composite organics at approximately 7% (484 tons). • Paper makes up 18% (1,273 tons) of the wastestream; remainder/composite paper was the largest material type and made up approximately 6% (401 tons). • Inerts and Other make up approximately 15% (1,026 tons) of the wastestream; lumber was the largest material type in this category, which made up almost 8% (543 tons) of the disposed wastestream. A summary of the quantity of materials disposed in the SF residential sector is shown in Exhibit 3-1. Exhibit 3-1. Single Family Residential Disposed Waste Composition Paper 1,273 tons Glass 150 tons Metals 256 tons Electronics 26 tons Plastics 691 tons Other Organic 3,280 tons Inerts and Other 1,026 tons HHW 17 tons Special Waste 15 tons Mixed Residue 243 tons city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-6 3.4.3 Multi-Family Residential Within the multi-family residential sector, the following key findings are identified: • Other Organic makes up the largest category of the materials, which was approximately 42% (8,639 tons) of the sector’s total wastestream. Food waste was the largest material type in this category, which made up approximately 22% (4,460 tons) of the overall waste disposed within this sector; followed by remainder/composite organics at 9% (1,890 tons); and carpet which was 6% (1,300 tons). • Paper makes up 22% (4,590 tons) of the wastestream; uncoated corrugated cardboard, other miscellaneous paper, and remainder/composite paper were the largest material types in this category, each made up approximately 5% (1,000 tons) of the wastestream. • Inerts and Other make up approximately 18% (3,668 tons) of the wastestream; lumber was the largest material type in the category, which made up 12% (2,568 tons) of the total disposed wastestream. A summary of the quantity of materials disposed in the MF residential sector is shown in Exhibit 3-2. Exhibit 3-2. Multi-Family Residential Disposed Waste Composition Paper 4,590 tons Glass 596 tons Metals 692 tons Electronics 6 tons Plastics 1,443 tons Other Organic 8,639 tons Inerts and Other 3,668 tons HHW 39 tons Special Waste 794 tons Mixed Residue 225 tons city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-7 3.4.4 Commercial Within the commercial sector, the following key findings are identified: • Other Organic makes up the largest category of the materials, at 32% (12,721 tons) of the sector’s disposed wastestream. Food waste is the largest material type in this category, which makes up15% (6,102 tons) of the overall waste disposed within this sector; followed by carpet at 5% (1,994 tons); and prunings and trimmings at 4% (1,683 tons). • Inerts and Other make up 28% (11,217 tons) of the wastestream; lumber is the largest material type in the category, which makes up approximately 17% (6,570 tons). • Paper made up 20% (8,807 tons) of the wastestream; cardboard was the largest material type and made up approximately 7.5% (2,981 tons) of the total disposed wastestream. A summary of the quantity of materials disposed in the commercial sector is shown in Exhibit 3- 3. Exhibit 3-3. Commercial Disposed Waste composition- Percentages Paper 8,007 tons Glass 477 tons Metals 1,730 tons Electronics 42 tons Plastics 4,197 tons Other Organic 12,721 tons Inerts and Other 11,217` tons HHW 125 tons Special Waste 1,413 tons Mixed Residue 2 tons city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-8 3.4.5 Self-Haul Within the self-haul sector, the following key findings are identified: • Inerts and Other makes up the largest category of materials, which is 63% (9,692 tons) of the sector’s disposed wastestream. • Special Waste makes up 11% (1,689 tons) of the wastestream, which consists entirely of bulky items. • Other Organic makes up 10% (1,559 tons) of the wastestream; carpet is the largest material type and makes up approximately 4% (551 tons) of the total disposed wastestream. A summary of the quantity of materials disposed in the self-haul sector is shown in Exhibit 3-4. Exhibit 3-4. Self-Haul Disposed Waste Composition Percentages Paper 785 tons Glass 58 tons Metals 675 tons Electronics 50 tons Plastics 872 tons Other Organic 1,559 tons Inerts and Other 9,692 tons HHW 18 tons Special Waste 1,689 tons Mixed Residue 3 tons city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-9 3.5 Disposal Projections 3.5.1 Population Projections Low and high population forecasts were provided in the City’s 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)7. The forecasts used for the disposal projections are an average of the low and high population estimates from the LUCE. As shown in Table 3-5, the average 5-year percentage increase between 2010 and 2030 is 1.31%, and the 20 year cumulative growth is 5.23%. Refer to Appendix B for the reference LUCE data. Table 3-5. Population Forecasts (2010-2030) Source 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 20 year Cumulative % Change Average Growth 91,578 91,820 92,063 93,275 94,488 95,700 % change-5 yr. - - 1.33% 1.32% 1.30% 1.28% 5.23% 3.5.2 Future Disposal The disposal projections for the City are calculated based on the population growth projections and waste composition data. Overall, it is anticipated the waste disposal will increase by over 3,756 tons between 2013 and 2030, which represents an increase of approximately 220 tons per year. A summary of the waste disposal tonnage projections for each sector is provided in Table 3-6. The commercial sector is expected to contribute an additional 106 tons per year to the disposal waste stream from 2013 to 2030. The multi-family residential sector disposal is expected to increase by 55 tons per year through 2030; the single-family residential sector disposal is expected to increase approximately 19 tons per year; and the self-haul sector by 41 tons per year. Utilizing the data in Table 3-6, the types and quantities of materials that can potentially be source reduced, recycled, and/or composted have been identified for each waste sector in the Zero Waste options in Section 4. 7 City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 3.0 GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION 3-10 Table 3-6. Waste Disposal Projections 2013-2030 (Tons) Source 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 SF Residential 7,013 7,032 7,050 7,143 7,236 7,329 MF Residential 20,801 20,857 20,912 21,187 21,462 21,738 Commercial 40,143 40,249 40,356 40,887 41,419 41,950 Self-Haul 15,481 15,522 15,563 15,768 15,973 16,178 Total* 83,438 83,659 83,880 84,985 86,090 87,195 * Values may not sum to total due to rounding city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-1 4.0 Zero Waste Options 4.1 Initial List of Potential Options To meet its Zero Waste goal, the City will implement expanded and new policies, programs and infrastructure during the short, medium and long terms. For purposes of this plan, the short term is considered years 2013-2015, the medium term is years 2016-2022, and the long term is years 2023-2030. Using the information on current policies, programs and facilities (Section 2), and the waste generation and composition of discarded materials (Section 3), zero waste options were identified for potential implementation in the single-family, multi-family, and commercial sectors. Policy, program, and facility options included opportunities to improve existing programs, as well as new programs for reducing generation and discarded materials and increasing diversion. Initially, a list of 33 options was developed for review and evaluation. The options were categorized as follows: Mandatory - Policies or programs that are compulsory (such as meeting a diversion requirement) or prohibit an activity (such as a disposal or use ban). Collection - Programs for the collection of residential and commercial food scraps, recyclables, and bulky items. Rate Setting – Revised fee structures to account for basic and additional services, for single- family, multi-family, and commercial sectors. Upstream – Policies and programs to support re-design strategies to reduce the volume and toxicity of discarded products and materials, and promote low-impact or reduced consumption lifestyles. Downstream – Policies and programs to address reuse, recycling and composting of end-of-life products and materials to ensure their highest and best use. Facilities – Local and regional, existing and new, resource recovery facilities for processing recyclables, residuals, and other materials for beneficial use and energy recovery. The list included three mandatory policies/program options, seven collection program options, two rate setting options, three upstream options, fourteen downstream options, and four facility options. A description of each option was included, along with the affected waste sector (single- family, multi-family, government); relevant guiding principles; implementation opportunities and obstacles, portion of discarded materials, potential capture rate by material type, implementation time frame, and examples from other jurisdictions, as available. The initial list of options were considered and then reduced, based on the elimination of some options. A summary of the list of initial options, and resulting status, is included in Table 4-1. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-2 Table 4-1. Initial List of Zero Waste Options Title Description Affected Waste Sector Resulting Status MANDATORY 1. Disposal bans Restrict disposal of specific materials, such as plastic bottles and cardboard. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Recommend 2. C&D ordinance revision Revise C&D ordinance to increase diversion requirement from 70% to 90%. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Recommend 3. Mandatory diversion rate Require commercial, residential, and government sectors to meet specific diversion rates. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Recommend COLLECTION 4. Mandatory food scraps participation -commercial Require food establishments to participate in the City’s food scraps diversion program. • Commercial Recommend 5. Mandatory food scraps participation -residential Require residents to participate in the City’s food scraps diversion program. • S-F • M-F Recommend 6. Mandatory commercial recycling Adopt an ordinance that expands on AB 341 to require all businesses to have recycling service. • Commercial Recommend 7. Mandatory recycling of new materials Require recycling of carpets, textiles, mattresses, and other items currently not collected in the recycling bins. • S-F Recommend 8. Wet/Dry collection Separate wet (food waste) and dry (non- recyclable materials) waste by different color bags to be separated at the MRF. • M-F • Commercial Modified 9. Weekly organics collection and bi-weekly collection of trash and recyclables Reduce the collection frequency of trash and recycling containers while maintaining organics collection at once per week. • Phase 1: S-F • Phase 2: M-F Modified 10. Bulky item collection for reuse and recycling Expand collection frequency with emphasis on reuse and recycling; partnership with reuse organizations • M-F Modified RATE SETTING 11. Implement Integrated Waste Management Fee Structure Revise fee structure to account for basic services and additional services Eliminate “free recycling and organics” • S-F Recommend 12. Implement Integrated Waste Management Fee Structure Revise rate structure • M-F • Commercial Recommend city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-3 Title Description Affected Waste Sector Resulting Status UPSTREAM POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 13. EPR for HHW, pharmaceuticals, and/or difficult to recycle items Establish mandatory take back provisions for producers and/or businesses that sell batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, sharps and pharmaceuticals, or other difficult to recycle products. Difficult to recycle items can include Styrofoam, packaging materials, and toys. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Recommend 14. Packaging legislation Support legislation that requires manufacturers to reduce packaging and to incorporate recycled content materials in all packaging. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Recommend 15. Behavior change marketing Large scale, sustained, social marketing and media campaign • S-F • M-F • Commercial Recommend DOWNSTREAM POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 16. Expansion of the Single- Use Carry Out Bag ordinance Establish a date to review the progress of the current ordinance and set a goal date to expand the program to all retailers and restaurants. • Commercial Recommend 17. Multi-Family recycling educational outreach Require multi-family building managers to inform tenants about recycling resources upon move-in. • M-F Recommend 18. Move-in/Move-out program Provides free excess waste pickup services for residents moving in/out of their homes • M-F Modified 19. Self-haul waste origin reporting Require more accurate reporting of self-haul waste origin at transfer and disposal sites • S-F Recommend 20. Regional Sustainability Collaboration Meetings Host regular meetings with local jurisdictions to discuss opportunities, projects, and issues. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Recommend 21. Update Environmental Directory Update the 2009 Environmental Directory. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Modified 22. School recycling competitions Hold competitions between schools to see who can divert the most materials from their waste stream within a fixed time frame. Prizes, money, trophies, etc. can be awarded to the school that collects the most. • Commercial Modified 23. HHW collection bins at public events Collect used batteries, cell phones, etc. at public events. Events can include farmer’s markets, Santa Monica Festival, street fairs, etc. • S-F • M-F Recommend city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-4 Title Description Affected Waste Sector Resulting Status 24. Expand items collected in the recycling bins Materials could include clothing, diapers, chip bags, and other specific materials. • S-F • M-F • Commercial • Government Recommend 25. Centralized “garage sales” Establish a program for residents to sell items in a centralized location, as opposed to the many garage sales typically held in the City. • S-F • M-F Recommend 26. Clothing drives Hold clothing drives to collect clothing, shoes, blankets, etc. to donate to thrift stores, reuse centers, homeless shelters, etc. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Eliminated 27. Business & restaurant food donation Program to help businesses and restaurants find resources that will accept food donations. • Commercial Recommend 28. Diversion Recognition and Rewards Program Reward residents for participating in recycling. • M-F Modified 29. Product reuse/recycling grants Offer grants and/or subsidies to individuals and businesses to develop businesses in the City that reuse or recycle materials. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Modified FACILITIES 30. Transform residuals Send all residual waste to a waste-to-energy facility. • S-F • M-F • Commercial • Government Modified 31. MRF residual materials Send residual materials to mixed waste MRF for further sorting prior to landfilling or transformation. • S-F • M-F • Commercial Eliminated 32. Resource Recovery Park/Hard to Recycle Center Facility that accepts materials that are difficult to recycle (e-waste, Styrofoam blocks, textiles, etc.) and identifies reuse/recycle opportunities; also works with manufacturers on take-back programs. • S-F • M-F • Commercial • Government Recommend 33. Alternative Technology Facility Utilize regional facility for processing of residual waste into energy or other beneficial use. • S-F • M-F • Commercial • Government Recommend city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-5 4.2 Recommended Strategies The initial list of options was reviewed and evaluated by the City project team, and a final list of strategies was developed, incorporating the comments from all of the team members. A description of each of the recommended strategies is included below, and a summary table is included in Appendix C. 4.2.1 Mandatory Mandatory requirements, new rules and ordinances can be the most effective strategies for achieving Zero Waste. The City will support these efforts through technical assistance, outreach and education, and reinforcement of desired behaviors. A description of these strategies is provided below. 4.2.1.1 Disposal Bans To reduce discards that currently have recycling markets or uses, the City will consider product and material bans. Plastic water bottles, cardboard, yard trimmings and construction and demolition debris can be recycled, have available end-uses, and should not be disposed. These materials impact the collection system and take up space in landfills. The ban will start with government facilities, such as elimination of single-use water bottles at City facilities and events, and improved recycling of cardboard and landscaping debris. 4.2.1.2 C&D Ordinance Revision Construction and demolition debris constitutes approximately 33% of the City’s overall disposal. The existing ordinance requires all City-sponsored C&D projects, and all private C&D projects that are $50,000 or greater in value or 1,000 square feet or great to meet a minimum 70% diversion rate. This option will modify the existing Construction and Demolition Ordinance by increasing the diversion requirement from 70% to 90%. An amendment to the C&D ordinance will be required to implement the increased diversion requirements. The increase will be implemented in a phased approach, as follows: • 75% in 2015 • 80% in 2020 • 85% in 2025 • 90% in 2030 4.2.1.3 Mandatory Diversion Rate The City will adopt an ordinance establishing diversion mandates for the single-family, multi- family, commercial, and government sectors. The diversion mandates will be implemented in a phased approach, as follows: • 75% in 2015 • 80% in 2020 • 85% in 2025 • 90% in 2030 city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-6 The effort will be supported by education and outreach and enforcement through tagging of bins with recyclables and/or stop service notices. 4.2.1.4 Mandatory Recycling in Hotels/Motels There are approximately 30 hotels/motels in the City, and an estimated 600,000 visitors stay in hotels/motels annually, with an average length of stay of three nights.8 These visitors generate waste during their stay, and may not be aware of or have opportunities to recycle their waste. This ordinance will require all hotels and motels to implement a recycling program in guest rooms and common areas. The City will support the effort with education and outreach and technical assistance. 4.2.2 Collection The Resource Recovery and Recycling Division is responsible for the collection of refuse, recycling, and yard trimmings from single-family, multi-family and commercial customers. Zero Waste collection initiatives that will be implemented by the Division include: mandatory food scraps participation for commercial and residential customers, mandatory commercial recycling, adding materials to the mandatory recycling of new materials, including mattresses, textiles, transitioning to bi-weekly collection of trash, wet/dry collection method, and bulky item collection. These initiatives are described below. 4.2.2.1 Require Commercial Food Scraps Collection This policy represents a major shift from voluntary to mandatory participation in organics collection programs. It is intended to motivate all commercial generators within the City to separate organic materials from the waste they generate at their business, and place it in the appropriate organics collection container on a regular basis for collection. To effect this change, the City will need to develop and adopt a separate ordinance that requires waste generators to source separate organics from other waste, and set the organics out for collection. The organics separation ordinance could be implemented in conjunction with or as a component of the mandatory commercial recycling ordinance (Option 7), or as a stand-alone ordinance. This ordinance will need to be carefully developed based on consideration of potential cost impacts on businesses and customers, and be consistent with City policy directives. The ordinance should be publicized adequately to inform all residents, businesses, and others of the intent and purpose of the ordinance. This program requires availability of permitted compost facilities within the region that will receive, process, and market yard trimmings commingled with food scraps and other organic materials suitable for conversion to compost products. Before this program could be implemented on a citywide basis, the City will need to ensure that there is sufficient processing 8 Santa Monica 2011Tourism and Economic Fiscal Impacts and Visitor Profile, Santa Monica Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-7 capacity in the region to handle the increased organics tonnages that will be collected through the expanded brown bin program. 4.2.2.2 Require Residential Food Scraps Collection This policy represents a major shift from voluntary to mandatory participation in organics collection programs. It is intended to motivate all residential generators within the City to separate organic materials from the waste they generate at their homes, and place it in the green collection container on a regular basis for collection. To effect this change, the City will need to develop and adopt a separate ordinance that requires waste generators to source separate organics from other waste, and set the organics out for collection. The City will modify and expand its current food scraps collection program to include not only yard trimmings and food scraps, but also food-contaminated paper, and similar compostable materials. This program is designed to increase residential waste diversion by requiring residents to place food scraps and other organic materials in their green bins. This program requires availability of permitted compost facilities within the region that will receive, process, and market yard trimmings commingled with food scraps and other organic materials suitable for conversion to compost products. Before this program could be implemented on a citywide basis, the City will need to ensure that there is sufficient processing capacity in the region to handle the increased organics tonnages that will be collected through the expanded green bin program. 4.2.2.3 Expand Mandatory Commercial Recycling Assembly Bill 341 (adopted by the California legislature in 2011) established a statewide goal of 75 percent by 2020 and requires commercial generators (with four or more cubic yards per week of solid waste) and multi-family complexes (with five units or more) to recycle. However, it does not specify the materials to be collected or the level of recycling services received. Many communities have adopted ordinances specifying recycling requirements for multi-family residential and commercial customers. This policy expands upon the requirements of AB 341, to mandatory participation in recycling collection programs. It is intended to motivate all commercial waste generators within the City to separate recyclable materials from the waste they generate at their business, and place it in the appropriate blue bin or recycling collection container on a regular basis for collection. To effect this change, the City will need to develop and adopt a “Mandatory Recycling” ordinance that requires waste generators to source separate recyclables from other waste, and set the recyclables out for collection. The recycling ordinance will need to be carefully developed based on consideration of potential impacts to business and customers, consistent with City policy directives, and publicized adequately to inform all residents, businesses, and others of the intent and purpose of the ordinance. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-8 4.2.2.4 Require Recycling of New Materials This program allows the City to require the recycling of materials currently not collected in the blue bins from residential customers, including mattresses, carpet, and textiles. The materials could be added to the blue bin program, or alternatively, the City could collaborate with non- profit or other private organizations to increase the availability of collection or drop-off centers for these materials in the City. Adding new materials to the recycling program will require the availability of viable long-term markets to ensure the materials are recovered to the maximum extent feasible and have a positive market value. Some items are more suited to recovery and processing, while others do not have viable markets or processors to accept them. The City will work with processors and representatives of the recycling industry to identify market opportunities in the Southern California region for various materials that could be recycled. Once appropriate program parameters are established, the City will need to provide appropriate public outreach so that residents can easily identify the acceptable items for recycling. 4.2.2.5 Weekly Organics and Recycling Collection; Bi-weekly Refuse Collection The City collects refuse, recycling and organics (yard trimmings and food scraps) from residential customers on a weekly basis. This option will reduce the collection frequency of trash to every other week, while maintaining recycling and organics collection at once per week. The program will be implemented initially for single-family residences, and phased in later for multi-family residences. The City will support the transition with outreach and education to residents. This program requires availability of permitted compost facilities within the region that will receive, process, and market yard trimmings commingled with food scraps and other organic materials suitable for conversion to compost products. Before this program could be implemented on a citywide basis, the City will need to ensure that there is sufficient processing capacity in the region to handle the increased organics tonnages that will be collected through the expanded green bin program. It is anticipated the program will result in an increase in waste diversion, as organics comprise 47% of the single-family disposed waste stream, and 43% of the multi-family disposed wastestream. Reduced operations costs are also anticipated, based on results in other communities that have tested every other week refuse collection (e.g. Renton, Tacoma, and Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon). Other benefits of the program include fewer collection truck trips, which will reduce vehicle air, noise and green house gas emissions, and increased collection efficiency in terms of labor time, and maintenance. 4.2.2.6 Wet/Dry Collection In a transition from the every other week collection, the City will re-route existing residential and commercial collections to keep “wet” discards (which include yard trimmings, food scraps and soiled paper, manure and other “putrescibles”) separate from “dry” discards, such as paper, glass, etc. Wet discards will be collected for processing through composting or anaerobic digestion, and dry products and materials will be reused, repaired or recycled. The dry waste routing and city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-9 processing takes advantage of the recyclables generated by residents and business, makes recycling less dependent on changing customer behavior and can dramatically increase diversion. It can also reduce disposal fees and increase revenues from the sale of recyclables due to the increase tons of materials recovered. It is anticipated the wet/dry collection will increase diversion by about 8% in the residential sector, and 6% in the commercial sector. This program requires the availability of processing capacity in the region that can handle greater quantities of recyclables for separation and processing. This program requires availability of permitted facilities within the region that will receive, process, and market the organic materials. Before this program could be implemented on a citywide basis, the City will need to ensure that there is sufficient processing capacity in the region to handle the increased recyclables and organics that will be collected. 4.2.2.7 Bulky Item Collection; Move-in/Move-out Program A significant source of trash is created when apartment dwellers move in and out of apartment buildings. Presently, the City provides bulky item collection Monday through Friday for a prearranged fee. The fee varies according to the size and weight of the item, and ranges from $50 for a small item to $250 or more for a major cleanup of debris and furniture pieces. Bulky items are limited to those large items that do not fit in a refuse container, such as: refrigerators, stoves, furniture and similar items. This service is available to both Residential and Commercial customers. A new program will be implemented to provide excess waste pickup services for multi-family residents moving in/out of their homes. The purpose of the program is to reduce the frequency of illegal dumping in alleys and on curbs, and provide more convenient opportunity for residents to donate their materials for reuse and recycling. The City will collaborate with reuse entities (thrift stores, repair shops, and non-profits such as Goodwill Industries, Salvation Army, St. Joseph’s Center, and American Cancer Society Discovery Shop) to repair, reuse, and resell appropriate bulky items that are currently being set out by residents for collection by the Division and landfilled. The City recently entered into a service contract to establish Santa Monica SHARES, a program for the donation of items to non-profits and schools. The City will encourage residents to contact Santa Monica SHARES to donate useable items using the program’s online service. Information on this program will be conveyed through annual mailers to multi-family residences, through the City’s web page and City events. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-10 4.2.3 Rate Setting Changes to the rate structure can have a significant effect in motivating customers to participate in new programs, and to account for basic services and additional services. The City’s existing rate structure for single-family refuse collection is based on the number and size of carts (either 68 or 95 gallons). Unlimited carts are provided for recyclables and yard trimmings. For multi-family dwellings, a similar fee structure is established for refuse collection, based on the size, number, and frequency of collection of 68, 95 or 300 gallon carts, or 2, 3, or 4 cubic yard bins. In addition, a per unit charge is assessed for each unit in the complex. Commingled recyclables are collected in 300-gallon carts or 2, 3, or 4 cubic yard bins, and are either designated to specific complexes or are shared. There is no separate charge for recycling. Commercial customers are also charged for refuse collection based on the size, number and frequency of collection (68, 95 or 300 gallon carts, or 2, 3, or 4 cubic yard bins), and are assessed street sweeping charges, based on the water meter size. There is no separate charge for recycling. The existing fees collected by the City pay for more than just refuse collections and disposal. The fees are used to pay for collection and processing of recyclables, food scraps, yard debris and bulky items, as well as street sweeping, equipment, infrastructure, container replacements, support services, alternative technology studies, etc. 4.2.3.1 Implement Single-Family Integrated Waste Management Fee Structure The intent of this option is to reduce the risk to the city of its existing disposal oriented rate structure, and more accurately account for basic services and additional services. The fee structure will also provide further incentives for customers to increase recycling and reduce disposal. Under this type of fee structure, a basic service fee will be assessed for each single- family residence, and will include one cart each for trash, recycling, and organics. An additional charge will be assessed for additional refuse carts, with a lower additional charge for recycling and organics carts. The advantages of this type of fee structure are increased diversion and decreased disposal, and a potential reduction in collections costs for the City collections operations. Although residents may be resistant to a change in their fee structure, the option aims to communicate the value of the services to the customers. It is anticipated this type of fee structure will result in a 4% increase in diversion in the single-family sector. 4.2.3.2 Implement Multi-Family and Commercial Sector Integrated Waste Management Fee Structure The goal of this option is to establish sufficient customer rate incentives for commercial and multi-family refuse customers to increase recycling and decrease refuse service. This policy will help to minimize the common industry practice of offering price incentives based on volume discounts to customers that subscribe for higher levels of refuse service, thereby creating pricing incentives for customers to shift to increased recycling services. It will also require full disclosure of the cost components of rates charged and eliminate the perception of “free recycling”. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-11 Refuse rate component: Commercial customer rates will be modified to reflect a uniform “per cubic yard” rate for the whole range of bin or container sizes and collection frequency offered to customers. The amount of the cubic yard (unit) rate will be established to ensure that sufficient revenues are generated to cover the City’s costs. For example, the City would charge a rate of $100 for a one cubic-yard bin collected once per week, the rate would be $200 for the one cubic- yard bin collected two times per week, $400 for a four cubic-yard bin collected once per week, or $1,200 for a six cubic yard bin collected two times per week. Recycling rate component: A recycling rate will be established under this fee structure, for example that is no higher than 75 percent of the refuse rate for service, as measured by the uniform “per cubic yard” rate for refuse service. If the City charges $100 for a one cubic yard bin of refuse, they would charge no more than $75 for a one cubic yard bin of commingled or source separated recyclables. 4.2.4 Upstream 4.2.4.1 Extended Producer Responsibility Producer responsibility is a key strategy for achieving Zero Waste. Take-back requirements shift the costs of refuse from taxpayers to brand owners and producers. They also create a powerful economic incentive to redesign products and substantially reduce the use of toxic materials. The City will consider the following problem materials for producer take-back: • Materials that cannot be reused, recycled or composted and single-use items; and • Regulated materials (e.g., pharmaceuticals, sharps, batteries, fluorescent bulbs). The upstream extended producer responsibility (EPR) initiatives call for the City to take an active role in advocating for legislation that requires product manufacturers, retail establishments, wholesale distributors and other appropriate entities to take back certain products or packaging that currently are difficult to recycle, contain toxics or otherwise pose problems when they are discarded as waste. The City will work with various federal, state and regional agencies and community groups to ensure that effective take-back programs are enacted into law, thereby enhancing the City’s goals to reduce the volume and toxicity of the materials entering the City’s waste stream. The following are the priorities the City will focus on under this program: • Advocate for legislation making businesses responsible for their products that contain toxics, such as pharmaceuticals, fluorescent lights, household batteries, treated wood, and other materials banned from disposal statewide • Advocate for legislation making businesses responsible for their products that are difficult to recycle materials, such as disposable diapers, composite materials, tires, white goods, durable goods, plastic, and food packaging. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-12 • Advocate for legislation to incentivize manufacturers to use local reuse and recycling markets for the products they manufacture. 4.2.4.2 Packaging Legislation The City’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment is presently working with Green Cities California to identify opportunities for packaging legislation. The option will further the City’s efforts of leadership by example and work towards regionalization of programs to address packaging. The goal of packaging legislation is to prevent or reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment. Legislation will contain provisions not only for preventing packaging waste, but also the reuse, recovery and recycling of packaging waste. Under this option, the City will advocate for packaging legislation making businesses responsible for their packages, including alternatives to expanded polystyrene containers, “peanuts” and “blocks” and plastic bags (statewide); and support for reusable shipping containers. The City will also support legislation to reduce packaging and to incorporate recycled content materials in all packaging. 4.2.4.3 Behavior Change Marketing To significantly increase awareness of its existing and planned Zero Waste programs, the City will undertake a large scale media or social marketing campaign. The City will work closely with electronic and print media to encourage their coverage of the City’s goals, plans, and project implementation, and to challenge them to help engage the public in creative new ways. Funding programs on an on-going basis (over multiple five-year campaign periods) to educate target audiences about the new rules and changes is an important part of implementing Zero Waste. This program will greatly enhance public awareness about where to reuse, recycle, and compost materials to keep them out of landfills, and encourage residents, businesses, workers, and visitors to fully participate in achieving a Zero Waste future. A community-based social marketing program will be implemented to help change the culture and waste-related behavior in the City, with different messages targeted to different demographics using a wide assortment of tools. The City will work closely with electronic and print media to encourage their coverage of the City’s goals, plans, and project implementation, and to challenge them to help engage the public in creative new ways. This program will greatly enhance public awareness about where to reuse, recycle, and compost materials to keep them out of landfills, and encourage residents, businesses, workers, and visitors to fully participate in achieving a Zero Waste future. Social marketing campaigns involve the systematic application of marketing alongside other techniques and tools to achieve specific social behavioral goals. Some of the best practices that have been developed include starting from a detailed understanding of the needs, desires and attitudes of the individuals concerned, researching the underlying reasons for certain behaviors and developing an “offer” that will be attractive given existing needs, values and other pressures such as peer group influences. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-13 There is also an important role for civic leaders and elected officials, to lead by example as exemplars of the new social norms. This requires clear and consistent messages from the City Council and City management and staff. Strategies for changing the norms of behavior include: • Leaders who visibly encourage and reward successful innovation; • Focusing financial resources on innovation, including both public and private sources; • Using incubator models for testing and piloting innovations; and • Establishing institutions to link small scale enterprises to larger organizations such as business and legislative bodies. 4.2.5 Downstream 4.2.5.1 Expand Single-use Carry Out Bag and Disposable Container Ordinance The City’s existing ordinances prohibit the distribution of single-use carry out petroleum and bio-based plastic bags by retail establishments; grocery, convenience and liquor stores; mini- marts; pharmacies; and at City events. The City also prohibits the distribution of disposable food service containers made of nonrecyclable plastic or expanded polystyrene foam from all food providers and at City events. The ban applies to single-use disposable containers intended for serving or transporting prepared, ready-to-eat food or beverages. This policy will establish a date to review the progress of the existing ordinances, and to set a goal date to expand the program to all retailers and restaurants. Expansion of the bans will further help to reduce the amount of plastic that ends up on the City’s beaches, reduce materials that go to the landfill, and reduce the amount of natural resources used to manufacture and transport the disposable products. 4.2.5.2 Multi-family Recycling Educational Outreach This program will provide enhanced technical assistance to owners and managers of multi-family complexes in order to encourage them to initiate or expand recycling and waste reduction practices at their complexes, and to make tenants aware of the move-in/move-out program. Technical assistance will include conducting on-site waste assessments to identify target materials for recycling and waste reduction, providing information on arranging for recycling services, and distributing appropriate outreach materials describing best practices for setting up or expanding recycling services. Technical assistance will help to minimize or overcome various obstacles to recycling faced by multi-family complexes (space constraints, labor and sorting requirements, lack of information or training, etc.). Technical assistance provided by the City will encourage more complexes to set up an effective recycling program that is suited to the complex’s site. 4.2.5.3 Self-haul Waste Origin Reporting Misreported waste origin continues to be an ongoing problem for the City and throughout the region. The problem can impact a jurisdiction’s ability to accurately monitor and report disposal, and to plan for new policies and programs. In Santa Monica, it is estimated that over 10,000 tons city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-14 per year of waste is misallocated to the City. The intent of this option is to establish regional cooperation between cities, counties, and facilities that are responsible for reporting the origin of waste. Through regional cooperation, a more efficient process should be established to track misreported waste, and reduce the time and resources spent by individual jurisdictions on this process. This option will be closely tied with the option for Regional Sustainability Collaboration described below. 4.2.5.4 Regional Sustainability Collaboration There are several approaches to regional cooperation, including the formation of a regional Zero Waste Task Force and the development of inter-agency or interlocal agreements between neighboring communities. The approach will form the basis for establishing regional Zero Waste goals throughout Southern California. The City will support regional efforts in Zero Waste planning and will engage in dialogues with other cities to identify opportunities for regional coordination and to undertake project-specific regional opportunities. The City will explore possibilities through this process of developing regional Resource Recovery Parks, regional reuse, recycling and composting, and conversion technology infrastructure, and regional funding for Zero Waste. 4.2.5.5 Environmental Directory On-line version The City provides an Environmental Directory booklet that includes a list of local resources for topics that range from energy efficiency programs to environmentally preferred purchasing. The booklet also includes resources for refuse, recycling, composting, and hazardous waste. The Directory was last updated in 2009, and has historically been provided in print form only. This option will create an on-line only version of the Directory, eliminating the print version entirely. The on-line version will include new and/or updated resources, and will be made available and searchable on the City’s website. 4.2.5.6 Rewards Program The City’s Sustainable Quality Awards (SQA) was developed to identify and recognize businesses in the City that are successfully incorporating sustainable practices into their operations. An annual event promotes the efforts of local businesses that have made significant achievements in the areas of sustainable economic development, social responsibility, and stewardship of the natural environment. This option will expand the City’s recognition of businesses to reward residents and businesses for developing programs in the City for reusing, repurposing, reducing, and recycling of waste. As part of this option, the City will initiate school waste reduction competitions, with rewards in the form of prizes, money, grants, etc. The City will coordinate with other civic organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, to identify grants and other funding opportunities. This intent of this option is to encourage community involvement in zero waste solutions, including individuals, business, schools and other institutions. The program may stimulate local job growth and markets for recovered materials, creating a new reuse industry in the City. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-15 4.2.5.7 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection at Public Events Presently, the RRR Division offers assistance to help organizations implement Zero Waste goals at their events. This program will entail placement and servicing of HHW collection containers at public events, and City events such as the Santa Monica Festival. This program will provide convenient opportunities for the general public to safely dispose of used batteries, mobile phones, and other HHW items. 4.2.5.8 Expand Items Collected In Recycling Cart This program allows the RRR Division the ability to add new materials to the existing list of materials that can be placed in the recycling cart for collection by the City, including textile and other items. Adding new materials to the recycling cart will require that the City’s contracted recycling processor identify viable long-term markets to ensure that the materials are recovered to the maximum extent feasible and have a positive market value. The City will initiate discussions with its processor to identify market opportunities in the Southern California region for new materials that could be recycled. Once opportunities are identified and new materials are selected, the City will need to provide appropriate public outreach to residents and businesses. Adding new materials will reduce the quantity of materials being disposed, create a convenient program to donate clothing and other materials for reuse and/or recycling, and provide the ability to divert specific hard-to-recycle items. 4.2.5.9 Centralized Garage Sales The City presently schedules an annual citywide yard sale to promote waste reuse and repurposing. In addition, numerous yard sales are held privately throughout the City on a regular basis. The City has been considering and assessing the advantages and disadvantages of the citywide garage sales. This option will establish a program for residents to sell items in a centralized location, in lieu of the many garage sales that are typically held in the City. The program will be coordinated with the citywide yard sale event, and will be free and open to residents only. It is the intent of the program to encourage more residents to resell and reuse items before discarding them, and provide residents with limited space an opportunity to sell their items. 4.2.5.10 Business and Restaurant Food Donation The many large businesses and restaurants in the City generate uneaten prepared foods that are typically disposed. Food comprises approximately 15% of the commercial waste stream. This program will help businesses and restaurants to find resources that will accept food donations. This program will reduce the amount of food scraps that is landfilled, and provide a source of food for persons in need. The City will publish resources in the environmental directory for businesses wishing to donate food, and will provide information on the program on its website. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-16 4.2.6 Facilities 4.2.6.1 Regional Resource Recovery Center Resource Recovery Centers (RRCs) can be small centers for drop-off of hard to recycle items, including mattresses, large blocks of Styrofoam, and textiles, or much larger facilities that include a reuse yard for building materials, and provide repair and refurbishment for reusable bulk items and other reusable materials delivered by the public. They can also handle HHW materials, brush, and other recoverable materials. The materials typically are brought in self- hauled loads by residents or businesses to a solid waste facility. Thus RRCs are usually developed at landfills or transfer facilities. Local facilities can redesign their sites to provide for a separate drop-off and staging area where the public can drop off their recoverable materials before proceeding to the designated tipping area. At some facilities, the diversion activity takes place after the fee gate and the public is required to separate materials for recycling and reuse. If users decide to proceed directly to the disposal area, they are required to pay an extra fee. Reduced tipping fees at RRCs can provide a significant incentive to users. Most provide drop-off or buyback options for revenue-generating recyclables. Some charge lower rates for certain items (e.g., yard trimmings, clean fill). Diversion levels and costs at RRCs can vary widely depending on the extent and type of the diversion activities. These activities can include public area drop-off for traditional recyclables (cans, bottles, and paper), salvaging materials from the tipping area at a transfer station or landfill (large pieces of metal, cardboard or wood), diverting reusable items (furniture, building materials, and household goods), and providing retail sales on site. In some locations, RRCs could be combined in “clusters” of reusable, recyclables, compostable, and special discards (including regulated materials and C&D). Each of the clusters would utilize different approaches to collecting and processing, requiring different trucks, equipment and handling. The cluster approach requires that the combined categories of materials be sorted at other locations. Some activities may be co-located at a landfill, but others may be off-site. The City may support these efforts through helping apply for grants, recruiting businesses and industries to use materials generated by Zero Waste programs, and promoting the use of the RRC. 4.2.6.2 Alternative Technology Facility Based on Zero Waste research some type of future alternative technology is anticipated to be developed that will help meet Zero Waste goals. A number of emerging technologies are currently under consideration or in development with the potential to provide substantial increases in diversion rates. Examples of these emerging technologies include thermal and biological processes, including anaerobic digestion, gasification, and pyrolysis. In addition, although mixed material processing facilities are currently in operation throughout the U.S., developments and improvements in this technology over time should render increased efficiencies, better economical feasibility and higher diversion processing capabilities. A number of jurisdictions in Southern California are evaluating the feasibility of developing alternative technology facilities for processing the residual waste into energy or other beneficial use. The County of Los Angeles and cities of Los Angeles and Glendale are some of the local city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-17 jurisdictions that are continuing to evaluate the potential for implementation of such a facility. It is reasonable to predict that within the planning horizon of the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan, some current emerging technologies will be commercially viable to support the City in achieving its Zero Waste goals. The City will monitor and support the development of a regional alternative technology facility for the processing of the residual portion of the waste stream into waste or other beneficial use. 4.2.6.3 Residual Processing A portion of the City’s waste is presently transformed into energy at one of two permitted waste to energy facilities in Southern California. The City’s Zero Waste Strategic Plan includes policies and programs to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost to the greatest extent possible the maximum amount of materials for beneficial reuse. It is estimated the City can achieve a 93% diversion rate with the implementation of the policies, programs and infrastructure described in the previous option. However, in the future, the City may continue to utilize transformation of residuals to achieve 95% diversion by 2030. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS 4-18 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 5.0 DIVERSION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5-1 5.0 Diversion and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Estimates 5.1 Diversion Estimates Diversion estimates were prepared to identify the waste disposal reduction potential of each policy and program. The diversion estimates are based on comparable policies and programs implemented in other jurisdictions, research, and educated estimates. Table 5-1 summarizes the diversion by implementation phase. As indicated, based on the City’s 2012 diversion rate of 77%, it is estimated the City can achieve 94% diversion by 2030 through implementation of all the policies, programs and facilities identified; and 96% diversion with residual waste processing. Table 5-1. Diversion Estimates by Implementation Phase Phase/Year Existing (2012) Short Term (2013-2015) Short to Medium Term (2013-2020) Medium Term (2021-2025) Medium to Long Term (2021-2030) Long Term (2026-2030) 2030 (with Residual Processing) Estimated Diversion 77% 80% 85% 86% 89% 94% 96% A breakdown of the zero waste plan diversion increases by sector and phase is included in Table 5-2. As indicated, options to be implemented in the commercial sector will have the greatest impact on increasing diversion, followed by the multi-family and single-family sector programs. The commercial sector programs with the greatest diversion potential include mandatory food scraps recycling, expanding the types of recycled materials collected, wet/dry collection, increasing the C&D ordinance diversion requirement, and behavior change marketing. For the residential sector, the options with the greatest diversion potential include mandatory food scraps recycling, mandatory diversion rate, behavior change marketing, and wet/dry collection. In the multi-family sector, the options with the highest diversion potential include implementing an integrated waste management fee structure, behavior change marketing, mandatory food scraps recycling, mandatory diversion rate, wet/dry collection, and converting to bi-weekly refuse collection. The detailed calculations used for estimating the diversion potential of each of the policies, programs, and facilities considered by the City are included in Appendix D. The diversion estimates are presented in the presumed order of implementation. Each one builds on the program or policy preceding it, and assumes the available waste was reduced by the previous program. Several policies will require new ordinances and regulations which will require City Council action and time to implement. Zero waste is a design framework for reducing generation of waste and maximizing diversion, not a strict tonnage goal. By implementing the proposed policies, programs and facilities, the City will be striving towards zero waste, but there will still be some residual wastes that will be disposed. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 5.0 DIVERSION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5-2 Table 5-2. Zero Waste Strategic Plan Diversion Estimates Estimated Diversion Increase (tons) Total Diversion Rate Increase (%) Residual Processing Diversion (tons) Total Diversion Increase with Residual Processing (tons) Diversion Rate Increase with Residual Processing (%) Short Term (2013- 2015) Short to Medium Term (2013- 2020) Medium Term (2021- 2025) Medium to Long Term (2021- 2030) Long Term (2026-2030) Total Diversion Increase (2013-2030) SF Residential 1,819 1,249 130 926 736 4,860 1.3% 1,248 6,107 1.7% MF Residential 4,032 4,686 1,244 3,098 1,970 15,031 4.1% 3,377 18,407 5.0% Commercial 5,528 5,113 4,672 6,201 10,546 32,060 8.8% 4,913 36,973 10.1% Self-Haul 0 6,142 0 0 4,134 10,277 2.8% 0 10,277 2.8% Diversion (tons) 11,379 17,190 6,046 10,225 17,387 62,227 9,537 71,765 Diversion (%) 3.2% 4.7% 1.6% 2.8% 4.7% 17% 19.6% city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 5.0 DIVERSION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5-3 5.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Estimates The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) developed the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) to help planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices. WARM calculates and totals Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions for baseline and alternative waste management practices—source reduction, recycling, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE), metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E), and energy units (million BTU) across a wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste. The WARM was used to estimate the amount of GHG emissions that can potentially be reduced through implementation of the programs and policies outlined in the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan. The GHG emissions reductions are calculated based on the program implementation timeline (i.e. short term, short-to-medium term, medium term, etc.). The long term programs include residual processing, modeled as combustion (waste-to-energy) in WARM, therefore the GHG emissions reduction shown is the resulting net effect. Based on the estimated diversion rates in the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan, the City’s overall GHG emissions will be reduced by 18,573 MTCE by 2030. The GHG emissions reductions are shown in Table 5-3. The model assumptions and results are included in Appendix E. Table 5-3. Zero Waste Strategic Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates (MTCE) Source Short Term Short to Med Term Med Term Med to Long Term Long Term Residual Processing Total SF Residential (517) (255) (58) (307) (262) 98 (1,301) MF Residential (1,482) (1,438) (556) (1,094) (920) 189 (5,301) Commercial (1,935) (1,973) (1,249) (2,489) (3,037) 545 (10,138) Self-Haul - (1,153) - - (680) - (1,833) TOTAL (3,934) (4,819) (1,863) (3,890) (4,899) 832 (18,573) Note: a negative value (i.e., a value in parentheses) indicates an emission reduction; a positive value indicates an emission increase city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 5.0 DIVERSION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5-4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS 6-1 6.0 Financial and Cost Analysis 6.1 Financial Analysis The first steps in determining the selected zero waste programs’ costs and rate impacts involved developing an understanding of the Division’s operational and capital costs for existing programs and establishing a baseline. In order to develop the baseline data included in Tables 6-1 through 6-4, data was gathered from the City on solid waste related revenue and expense data, and shared cost allocation methodologies. (Appendix F). The expense data provided by the City was categorized within specific cost categories for Direct Costs (the direct labor, equipment and other costs required for the collection activity), Material Handling Costs (the transfer, processing, and disposal costs associated with the post-collection handling of the collected material), and Administration and Overhead (the management, administrative, and other indirect overhead costs of the Division that is allocated back to each line of service). In addition to these collection costs, there are costs for programs and services performed by the Division which have been allocated among sectors based on estimates provided by Division staff. These programs/services costs, and the sector allocations, are listed below. COST CATEGORY SECTOR ALLOCATION Events Single Family 100% Alley Crew Single Family 10%; Multi-Family 90% Household Hazardous Waste Single Family 50%; Multi-Family 50% Outreach Calculated among sectors based on number of accounts Street Sweeping Commercial 100% Public Litter Container Collection Commercial 100% Bus Stop Litter Collection Commercial 100% city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS 6-2 Table 6-1. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – All Sectors Table 6-2. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – Single Family Sector * Includes expenses for Compost Bins/Giveaways, Events, Household Hazardous Waste, Alley Crew, and Outreach Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Total Labor 1,394,476$ 2,243,936$ 3,939,579$ 7,577,991$ Equipment 1,242,954$ 1,718,448$ 3,201,892$ 6,163,294$ Other 550,652$ 786,368$ 953,502$ 2,290,522$ Subtotal Direct Costs 3,188,082$ 4,748,752$ 8,094,973$ 16,031,808$ Direct Transfer 225,823$ 414,487$ 821,128$ 1,461,439$ Allocated Transfer 53,053$ 84,320$ 160,140$ 297,513$ Processing 234,074$ (118,343)$ 137,734$ 253,465$ Disposal 442,492$ 1,446,126$ 2,682,622$ 4,571,240$ Subtotal Material Handling 955,442$ 1,826,590$ 3,801,625$ 6,583,656$ Subtotal Operations Costs 4,143,524$ 6,575,342$ 11,896,598$ 22,615,464$ Admin & Overhead 784,838$ 923,740$ 867,978$ 2,576,556$ Total Program Costs 4,928,362$ 7,499,082$ 12,764,576$ 25,192,020$ Total By Sector Solid Waste Recycling Green Waste Other* Total Labor 363,443$ 402,854$ 475,823$ 152,356 $ 1,394,476$ Equipment 349,026$ 396,323$ 450,381$ 47,224$ 1,242,954$ Other 70,041$ 346,561$ 87,803$ 46,247$ 550,652$ Subtotal Direct Costs 782,510$ 1,145,738$ 1,014,007$ 245,827 $ 3,188,082$ Direct Transfer 117,399$ 4,079$ 99,823$ 4,522$ 225,823$ Allocated Transfer 27,610$ -$ 25,443$ -$ 53,053$ Processing -$ (134,934)$ 365,237$ 3,771$ 234,074$ Disposal 428,105$ -$ -$ 14,387$ 442,492$ Subtotal Material Handling 573,114$ (130,855)$ 490,503$ 22,680$ 955,442$ Subtotal Operations Costs 1,355,624$ 1,014,883$ 1,504,510$ 268,507 $ 4,143,524$ Admin & Overhead 78,841$ 131,558$ 102,165$ 472,274 $ 784,838$ Total Program Costs 1,434,465$ 1,146,441$ 1,606,675$ 740,781 $ 4,928,362$ Single Family city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS 6-3 Table 6-3. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – Multi-family Sector * Includes expenses for Household Hazardous Waste, Alley Crew, and Outreach Table 6-4. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – Commercial Sector * Includes expenses for Outreach, Street Sweeping, Public Litter Containers, and Bus Stop Refuse Collection Solid Waste Recycling Green Waste Other* Total Labor 1,327,221$ 558,006$ 63,915$ 294,794$ 2,243,936$ Equipment 1,052,983$ 480,484$ 48,534$ 136,447$ 1,718,448$ Other 242,340$ 405,506$ 10,883$ 127,639$ 786,368$ Subtotal Direct Costs 2,622,544$ 1,443,996$ 123,332$ 558,880$ 4,748,752$ Direct Transfer 387,629$ 5,195$ 9,664$ 11,999$ 414,487$ Allocated Transfer 81,894$ -$ 2,426$ -$ 84,320$ Processing -$ (153,261)$ 34,918$ -$ (118,343)$ Disposal 1,400,182$ -$ -$ 45,944$ 1,446,126$ Subtotal Material Handling 1,869,705$ (148,066)$ 47,008$ 57,943$ 1,826,590$ Subtotal Operations Costs 4,492,249$ 1,295,930$ 170,340$ 616,823$ 6,575,342$ Admin & Overhead 264,232$ 169,335$ 12,426$ 477,747$ 923,740$ Total Program Costs 4,756,481$ 1,465,265$ 182,766$ 1,094,570$ 7,499,082$ Multi-Family Solid Waste Recycling Organics Other* Total Labor 1,918,374$ 649,706$ 169,882$ 1,201,617$ 3,939,579$ Equipment 1,392,244$ 451,977$ 136,189$ 1,221,482$ 3,201,892$ Other 354,760$ 377,236$ 24,923$ 196,583$ 953,502$ Subtotal Direct Costs 3,665,378$ 1,478,919$ 330,994$ 2,619,682$ 8,094,973$ Direct Transfer 721,546$ 4,812$ 21,436$ 73,334$ 821,128$ Allocated Transfer 151,187$ -$ 8,953$ -$ 160,140$ Processing -$ (139,058)$ 182,266$ 94,526$ 137,734$ Disposal 2,599,087$ -$ -$ 83,535$ 2,682,622$ Subtotal Material Handling 3,471,820$ (134,246)$ 212,655$ 251,396$ 3,801,625$ Subtotal Operations Costs 7,137,198$ 1,344,673$ 543,649$ 2,871,078$ 11,896,598$ Admin & Overhead 369,302$ 188,190$ 33,349$ 277,137$ 867,978$ Total Program Costs 7,506,500$ 1,532,863$ 576,998$ 3,148,215$ 12,764,576$ Commercial city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS 6-4 6.2 Cost Analysis The cost analysis is designed to assist the City in making planning-level decisions regarding the selection of appropriate programs for the Zero Waste Plan. The analysis considers two quantitative factors: • Diversion potential (measured by tons per year); and, • Cost effectiveness (measured by the cost per diverted ton). The estimates presented herein are not intended to calculate the precise results of each program. The tables present a “low” and “high” estimate of the incremental change in the Division’s cost associated with the implementation of these programs. The range of costs is reflective of the range experienced in other communities that have implemented these or similar programs. The actual costs of the program will be impacted by general economic conditions during the implementation period, management decisions regarding the operations of each program, and customer behaviors that are too numerous to model. Instead, we estimated a reasonable range (as represented in the “Low” and “High” cost estimates in the Incremental Annual Program Costs/(Savings) and Incremental Annual Program Cost/(Savings) Per Ton in tables 6-1 through 6-4) for each of these measurements based on data provided by the City, data gathered from other companies and communities who are operating similar programs, and in-house data from other zero waste/high-diversion engagements. These planning-level estimates are intended to provide enough information for the City to evaluate the relative merits of each program in the development of the Zero Waste Plan. For each selected program, the incremental change in the annual cost for the program and the cost per ton diverted was estimated. The cost estimates provide a reasonable basis for understanding the potential cost impacts and how costs between programs compare to one another. Cost estimates are not inclusive of any indirect implementation cost associated with the development of implementation plans, general plan amendments, conduct of feasibility studies, or the process of procuring and negotiating the contracts associated with each program (if necessary). These are anticipated to be one-time costs incurred by the City. More precise cost estimates can be prepared during the implementation planning phase once decisions are made on issues such as program scope, facility operations, education and outreach, roles and responsibilities, and other factors. Table 6-5 presents the incremental annual change in program costs, the estimated tons diverted by program, and the cost/(savings) per diverted ton for each of the selected programs. Details of the planning level cost estimate calculations for each program are included in Appendix G. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS 6-5 Table 6-5. Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Selected Zero Waste Programs 6.3 Customer Rate Impact Analysis Using the cost analysis data, the percentage impact on existing customer rates for each of the selected program options was calculated. The rate impacts for each selected program are cumulative. The rate impacts are based on fiscal year 2013 budget data provided by the City, and cumulative future tonnage diversion assumptions developed by HDR. The “Low” and “High” rate impacts are illustrated in Table 6-6. Details of the rate impact calculations for each program are included in Appendix G. PROGRAM PHASE PROGRAM TONS DIVERTED Residential Low High Low Midpoint High Food Scraps Collection Short 90,346$ 132,755$ 1,124 80$ 99$ 118$ Behavior Change Marketing Short 28,582$ 60,418$ 410 70$ 109$ 147$ Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection; Bi-Weekly Refuse Collection Short-Med (157,402)$ (137,671)$ 504 (312)$ (292)$ (273)$ Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long (295,135)$ (252,622)$ 562 (525)$ (487)$ (449)$ Residuals Processing Long 10,716$ 13,211$ 1,248 9$ 10$ 11$ Multi-Family Low High Low Midpoint High Behavior Change Marketing Short 211,746$ 375,609$ 1,549 137$ 190$ 242$ Bulky Item Collection; Move-In/Move-Out Program Short-Med $ 160,896 $ 230,483 176 $ 916 $ 1,114 $ 1,312 Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection; Bi-Weekly Refuse Collection Short-Med $ (229,434) $ (201,057) 2,694 $ (85) $ (80) $ (75) Food Scraps Collection - Cart Customers Medium $ 39,381 $ 58,132 476 $ 83 $ 102 $ 122 Food Scraps Collection - Bin Customers Medium $ 130,258 $ 300,681 463 $ 281 $ 465 $ 649 Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long (94,878)$ (81,319)$ 1,615 (59)$ (55)$ (50)$ Residuals Processing Long 29,006$ 35,760$ 3,377 9$ 10$ 11$ Commercial Low High Low Midpoint High Behavior Change Marketing Short (101,132)$ (44,065)$ 2,831 (36)$ (26)$ (16)$ Food Scraps Collection Medium 456,964$ 615,261$ 3,975 115$ 135$ 155$ Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long (210,325)$ (185,492)$ 2,620 (80)$ (76)$ (71)$ Expansion of Mandatory Commercial Recycling Long $ 214,645 $ 355,382 906 $ 237 $ 315 $ 392 Residuals Processing Long 41,976$ 51,750$ 4,887 9$ 10$ 11$ INCREMENTAL ANNUAL PROGRAM COST/(SAVINGS) INCREMENTAL ANNUAL PROGRAM COST/(SAVINGS) PER TON city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS 6-6 Table 6-6. Customer Rate Impacts for Selected Zero Waste Programs PROGRAM PHASE Residential Low High Food Scraps Collection Short 3.1% 4.5% Behavior Change Marketing Short 1.0% 2.1% Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection; Bi-Weekly Refuse Collection Short-Med -5.4% -4.7% Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long -10.1% -8.6% Residuals Processing Long 0.4% 0.5% Multi-Family Low High Behavior Change Marketing Short 2.8% 5.0% Bulky Item Collection; Move-In/Move-Out Program Short-Med 2.1% 3.1% Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection; Bi-Weekly Refuse Collection Short-Med -7.8% -6.9% Food Scraps Collection - Cart Customers Medium 1.3% 2.0% Food Scraps Collection - Bin Customers Medium 1.5% 3.4% Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long -1.3% -1.1% Residuals Processing Long 0.4% 0.5% Commercial Low High Behavior Change Marketing Short -1.2% -0.5% Food Scraps Collection Medium 5.2% 7.0% Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long -2.4% -2.1% Expansion of Mandatory Commercial Recycling Long 2.5% 4.1% Residuals Processing Long 0.5% 0.6% RATE IMPACT city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS 6-7 6.4 Program Impact Observations The most cost effective programs are those that result in net cost savings. These programs are illustrated in Table 6-7. Table 6-7. Most Cost Effective Zero Waste Programs Based on Incremental Annual Program Savings The other programs result in net cost increases. The most cost effective of these programs are those with the lowest cost per ton diverted. The programs in Table 6-8 are sorted from most to least cost effective based on the diversion achieved. Program Program Tons Diverted Residential Low High Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection; Bi- Weekly Refuse Collection (157,402)$ (137,671)$ 504 Wet/Dry Collection (295,135)$ (252,622)$ 562 Multi-Family Low High Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection; Bi- Weekly Refuse Collection (229,434)$ (201,057)$ 2,694 Wet/Dry Collection (94,878)$ (81,319)$ 1,615 Commercial Low High Behavior Change Marketing (101,132)$ (44,065)$ 2,831 Wet/Dry Collection (210,325)$ (185,492)$ 2,620 Incremental Annual Program Savings city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS 6-8 Table 6-8. Programs with Net Cost Increases Sorted by Lowest to Highest Cost Per Ton Residuals Processing Commercial 4,887 10$ Residuals Processing Multi-Family 3,377 10$ Residuals Processing Residential 1,248 10$ Food Scraps Collection Residential 1,124 99$ Food Scraps Collection - Cart Multi-Family 476 102$ Behavior Change Marketing Residential 410 109$ Food Scraps Collection Commercial 3,975 135$ Behavior Change Marketing Multi-Family 1,549 190$ Expansion of Mandatory Commercial Recycling Commercial 906 $ 315 Food Scraps Collection - Bin Multi-Family 463 $ 465 Bulky Item Collection; Move-In/Move-Out Program Multi-Family 176 1,114$ Program Tons Diverted SectorProgram Incremental Annual Program Midpoint Cost Per Ton city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION 7-1 7.0 Implementation Implementation of the recommended strategies will be undertaken over an approximately 20 year period, from 2013 through 2030. During the implementation, the City will continue to evaluate the efficacy of each strategy, and modify the Plan as necessary to meet the zero waste goals and objectives, and to adjust to the changing social, environmental, and economic conditions within the City. An implementation schedule is presented in Exhibit 7-1. city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION 7-2 Exhibit 7-1. Implementation Schedule Period Program Single - Famil y Multi- Family Commercia l Self- Haul C&D Short- Term Require Food Scraps Collection Behavior Change Marketing Environmental Directory On-line Version Integrated Waste Management Fee Structure Bulky Item Collection; Move- In/Move-Out Program Recycling Educational Outreach Mandatory Recycling in Hotels/Motels Business and Restaurant Food Donation Santa Monica Shares /Bulky Item Reuse and Recycling Short to Medium- Term Regional Sustainability Collaboration Rewards Program HHW Collection at Public Events Centralized Garage Sales Disposal Bans Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection; Bi-weekly Refuse Collection Self-Haul Waste Origin Reporting Medium- Term Packaging Legislation Extended Producer Responsibility Regional Resource Recovery Center Require Food Scraps Collection Expand Single-Use Carry Out Bag and Disposable Container Ordinance Medium to Long- Term Wet/Dry Collection Expand Items Collected in Recycling Cart city of santa monica zero waste strategic operations plan 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION 7-3 Period Program Single - Famil y Multi- Family Commercia l Self- Haul C&D Long-Term Mandatory Diversion Rate Require Recycling of New Materials C&D Ordinance Revision Expand Mandatory Commercial Recycling Alternative Technology Facility Residuals Processing Industry Agenda The New Plastics Economy Rethinking the future of plastics January 2016 © WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, 2016 – All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system. REF 080116 3The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Contents 3 Preface 4 Foreword 5 In Support of the New Plastics Economy 5 Project MainStream 5 Disclaimer 6 Executive Summary 10 1 The Case for Rethinking Plastics, Starting with Packaging 10 1.1 Plastics and Plastic Packaging Are an Integral and Important Part of the Global Economy 12 1.2 Today’s Plastics Economy Has Important Drawbacks 16 2 The New Plastics Economy: Capturing the Opportunity 16 2.1 The New Plastics Economy Proposes a New Way of Thinking 20 2.2 The New Plastics Economy Could Bring Substantial Benefits 21 2.3 Now Is an Opportune Moment to Act 22 2.4 Where to Start 23 3 The New Plastics Economy Demands a New Approach 28 For further information 28 List of Figures 28 Endnotes 31 Acknowledgements The circular economy is gaining growing attention as a potential way for our society to increase prosperity, while reducing demands on finite raw materials and minimizing negative externalities. Such a transition requires a systemic approach, which entails moving beyond incremental improvements to the existing model as well as developing new collaboration mechanisms. The report explores the intersection of these two themes, for plastics and plastic packaging in particular: how can collaboration along the extended global plastic packaging production and after-use value chain, as well as with governments and NGOs, achieve systemic change to overcome stalemates in today’s plastics economy in order to move to a more circular model? The New Plastics Economy aims to set an initial direction and contribute to the evidence base by synthesizing information from across many dispersed sources. It assesses the benefits and drawbacks of plastic packaging today, and makes the case for rethinking the current plastics economy. It lays out the ambitions and benefits of the New Plastics Economy – a system aiming to achieve drastically better economic and environmental outcomes. It proposes a new approach and action plan to get there. The report’s objective is not to provide final answers or recommendations. Rather, it aims to bring together for the first time a comprehensive global perspective of the broader plastic packaging economy, present a vision and propose a roadmap as well as a vehicle for progressing this roadmap, and providing a much-needed global focal point to carry this agenda forward. This report also identifies a number of significant knowledge gaps and open questions that need to be further explored. This report is the product of Project MainStream, an initiative that leverages the convening power of the World Economic Forum, the circular economy innovation capabilities of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and the analytical capabilities of McKinsey & Company. We are grateful to our numerous partners and advisors for their insights and support throughout this project, and the Project MainStream Steering Board for their continued collaboration on the transition towards a circular economy. For the three institutions that have launched the MainStream initiative, this report is an encouragement to continue to foster cross-industry collaboration as a major avenue to accelerate the transition to the much-needed circular economy. We hope you find this report informative and useful. We invite you to engage with us on this timely opportunity. Dame Ellen MacArthur Founder Ellen MacArthur Foundation Dominic Waughray Head of Public Private Partnership World Economic Forum Martin R. Stuchtey Director of the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment Preface 4 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics We live in a defining moment in history – a moment where the international community has come together to agree on an ambitious framework to resolve some of the world’s most daunting challenges. Anchored in a set of universally applicable Sustainable Development Goals, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all 193 members of the United Nations in September 2015, underlined a common determination to take bold and transformative steps towards a better future for all. Now is the time for implementation. We must now begin to practice what we have preached – changing our production and consumption patterns in order to create virtuous cycles rather than depletive ones and harnessing the global interconnectedness, communications technology and breakthroughs in materials science. All sectors of the economy must respond to these global agreements, and due to their sheer pervasiveness and scale, some sectors are facing questions as to the direction they should take. This is particularly the case for plastics, which have tangible and substantial benefits, but whose drawbacks are significant, long-term and too obvious to ignore. It is therefore encouraging to see an initiative like the New Plastics Economy take shape, supported by a diverse group of participants from the industry striving for innovative solutions grounded in systems thinking. Concrete and game-changing steps have to be taken for us to achieve the future we want anchored in the SDGs. I therefore welcome wholeheartedly the bold ideas, ambitious objectives and comprehensive action plan presented in this report. If implemented, it could make an important contribution to transforming this important sector of the global economy. Mogens Lykketoft President of the UN General Assembly for the 70th session Foreword 5The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics In Support of the New Plastics Economy “As the Consumer Goods Forum, we welcome this groundbreaking report on the New Plastics Economy. Packaging is integral to the delivery of safe, high-quality consumer products, but we recognise the need to rethink radically how we use plastics, creating new circular systems that conserve resources, reduce pollution and promote efficiency. This report improves substantially our understanding of the solutions we need.” Mike Barry and Jeff Seabright, co-chairs of the Consumer Goods Forum Sustainability Pillar “The Global Ocean Commission has been working with the Prince of Wales’ International Sustainability Unit to raise political and business awareness of the urgent need to address plastic waste entering the ocean, and transition to a more circular model for plastics. I am very pleased to see that the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and its partners have responded to this call to action, through the New Plastics Economy report, and have developed an ambitious yet realistic plan to address the issue at its root. I strongly encourage nations and business leaders to consider the contents of this report and develop corresponding strategies.” David Miliband, Co-chair, Global Ocean Commission “It is high time to implement the circular economy principles in the plastic sector. Increasing plastic recycling would capture significant material value and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As pointed out in this report, plastic production has increased from 15 million tonnes in the sixties to 311 million tonnes in 2014 and is expected to triple by 2050, when it would account for 20% of global annual oil consumption. These are exactly the reasons why Veolia, which is already actively engaged in promoting circular solutions, welcomes and supports the New Plastics Economy.” Antoine Frérot, CEO, Veolia “The New Plastics Economy takes a detailed look into one of the world’s most pervasive modern materials. The report lays out a foun- dation for a more sustainable system of making and using plastics and plastic packaging, taking into account the unique challenges and opportunities on the use, re-use, and collection of the material. It is a call to action for an ambitious redesign with a longer term view of the value at stake and intensive collaboration among various players.” Dominic Barton, Global Managing Director, McKinsey & Company “London is already actively taking steps towards a more circular model for plastics and plastic packaging. However more can and needs to be done, and I therefore welcome, support and thank the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the World Economic Forum and McKinsey for their effort in identifying and promoting the global innovations required if we are going to continue to enjoy the benefits that plastics bring to our lives.” Matthew Pencharz, Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, Greater London Authority “The New Plastics Economy is an exciting opportunity to inspire a generation of designers to profoundly rethink plastic packaging and its role in a system that works.” Tim Brown, CEO, IDEO “In the Global Ocean Commission’s report ‘From Decline to Recov- ery: A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean’, we identified keeping plastics out of the ocean as one of our key proposals for action to advance ocean recovery. This report is an excellent next step, offer- ing a root-cause solution to the problem of ocean plastics as part of a broader rethink and new approach to capture value in the New Plastics Economy. The economic and environmental case is now clear - I therefore call on governments and businesses alike to take urgent action to capture the opportunity.” Trevor Manuel, Co-chair, Global Ocean Commission “SUEZ was pleased to contribute to the New Plastics Economy report, a collaborative case for rethinking the current plastics economy. As this report shows, a radical and joint rethink of both design and after-use processes will be required, in addition to other measures such as stimulating demand for secondary raw materials. We look forward to continued collaboration to enable better economic and environmental results in the plastic packaging value chain and to accelerate the transition towards the circular economy.” Jean-Louis Chaussade, Chief Executive Officer, SUEZ “Systems thinking and integrated approaches are needed if we are to sustainably use and manage our global resources in a manner that enables the achievement of the Paris climate change agreement while advancing a circular economy. In my work with the G7 Alliance on Resource Efficiency, there’s ongoing discussion about the need to disrupt “business as usual”. “The New Plastics Economy – Rethinking the future of plastics' continues in that vein.” continues in that vein.” Mathy Stanislaus, USEPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management “This is an important report highlighting some of the key issues related to plastics and their leakage into the marine environment. It is also an exciting report that proposes new approaches within a circular economy framework that could re-orientate society’s use of plastics and start to address the problems that our current use is creating.” Professor Stephen de Mora, Chief Executive, Plymouth Marine Laboratory Project MainStream This report was written under the umbrella of Project MainStream, a multi-industry, global initiative launched in 2014 by the World Economic Forum and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, with McKinsey & Company as knowledge partner. MainStream is led by the chief executive officers of nine global companies: Averda, BT, Desso BV (a Tarkett company), Royal DSM, Ecolab, Indorama, Philips, SUEZ and Veolia. MainStream aims to accelerate business-driven innovations and help scale the circular economy. It focuses on systemic stalemates in global material flows that are too big or too complex for an individual business, city or government to overcome alone, as well as on enablers of the circular economy such as digital technologies. Disclaimer This report has been produced by a team from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which takes full responsibility for the report’s contents and conclusions. McKinsey & Company provided analytical support. While the project participants, members of the advisory panel and experts consulted acknowledged on the following pages have provided significant input to the development of this report, their participation does not necessarily imply endorsement of the report’s contents or conclusions. 6 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Executive Summary Plastics have become the ubiquitous workhorse material of the modern economy – combining unrivalled functional properties with low cost. Their use has increased twenty- fold in the past half-century and is expected to double again in the next 20 years. Today nearly everyone, everywhere, every day comes into contact with plastics – especially plastic packaging, the focus of this report. While delivering many benefits, the current plastics economy has drawbacks that are becoming more apparent by the day. After a short first-use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value, or $80–120 billion annually, is lost to the economy. A staggering 32% of plastic packaging escapes collection systems, generating significant economic costs by reducing the productivity of vital natural systems such as the ocean and clogging urban infrastructure. The cost of such after-use externalities for plastic packaging, plus the cost associated with greenhouse gas emissions from its production, is conservatively estimated at $40 billion annually – exceeding the plastic packaging industry’s profit pool. In future, these costs will have to be covered. In overcoming these drawbacks, an opportunity beckons: enhancing system effectiveness to achieve better economic and environmental outcomes while continuing to harness the many benefits of plastic packaging. The “New Plastics Economy” offers a new vision, aligned with the principles of the circular economy, to capture these opportunities. With an explicitly systemic and collaborative approach, the New Plastics Economy aims to overcome the limitations of today’s incremental improvements and fragmented initiatives, to create a shared sense of direction, to spark a wave of innovation and to move the plastics value chain into a positive spiral of value capture, stronger economics, and better environmental outcomes. This report outlines a fundamental rethink for plastic packaging and plastics in general; it offers a new approach with the potential to transform global plastic packaging material flows and thereby usher in the New Plastics Economy. Background to this work This report presents a compelling opportunity to increase the system effectiveness of the plastics economy, illustrated by examples from the plastic packaging value chain. The vision of a New Plastics Economy offers a new way of thinking about plastics as an effective global material flow, aligned with the principles of the circular economy. The New Plastics Economy initiative is, to our knowledge, the first to have developed a comprehensive overview of global plastic packaging material flows, assessed the value and benefits of shifting this archetypally linear sector to a circular economic model, and identified a practical approach to enabling this shift. This report bases its findings on interviews with over 180 experts and on analysis of over 200 reports. This report is the result of a three-year effort led by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, in partnership with the World Economic Forum and supported by McKinsey & Company. Initial interest in the topic of packaging was stimulated by the second Towards the Circular Economy report developed by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and published in 2013. That report quantified the economic value of shifting to a circular economic approach in the global, fast-moving consumer goods sector, highlighting the linear consumption pattern of that sector, which sends goods worth over $2.6 trillion annually to the world’s landfills and incineration plants. The report showed that shifting to a circular model could generate a $706 billion economic opportunity, of which a significant proportion attributable to packaging. The subsequent Towards the Circular Economy volume 3, published by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and the World Economic Forum in 2014, also supported by McKinsey, explored the opportunities and challenges for the circular economy across global supply chains, focusing on several sectors – including plastic packaging. This study triggered the creation of Project MainStream, which formed material- specific working groups, including a plastics working group; this group in turn quickly narrowed its scope of investigation to plastic packaging due to its omnipresence in daily life all over the globe. The resulting initiative was the first of its type and included participants from across the global plastic packaging value chain. It sought to develop a deep understanding of global plastic packaging material flows and to identify specific ways of promoting the emergence of a new, circular economic model. It was led by a steering board of nine CEOs and included among its participants polymer manufacturers; packaging producers; global brands; representatives of major cities focused on after-use collection; collection, sorting and reprocessing/ recycling companies; and a variety of industry experts and academics. In the course of the MainStream work, an additional key theme presented itself: plastics “leaking” (escaping) from after-use collection systems and the resulting degradation of natural systems, particularly the ocean. Although not the focal point initially, evidence of the looming degradation of marine ecosystems by plastics waste, particularly plastic packaging, has made plastics leakage a priority topic for MainStream. The economic impact of marine ecosystem degradation is only just being established through scientific and socio-economic research and analysis. However, initial findings indicate that the presence of hundreds of millions of tonnes of plastics (of which estimates suggest that packaging represents the majority) in the ocean, whether as microscopic particles or surviving in a recognizable form for hundreds of years, will have profoundly negative effects on marine ecosystems and the economic activities that depend on them. This report is designed to initiate – not conclude – a deeper exploration of the New Plastics Economy. It provides an initial fact base, shared language, a sense of the opportunities derived from the application of circular principles, and a plan for concerted action for the next three years and beyond. It also identifies critical questions that could not be answered sufficiently within the scope of this work, but need to be in order to trigger aligned action. 7The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics The case for rethinking plastics, starting with packaging Plastics and plastic packaging are an integral and important part of the global economy. Plastics production has surged over the past 50 years, from 15 million tonnes in 1964 to 311 million tonnes in 2014, and is expected to double again over the next 20 years, as plastics come to serve increasingly many applications. Plastic packaging, the focus of this report, is and will remain the largest application; currently, packaging represents 26% of the total volume of plastics used. Plastic packaging not only delivers direct economic benefits, but can also contribute to increased levels of resource productivity – for instance, plastic packaging can reduce food waste by extending shelf life and can reduce fuel consumption for transportation by bringing packaging weight down. While delivering many benefits, the current plastics economy also has important drawbacks that are becoming more apparent by the day. Today, 95% of plastic packaging material value, or $80– 120 billion annually, is lost to the economy after a short first use. More than 40 years after the launch of the first universal recycling symbol, only 14% of plastic packaging is collected for recycling. When additional value losses in sorting and reprocessing are factored in, only 5% of material value is retained for a subsequent use. Plastics that do get recycled are mostly recycled into lower-value applications that are not again recyclable after use. The recycling rate for plastics in general is even lower than for plastic packaging, and both are far below the global recycling rates for paper (58%) and iron and steel (70–90%). In addition, plastic packaging is almost exclusively single-use, especially in business-to-consumer applications. Plastic packaging generates significant negative externalities, conservatively valued by UNEP at $40 billion and expected to increase with strong volume growth in a business-as-usual scenario. Each year, at least 8 million tonnes of plastics leak into the ocean – which is equivalent to dumping the contents of one garbage truck into the ocean every minute. If no action is taken, this is expected to increase to two per minute by 2030 and four per minute by 2050. Estimates suggest that plastic packaging represents the major share of this leakage. The best research currently available estimates that there are over 150 million tonnes of plastics in the ocean today. In a business-as-usual scenario, the ocean is expected to contain 1 tonne of plastic for every 3 tonnes of fish by 2025, and by 2050, more plastics than fish (by weight). The production of plastics draws on fossil feedstocks, with a significant carbon impact that will become even more significant with the projected surge in consumption. Over 90% of plastics produced are derived from virgin fossil feedstocks. This represents, for all plastics (not just packaging), about 6% of global oil consumption, which is equivalent to the oil consumption of the global aviation sector. If the current strong growth of plastics usage continues as expected, the plastics sector will account for 20% of total oil consumption and 15% of the global annual carbon budget by 2050 (this is the budget that must be adhered to in order to achieve the internationally accepted goal to remain below a 2°C increase in global warming). Even though plastics can bring resource efficiency gains during use, these figures show that it is crucial to address the greenhouse gas impact of plastics production and after- use treatment. Plastics often contain a complex blend of chemical substances, of which some raise concerns about potential adverse effects on human health and the environment. While scientific evidence on the exact implications is not always conclusive, especially due to the difficulty of assessing complex long-term exposure and compounding effects, there are sufficient indications that warrant further research and accelerated action. Many innovations and improvement efforts show potential, but to date these have proved to be too fragmented and uncoordinated to have impact at scale. Today’s plastics economy is highly fragmented. The lack of standards and coordination across the value chain has allowed a proliferation of materials, formats, labelling, collection schemes and sorting and reprocessing systems, which collectively hamper the development of effective markets. Innovation is also fragmented. The development and introduction of new packaging materials and formats across global supply and distribution chains is happening far faster than and is largely disconnected from the development and deployment of corresponding after-use systems and infrastructure. At the same time, hundreds, if not thousands, of small-scale local initiatives are launched each year, focused on areas such as improving collection schemes and installing new sorting and reprocessing technologies. Other issues, such as the fragmented development and adoption of labelling standards, hinder public understanding and create confusion. In overcoming these drawbacks, an opportunity beckons: using the plastics innovation engine to move the industry into a positive spiral of value capture, stronger economics and better environmental outcomes. The new plastics economy: capturing the opportunity The overarching vision of the New Plastics Economy is that plastics never become waste; rather, they re-enter the economy as valuable technical or biological nutrients. The New Plastics Economy is underpinned by and aligns with principles of the circular economy. Its ambition is to deliver better system-wide economic and environmental outcomes by creating an effective after-use plastics economy, drastically reducing the leakage of plastics into natural systems (in particular the ocean) and other negative externalities; and decoupling from fossil feedstocks. Even with today’s designs, technologies and systems, these ambitions can already be at least partially realized. One recent study found, for example, that in Europe today 53% of plastic packaging could be recycled economically and environmentally effectively. While the exact figure can be debated and depends on, amongst others, the oil price, the message is clear: there are pockets of opportunities to be captured today – and even where not entirely feasible today, the New Plastics Economy offers an attractive target state for the global value chain and governments to collaboratively innovate towards. 8 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Given plastic packaging’s many benefits, both the likelihood and desirability of an across-the-board drastic reduction in the volume of plastic packaging used is clearly low. Nevertheless, reduction should be pursued where possible and beneficial, by dematerializing, moving away from single- use as the default, and substituting by other materials. Create an effective after-use plastics economy. Creating an effective after-use plastics economy is the cornerstone of the New Plastics Economy and its first priority. Not only is it crucial to capture more material value and increase resource productivity, it also provides a direct economic incentive to avoid leakage into natural systems and will help enable the transition to renewably sourced feedstock by reducing the scale of the transition. –Radically increase the economics, quality and up- take of recycling. Establish a cross-value chain dialogue mechanism and develop a Global Plastics Protocol to set direction on the re-design and convergence of materials, formats, and after-use systems to substantially improve collection, sorting and reprocessing yields, quality and economics, while allowing for regional differences and continued innovation. Enable secondary markets for re- cycled materials through the introduction and scale-up of matchmaking mechanisms, industry commitments and/ or policy interventions. Focus on key innovation opportu- nities that have the potential to scale up, such as invest- ments in new or improved materials and reprocessing technologies. Explore the overall enabling role of policy. –Scale up the adoption of reusable packaging within business-to-business applications as a priority, but also in targeted business-to-consumer applications such as plastic bags. –Scale up the adoption of industrially compostable plastic packaging for targeted applications such as garbage bags for organic waste and food packaging for events, fast food enterprises, canteens and other closed systems, where there is low risk of mixing with the recycling stream and where the pairing of a compostable package with organic contents helps return nutrients in the contents to the soil. Drastically reduce the leakage of plastics into natural systems and other negative externalities. Achieving a drastic reduction in leakage would require joint efforts along three axes: improving after-use infrastructure in high-leakage countries, increasing the economic attractiveness of keeping materials in the system and reducing the negative impact of plastic packaging when it does escape collection and reprocessing systems. In addition, efforts related to substances of concern could be scaled up and accelerated. –Improve after-use collection, storage and reprocessing infrastructure in high-leakage countries. This is a critical first step, but likely not sufficient in isolation. As discussed in the Ocean Conservancy’s 2015 report Stemming the Tide, even under the very best current scenarios for improving infrastructure, leakage would only be stabilized, not eliminated, implying that the cumulative total volume of plastics in the ocean would continue to increase strongly. Therefore, the current report focuses not on the urgently needed short-term improvements in after-use infrastructure in high-leakage countries but rather on the complementary actions required. –Increase the economic attractiveness of keeping materials in the system. Creating an effective after- use plastics economy as described above contributes to a root-cause solution to leakage. Improved economics make the build-up of after-use collection and reprocessing infrastructure more attractive. Increasing the value of after-use plastic packaging reduces the likelihood that it escapes the collection system, especially in countries with an informal waste sector. –Steer innovation investment towards creating materials and formats that reduce the negative environmental impact of plastic packaging leakage. Current plastic packaging offers great functional benefits, but it has an inherent design failure: its intended useful life is typically less than one year; however, the material persists for centuries, which is particularly damaging if it leaks outside collection systems, as happens today with 32% of plastic packaging. The efforts described above will reduce leakage, but it is doubtful that leakage can ever be fully eliminated – and even at a leakage rate of just 1%, about 1 million tonnes of plastic packaging would escape collection systems and accumulate in natural systems each year. The ambitious objective would be to develop ‘bio-benign’ plastic packaging that would reduce the negative impacts on natural systems when leaked, while also being recyclable and competitive in terms of functionality and costs. Today’s biodegradable plastics rarely measure up to that ambition, as they are typically compostable only under controlled conditions (e.g. in industrial composters). Further research and game-changing innovation are needed. –Scale up existing efforts to understand the potential impact of substances raising concerns and accelerate development and application of safe alternatives. Decouple plastics from fossil feedstocks. Decoupling plastics from fossil feedstocks would allow the plastic packaging industry to complement its contributions to resource productivity during use with a low-carbon production process, enabling it to effectively participate in the low-carbon world that is inevitably drawing closer. Creating an effective after-use economy is key to decoupling because it would, along with dematerialization levers, reduce the need for virgin feedstock. Another central part of this effort would be the development of renewably sourced materials to provide the virgin feedstock that would still be required to compensate for remaining cycle losses, despite the increased recycling and reuse. 9The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics The new plastics economy demands a new approach To move beyond small-scale and incremental improvements and achieve a systemic shift towards the New Plastics Economy, existing improvement initiatives would need to be complemented and guided by a concerted, global, systemic and collaborative initiative that matches the scale of the challenge and the opportunity. An independent coordinating vehicle would be needed to drive this initiative. It would need to be set up in a way that recognizes that the innovations required for the transition to the New Plastics Economy are driven collaboratively across industry, cities, governments and NGOs. In this initiative, consumer goods companies, plastic packaging producers and plastics manufacturers would play a critical role, because they determine what products and materials are put on the market. Cities control the after-use infrastructure in many places and are often hubs for innovation. Businesses involved in collection, sorting and reprocessing are an equally critical part of the puzzle. Policymakers can play an important role in enabling the transition by realigning incentives, facilitating secondary markets, defining standards and stimulating innovation. NGOs can help ensure that broader social and environmental considerations are taken into account. Collaboration would be required to overcome fragmentation, the chronic lack of alignment between innovation in design and after-use, and lack of standards, all challenges that must be resolved in order to unlock the New Plastics Economy. The coordinating vehicle would need to bring together the different actors in a cross-value chain dialogue mechanism and drive change by focusing on efforts with compounding effects that together would have the potential to shift the global market. Analysis to date indicates that the initial areas of focus could be: –Establish a Global Plastics Protocol and coordinate large-scale pilots and demonstration projects. Re- design and converge materials, formats and after-use systems, starting by investigating questions such as: To what extent could plastic packaging be designed with a significantly smaller set of material/additive combinations, and what would be the economic benefits if this were done? What would be the potential to design out small- format/low-value plastic packaging such as tear-offs, with challenging after-use economics and especially likely to leak? What would be the economic benefits if all plastic packaging had common labelling and chemical marking, and these were well aligned with standardized separation and sorting systems? What if after-use systems, currently shaped by fragmented decisions at municipal or regional level, were rethought and redesigned to achieve optimal scale and economics? What would be the best levers to stimulate the market for recycled plastics? Set global direction by answering such questions, demonstrate solutions at scale with large- scale pilots and demonstration projects, and drive global convergence (allowing for continued innovation and regional variations) towards the identified designs and systems with proven economics in order to overcome the existing fragmentation and to fundamentally shift after-use collection and reprocessing economics and market effectiveness. –Mobilize large-scale “moon shot” innovations. The world’s leading businesses, academics and innovators would be invited to come together and define “moon shot” innovations: focused, practical initiatives with a high potential for significant impact at scale. Areas to look at for such innovations could include the development of bio-benign materials; the development of materials designed to facilitate multilayer reprocessing, such as the use of reversible adhesives based on biomimicry principles; the search for a “super-polymer” with the functionality of today’s polymers and with superior recyclability; chemical marking technologies; and chemical recycling technologies that would overcome some of the environmental and economic issues facing current technologies. –Develop insights and build an economic and scientific evidence base. Many of the core aspects of plastic material flows and their economics are still poorly understood. While this report, together with a number of other recent efforts, aims to provide initial answers, more research is required. Initial studies could include: investigating in further detail the economic and environmental benefits of solutions discussed in this report; conducting meta-analyses and research targeted to assess the socio-economic impact of ocean plastics waste and substances of concern (including risks and externalities); determining the scale-up potential for greenhouse gas-based plastics (renewably sourced plastics produced using greenhouse gases as feedstock); investigating the potential role of (and boundary conditions for) energy recovery in a transition period; and managing and disseminating a repository of global data and best practices. –Engage policy-makers in the development of a common vision of a more effective system, and provide them with relevant tools, data and insights related to plastics and plastic packaging. One specific deliverable could be a plastics toolkit for policy-makers, giving them a structured methodology for assessing opportunities, barriers and policy options to overcome these barriers in transitioning towards the New Plastics Economy. –Coordinate and drive communication of the nature of today’s situation, the vision of the New Plastics Economy, best practices and insights, as well as specific opportunities and recommendations, to stakeholders acting along the global plastic packaging value chain. 10 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Owing to their combination of unrivalled properties and low cost, plastics are the workhorse material of the modern economy. Their use has increased twenty-fold in the past half-century, and is expected to double again in the next 20 years. Today nearly everyone, everywhere, every day comes into contact with plastics – especially plastic packaging, on which the report focuses. While delivering many benefits, the current plastics economy has drawbacks that are becoming more apparent by the day. After a first short use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value, or $80–120 billion annually, is lost to the economy. A staggering 32% of plastic packaging escapes collection systems, generating significant economic costs by reducing the productivity of vital natural systems such as the ocean and clogging urban infrastructure. The cost of such after-use externalities for plastic packaging, plus the cost associated with greenhouse gas emissions from its production, has been estimated conservatively by UNEP at $40 billion – exceeding the plastic packaging industry’s profit pool. In future, these costs will have to be covered. In overcoming these drawbacks, an opportunity beckons: enhancing system effectiveness to achieve better economic and environmental outcomes while continuing to reap the many benefits of plastic packaging. 1.1 Plastics and Plastic Packaging Are an Integral and Important Part of the Global Economy Today, imagining a world without plastics1 is nearly impossible. Plastics are increasingly used across the economy, serving as a key enabler for sectors as diverse as packaging, construction, transportation, healthcare and electronics. Plastics now make up roughly 15% of a car2 by weight and about 50% of the Boeing Dreamliner.3 Plastics have brought massive economic benefits to these sectors, thanks to their combination of low cost, versatility, durability and high strength-to-weight ratio.4 The success of plastics is reflected in the exponential growth in their production over the past half-century (Figure 1). Since 1964, plastics production has increased twenty-fold, reaching 311 million tonnes in 2014, the equivalent of more than 900 Empire State Buildings.5 Plastics production is expected to double again in 20 years and almost quadruple by 2050. Plastic packaging – the focus of this report – is plastics’ largest application, representing 26% of the total volume.6 As packaging materials, plastics are especially inexpensive, lightweight and high performing. Plastic packaging can also benefit the environment: its low weight reduces fuel consumption in transportation, and its barrier properties keep food fresh longer, reducing food waste. As a result of these characteristics, plastics are increasingly replacing other packaging materials. Between 2000 and 2015, the share of plastic packaging as a share of global packaging volumes has increased from 17% to 25%7 driven by a strong growth in the global plastic packaging market8 of 5%9 annually. In 2013, the industry put 78 million tonnes of plastic packaging on the market, with a total value of $260 billion.10 Plastic packaging volumes are expected to continue their strong growth, doubling within 15 years and more than quadrupling by 2050, to 318 million tonnes annually – more than the entire plastics industry today.11 The main plastic resin types and their packaging applications are shown in Figure 2. 1 The Case for Rethinking Plastics, Starting with Packaging 11The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014 350 MI L L I O N T O N N E S 311 MT (2014) 20x 15 MT (1964) 1 PET 2 HDPE 3 PVC 4 LDPE 5 PP 6 PS EPS 7 OTHERS 6 Water and soft drink bottles, salad domes, biscuit trays, salad dressing and peanut butter containers Milk bottles, freezer bags, dip tubs, crinkly shopping bags, ice cream containers, juice bottles, shampoo, chemical and detergent bottles Cosmetic containers, commercial cling wrap Squeeze bottles, cling wrap, shrink wrap, rubbish bags Microwave dishes, ice cream tubs, potato chip bags, and dip tubs CD cases, water station cups, plastic cutlery, imitation “crystal glassware”, video cases Foamed polystyrene hot drink cups, hamburger take-away clamshells, foamed meat trays, protective packaging for fragile items Water cooler bottles, flexible films, multi-material packaging Figure 1: Growth in Global Plastics Production 1950–2014 Figure 2: Main Plastic Resin Types and Their Applications in Packaging Note: Production from virgin petroleum-based feedstock only (does not include bio-based, greenhouse gas-based or recycled feedstock) Source: PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Facts 2013 (2013); PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Facts 2015 (2015). 12 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics 1.2 Today’s Plastics Economy Has Important Drawbacks 1.2.1 Plastic packaging is an iconic linear application with $80–120 billion annual material value loss Today, 95% of plastic packaging material value or $80–120 billion annually is lost to the economy after a short first use. More than 40 years after the launch of the well- known recycling symbol, only 14% of plastic packaging is collected for recycling. When additional value losses in sorting and reprocessing are factored in, only 5% of material value is retained for a subsequent use (see Figure 3). Plastics that do get recycled are mostly recycled into lower-value applications that are not again recyclable after use. The recycling rate for plastics in general is even lower than for plastic packaging, and both are far below the global recycling rates for paper (58%)12 and iron and steel (70–90%).13 PET,14 used in beverage bottles, has a higher recycling rate than any other type of plastic, but even this success story is only a modest one: globally, close to half of PET is not collected for recycling, and only 7% is recycled bottle-to-bottle.15 In addition, plastic packaging is almost exclusively single-use, especially in business-to-consumer applications. Figure 3: Plastic Packaging Material Value Loss after One Use Cycle A comprehensive overview of global flows of plastic packaging materials can be found in Figure 4. In addition to the 14% of plastic packaging collected for recycling, another 14% is sent to an incineration and/or energy recovery process, mostly through incineration in mixed solid waste incinerators, but also through the combustion of refuse-derived fuel in industrial processes such as cement kilns, and (at a limited scale) pyrolysis or gasification. While recovering energy is a good thing in itself, this process still loses the embedded effort and labour that went into creating the material. For energy recovery in mixed solid waste incinerators, in particular, there are also concerns that over-deployment of such incineration infrastructure can create a “lock-in” effect that, because of the large capital investments but relatively low operating costs involved in building up and running such infrastructure, can effectively push higher-value mechanisms such as recycling out of the market. Many organizations have also raised concerns about the pollutants that are generated during energy recovery processes, which can have direct negative health effects if adequate pollution controls are not in place, as is often the case in the developing world. Also, even if appropriate pollution controls are in place, the resulting by- products need to be disposed of. Furthermore, an overwhelming 72% of plastic packaging is not recovered at all: 40% is landfilled, and 32% leaks out of the collection system – that is, either it is not collected at all, or it is collected but then illegally dumped or mismanaged. This analysis of the global flows of plastic packaging materials is based on an aggregation of fragmented datasets, often with varying definitions and scope. The analysis not only reveals a significant opportunity to increase circularity and capture material value, but also highlights the need for better alignment of reporting standards and consolidation on a global level. Specific efforts could be dedicated to improving the data from developing markets with informal waste sectors. 100 36 0 14 VA L U E Y I E L D 1 (% ) COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING (%) 64% 86% 100 95% LOSS ($80–120 billion)2 1 Value yield = volume yield * price yield, where volume yield = output volumes / input volumes, and price yield = USD per tonne of reprocessed material / USD per tonne of virgin material 2 Current situation based on 14% recycling rate, 72% volume yield and 50% price yield. Total volume of plastic packaging of 78 Mt, given a weighted average price of 1,100–1,600 USD/t Source: Expert interviews; Plastic News; Deloitte, Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment – Final Report (2015); The Plastics Exchange; plasticker; EUWID; Eurostat 13The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics 1.2.2 Production relies on finite stocks of fossil feedstocks The plastics industry as a whole is highly reliant on finite stocks of oil and gas, which make up more than 90% of its feedstock. For plastic packaging, this number is even higher, as the recycling of plastics into packaging applications is limited. Sources vary on the share of oil production used to make plastics, but a combination of extensive literature research and modelling indicates that 4–8% of the world’s oil production is used to make plastics (not just packaging), with 6% as the best estimate; roughly half of this is used as material feedstock and half as fuel for the production process.16 This is equivalent to the oil consumption of the global aviation sector17 and is in addition to the natural gas used as material feedstock and fuel. If the current strong growth of plastics usage continues as expected, the consumption of oil by the entire plastics sector will account for 20% of the total consumption by 2050.18 The use of oil by the plastics industry is expected to increase in line with plastics production (growing by 3.5–3.8% annually); this is much faster than the growth in overall demand for oil, which is expected to increase by only 0.5% annually.19 1.2.3 Plastics and packaging generates significant negative externalities The externalities related to the use of plastics and plastic packaging are concentrated in three areas: degradation of natural systems as a result of leakage, especially in the ocean; greenhouse gas emissions resulting from production and after-use incineration; and health and environmental impacts from substances of concern. Valuing Plastic, a report by the UN Environment Programme and the Plastics Disclosure Project (PDP) based on research by Trucost estimated the total natural capital cost of plastics in the consumer goods industry at $75 billion, of which $40 billion was related to plastic packaging, exceeding the profit pool of the plastic packaging industry.20 The continued strong growth expected in the production and use of both plastics in general and plastic packaging in particular will spread the benefits of plastics to ever more people and in ever more useful applications; however, if production and use continue within the current linear framework, these negative externalities will be exacerbated, as laid out in Figure 5 and detailed below. 78 MILLION TONNES 40% LANDFILLED 14% INCINERATION AND/ OR ENERGY RECOVERY 32% LEAKAGE 98% VIRGIN FEEDSTOCK 4% PROCESS LOSSES 8% CASCADED RECYCLING2 2% CLOSED-LOOP RECYCLING1 14% COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING (ANNUAL PRODUCTION) Figure 4: Global Flows of Plastic Packaging Materials in 2013 1 Closed-loop recycling: Recycling of plastics into the same or similar-quality application 2 Cascaded recycling: Recycling of plastics into other, lower-value applications Source: Project Mainstream analysis – for details please refer to the extended version of the report available on the website of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation: www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org 14 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Degradation of natural systems as a result of leakage, especially in the ocean. At least 8 million tonnes of plastics leak into the ocean each year21 – which is equivalent to dumping the contents of one garbage truck into the ocean per minute. If no action is taken, this will increase to two per minute by 2030 and four per minute by 2050.22 Estimates and expert interviews suggest that packaging represents the major share of the leakage. Not only is packaging the largest application of plastics with 26% of volumes, its small size and low residual value also makes it especially prone to leakage. One indicative data point is that plastic packaging comprises more than 62% of all items (including non-plastics) collected in international coastal clean-up operations.23 Plastics can remain in the ocean for hundreds of years in their original form and even longer in small particles, which means that the amount of plastic in the ocean cumulates over time. The best research currently available estimates that there are over 150 million tonnes of plastic waste in the ocean today.24 Without significant action, there may be more plastic than fish in the ocean, by weight, by 2050.25 Even by 2025, the ratio of plastic to fish in the ocean is expected to be one to three, as plastic stocks in the ocean are forecast to grow to 250 million tonnes in 2025.26 As pointed out in the report Stemming the Tide, even if concerted abatement efforts would be made to reduce the flow of plastics into the ocean, the volume of plastic waste going into the ocean would stabilize rather than decline, implying a continued increase in total ocean plastics volumes, unless those abatement efforts would be coupled with a longer-term systemic solution, including the adoption of principles of the circular economy. Ocean plastics significantly impact maritime natural capital. While the total economic impact is still unclear, initial studies suggest that it is at least in the billions of dollars. According to Valuing Plastic the annual damage of plastics to marine ecosystems is at least $13 billion per year and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) estimates that the cost of ocean plastics to the tourism, fishing and shipping industries was $1.3 billion in that region alone.27 Even in Europe, where leakage is relatively limited, potential costs for coastal and beach cleaning could reach €630 million ($695 million) per year.28 In addition to the direct economic costs, there are potential adverse impacts on human livelihoods and health, food chains and other essential economic and societal systems. Leaked plastics can also degrade other natural systems, such as forests and waterways, and induce direct economic costs by clogging sewers and other urban infrastructure. The economic costs of these impacts need further assessment. PLASTICS PRODUCTION PLASTICS’ SHARE OF GLOBAL OIL CONSUMPTION2 311 MT 1,124 MT 1:5 >1:1 6%20% 2014 2050 OIL OIL RATIO OF PLASTICS TO FISH IN THE OCEAN1 (BY WEIGHT) PLASTICS' SHARE OF CARBON BUDGET3 1%15% Figure 5: Forecast of Plastics Volume Growth, Externalities and Oil Consumption in a Business-As-Usual Scenario 1 Fish stocks are assumed to be constant (conservative assumption) 2 Total oil consumption expected to grow slower (0.5% p.a.) than plastics production (3.8% until 2030 then 3.5% to 2050) 3 Carbon from plastics includes energy used in production and carbon released through incineration and/or energy recovery after-use. The latter is based on 14% incinerated and/or energy recovery in 2014 and 20% in 2050. Carbon budget based on 2 degrees scenario Source: Plastics Europe; ICIS Supply and Demand; IEA World Energy Outlook (2015) global GDP projection 2013–2040, assumed to continue to 2050; Ocean Con- servancy and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean (2015); J. R. Jambeck et al., ‘Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean’, Science (13 February 2015); IEA World Energy Outlook 2015 central ‘New Policies’ scenario oil demand projection 2014-2040, assumed to continue to 2050; J. Hopewell et al., ‘Plastics recycling: Challenges and opportunities’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2009; IEA CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (2014); IEA World Energy Outlook Special Report: Energy and Climate Change (2015); Carbon Tracker Initiative, Unburnable Carbon (2013) 15The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Greenhouse gas emissions. As pointed out above, plastic packaging can in many cases reduce the emission of greenhouse gases during its use phase. Yet, with 6% of global oil production devoted to the production of plastics (of which packaging represents a good quarter), considerable greenhouse gas emissions are associated with the production and sometimes the after-use pathway of plastics. In 2012, these emissions amounted to approximately 390 million tonnes of CO2 for all plastics (not just packaging).29 According to Valuing Plastic, the manufacturing of plastic feedstock, including the extraction of the raw materials, gives rise to greenhouse gas emissions with natural capital costs of $23 billion.30 The production phase, which consumes around half of the fossil feedstocks flowing into the plastics sector, leads to most of these emissions.31 The remaining carbon is captured in the plastic products themselves, and its release in the form of greenhouse gas emissions strongly depends on the products’ after-use pathway.32 Incineration and energy recovery result in a direct release of the carbon (not taking into account potential carbon savings by replacing another energy source). If the plastics are landfilled, this feedstock carbon could be considered sequestered. If it is leaked, carbon might be released into the atmosphere over many (potentially, hundreds of) years.33 This greenhouse gas footprint will become even more significant with the projected surge in consumption. If the current strong growth of plastics usage continues as expected, the emission of greenhouse gases by the global plastics sector will account for 15% of the global annual carbon budget by 2050, up from 1% today.34 The carbon budget for the global economy is based on restricting global warming to a maximum increase of 2°C by 2100.35 Even though plastics can bring real resource efficiency gains and help reduce carbon emissions during use, these figures show that it is crucial to address the greenhouse gas impact of plastics production and after-use treatment. Substances of concern. Plastics are made from a polymer mixed with a complex blend of additives such as stabilizers, plasticizers and pigments, and might contain unintended substances in the form of impurities and contaminants. Substances such as bisphenol A (BPA) and certain phthalates, which are used as plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (PVC), have already raised concerns about the risk of adverse effects on human health and the environment, concerns that have motivated some regulators and businesses to act.36 In addition, there are uncertainties about the potential consequences of long-term exposure to other substances found in today’s plastics, about their combined effects and about the consequences of leakage into the biosphere. The 150 million tonnes of plastics currently in the ocean include roughly 23 million tonnes of additives, of which some raise concern.37 While the speed at which these additives leach out of the plastic into the environment is still subject to debate, estimates suggest that about 225,000 tonnes of such additives could be released into the ocean annually. This number could increase to 1.2 million tonnes per year by 2050.38 In addition, substances of concern might enter the environment when plastics and plastic packaging are combusted without proper controls, a common practice in many developing economies. This suggests the need for additional research and more transparency. 1.2.4 Current innovation and improvement efforts fail to have impact at scale Many innovation and improvement efforts show potential, but to date these have proven to be too fragmented and uncoordinated to have impact at scale. Today’s plastics economy is highly fragmented. The lack of standards and coordination across the value chain has allowed the proliferation of materials, formats, labelling, collection schemes, and sorting and reprocessing systems, which collectively hamper the development of effective markets. Innovation is also fragmented. The development and introduction of new packaging materials and formats across global supply and distribution chains is happening far faster than and is largely disconnected from the development and deployment of corresponding after-use systems and infrastructure. At the same time, hundreds, if not thousands, of small-scale local initiatives are being launched each year, focused on areas such as improving collection schemes and installing new sorting and reprocessing technologies. Other issues, such as the fragmented development and adoption of labelling standards, hinder public understanding and create confusion. Through overcoming these drawbacks, an opportunity beckons: moving the plastics industry into a positive spiral of value capture, stronger economics, and better environmental outcomes. Actors across the plastic packaging value chain have proven time and again their capacity to innovate. Now, harnessing this capability to improve the circularity of plastic packaging – while continuing to expand its functionality and reduce its cost – could create a new engine to move towards a system that works: a New Plastics Economy. 16 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics The overarching vision of the New Plastics Economy is that plastics never become waste; rather, they re-enter the economy as valuable technical or biological nutrients. The New Plastics Economy is underpinned by and aligns with circular economy principles. It sets the ambition to deliver better system-wide economic and environmental outcomes by creating an effective after-use plastics economy (the cornerstone and priority); by drastically reducing the leakage of plastics into natural systems (in particular the ocean); and by decoupling plastics from fossil feedstocks. 2.1 The New Plastics Economy Proposes a New Way of Thinking The New Plastics Economy builds on and aligns with the principles of the circular economy, an industrial system that is restorative and regenerative by design (see Box 1). The New Plastics Economy has three main ambitions (see Figure 6): 1. Create an effective after-use plastics economy by improving the economics and uptake of recycling, reuse and controlled biodegradation for targeted applications. This is the cornerstone of the New Plastics Economy and its first priority, and helps realize the two following ambitions. 2. Drastically reduce leakage of plastics into natural systems (in particular the ocean) and other negative externalities. 3. Decouple plastics from fossil feedstocks by – in addition to reducing cycle losses and dematerializing – exploring and adopting renewably sourced feedstocks. 2 The New Plastics Economy: Capturing the Opportunity RADICALLY IMPROVED ECONOMICS & QUALITY A D 1 A N D /O R C O M P O S T I N G RECYCLING DESIGN & PRODUCTION USE DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE LEAKAGE OF PLASTICS INTO NATURAL SYSTEMS & OTHER NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES DECOUPLE PLASTICS FROM FOSSIL FEEDSTOCKS CREATE AN EFFECTIVE AFTER-USE PLASTICS ECONOMY 1 23 REUSE RENEWABLY SOURCED VIRGIN FEEDSTOCK ENERGY RECOVERY1 LEAKAGE OTHER MATERIAL STREAMS ENERGY RECOVERY2 1 Closed-loop recycling: Recycling of plastics into the same or similar-quality application 2 Cascaded recycling: Recycling of plastics into other, lower-value applications Source: Project Mainstream analysis – for details please refer to the extended version of the report available on the website of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation: www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org Figure 6: Ambitions of the New Plastics Economy 17The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Box 1: The Circular Economy: Principles and Benefits The circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative and regenerative by design. It rests on three main principles: preserving and enhancing natural capital, optimizing resource yields and fostering system effectiveness. 1. Hunting and fishing 2. Can take both post-harvest and post-consumer waste as an input Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation, SUN, and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment; Drawing from Braungart & McDonough, Cradle to Cradle (C2C). Multiple research efforts and the identification of best-practice examples have shown that a transition towards the circular economy can bring about the lasting benefits of a more innovative, resilient, and productive economy. For example, the 2015 study Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe estimated that a shift to the circular economy development path in just three core areas – mobility, food and built environment – would generate annual total benefits for Europe of around €1.8 trillion ($2.0 trillion).40 Farming/collection1 Biochemical feedstock Regeneration Biogas Extraction of biochemical feedstock2 Cascades Collection Minimise systematic leakage and negative externalities Parts manufacturer Product manufacturer Service provider Collection User Biosphere Finite materialsRenewables Regenerate Substitute materials Virtualise Restore Renewables fl ow management Stock management Recycle Refurbish/ remanufacture Reuse/redistribute Maintain/prolong Share 6 2803 0006 9 Consumer PRINCIPLE1 PRINCIPLE2 PRINCIPLE3 Foster system e ectiveness by revealing and designing out negative externalities All ReSOLVE levers Preserve and enhance natural capital by controlling fi nite stocks and balancing renewable resource fl ows ReSOLVE levers: regenerate, virtualise, exchange Optimise resource yields by circulating products, components and materials in use at the highest utility at all times in both technical and biological cycles ReSOLVE levers: regenerate, share, optimise, loop OUTLINE OF A CIRCULAR ECONOMY Anaerobic digestion Even with today’s designs, technologies and systems, these ambitions can already be at least partially realized. One recent study found, for example, that in Europe already today 53% of plastic packaging could be recycled “eco- efficiently”.39 While the exact figure can be and depends on, amongst others, the oil price, the message is clear: there are pockets of opportunities to be captured today – and even where not entirely feasible today, the New Plastics Economy offers an attractive target state for the global value chain and governments to collaboratively innovate towards. This will not happen overnight. Redesigning materials, formats and systems, developing new technologies and evolving global value chains may take many years. But this should not discourage stakeholders or lead to delays – on the contrary, the time to act is now. Given plastic packaging’s many benefits, it has become clear that the likelihood of a drastic reduction in the volume of plastic packaging is low – although reduction should be pursued where possible and beneficial, by moving away from single-use as the default (especially in business- to-business applications, but also in targeted business- to-consumer applications such as plastic bags), by dematerializing and by substituting other materials. 18 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics 2.1.1 Create an effective after-use plastics economy Creating an effective after-use plastics economy is the cornerstone of the New Plastics Economy and its first priority. Not only is it critical to capture more material value and increase resource productivity, it also provides a direct economic incentive to avoid leakage into natural systems and helps enable the transition to renewably sourced feedstock by reducing its scale. As evidenced by today’s capture of just 5% of after-use plastic packaging material value, there is significant potential to capture more material value by radically improving recycling economics, quality and uptake. Coordinated and compounding action and innovation across the global value chain are needed to capture the potential. These actions could include: establishment of a cross-value chain dialogue mechanism; development of a Global Plastics Protocol to set direction on the re-design and convergence of materials, formats and after-use systems to substantially improve collection, sorting and reprocessing yields, quality and economics, while allowing for regional differences and continued innovation; enablement of secondary markets for recycled materials through the introduction and scale-up of matchmaking mechanisms, industry commitments and/ or policy interventions; pursuit of innovation opportunities that have the potential to scale up, such as investments in new or improved materials and reprocessing technologies; and exploration of the enabling role of policy. Segments within the plastic packaging market with the most attractive recycling cost-benefit balance are likely commercial (business-to-business) films, beverage bottles and other rigid plastic packaging.41 Reuse could play an important role as well, especially in the business-to-business (B2B) segment. Reusable B2B packaging can create substantial cost savings, and if used in pooled systems across companies and industries, significant value beyond packaging. In its most advanced form, it could help enable the ‘Physical Internet’ – a logistics system based on standardised, modularised, shared assets. Transitioning to the ‘Physical Internet’ could unlock significant economic value – estimated to be USD 100 billion in the United States alone.42 In the business-to-consumer segment, reuse is more challenging for many applications, but could however be pursued for targeted applications such as plastic bags, and could be increasingly enabled by new business models. Industrially compostable plastic packaging could be a good solution and scaled up for certain targeted applications, if coupled with the appropriate collection and recovery infrastructure (anaerobic digestion and/or industrial composting) to return the nutrients of the packaged contents (e.g. food) to the soil. Today, plastics are designed to be either recyclable or compostable (or neither of the two) – keeping both options open by design is usually not possible with current materials technology and after- use infrastructure. For most applications, the recycling pathway is preferable, as this keeps the material in the economy, whereas biodegradability allows plastic to break down into harmless, but essentially low-value elements such as water and CO2. In certain targeted applications, however, industrially compostable packaging could be a valuable mechanism for returning nutrients to the soil. Most promising applications are the ones that meet the following two criteria: First, packaging is likely to be mixed with organic contents such as food after use – making packaging in such applications compostable can help to bring back nutrients from the packaged contents (e.g. food) to the soil. Second packaging does not typically end up in a plastics recycling stream – compostable packaging in its current form can interfere with recycling processes. Examples of applications fulfilling both criteria are bags for organic waste, packaging used in closed-loop systems such as events, fast food restaurants and canteens, and packaging items such as tea bags and coffee capsules. The city of Milan, for example, more than tripled its collection of food waste – from 28kg to 95kg per inhabitant per year – after the introduction of compostable bags for organic waste.43 2.1.2 Drastically reduce the leakage of plastics into natural systems and other negative externalities Plastics should not end up in the ocean or other parts of the environment. Ensuring this doesn’t happen requires a coordinated effort to improve collection systems and recovery infrastructure – especially where the latter lags behind economic development, as is the case for many rapidly developing middle-income countries in Asia, which account for an estimated 80% of leakage. Various local and global initiatives address the critical development of infrastructure and work with the formal and informal waste management sector to stop plastics from leaking into the ocean. Local initiatives include, for example, the Mother Earth Foundation and Coastal Cleanup in the Philippines, while the Trash Free Seas Alliance, initiated by the Ocean Conservancy, is an example of an effort aimed at effecting change on a global scale. But even a concerted effort to improve collection and recovery infrastructure in high-leakage countries would likely only stabilize the flow of plastics into the ocean – not stop it – which means that the total volume of plastics in the ocean would continue to increase, given the cumulative nature of ocean plastics.44 As argued by the Ocean Conservancy in Stemming the Tide and by many others, a long-term root-cause solution would include the incorporation of circular economy principles into the plastics sector. Creating a working economy for after-use plastics would offer a direct economic incentive to build collection and recovery infrastructure. Furthermore, because plastics with high after- use value are less likely to leak, especially in countries with an informal waste sector, improving the design of products and materials to enhance after-use value would reduce leakage. Finally, levers such as reuse and dematerialization can be a means of reducing the amount of plastic put on the market and, hence, reducing leakage proportionally. Even with all these efforts, leakage is likely to remain significant. Even in the United States and Europe, with advanced collection systems, 170,000 tonnes of plastics leak into the ocean each year.45 Therefore, efforts to avoid leakage into the ocean would require complementary innovation efforts to make plastic packaging “bio-benign” when it does (unintentionally) leak into the environment. Today’s biodegradable plastics do not measure up against such an ambition, as they are typically compostable only under controlled conditions, as in industrial composters. Nor has additive-mediated fragmentation (for example, 19The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics oxo-fragmentation) led to a breakthrough – such plastics have not been proven truly benign, but rather mostly led to fragmentation, hence increasing the amount of microplastics in the ocean. Hence, game-changing innovation is needed to make plastics truly bio-benign in case they leak outside collection systems. Different avenues might help to reduce the harm of (unintentionally) leaked plastics: advanced bio-degradability in freshwater and/or marine environments, a material palette without substances of concern, avoidance of colours and shapes that are typically ingested or otherwise harmful to marine life for applications with high risks of leakage, and radically new smart/triggered processes that imitate metabolizing processes in nature could all contribute to making materials benign to natural systems. Paper offers inspiration – a widely used and recyclable packaging material that is relatively benign if leaked into the environment (unless it contains substances of concern, such as certain inks). Developing such bio-benign materials that are still recyclable and competitive in terms of functionality and costs demands further research of what constitutes bio- benign and represents a significant innovation challenge that will take time to overcome. While scientific evidence on the exact implications of substances of concern is not always conclusive, especially due to the difficulty of assessing complex long-term exposure and compounding effects, there are sufficient indications that warrant further research into and accelerated development and application of safe alternatives. These research and innovation efforts would need to be complemented with enhanced transparency on material content of plastics and, where relevant, the application of the precautionary principle to possibly phase out specific (sets of) substances raising concerns of acute negative effects. 2.1.3 Decouple plastics from fossil feedstocks Recycling and reuse are critical to decoupling plastic packaging use from the consumption of fossil-based feedstock. However by themselves they are probably insufficient. Even if global recycling rates rose from today’s 14% to more than 55% – which would be higher than the rate achieved today by even the best-performing countries – annual requirements for virgin feedstock would still double by 2050.46 The likely remaining, albeit diminishing, cycle losses from reuse and recycling loops and the attendant need for virgin feedstock to compensate for those losses call for exploring the role of renewable sources – either directly converting greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide (GHG- based sources) or using biomass (bio-based sources). Innovators claim that production of GHG-based plastics is already cost competitive to current fossil-based plastics for certain applications and qualify as carbon negative materials.47 Using bio-based sources without creating significant externalities in other domains requires applying regenerative agricultural principles and taking the impacts of the agricultural processes, including land use and bio- diversity, into account. Box 2: The Role of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool for the systematic evaluation of the environmental aspects of a product or service system through all stages of its life cycle.48 As such, if implemented well, it can provide a valuable tool to evaluate different options at any given point in time. Like any tool, however, it has its limitations. Most fundamentally, while it is well suited to evaluate individual choices today, it is less suitable for determining the target state towards which a system as a whole could innovate. Also, similar to the prisoner’s dilemma, the classic example from game theory in which the individual maximization of benefits by rational actors leads to a suboptimal overall outcome, an LCA optimization by each individual actor does not necessarily lead to better system outcomes. Take the case of electric vehicles. Most people would agree that a mobility system supported by electric, grid-integrated vehicles and renewable electricity is a more attractive target state than one reliant on combustion engines and fossil fuels. However, an LCA study published in 2011 found that the carbon advantage of an electric vehicle over a similar conventional petrol car could be as small as 4%, and that “drivers wanting to minimize emissions could be better off buying a small, efficient petrol or diesel car”.49 The right conclusion is clearly not to write off the concept of electric vehicles. Rather, a good conclusion might be to acknowledge both the inherent attractiveness of the electric vehicle target state while also acknowledging the innovation opportunity and need to develop better-performing electric vehicles, improve effectiveness and efficiency of production processes and after-use management, and increase the uptake of renewable sources of electricity. Similar reasoning can be applied to many of the mechanisms described in the vision for the New Plastics Economy. An economy in which the value of products and materials is maximized through multiple loops could be considered inherently more attractive than an economy with one-way linear material flows where 95% of material value is lost after one use cycle. Similarly, an economy in which plastics are sourced renewably from greenhouse gases or biomass coupled with the application of regenerative agricultural principles, could be considered inherently more attractive than an economy in which plastics are sourced from finite stocks of greenhouse gas-emitting fossil feedstocks. That preference does not necessarily imply that every piece of plastic packaging should be recycled or renewably sourced today, but it does offer a target state for the plastic packaging value chain to innovate towards. Finally, the life cycle assessments in recent publications on plastic packaging tend to focus on single measures, such as carbon. While such measures are of the utmost importance, a single-measure focus inevitably fails to consider the entire impact of plastic across the life cycle, including the effects of leakage into the natural environment. 20 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics 2.2 The New Plastics Economy Could Bring Substantial Benefits The New Plastics Economy aims to create long-term systemic value by fostering a working after-use economy, drastically reducing leakage and decoupling plastics from fossil feedstocks. A business-as-usual scenario for plastics will also bring growth, innovation and benefits, but if circular economy principles guide and inspire this growth and innovation, the sum of the benefits will be larger. In particular, the New Plastics Economy provides several expected additional benefits, the most significant of which are capturing material value and de-risking the value chain by reducing negative externalities. The ambitions described in this report, such as increasing the economics and uptake of recycling and developing renewably sourced plastics, will help in the seizing of those opportunities. The New Plastics Economy could help capture plastic packaging material value. Currently just 5% of material value of plastics packaging is captured after one use cycle, corresponding to $4–6 billion.50 While it is unlikely that the industry could seize the full potential of material value, concerted action on redesigning and converging on materials, formats and after-use systems through a global plastics protocol, enablement of secondary markets and innovating on technology and materials could allow to capture a significant share (see Figure 7). Working towards the New Plastics Economy would sig- nificantly reduce the negative externalities associated with plastics and plastic packaging. As explained above, the benefits of plastic packaging are accompanied by sub- stantial and accumulative degradation of natural systems due, in particular, to leakage into the ocean and to greenhouse gas emissions. Through creating effective after-use markets, the New Plastics Economy provides a direct incentive to build up collection and reprocessing infrastructure, and hence reduce leakage. Through increased reuse and recycling and by de- veloping renewably sourced plastic materials, the New Plas- tics Economy actively mitigates the risk related to greenhouse gas emissions. Recycling one additional tonne of plastics, for example, reduces emissions by 1.1–3.0 tonnes of CO2e compared to producing the same tonne of plastics from virgin fossil feedstock.51 Some bio-based plastics also have been shown to have a negative global warming potential with -2.2 kilogram CO2e per kilogram of bio-based PE produced compared to 1.8 kilogram CO2e per kilogram of fossil-based PE produced.52 By promoting more research on potential adverse effects, increasing transparency on material content and developing plastics without substances of concern, the New Plastics Economy helps mitigate risks posed by sub- stances of concern. Reducing these negative externalities would result in real risk-reduction benefits for businesses. While externalities by definition do not represent a direct cost to businesses, they expose businesses to regulatory risks, including the internalization of negative externalities and even banning the use of specific types of plastic packaging, with potentially large impacts on the plastic packaging industry. The carbon tax – a tax levied on the carbon content of fuels, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions – provides an example of risk internalization. The possibility of an outright ban arose in India in 2015 when the National Green Tribunal considered imposing a ban on the use of plastics for packaging of all non-essential items, including multilayer packaging and PET bottles.53 In addition, risks can also manifest themselves through customers – for example, bottle company SIGG USA went bankrupt in 2011 following a scandal about some of its products allegedly leaching the controversial substance bisphenol A.54 The New Plastics Economy can help reduce exposure to volatility of (fossil-based) virgin feedstock. Since the turn of the century, oil prices have been subject to highly significant volatility. Although prices have dropped from the historical high seen in 2008 and are expected by some observers not to rise again soon, historically observed volatility could remain. The magazine The Economist predicted in March 1999 that oil prices, then at $10 per barrel, would likely drop to $5.55 By the end of that year they were at $25. Less than 10 years later they were at $145. Most major forecasters at the end of the 1990s agreed that oil prices would likely stay below $30 for the next two decades56 – again proven wrong by the events of the next decade. The unpredictable cost of supply for fossil feedstock-based plastics is a risk, and one option for businesses wanting to address their exposure to that risk could be diversification into recycled and renewably sourced alternatives. Of course, these renewably sourced plastics are also derived from commodity feedstocks with market prices subject to local market pressures, so price volatility is still a concern, but diversification spreads the risks. Investments aimed at broadening the array of options for recycled materials and renewably sourced feedstocks would further help to build in system resilience in the New Plastics Economy. 100 36 0 14 VA L U E Y I E L D ( % ) COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING (%) 100 (95%) $80–120 billion 1. DIALOGUE MECHANISM 2. GLOBAL PLASTICS PROTOCOL 3. SECONDARY MARKETS 4. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION 5. ENABLING POLICY C O M P O U N D I N G LEVERS Source: Project MainStream analysis Figure 7: Theoretical Potential to Capture Material Value 21The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics 2.3 Now Is an Opportune Moment to Act A favourable alignment of factors makes now an opportune moment to act. New technologies are unlocking new opportunities, while the building up of after-use infrastructure in developing countries has made this a critical crossroads moment for getting systems right the first time. Concurrently, increasing regulatory action and growing societal concerns are morphing from a marginal to an increasingly central issue, potentially affecting companies’ licence to operate. New technologies are unlocking new opportunities in areas such as material design, separation technology, reprocessing technology and renewably sourced and biodegradable plastics. Dow Chemical recently developed, together with Printpack and Tyson Foods and for a specific set of applications, a mono-material stand-up pouch with improved recyclability versus the existing multi-material alternatives.57 Chemical marker systems are advancing: the European Union’s Polymark project, for example, is developing a system to reliably detect and sort food- contact PET.58 WRAP is working on machine-readable fluorescent inks and sorting technologies to improve polymer identification.59 The adoption of reprocessing technologies such as depolymerization has been limited due to economics, but in the Netherlands Ioniqa Technologies has developed a cost-competitive process for PET that takes place at relatively low operating temperatures.60 The production of plastics from captured greenhouse gases has been piloted and is claimed to be cost competitive. For example, Newlight’s AirCarbon technology can convert methane to PHA, or carbon dioxide to polyurethane and thermoplastics. Many developing countries are building up after-use infrastructure, making this a critical crossroads moment. Investments made now will determine the infrastructure for the coming decades. Coordinating action and agendas across the value chain could catalyse impact. A growing number of governments have implemented – or are considering implementing – policies related to plastic packaging. In Europe, the European Commission’s recently adopted Circular Economy package includes the action to develop a strategy on plastics in the circular economy, a target to increase plastic packaging recycling to 55%, a binding target to reduce landfill to 10% of all waste by 2030, and a total ban on landfilling of all separately collected waste.61 With the exception of Iceland, all of the Nordic countries operate container deposit schemes. Such schemes have also been deployed in the United States, where the overall recycling rate is 34%62 while states with container deposit laws have an average rate of 70%; Michigan’s $0.10 deposit is the highest in the nation, as is its recycling rate of 95% in 2013.63 In 2015, a European Union directive came into force that required member states to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags.64 France, for example, will outlaw single-use plastic bags as of January 2016. Other countries have acted to restrict the use of plastic bags and other plastic packaging formats because of their impact on the local environment: In 2002, Bangladesh became the first country to ban plastic bags, after they were found to have choked drainage systems during devastating floods.65 Rwanda followed suit in 200866; and so did China, also in 2008, reducing the number of plastic bags in circulation by an estimated 40 billion in just one year.67 All in all, more than 25 countries around the globe either ban or tax single- use plastic bags and restrictions on the use of other highly littered packaging formats are being discussed. Guyana has announced plans to ban the import and use of expanded polystyrene (EPS, commonly known under one of its brand names, Styrofoam) from January 2016; EPS has been widely adopted as single-use food service packaging and makes up 2–5% of Guyana’s waste stream.68 The United States has seen activity at city, state and federal levels. IIn 2014, Washington D.C. banned the use of food service products made of expanded polystyrene, joining the ranks of tens of other US cities.69 In 2015, San Francisco took a step towards its 2020 goal of zero waste by banning the sale of plastic bottles in all public places.70 At state level, 70 laws were enacted between 1991 and 2011 to establish extended producer responsibility (EPR) programmes: 40 of these came in the three years up to 2011.71 These laws currently cover products like batteries, carpets and cell phones, not packaging, but they show state governments taking action to internalize the costs of dealing with negative externalities.72 State activity can also be a precursor to federal action; in December 2015, after legislation had been passed in nine states, the House of Representatives voted to ban the use of synthetic microplastics in personal care products. If enacted into federal law, the legislation would supersede all state bans.73 While this is not a packaging example, it is indicative of broader policy action in the plastics industry. Society’s perception of plastics is deteriorating and perhaps threatening the plastics industry’s licence to operate. According to Plastics Europe, an industry organization, “There is an increasingly negative perception of plastics in relation to health, environment and other issues”.74 Issues such as ocean plastics are increasingly capturing the attention of individuals and policy-makers. 22 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics 2.4 Where to Start The United States, Europe and Asia jointly account for 85% of plastics production, roughly split equally between the United States and Europe on the one hand and Asia on the other (see Figure 8). Both regions are critical in the shift towards the New Plastics Economy and would be good places to start. Given that Asia accounts for more than 80% of the total leakage of plastic into the ocean – at least according to the best available data75 – this region has been the focus for a variety of crucial leakage mitigation efforts aimed at improving basic collection infrastructure. Europe and the United States are home not only to significant shares of the production of plastic packaging, but also to the overwhelming majority of the top global companies relevant to the global plastic packaging industry, including the key global decision-makers at the start of the plastic packaging value chain – those who determine design (see Figure 8). Many of the opportunities around product and material redesign and around innovation in advanced technologies in separation and reprocessing can be found in these regions. This report intends to pay special attention to innovation and redesign, a topic less explored in other work. As a consequence the focus is mainly on Europe and the United States. The report aims nevertheless to be relevant globally, at the same time acknowledging that other regions, especially in the developing world, will have different challenges, including putting basic collection and recovery infrastructure in place, leapfrogging to higher-performing after-use systems (i.e. first time right) based on expected evolutions, and working with the informal waste collection sector, including a focus on workers’ health and safety. FMCG TOP 20 HQ1 PLASTICS TOP 20 HQ2 PLASTICS PRODUCTION3 OCEAN LEAKAGE4 UNITED STATES & EUROPEASIA REST OF WORLD 85% 95% 40% 5% 15% 10% 45% 2% 82% 16% 5% Figure 8: Distribution of Plastics Headquarters, Production and Leakage 1 Headquarters of the global top 20 FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) companies (measured by 2014 global net sales) 2 Headquarters of the top 20 plastics and resin manufacturers (measured by 2015 global capacity) 3 Production of plastics material volumes (excluding thermoplastics and polyurethanes) 4 Source of plastics leaked into the oceans (proportion of the total global leakage measured in million tonnes of plastic marine debris leaked per year) Source: PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Facts 2015 (2015); Statista; ICIS Supply and Demand; J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean (Science, 13 February 2015) 23The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics To move beyond small-scale and incremental improvements and achieve a systemic shift towards the New Plastics Economy, existing improvement initiatives would need to be complemented and guided by a concerted, global collaboration initiative that matches the scale of the challenge and the opportunity. Such an initiative does not exist today, and therefore would need to be set up, driven by an independent coordinating vehicle. The aim of such a vehicle would be to stimulate development of a circular economy approach to plastics and plastic packag- ing as an integral part of the future economy. It would also aim for positive broader economic impacts and – directly or indi- rectly – to the protection and restoration of natural systems. At the heart of the vehicle’s design and set-up would be the recognition that innovation for and transition to the New Plas- tics Economy must be driven by joint, urgent, collaborative initiatives across industries, governments and NGOs. This would make it possible to address the chronic fragmentation and the lack of global standards, to benefit the development of effective markets. In such an initiative, consumer goods companies, plastic packaging producers and plastics manu- facturers would play a critical role as they define the products and materials that are put on the market. Cities control the after-use infrastructure in many places, and are often hubs for innovation. Businesses involved in collection, sorting and reprocessing are an equally critical part of the puzzle. Policy- makers can play an important role in enabling the transition by realigning incentives, facilitating secondary markets, de- fining standards and stimulating innovation. NGOs can help ensure that broader social and environmental considerations are taken into account. Collaboration would be required to overcome fragmentation, the chronic lack of alignment be- tween innovation in the design and after-use stages, and the lack of standards – challenges that must be resolved in order to unlock the opportunities of the New Plastics Economy. This vehicle would need to bring together the different actors in a cross-value chain dialogue mechanism and drive change by focusing on efforts with compounding effects that together would have the potential to shift the global market. Analysis to date suggests that the initial areas of focus could be: 1. Establish the Global Plastics Protocol and coordinate large-scale pilots and demonstration projects. 2. Mobilize large-scale, targeted “moon shot” innovations. 3. Develop insights and build a base of economic and scientific evidence. 4. Engage policy-makers. 5. Coordinate and drive communication. Establish the Global Plastics Protocol and coordinate large-scale pilots and demonstration projects Flying around the world without international air traffic control standards and surfing the web without global IP standards would be impossible. While globally adopted standards and protocols can be found in other complex industries, today’s plastic packaging value chain lacks such alignment. A global plastics protocol would be needed to provide a core set of standards as the basis on which to innovate. It could provide guidance on design, labelling, marking, infrastructure and secondary markets, allowing for regional differences and innovation, in order to overcome the existing fragmentation and to fundamentally shift after- use collection and reprocessing economics and market effectiveness. The Global Plastics Protocol would aim to redesign and converge materials, formats and after-use systems It would investigate questions such as: To what extent could plastic packaging be designed with a significantly smaller set of material/additive combinations, and what would be the resulting economic benefits? What would be the potential of designing out small-format/low-value plastic packaging such as tear-offs with challenging after-use economics and a high likelihood of leakage? What would be the economic benefits of harmonizing labelling and chemical marking across plastic packaging and aligning it with after-use separation and sorting systems? What if after-use systems, currently largely fragmented across municipalities due to uncoordinated historic developments, were rethought and redesigned to achieve optimal scale and economics? What would be the best levers to stimulate the market for recycled plastics? The Global Plastics Protocol would set global direction by answering such questions, demonstrate solutions at scale with large-scale pilots and demonstration projects, and drive global convergence (allowing for continued innovation and regional variations) towards the identified designs and systems with proven economics. 3 The New Plastics Economy Demands a New Approach 24 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Involving players from across the global value chain in a dialogue mechanism, the protocol would, for example, build on the following elements: –Set up a global, industry-wide, ongoing effort to develop and facilitate adoption of globally recognized plastic packaging design standards. This effort could leverage existing work on design guidelines from organizations such as RECOUP, WRAP, ARP, EPBP and EUPR, and The Consumer Goods Forum,76 but also go beyond to investigate and promote fundamental re- design and convergence of materials and formats. By aligning actors along the value chain – such as plastics and packaging producers, brand owners, retailers and after-use collection and reprocessing companies – such standards could fundamentally improve the circularity of material flows. –Converge towards clearly defined global labelling and material marking standards that are aligned with sorting and separation systems and that facilitate the sorting of plastics after use into high-value resource streams. –Redesign and converge towards a set of clearly defined collection and sorting archetypes, allowing for continued innovation and regional variation. The fragmentation of current collection and sorting systems comes with several disadvantages: fragmented after-use systems cannot be aligned with the design stage (most packaging is designed and produced at international scale and cannot be tailored to individual municipalities); citizens are confused about how plastics should be disposed of; and system-wide optimisation and economies of scale are lacking. While socio- economic differences need to be accounted for to some extent, there is ample room for systems redesign and convergence towards a set of archetypes. Redesigning systems and converging towards such well-defined archetypes within the Global Plastics Protocol would allow alignment across the value chain. Material and packaging design, for example, could be optimized for clearly specified sorting facilities and consistent labelling harmonized across regions. This effort would be complementary to multiple local and global efforts that are focused on building up collection and sorting infrastructure. It would inform those efforts at a critical point in their development and avoid getting locked into suboptimal infrastructure. –Establish a global framework for the implementation of modular and reusable business-to-business (B2B) packaging, building on the Physical Internet – a new logistics paradigm enabling a new era of modular, reusable B2B packaging. The convergence of fragmented activities towards such a framework on a global scale could significantly improve asset utilization and global material flows. –Scale up the use of industrially compostable plastics for targeted applications, returning nutrients from the organic contents (such as food) of the packaging to the soil. This needs to be coupled with adequate infrastructure, as demonstrated successfully, for example, in the city of Milan and at the London Olympics. –Transform and strengthen markets for recycled plastics, for example, by introducing and scaling up matchmaking mechanisms, for example using aggregator software or platforms to include companies not yet participating on both sides of the recycled plastics market – that is, smaller reprocessing companies and companies that source recycled content at the small- to medium scale; by allowing for more granular and standardised material specifications and better matching of supply and demand; and by strengthening demand for recycled content through industry commitments and/or policy. –Demonstrate the viability of high-value cascaded recycling by establishing cascaded flows of recycled plastics with a selected group of companies using the same material. This could include both packaging and non-packaging companies using the same polymer type and activities such as aligning on design choices, material specification and logistic chains to make the cascade work. Mobilize large-scale, targeted “moon shot” innovations The world’s leading businesses, academics and innovators would be invited to come together and define “moon shot” innovations: focused, practical initiatives with a high potential for significant impact at scale. Areas to look at for such innovations could include the development of bio- benign materials; the development of materials designed to facilitate multilayer reprocessing, such as the use of reversible adhesives based on biomimicry principles; the search for a “super-polymer” with the functionality of today’s polymers and with superior recyclability; chemical marking technologies; and chemical recycling technologies that would overcome some of the environmental and economic issues facing current technologies. Figure 9 provides an overview of example technologies involved in such “moon shots” and their maturity to date. 25The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Figure 9: Examples of Promising Enabling Technologies for the New Plastics Economy and Their Level of Maturity NIR OIL 2. DRASTICALLY REDUCING LEAKAGE INTO NATURAL SYSTEMS 3. DECOUPLING PLASTICS FROM FOSSIL FEEDSTOCKS 1. CREATING AN EFFECTIVE AFTER-USE PLASTICS ECONOMY BENIGN IN FRESH WATER BENIGN IN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS SUPER- POLYMER BIO-BASED FEEDSTOCK GHG-BASED FEEDSTOCK DEPOLY- MERISATION REVERSIBLE ADHESIVES REMOVING ADDITIVES CHEMICAL MARKERS NEAR INFRARED P R O V E N I N L A B P R O V E N I N P I L O T D E M O N S T R A T E D A T I N D U S T R I A L S C A L E R&D PILOT SCALING MATURE TECHNOLOGY M A R K E T F U L L Y A D A P T E D NATURAL GAS Source: Project MainStream analysis 26 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics INNOVATION DESCRIPTION CURRENT STAT E Removing additives Separating additives from recovered polymers to increase recyclate purity Lab stage: Some technologies exist but with limited application Reversible adhesives Recycling multi-material packaging by designing “reversible” adhesives that allow for triggered separation of di erent material layers Conceptual stage: Innovation needed to develop cost-competitive adhesive Super-polymer Finding a super-polymer that combines functionality and cost with superior after-use properties Conceptual stage: Innovation needed to develop cost-competitive polymer with desired functional and after-use properties Depolymerisation Recycling plastics to monomer feedstock (building blocks) for virgin-quality polymers Lab stage: Proven technically possible for polyolefi ns Limited adoption: Large-scale adoption of depolymerisation for PET hindered by processing costs Chemical markers Sorting plastics by using dye, ink or other additive markers detectable by automated sorting technology Pilot stage: Food-grade markers available but unproven under commercial operating conditions Near infrared Sorting plastics by using automated optical sorting technology to distinguish polymer types Fragmented adoption: Large-scale adoption limited by capex demands Benign in marine environments Design plastics that are less harmful to marine environments in case of leakage Lab stage: First grades of marine degradable plastics (one avenue towards benign materials) already certifi ed as marine degradable — impact of large scale adoption to be proven Benign in fresh water Design plastics that are less harmful to fresh water environments in case of leakage Lab stage: Marine degradable plastics theoretically fresh water degradable. One certifi ed product — impact of large-scale adoption to be proven GHG-based Sourcing plastics from carbon in greenhouse gases released by industrial or waste management processes Pilot stage: CO2-based proven cost competitive in pilots; methane-based being scaled up to commercial volumes Bio-based Sourcing plastics from carbon in biomass Limited adoption: Large- scale adoption hindered by limited economies of scale and sophistication of global supply chains NIR Source: Project MainStream analysis 27The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Develop insights and build an economic and scientific evidence base. Many of the core aspects of plastics material flows and their economics are still poorly understood. While this report, together with a number of other recent efforts, aims to provide initial answers, more research is required. Initial studies could include: –Quantify the socio-economic impact of ocean plastics. Establish measurement tools and a clear fact base. Develop a socio-economic value impact model for ocean plastics. This would enable both the private and public sectors to factor these costs into their decision making. –Explore the scale-up potential of GHG-based plastics. Plastics produced directly from greenhouse gases such as methane, CO2 and CO are appealing because they could help decouple plastics from the consumption of fossil feedstocks, without using additional land for agriculture. Multiple companies are using GHG-based sources and scaling up quickly. However, the total scale-up potential is unclear at the moment. Therefore, a study aimed at assessing the total scale-up potential (including the economics, availability of feedstocks, polymer types, and applications) and identifying specific ways to scale up production would be helpful. –Explore the potential role of, and boundary conditions for, energy recovery in a transition period. While recovering energy from plastics that cannot (yet) be effectively recycled is in principle a good thing, today’s energy recovery solutions have certain drawbacks and risks, as explained above. However, since 100% reuse and recycling rates are unlikely to materialize in the near term, and landfilling is in general not a preferred option, a deep-dive study to assess the potential role of energy recovery in a transition period, as well as the essential boundary conditions, could be useful. –Assess the economic impact of substances of concern (including risks and externalities) and potentially, as a next step, prioritize substances of concern to be designed out. Engage policy-makers, in a common vision towards a more effective system, and provide them with relevant tools, data and insights related to plastics and plastic packaging. One specific deliverable could be a plastics toolkit for policy- makers, following a structured methodology for assessing opportunities, barriers and policy options to overcome these barriers in transitioning towards the New Plastics Economy. Inspiration could be found in the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report Delivering the Circular Economy – A Toolkit for Policymakers. Coordinate and drive communication of the nature of today’s situation, the vision of the New Plastics Economy, best practices and insights, as well as specific opportunities and recommendations, to stakeholders acting along the global plastic packaging value chain. 28 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics For further information An extended version of this report, with additional chapters and appendices, can be found on the website of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation: http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications. List of Figures 11. Figure 1: Growth in Global Plastics Production 1950–2014 11. Figure 2: Main Plastic Resin Types and Their Applications in Packaging 12. Figure 3: Plastic Packaging Material Value Loss after One Use Cycle 13. Figure 4: Global Flows of Plastic Packaging Materials in 2013 15. Figure 5: Forecast of Plastics Volume Growth, Externalities and Oil Consumption in a Business-As- Usual Scenario 16. Figure 6: Ambitions of the New Plastics Economy 20. Figure 7: Theoretical Potential to Capture Material Value 22. Figure 8: Distribution of Plastics Headquarters, Production and Leakage 25. Figure 9: Examples of Promising Enabling Technologies for the New Plastics Economy and Their Level of Maturity Endnotes 1 This report uses the following definition of “plastics”: “Polymers that include thermoplastics, polyurethanes, thermosets, elastomers, adhesives, coatings and sealants and PP-fibres.” This definition is based on PlasticsEurope, Plastics – The Facts 2014/2015 (2015). 2 A. T. Kearney, Plastics: The Future for Automakers and Chemical Companies (2012). 3 A. Anrady and M. Neal, Applications and societal benefits of plastics (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2009). 4 A. Anrady and M. Neal, Applications and societal benefits of plastics (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2009). 5 PlasticsEurope, taken from a chart in United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP Year Book 2014: Emerging issues in our Global Environment (2014), chapter 8: Plastic Debris in the Ocean. 6 Share of 26% is based on 78 million tonnes of plastic packaging and 299 million tonnes of plastics production in 2013 (Transparency Market Research, Plastic Packaging Market: Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast, 2014–2020 (2015); PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Facts (2015)). Other sources claim a higher share of packaging as a percentage of the plastics market, but data on a global level on plastics and plastics packaging in one publicly available source has not been found. Acknowledging the need for further efforts to harmonize datasets and reporting on a global level, this report builds on the two public sources outlined above. As the share of 26% might be on the lower side, figures such as the size of the market and the material value to be captured could even be larger than currently presented. 7 Euromonitor, Off-trade and retail plastics packaging volume (2015). 8 This report uses the following definition of “plastic packaging”: “Including rigid (e.g. bottles, jars, canisters, cups, buckets, containers, trays, clamshells) and flexible (e.g. bags, films, foils, pallet shrouds, pouches, blister packs, envelopes) plastic packaging for ‘consumer’ and industrial purposes.” This is based on Transparency Market Research, Plastic Packaging Market: Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast, 2014–2020 (2015). 9 Euromonitor, Off-trade and retail plastics packaging volume (2015). 10 Transparency Market Research, Plastic Packaging Market: Global Industry Analysis (2015). 11 Based on 4.8% growth rate 2013–2020 (Technavio forecast of April 2015 for market growth over the period 2014–2019); 4.5% for 2021–2030 (ICIS), and 3.5% for 2031–2050, using a conservative assumption of growth beyond 2030 following the long-term trend in global GDP growth of 3.5% annually (International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2015). 12 International Council of Forest and Paper Associations, Statement on Paper Recycling (2014). 13 United Nations Environment Programme, Recycling Rates of Metals: A Status Report (2011). 14 Polyethylene terephthalate. This resin is commonly used in beverage bottles and many injection-moulded consumer product containers. It is clear and tough, and has good gas and moisture barrier properties. Source: American Chemistry Council. 15 Project MainStream analysis. 16 Project MainStream analysis drawing on sources including BP, Energy Outlook 2035 (February 2015); IEA, World Energy Outlook (2014); J. Hopewell et al., Plastics recycling: Challenges and opportunities (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2009); and PlasticsEurope, Plastics – the Facts (2015). 17 IEA, World Energy Outlook (2014). 18 The midpoint of the 4–8% range referred to in Section 1.2.2 is taken as the plastics’ industry share of global oil production and growth rates of consumption in line with projected industry growth of 3.8% annually 2015–2030 (ICIS) and 3.5% annually 2030 –2050 (International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2015). BP notes that increases in efficiency are limited (BP Energy Outlook 2035, February 2015). 19 In its central New Policies scenario, the International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook 2015 projects that oil demand will increase by 0.5% annually 2014–2040. 20 United Nations Environment Programme, Valuing Plastic: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry (2014). The research was conducted by natural capital analysts Trucost on behalf of the Plastics Disclosure Project (PDP). Both figures ($75 billion and $40 billion) only consider the natural capital costs of consumer goods. By also considering externalities of other segments such as medical, tourism/hospitality, transport etc. the natural capital costs would be even higher. “Natural Capital can be defined as the world’s stocks of natural assets which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things” (Natural Capital Forum, http:// naturalcapitalforum.com/about/). Profit pool estimated based on plastic packaging market revenues of USD 260bn and an average EBITDA margin range of 10-15%, the global plastic packaging profit pool is estimated to be USD 26-39bn (Sources: Transpar- ency Market Research, Plastic Packaging Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast 2014 - 2020 (2015), Deloitte Corporate Finance LLC, Pack- aging Update Q1 2015 (2015), U. Reiners, Profitability of plastic packaging (The Third GPCA Plastics Summit, 2012)) 21 J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean (Science, 13 February 2015). 29The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics 22 2015-2025 projection of plastics in the ocean based on an estimated stock of 150 million tonnes in 2015 (Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, Stemming the Tide (2015)), estimated annual leakage rates of plastics into the ocean by Jambeck et al. of 8 million tonnes in 2010 and 9.1 million tonnes in 2015 (J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean (Science, 2015), taken from the middle scenario), and annual growth in leakage flows of plastics into the ocean of 5% up to 2025 (conservatively taken below the 6.8% annual growth rate in ocean plastics leakage into the ocean between 2015 and 2025 as estimated in Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, middle scenario). 2025-2050 projections based on a plastics leakage into the ocean growth rate of 3.5% p.a., in line with long- term GDP growth estimates (International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2015 (2015)). 23 Ocean Conservancy, International Coastal Cleanup (2014). Excludes cigarette butts from calculation. D. Barnes et al., Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2009). 24 Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean (2015). 25 By weight. 2015-2050 projection of plastics in the ocean as described in Endnote 22. 2015-2050 projections of fish stocks based on an estimated 812 million tonnes (S. Jennings et al., Global-scale predictions of community and ecosystem properties from simple ecological theory (Proceedings of the Royal Society, 2008) and in line with Stemming the Tide). The stock of fish is assumed to stay constant between 2015 and 2050 (a conservative assumption given that fish stocks could decline as a result of overfishing.). 26 Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic-free ocean (2015). 27 United Nations Environment Programme, Valuing Plastic: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry (2014). 28 European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, website, Our Oceans, Seas and Coasts: 10: Marine Litter (http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/ descriptor-10/index_en.htm). Based on exchange rate of €1 to $1.10 (10 December 2015). 29 Project MainStream calculation based on data from International Energy Agency (IEA), CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (2014). It assumes that half of plastics industry CO2 emissions are generated through fuel combustion and that, of the other half used as feedstock, 15% generates CO2 emissions through incineration. Does not include CO2 emissions from the use of (dry) natural gas or the generation of electricity used to run the processes involved in plastic production. 30 United Nations Environment Programme, Valuing Plastic: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry (2014). 31 J. Hopewell et al., Plastics recycling: Challenges and opportunities (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 2009). 32 M. Patel, Cumulative Energy Demand and Cumulative CO2 Emissions for Products of the Organic Chemical Industry (Energy, 2003). 33 The discussion here is on direct CO2 emissions and does not include indirect emissions (those associated with the generation of any electricity used in the manufacturing process). It also does not consider the full life-cycle emissions, which include, for example, those related to the extraction, refining and transportation of the plastic feedstock. 34 This does not consider a potential shift towards combustion in a business-as-usual scenario (in the case that landfilling is becoming less popular), which would result in a higher share of the carbon budget in 2050. On the other hand, the share of the carbon budget in 2050 could be lowered, if energy input for production shifts towards more renewable sources. 35 International agreement to limit global warming to no more than 2°C by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels was reached at the COP16 of the UNFCCC in 2010 at Cancun (see http:// unfccc.int/key_steps/cancun_agreements/items/6132.php). The assumption is that CO2 emissions from plastics will increase at 3.8% annually 2013 –2030 and at 3.5% annually 2030 –2050 (source: ICIS and International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2015. A further assumption is that the proportion of oil used as plastics feedstock (3%) incinerated annually will increase from 15% in 2015 to 20% in 2050 under business as usual. Including plastics incineration in total combustion emissions is supported by the inclusion of municipal waste as a fuel in total CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, 2015, and IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006). The carbon budget for CO2 from fuel combustion is set with reference to the IEA 450 scenario (consistent with 2°C) CO2 emissions from fuel combustion as set out in International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2015, and to the total CO2 budget of 1,075 Gt CO2 as described in Carbon Tracker Initiative, Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets (2013). 36 S. H. Swan et al., First trimester phthalate exposure and anogenital distance in newborns (Human Reproduction, Oxford Journals, 2015); Y. J. Lien et al., Prenatal exposure to phthalate esters and behavioral syndromes in children at 8 years of age: Taiwan Maternal and Infant Cohort Study (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2015); K. M. Rodgers, Phthalates in Food Packaging, Consumer Products, and Indoor Environment (Toxicants in Food Packaging and Household Plastics, Molecular and Integrative Toxicology, Springer, 2014); K. C. Makris et al., Association between water consumption from polycarbonate containers and bisphenol A intake during harsh environmental conditions in summer (Environmental Science & Technology 47, 2013); R. A. Rudel et al., Food Packaging and Bisphenol A and Bis (2-Ethyhexyl) Phthalate Exposure: Findings from a Dietary Intervention (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2011); J. L. Carwile et al., Polycarbonate Bottle Use and Urinary Bisphenol A Concentrations (Environmental Health Perspectives 117, 2009); E. L. Teuten et al., Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Plastics, the environment and human health, 2009). ; C. Kubwabo et al., Migration of bisphenol A from plastic baby bottles, baby bottle liners and reusable polycarbonate drinking bottles (Food Additives & Contaminants 26, 2009). 37 Assumes an average of 15% additives as share of plastics across plastic types. 38 Assumes a leaching rate of 1%, following an estimates range of 0.16%–2% (OECD, Emission scenario document on plastic additives (2009); T. Rydberg et al., Emissions of Additives from Plastics in the Societal Material Stock: A Case Study for Sweden (Global Risk-Based Management of Chemical Additives I, The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry 18, 2012). 39 Denkstatt, The potential for plastic packaging to contribute to a circular and resource-efficient economy (Identiplast 2015). 40 Ellen MacArthur Foundation, SUN and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment, Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe (2015). Based on exchange rate of €1 to $1.10 (10 December 2015). 41 Denkstatt, The potential for plastic packaging to contribute to a circular and resource-efficient economy (Identiplast 2015). 42 R. Meller et al., From Horizontal Collaboration to the Physical Internet: Quantifying the Effects on Sustainability and Profits When Shifting to Interconnected Logistics Systems, Final Research Report of the CELDi Physical Internet Project, Phase I (2012). 30 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics 43 City of Milan, Food waste recycling in a densely populated European city: the case study of Milan (2015). 44 Ocean Conservancy, Stemming the Tide (2015). 45 J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean (Science, 13 February 2015). 46 Assuming a recycling rate of 55% and the following growth forecast: 4.8% p.a. between 2013 –2020 (Technavio); 4.5% p.a. between 2020 –2030 (ICIS); 3.5% p.a. between 2030 –2050 (IEA WEO 2015 GDP forecast 2013 –2040, assumed to continue until 2050). 47 Newlight Technologies website, “AirCarbon™ has been independently-verified on a cradle-to-grave basis as a carbon- negative material, including all energy, materials, transportation, product use, and end-of-life/disposal associated with the material.” (http://newlight.com/aircarbon/). 48 United Nations Environment Programme website, Life Cycle Assessment (http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/ Consumption/StandardsandLabels/MeasuringSustainability/ LifeCycleAssessment/tabid/101348/Default.aspx). 49 Ben Webster, Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study (The Times/The Australian, 10 June 2011). Other press reactions to the study differed in their conclusions, which shows the sensitivity of life cycle assessments to different assumptions. 50 Based on current volume and virgin feedstock prices as detailed in Figure 6. 51 Direct emissions from recycling: 0.3 –0.5 tonne CO2e per tonne of plastics recycled, and 1.6–3.3 tonnes CO2e per tonne of plastics produced from fossil-based virgin feedstock, depending on plastic resin type. (Deloitte, Increased EU Plastics Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment – Final Report, 2015). 52 4Tech and LCAworks, Environmental assessment of Braskem’s biobased PE resin (2013). 53 Strategy& (formerly Booz & Company), Plastic Packaging – the sustainable and smarter choice (2015). 54 Katy Stech, U.S. Distributor of Sigg Bottles Enters Chapter 11. (The Wall Street Journal, 23 May 2011; http://blogs.wsj.com/ bankruptcy/2011/05/23/u-s-distributor-of-sigg-bottles-enters- chapter-11/). 55 The Economist, We woz wrong (16 December 1999; http://www. economist.com/node/268752). 56 Vaclav Smil, Energy at the Crossroads: Global Perspectives and Uncertainties (The MIT Press, 2003). 57 Rick Lingle, Tyson Foods debuts the first 100 percent recyclable stand-up pouch (Packaging Digest, 20 October 2013; http:// www.packagingdigest.com/flexible-packaging/tyson-foods- debuts-first-100-percent-recyclable-stand-pouch) 58 http://www.polymark.org/ and interview with Patrick Peuch (Petcore Europe), who is involved in the Polymark project: Polymark – Novel Identification Technology for High-value Plastics Waste Stream (FP7-SME-AG-2012-311177). 59 WRAP, Optimising the use of machine readable inks for food packaging sorting (2014). 60 http://www.ioniqa.com/pet-recycling/. 61 European Commission, Closing the Loop: An Ambitious EU Circular Economy Package (2015). 62 The Economist, In the Bin (April 2015; http://www.economist. com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/04/recycling-america). 63 Michigan Department of Treasury, Bottle Deposit Information Chart, 1990–2013 (2013). 64 European Commission. Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste. (2015). 65 Jane Onyanga-Omara, Plastic bag backlash gains momentum (BBC News, 14 September 2013; www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- 24090603). 66 Emile Clavel, Think you can’t live without plastic bags? Consider this: Rwanda did it (The Guardian, 15 February 2014; http://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/15/rwanda-banned- plastic-bags-so-can-we) 67 Jonathan Watts, China plastic bag ban “has saved 1.6m tonnes of oil” (The Guardian, 22 May 2009; http://www.theguardian. com/environment/2009/may/22/china-plastic-bags-ban- success). 68 The Guyana Times, The Ban on Styrofoam (October 2015; http:// www.guyanatimesgy.com/2015/10/24/the-ban-on-styrofoam/). 69 The DC.gov Department of Energy & Environment website, http:// doee.dc.gov/foam; GAIA, Polystyrene food-ware bans in the US, taken from GAIA website December 2015; www.no-burn.org/ polystyrene-food-ware-bans-in-the-us. 70 The Department of the City and County of San Francisco website, http://www.sfenvironment.org/zero-waste. 71 J. Nash et al., Extended Producer Responsibility in the United States: Full Speed Ahead? (2013). 72 Product Stewardship Institute; http://www.productstewardship. us (2015). 73 M. Burke, U.S. House approves bill to ban plastic microbeads (The Detroit News, December 2015; http://www.detroitnews. com/story/news/politics/2015/12/07/house-bill-ban-plastic- microbeads). 74 PlasticsEurope, Plastics – The Wonder Material (September 2013; http://www.plasticseurope.org/documents/ document/20131017112406-10_plastics_the_wonder_material_ final_sept_2013.pdf). 75 J. R. Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean (Science, 13 February 2015). 76 Non-exhaustive list of examples: RECOUP, Plastic packaging: Recyclability by design – The essential guide for all those involved in the development and design of plastic packaging (2015); The Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, The APR DesignTM Guide for Plastics Recyclability (1994, last revised 2014); Plastic Recyclers Europe, ‘Recyclass tool’, http:// www.plasticsrecyclers.eu/recyclass; Morrisons’ packaging environmental assessment form developed in collaboration with RECOUP and reported on by WRAP. GreenBlue, Design guidelines for sustainable packaging (2006). The Consumer Goods Forum, Global Protocol on Packaging Sustainability 2.0 (2011). 31The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Acknowledgements † Denotes a World Economic Forum Partner ‡ Denotes a World Economic Forum Member * Denotes an Ellen MacArthur Foundation CE100 Member ** Denotes an Ellen MacArthur Foundation CE100 Affiliate Member Project funder MAVA Fondation pour la nature Core project team Ellen MacArthur Foundation –Andrew Morlet, Chief Executive Officer –Jocelyn Blériot, Executive Officer – Communication & Policy Lead –Rob Opsomer, Lead, MainStream –Simon Widmer, Project Manager –Ian Banks, Analyst –Michiel De Smet, Analyst –Joe Murphy, Analyst –Philippa Steventon, Team Assistant –Sandy Rodger, Lead for Set-Up Phase World Economic Forum –Dominic Waughray, Head, Public-Private Partnership, Member of the Executive Committee –Nathalie Chalmers, Project Lead, Circular Economy –James Pennington, Project Specialist, Circular Economy –Louis Baudoin, Associate (seconded from McKinsey & Company) –Sander Defruyt, Associate (seconded from McKinsey & Company) McKinsey & Company† –Martin R. Stuchtey, Director of the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment –Steven Swartz, Principal –Helga Vanthournout, Senior Expert Advisory panel We are grateful for the support of our advisory panel members: –Michael Braungart, Scientific Director, EPEA International Umweltforschung** –Michael Carus, CEO, nova-Institute –Bruno De Wilde, Lab Manager, OWS nv –Stephane Guilbert, Professor, Montpellier SupAgro –Lauren Heine, Interim Executive Director, Northwest Green Chemistry –Jenna Jambeck, Associate Professor, University of Georgia –William McDonough, Founder, William McDonough & Partners‡ –Tom McKeag, Executive Director, Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry –Andreas Merkl, CEO, Ocean Conservancy –Gonzalo Muñoz Abogabir, Co-founder and CEO, TriCiclos –Costas Velis, CERRY: Circular Economy & Resource Recovery Coordinator, University of Leeds –John Warner, President & Chief Technology Officer, Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, LLC –John R Williams, Board Member, BBIA –Doug Woodring, Founder, Ocean Recovery Alliance and The Plasticity Forum Participating organizations Special thanks go to our participating organizations for their multiple contributions and active involvement: ABRE –Luciana Pellegrino, Executive Director Aliplast –Paolo Glerean, PET Films Sales Director Amcor –David Clark, Vice President Safety Environment & Sustainability –Charlie Schwarze, Global Sustainability Manager –Gerald Rebitzer, Director Sustainability –Leonore Hijazi, Sustainability Manager APK Aluminium und Kunststoffe AG –Klaus Wohnig, Chief Marketing Officer & CFO –Soren Hein, Strategy Advisor City of Atlanta –Kristin Wilson, Deputy Chief Operating Officer –Monica Fuentes, Chief Service Officer –Stephanie Benfield, Director of Sustainability BPI –Andrew Green, Managing Director –Gerry McGarry, Commercial Director CeDo –Ton Emans, Director, Group Recycling and Purchasing Department City of Copenhagen –Morten Hojer, Special Advisor, Climate & Economy –Mette Skovgaard, Senior Advisor Closed Loop Fund –Chris Ladd, Director & CFO –Bridget Croke, Partner Relationships Coca-Cola FEMSA† –Luis Dario Ochoa Rodriguez, Sustainability Manager 32 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics Cyramid affiliates –Peter Schroeder, CEO –Julian Blohmke, Practice Leader Desso BV (a Tarkett company)*‡ –Anette Timmer, Director, Communications & CSR –Rudi Daelmans, Manager, CSR Dow Chemical† –Jeffrey Wooster, Global Sustainability Director, Packaging & Specialty Plastics –Bruno Pereira, NBD and Sustainability Manager Royal DSM*† –Fredric Petit, Director Innovation & Sustainability at DSM Engineering Plastics –Gaelle Nicolle, Program manager Eco+ –Lukas Hoex, Manager Circular Economy DuPont† –Hanane Taidi, Marketing Communications Director –Xavier Bories-Azeau, Regional Product Line Manager IKEA*‡ –Alexander Grouleff, Project Leader Recycled/ Renewable Materials Category Plastic –Per Stoltz, Sustainability Developer –Nguyen Minh, Category Manager Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport –Liza Milagro, Senior Sustainability Planner Indorama‡ –Aradhana Lohia Sharma, Corporate Strategy & Planning –Mark Ruesink, General Manager Wellman Recycling & Wellman France Recyclage –Paul Brennan, Commercial Manager Wellman Recycling & Wellman France Recyclage Kimberly-Clark –Daniel Locke, Sustainability Strategy and Business Development Analyst –John Opsteen, Secondary Materials Program Leader London Waste and Recycling Board (LWARB)* –Wayne Hubbard, Chief Operating Officer Marks & Spencer*† –Kevin Vyse, Packaging Technologist, Foods & Packaging Innovation Lead Mango Materials, Inc. –Molly Morse, CEO MTM Plastics –Michael Scriba, Managing Partner Multi-Material BC (MMBC) –Allen Langdon, Managing Director NatureWorks LLC –Mariagiovanna Vetere, EU Public Affairs Manager –Steve Davies, Public Affairs and Communication Director –Erwin Vink, Environmental Affairs Manager Nestlé† –Bernd Buesing, Senior Packaging Expert –Lars Lundquist, Senior Packaging Expert - Packaging Environmental Sustainability Novamont –Andrea Di Stefano, Special Projects and Business –Communication Director –Tony Breton, Market Developer, Source Separation & Recycling –Paul Darby, Area Manager UK & Ireland NYC Department of Sanitation –Greg Anderson, Chief of Staff –Bridget Anderson, Deputy Commissioner, Recycling and Sustainability Pacombi Group –Alan Campbell, Technical Director Plasticbank –David Katz, Founder and CEO Plastics Recyclers Europe –Antonino Furari, Director Quality Circular Polymers (QCP) –Huub Meessen, CEO Recycling Technologies –Adrian Griffiths, Managing Director SABMiller* –Andre Fourie, Head of Water Security and Environmental Value Sealed Air –Ron Cotterman, Vice President, Sustainability –Vince Herran, Director, Global Recycling SUEZ*‡ –Frederic Grivel, Vice President, Marketing –Peter De Boodt, Director, Projects Support & Implementation Department –Aurelien Toupet, Directeur Métiers Tri-Valorisation –Oliver Vilcot, General Manager - Plastics Recycling Division 33The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics TerraCycle* –Tom Szaky, Founder and CEO –Albe Zakes, Global VP, Communications –Chris Baker, General Manager Unilever*† –Gavin Warner, Director Sustainable Business –Louis Lindenberg, Global Packaging Sustainability Director –Julie Zaniewski, Packaging Sustainability Manager Veolia*‡ –Gary Crawford, Vice President, International Affairs –Juliette Pouzet, Strategy Manager, Innovations & Markets Department –Martin Champel, Sorting & Recycling Activities Technical Expert, Technical & Performance Department –Marc-Antoine Belthé, General Manager, Veolia Propreté France Recycling Waste Capital Partners –Parag Gupta, Founder –Rob Whiting, Principal Waste Management McDonough Sustainable Innovation Collaboration –Larry Black, Senior Advisor and Strategic Business Development WRAP* –Claire Shrewsbury, Packaging Programme Area Manager –David Tozer, Project Manager Zero Waste Scotland* –Callum Blackburn, Head of Policy and Research –Louise McGregor, Head of Circular Economy –Tim Baldwin, Sector Manager, Reprocessing Experts Consulted Thanks also go to the many leading academic, industry, NGO and government agency experts who provided invaluable perspectives: –Conny Bakker, Associate Professor, TU Delft* –Eben Bayer, Co-founder and CEO, Ecovative* –Alice Bazzano, Sustainability Project Leader, Avery Dennison –Jan Berbee, Founder, Packaging & Distribution Innovators BV –Urban Boije af Gennäs, Policy Officer, European Commission, DG Environment, Chemicals Unit –Scott Boylston, Graduate Coordinator, Design for Sustainability, Savannah College of Art and Design –Phil Brown, Circular Value Chains Research Engineer, The High Speed Sustainable Manufacturing Institute (HSSMI)* –Eilidh Brunton, Group Recycling Consultant, Vegware –Oliver Campbell, Director Worldwide Procurement, DELL*‡ –Lucy Chamberlin, Head of Programme, The RSA Great Recovery –Charles Cocoual, Associate, McKinsey & Company† –Susan Collins, President, Container Recycling Institute –Bram de Zwart, Co-founder and CEO, 3D Hubs –Sam Deconinck, Marketing & Sales Manager, OWS nv –Daniel Dilges, Senior Research Analyst, McKinsey & Company† –David Dornfeld, Director, Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability (LMAS), University of California, Berkeley –Paul East, Packaging Technologist, RECOUP* –Stuart Foster, Chief Executive Officer, RECOUP* –Jason Foster, Founder and Chief Reuser, Replenish Bottling* –Lucy Frankel, Communications Director, Vegware –Max Friefeld, Co-founder and CEO, Voodoo Manufacturing –Alysia Garmulewicz, DPhil Candidate, University of Oxford –Rich Gilbert, Co-founder, The Agency of Design* –Jeroen Gillabel, Researcher Sustainable Materials Management, VITO –Nathalie Gontard, Food Packaging Scientist, Professor & Research Director, INRA & Université Montpellier –Peter Goodwin, Director, Closed Loop Environmental Solutions* –Vasudha Gupta, Senior Analyst, McKinsey & Company† –Sophie Hackford, Director, WIRED Consulting, WIRED Magazine –John Hahladakis, Research Fellow on Resource Recovery from Waste, University of Leeds –Prabhdeep S. Hans, Group Manager Strategy and Planning, Brambles* –Britta Denise Hardesty, Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO –Keefe Harrison, Executive Director, The Recycling Partnership –Frida Hök, Senior Policy Advisor, ChemSec –Wendela Huisman, Teaching Assistant Sustainable Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology* –Maja Johannessen, Gov. & Cities Programme Associate, Ellen MacArthur Foundation –Juan Jose Freijo, Global Head, Sustainability, Brambles* –Hanne Juel, Leader of Circular Economy Team at Innovation and Research, Central Denmark Region Government* –Christie Keith, International Coordinator, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) –Scott Knowles, Co-founder and Director, ObjectForm –Eleni Lacovidou, Research Fellow on Resource Recovery from Waste, University of Leeds –Markus Laubscher, Program Manager Circular Economy, Philips Group Sustainability, Philips*† –Mats Linder, Project Manager, Ellen MacArthur Foundation –Jason Locklin, Associate Professor, College of Engineering, University of Georgia –Guillermo Lopez-Velarde, Product Development Practice Senior Expert, McKinsey & Company† 34 The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics –Carlos Ludlow-Palafox, CEO, Enval –Anne-Mette Lysemose Bendsen, Soil & Waste, Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark* –Brock Macdonald, CEO, Recycling Council of British Columbia –Conrad B MacKerron, Senior Vice President, As You Sow –Nicholas Mallos, Director, Trash Free Seas Program, Ocean Conservancy –Andrew Mangan, Executive Director, United States Business Council for Sustainable Development –Helmut Maurer, Principal Lawyer, European Commission, DG Environment –Megan McGill, Circular Strategy Analyst, C&A Foundation –Richard McKinlay, Senior Engineer, Axion Consulting –Simon Mendes, UK Marketing Manager, Schoeller Allibert Limited –Béatrice Meunier, Senior Manager, PlasticsEurope –Jeff Meyers, Development Director, The Recycling Partnership –Kenneth F. Miller, Manager, KFM & Associates –Vitaly Negulayev, Knowledge Specialist, McKinsey & Company† –Patrick Peuch, Executive Director, Petcore Europe –Harald Pilz, Senior Consultant, Denkstatt GmbH –Juergen Priesters, Business Development Director, TOMRA Sorting Solutions –Stefan Ranstrand, President and CEO, TOMRA Systems ASA –Volker Rehrmann, Executive Vice President and CTO, TOMRA Sorting Solutions –David Rosenberg, Co-founder and CEO, AeroFarms* –Andrew Russell, Director, Plastic Disclosure Project –Megan Schwarzman, Associate Director, Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley –Marie Seeger, Fellow Senior Associate, McKinsey & Company† –Mark Shayler, Boss, Ape –James Sherwood, Research Scientist, Green Chemistry Centre of Excellence, University of York –Joan Marc Simon, Executive Director, Zero Waste Europe –Neil Spencer, Independent Consultant (Resource Management) & Schmidt-MacArthur Fellow –Luca Stamare, Secretary, EPBP –Eugene Tseng, J.D., Professor, University of West Los Angeles School of Law; Professor, UCLA Engineering Extension, Recycling/MSW Management Program –Amy Tsui, Associate, McKinsey & Company† –Ive Vanderreydt, Team Leader, VITO –Sari Varpa, Knowledge Expert, McKinsey & Company† –Michael Warhurst, Executive Director, CHEM Trust –Ken Webster Head of Innovation, Ellen MacArthur Foundation –Renee Wever, Professor of Industrial Design Engineering, Linköping University –Chris Wilcox, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Business Unit –Adrian Whyle, Resource Efficiency Senior Manager, PlasticsEurope Production –Editors: Len Neufeld, Fabienne Stassen, Ruth Sheppard, Terry Gilman –Design: Kamal Kimaoui, Yoren Geromin, Sarah Churchill-Slough World Economic Forum 91–93 route de la Capite CH-1223 Cologny/Geneva Switzerland Tel.: +41 (0) 22 869 1212 Fax: +41 (0) 22 786 2744 contact@weforum.org www.weforum.org The World Economic Forum, committed to improving the state of the world, is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. CLEANBUILDING A SWELL 2018 REPORT In partnership with volunteer organizations around the globe, Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup mobilizes individuals to have an immediate and tangible impact on the health of our ocean. Volunteers remove millions of pounds of trash from beaches and waterways worldwide while fostering awareness of the marine debris issue and a sense of stewardship for one of our planet’s greatest natural resources. INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 1 1 A Message From Ocean Conservancy’s CEO 2 Photos From The Field 6 A Global #Cleanup Community 8 Growing A Capital Cleanup 9 What The Science Tells Us 10 Weird Finds Around The World 12 Data Spotlight 14 2017 Ocean Trash Index 20 Status Update: Building A Clean Swell Through Policy And Partnership 22 2017 Cleanup Coordinators 24 Acknowledgments CONTENTS The third Saturday in September is always one of my favorite days of the year, and in 2017 it felt extra special. I was thrilled to participate in Ocean Conservancy’s flagship International Coastal Cleanup event at Kingman Island in Washington, D.C. Kingman is an island in the middle of the Anacostia River, and while it isn’t a beach or coastline, the amount of trash we picked up was staggering. It showed how even far away from the coast, we can all be ocean stewards. And I believe that’s the secret behind the success of the International Coastal Cleanup, and the growing movement that we are building worldwide for trash-free seas. We all go through times when we question whether or not the things we do will make a difference. But the International Coastal Cleanup’s answer to that is an exuberant yes—yes, we can make a difference, no matter whom or where you are. In 2017, nearly 800,000 volunteers collectively removed more than 20 million pieces of trash from beaches and waterways around the world. That’s 20 million fewer potential impacts on whales, turtles and other beloved ocean wildlife. That’s an accomplishment we should all be proud of. On behalf of everyone at Ocean Conservancy, thank you for all that you did for our ocean this past ICC season. We couldn’t build this clean swell without you. Janis Jones Chief Executive Officer Ocean Conservancy MEXICO 2 OCEAN CONSERVANCY After having to cancel last year’s ICC, we saw a renewal of faith and commitment by the volunteers to continue the fight against marine debris. Vice Admiral Valentin B. Prieto, Jr., Philippines Geronimo P. Reyes, Philippines NIGERIA Every year, coordinators and volunteers around the world gather for the International Coastal Cleanup. Whether on a sandy tropical beach or against the backdrop of majestic mountains; whether scaling rocky shorelines or trudging through muddy gutters; they are united in their commitment to a healthier, cleaner ocean. A Snapshot of Cleanups from Around the World PHOTOS FROMTHE FIELD Data collected through the cleanup event has helped to create real change— from state and local government legislation to community projects that happen throughout the year. Heidi Taylor, Australia HAWAII, USA NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS FLORIDA, USA INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 3 My favorite part of the ICC is seeing so many volunteers from different backgrounds work together for an important cause. There is a wonderful sense of camaraderie at the cleanups that inspires hope for the future. Stephanie Mathias, Maryland, USA Yearafteryearwegetmoreandmorevolunteers; theICCischangingminds. Isaac Silveira, Portugal ECUADOR HONG KONG A Snapshot of Cleanups from Around the World NEW YORK, USA KENYA (68,473 KG)(1,050 KM) GoodMate WATERCRAFT CLEANUPS 4 OCEAN CONSERVANCY VIETNAM The best part of the ICC has been getting to know people who have common ground and act together. Yoshiko Ohkura, Japan TheICCischangingthewaypeoplethinkabout howtheyinteractwiththeenvironment. Bill Pendergrass, Mariana Islands JAMAICA 2017 3,754 People 150 ,956 Pounds 652 Miles 68,755 Total Items Collected FLORIDA, USA 59,380 Items Collected 5,707 Divers To find out more or to get involved under the surface, check out our partner Project AWARE at www.projectaware.org/diveagainstdebris. 170 ,059 Pounds of Trash Collected (77,137 KG) 321 Miles of Waterways (516 KM) Underwater Cleanups IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PROJECT AWARE INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 5 For the first time in my 17 years coordinating this cleanup, we had to reschedule due to the potential impact of Hurricane Irma. It seemed the volunteers worked even harder to collect as much debris as possible since H. Irma washed up quite a lot. Susan Ferris Hill, South Carolina, USA Overcoming Environmental Disasters Extreme weather exacted a heavy toll on coastal communities around the world, from the Gulf of Mexico and Puerto Rico to parts of Southeast Asia and Australia. In many of these places, the word “cleanup” took on a whole new meaning. My favorite part of the ICC is the volunteers. They are the heart and soul of this movement, and it brings me such joy to see how hard they work, and how dedicated they are to helping create trash-free seas. Lisa Christensen, Hong Kong Our island just barely missed hurricanes Irma and Maria. To have our largest turnout in years shows our resilience. Danielle Moore, Nevis Island Many of us have endured our challenges with Mother Nature, and Texas was no different with the devastation that Hurricane Harvey caused. Ocean Conservancy’s support made all the difference in the world. We all face challenges from time to time and it’s nice to be a part of the ICC family. Renee Toggle, Texas CALIFORNIA, USA PUERTO RICO SENEGAL 6 OCEAN CONSERVANCY6 OCEAN CONSERVANCY When you participate in an International Coastal Cleanup event, you are plugging into a network of people all over the world connected by a passion for a clean, healthy ocean. Thanks to social media and our new Clean Swell app, which allows volunteers to upload cleanup data in real-time to the world’s largest marine debris database, sharing that passion has never been easier. #CLEANUP COMMUNITYA GLOBAL UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ENGLAND SOUTH AFRICA SCOTLAND With Clean Swell™, join a global community working to improve our ocean by adding vital data to the world’s largest database on marine debris. This database is used by scientists, conservation groups, governments and industry leaders to study ocean trash and take action to ensure trash never reaches our beaches. BUILD ACLEAN SWELL INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 7 MALDIVES Volunteers love being able to plug in their personal data and see it pop up on the global map. It cultivates pride and environmental stewardship when we develop a sense of being part of something much larger than that one specific cleanup. Melanie Grillone, Florida, USA CALIFORNIA, USA WASHINGTON, D.C., USA TEXAS, USA KENYA NORWAY 8 OCEAN CONSERVANCY CAPITAL CLEANUPGROWING A ISLANDKINGMAN 530 ATTENDEES 3,972 POUNDS , 12,850 PIECES OF TRASH , Rightnow,allaroundthe countryandallaround theworld,hundredsof thousands of people aredoingexactlywhat youaredoing…Theyare rollinguptheirsleeves andtakingactionto keeptheoceanclean. Ocean Conservancy CEO Janis Searles Jones in opening remarks. We can fix marine debris. This is a doable issue. Nicole LeBoeuf, Deputy Assistant Administrator of NOAA’s National Ocean Service It is important that we all contribute to the solution. Sweden’s Ambassador to the United States, Her Excellency Karin Olofsdotter Washington, DC isn’t known for sandy beaches, but that didn’t stop us from hosting our flagship International Coastal Cleanup in the nation’s capital. On ICC day, Ocean Conservancy and our partners at the Living Classrooms Foundation mobilized more than 500 Washingtonians—including the Swedish Ambassador to the United States and representatives from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—to collect trash from Kingman Island, a woody oasis in the heart of the Anacostia River. INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 9 ISLAND 3,972 At Ocean Conservancy, we advocate for science-based solutions to some of the greatest threats facing our ocean, including marine debris. In 2010, we convened an international group of scientists to review what we know and what we still need to understand about plastic pollution in the ocean. This working group led to some of the most impactful studies that have been published on plastic debris in the last five years. We now have better estimates of the total amount of plastic entering the ocean from land (about 8 million metric tons per year) and a comprehensive assessment of the ecological impacts posed to marine animals by plastics. In the past year, researchers have uncovered several new pieces to the marine debris puzzle. Here’s what they found: ■■The concentration of plastic pollution in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, famously known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, is growing, and the accumulation of marine debris is 4-16 times greater than previously thought. And nearly half of all the large debris in the Gyre is lost or abandoned fishing gear. ■■Microplastics are, without a doubt, not just an ocean problem, but rather a global problem, affecting freshwater and even land-based ecosystems. Scientists have found large amounts of microplastics in rivers; as well as in soils, spread through household and industrial composting. ■■Plastic pollution does more than choke or entangle sea life. Scientists have found evidence that ocean plastic is linked with disease on coral reefs. Meanwhile, exposure to microplastics was shown to decrease the reproduction and population growth rate in zooplankton—animals that form the base of the ocean food chain. Questions, of course, remain. We still don’t know if plastic pollution impacts human health; where the majority of ocean plastic ends up; and to what degree many of the proposed solutions to plastic pollution will quantitatively address the global issue. Ocean Conservancy is committed to investing in science to help answer some of these key questions. SCIENCE TELLS USWHAT THE As a marine ecologist and Ocean Conservancy’s chief scientist, Dr. George Leonard is instrumental in catalyzing some of the most cutting-edge and comprehensive research on trash in the ocean. MALAYSIA BRUNEI NEW HAMPSHIRE, USA SINGAPORE25 SOUTH KOREA24 THAILAND 23 VENEZUELA22 GREECE 21 JAPAN20 PANAMA 19 GUAM18PUERTO RICO17 KENYA16 PERU 15 UNITED KINGDOM14 SRI LANKA 13 JAMAICA12 CHINA11 INDIA 10 CHILE 9 MEXICO 8 CANADA 7 SOUTH AFRICA 6 TAIWAN5 ECUADOR 4 HONG KONG 3 UNITED STATES2 PHILIPPINES1 MALAYSIA Vampire Teeth THAILAND Toy Tiara BRUNEI Washing Machine HONG KONG Stroller GREECE Frying Pan KENYA Video Tapes SOUTH AFRICA Megaphone FINLAND Full Size Car SWEDEN Jar of Pizza Sauce NORWAY ScooterIRELAND Tractor Tire ITALY Car Battery MALTA Fire Extinguisher THE BAHAMAS Window Frame CURAÇAO Christmas Lights VENEZUELA Satellite Dish JAMAICA Couch 6-Seater Golf Cart BERMUDACANADA SledUSA Clown Wig 10 OCEAN CONSERVANCY WEIRDFINDS AROUND THE WORLD SINGAPORE25 SOUTH KOREA24 THAILAND 23 VENEZUELA22 GREECE 21 JAPAN20 PANAMA19 GUAM18PUERTO RICO17 KENYA16 PERU15 UNITED KINGDOM14 SRI LANKA 13 JAMAICA12 CHINA11 INDIA 10 CHILE9 MEXICO8 CANADA7 SOUTH AFRICA 6 TAIWAN5 ECUADOR4 HONG KONG 3 UNITED STATES2 PHILIPPINES1 MALAYSIA Vampire Teeth THAILAND Toy Tiara BRUNEI Washing Machine HONG KONG Stroller GREECE Frying Pan KENYA Video Tapes SOUTH AFRICA Megaphone FINLAND Full Size Car SWEDEN Jar of Pizza Sauce NORWAY ScooterIRELAND Tractor Tire ITALY Car Battery MALTA Fire Extinguisher THE BAHAMAS Window Frame CURAÇAO Christmas Lights VENEZUELA Satellite Dish JAMAICA Couch 6-Seater Golf Cart BERMUDACANADA SledUSA Clown Wig TOP 25 PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 11 TinyTrashareitems measuringlessthan2.5cm. TINY TRASH, BIG IMPACTS Enough rope toweave a beach towel that is 28km long Enough plastic bags to sew 5,461 sails 12 OCEAN CONSERVANCY DATA SPOTLIGHT Enough balloons tolift a great white shark Enough plastic beverage bottles to fill over standard swimming pools 5 Enough straws to reach the height of over palm trees10,000 2,326,893 Foam Pieces 459,249 Glass Pieces 1,933,146 Plastic Pieces INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 13 Enough bottle caps to cover surfboards645 1. CIGARETTE BUTTS 2,412 ,151 2. FOOD WRAPPERS 1,739,743 3. PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES 1,569,135 4. PLASTIC BOTTLE CAPS 1,091,107 5. PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS 757,523 6. OTHER PLASTIC BAGS 746 ,211 7. STRAWS, STIRRERS 643,562 8. PLASTIC TAKE OUT/ AWAY CONTAINERS 632,874 9. PLASTIC LIDS 624,878 10. FOAM TAKE OUT/ AWAY CONTAINERS 580,570 Top A total weight of trashequal to cruise ship anchors 812 Enough cigarette butts to line the distance of marathons5 10 ITEMS COLLECTED 14 OCEAN CONSERVANCY 2017 OCEAN TRASH INDEX COUNTRY/LOCATION PEOPLE POUNDS KILOGRAMS MILES KILOMETERS TOTAL ITEMS COLLECTED CIGARETTE BUTTS FOOD WRAPPERS PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES PLASTIC BOTTLE CAPS PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS OTHER PLASTIC BAGS STRAWS, STIRRERS PLASTIC TAKE OUT/AWAY CONTAINERS PLASTIC LIDS FOAM TAKE OUT/AWAY CONTAINERS ARGENTINA 209 1,660 753 0.4 0.7 4,648 248 84 606 695 625 117 98 85 211 142 ARUBA 4 7 3 2 3 16 – –2 – – – – – – – AUSTRALIA 1,245 6,862 3,113 165 265 68,153 8,632 5,580 453 624 1,197 31 3,641 76 3,456 24 AUSTRIA 3 1 0.4 0.2 0.3 13 – 1 2 1 1 – 2 2 – 1 BANGLADESH 470 1,764 800 2 3 17,924 6,321 3,852 328 362 241 289 351 820 512 280 BARBADOS 759 6,522 2,958 12 19 53,695 2,278 3,517 4,564 6,980 850 1,727 1,599 390 946 924 BELGIUM 3 1 0.4 0.2 0.3 10 – 3 – – 1 – – – 1 – BELIZE 960 12,292 5,575 39 62 72,853 1,729 3,503 4,996 5,169 1,673 2,795 2,126 534 1,179 735 BERMUDA 741 8,756 3,972 17 27 58,404 5,774 1,320 1,669 2,210 303 562 646 394 457 275 BONAIRE 96 1,323 600 1 2 1,137 – 13 36 – 4 1 – – – – BRAZIL 2,969 17,944 8,139 24 38 86,481 36,012 2,398 3,540 2,468 3,503 1,489 4,580 240 2,263 187 BRUNEI 360 3,867 1,754 55 89 20,130 1,426 1,029 4,593 1,631 932 680 611 668 410 935 CAMBODIA 14 121 55 0.2 0.3 1,489 – 51 96 30 3 72 65 – 30 61 CANADA 16,070 117,163 53,144 886 1,427 570,689 148,638 23,910 13,799 17,559 152 12,490 8,026 148 110 7,608 CAPE VERDE 18 511 232 2 4 673 – 38 37 54 80 16 – – 20 – CAYMAN ISLANDS 243 1,759 798 7 11 11,255 405 180 1,826 1,775 155 154 287 93 292 145 CHILE 12,134 796,160 361,132 102 164 264,826 12,117 8,291 11,819 7,813 7,706 3,135 4,552 8,643 2,809 CHINA 10,748 125,719 57,025 49 79 16,406 3,238 1,202 714 1,061 374 320 238 221 28 1,732 COLOMBIA 421 22,802 10,343 22 35 49,380 1,386 1,696 15,597 2,777 666 328 2,854 1,037 4,167 1,590 COSTA RICA 455 10,769 4,885 8 13 39,705 156 227 27,025 6,088 83 7 2,937 35 73 47 CURAÇAO 124 1,594 723 7 12 8,559 – 17 79 20 24 8 10 13 7 11 CYPRUS 406 254 115 3 4 5,347 – – – – – – – – – – CZECH REPUBLIC 3 1 0.4 0.2 0.3 14 8 1 – 1 1 – 1 – – – DENMARK 15 22 10 2 3 26 4 – 10 – 4 – – 1 – – DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 3,416 24,783 11,242 11 19 117,068 7,866 6,333 5,526 5,252 2,315 1,012 4,013 4,945 3,592 5,701 ECUADOR 38,728 395,069 179,200 565 910 1,070,709 52,362 63,873 86,694 59,957 57,571 54,372 23,391 76,633 51,977 35,053 EGYPT 4 110 50 0.2 0.3 146 – – 40 – – 10 – 1 – 1 FIJI 13 91 41 6 9 1,614 8 134 113 64 176 – 40 35 23 55 FINLAND 28 4,850 2,200 2 3 365 – 3 6 – 7 2 – – – – FRANCE 134 1,125 511 18 29 2,748 1,009 129 163 132 34 27 2 17 6 2 GERMANY 994 2,859 1,297 181 291 30,577 12,712 3,799 521 957 375 352 467 262 530 100 GHANA 1,873 217,885 98,831 17 28 1,649,009 71,426 80,208 97,326 82,133 100,739 91,445 16,001 200,132 223,469 298,336 GREECE 4,810 14,992 6,800 47 75 64,793 26,660 1,568 3,141 4,106 1,249 719 3,946 861 2,252 27 GRENADA 119 1,015 460 4 6 4,366 149 636 1,024 231 140 78 64 64 71 33 GUAM 5,398 36,297 16,464 32 51 99,227 9,506 4,514 10,225 4,960 2,295 2,485 1,155 1,205 2,358 1,099 GUATEMALA 29 17,520 7,947 2 3 52,976 – – – – – – – – – – GUYANA 175 2,833 1,285 3 5 11,743 107 400 2,020 945 123 400 383 178 210 124 HONDURAS 48 155 70 5 8 271 – 16 89 7 18 10 – 3 2 2 HONG KONG 87,349 12,297,616 5,578,105 1,061 1,708 220,351 4,941 5,215 7,465 10,157 3,780 4,338 4,326 3,229 4,601 2,378 ICELAND 1 1 0.4 0.2 0.3 2 – – 1 – – – – 1 – – INDIA 11,451 148,871 67,527 311 501 597,517 24,408 27,674 36,397 28,643 72,550 51,538 14,961 26,190 17,223 17,770 INDONESIA 2,987 4,751 2,155 50 80 95,051 40,032 7,119 5,346 4,002 2,933 3,734 5,778 2,357 2,692 1,472 IRAN 12 46 21 0.7 1 22 – – – – 1 – – – – – IRELAND 585 6,326 2,870 26 41 14,559 1,152 1,744 1,007 1,213 373 390 335 228 211 49 ISRAEL 175 783 355 0.6 1 974 – 77 90 14 146 279 13 28 – – ITALY 46 310 140 3 5 858 17 23 33 55 127 11 8 6 14 3 JAMAICA 9,675 160,628 72,860 104 167 722,278 3,518 18,251 298,972 69,253 11,962 24,226 6,935 10,437 10,044 13,174 JAPAN 5,009 81,053 36,765 32 51 110,119 12,508 5,312 6,599 4,658 2,575 3,121 1,062 3,723 1,341 2,216 KENYA 6,931 63,772 28,926 73 117 265,386 47,383 12,263 49,259 40,599 9,707 8,084 5,348 4,807 3,957 721 KUWAIT 532 187,366 84,988 2 3 123 – – 1 – – – – – – – MACAU 1,250 1,157 525 2 3 55,310 – 590 2,390 850 20 20 420 90 – 20,490 MALAWI 76 1,764 800 0.6 1 37,419 309 2,890 7,302 1,340 9,509 577 250 305 504 85 MALAYSIA 1,073 11,628 5,274 71 114 77,001 4,627 5,651 23,664 3,606 4,744 3,160 2,340 1,314 545 1,541 MALDIVES 159 2,190 993 8 13 1,775 2 37 499 129 60 78 40 1 9 – INTERNATIONAL CLEANUPS INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 15 COUNTRY/LOCATIONPEOPLE POUNDSKILOGRAMSMILESKILOMETERS TOTAL ITEMS COLLECTED CIGARETTE BUTTS FOOD WRAPPERS PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES PLASTIC BOTTLE CAPS PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS OTHER PLASTIC BAGS STRAWS, STIRRERS PLASTIC TAKE OUT/AWAY CONTAINERS PLASTIC LIDS FOAM TAKE OUT/AWAY CONTAINERS ARGENTINA209 1,660 753 0.4 0.7 4,648 248 84 606 695 625 117 98 85 211 142 ARUBA4 7 3 2 3 16 – –2 – – – – – – – AUSTRALIA1,245 6,862 3,113 165 265 68,153 8,632 5,580 453 624 1,197 31 3,641 76 3,456 24 AUSTRIA3 1 0.4 0.2 0.3 13 – 1 2 1 1 – 2 2 – 1 BANGLADESH470 1,764 800 2 3 17,924 6,321 3,852 328 362 241 289 351 820 512 280 BARBADOS 759 6,522 2,958 12 19 53,695 2,278 3,517 4,564 6,980 850 1,727 1,599 390 946 924 BELGIUM 3 1 0.4 0.2 0.3 10 – 3 – – 1 – – – 1 – BELIZE 960 12,292 5,575 39 62 72,853 1,729 3,503 4,996 5,169 1,673 2,795 2,126 534 1,179 735 BERMUDA 741 8,756 3,972 17 27 58,404 5,774 1,320 1,669 2,210 303 562 646 394 457 275 BONAIRE 96 1,323 600 1 2 1,137 – 13 36 – 4 1 – – – – BRAZIL 2,969 17,944 8,139 24 38 86,481 36,012 2,398 3,540 2,468 3,503 1,489 4,580 240 2,263 187 BRUNEI 360 3,867 1,754 55 89 20,130 1,426 1,029 4,593 1,631 932 680 611 668 410 935 CAMBODIA 14 121 55 0.2 0.3 1,489 – 51 96 30 3 72 65 – 30 61 CANADA 16,070 117,163 53,144 886 1,427 570,689 148,638 23,910 13,799 17,559 152 12,490 8,026 148 110 7,608 CAPE VERDE 18 511 232 2 4 673 – 38 37 54 80 16 – – 20 – CAYMAN ISLANDS 243 1,759 798 7 11 11,255 405 180 1,826 1,775 155 154 287 93 292 145 CHILE 12,134 796,160 361,132 102 164 264,826 12,117 8,291 11,819 7,813 7,706 3,135 4,552 8,643 2,809 CHINA 10,748 125,719 57,025 49 79 16,406 3,238 1,202 714 1,061 374 320 238 221 28 1,732 COLOMBIA 421 22,802 10,343 22 35 49,380 1,386 1,696 15,597 2,777 666 328 2,854 1,037 4,167 1,590 COSTA RICA 455 10,769 4,885 8 13 39,705 156 227 27,025 6,088 83 7 2,937 35 73 47 CURAÇAO 124 1,594 723 7 12 8,559 – 17 79 20 24 8 10 13 7 11 CYPRUS 406 254 115 3 4 5,347 – – – – – – – – – – CZECH REPUBLIC 3 1 0.4 0.2 0.3 14 8 1 – 1 1 – 1 – – – DENMARK 15 22 10 2 3 26 4 – 10 – 4 – – 1 – – DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 3,416 24,783 11,242 11 19 117,068 7,866 6,333 5,526 5,252 2,315 1,012 4,013 4,945 3,592 5,701 ECUADOR 38,728 395,069 179,200 565 910 1,070,709 52,362 63,873 86,694 59,957 57,571 54,372 23,391 76,633 51,977 35,053 EGYPT 4 110 50 0.2 0.3 146 – – 40 – – 10 – 1 – 1 FIJI 13 91 41 6 9 1,614 8 134 113 64 176 – 40 35 23 55 FINLAND 28 4,850 2,200 2 3 365 – 3 6 – 7 2 – – – – FRANCE 134 1,125 511 18 29 2,748 1,009 129 163 132 34 27 2 17 6 2 GERMANY 994 2,859 1,297 181 291 30,577 12,712 3,799 521 957 375 352 467 262 530 100 GHANA 1,873 217,885 98,831 17 28 1,649,009 71,426 80,208 97,326 82,133 100,739 91,445 16,001 200,132 223,469 298,336 GREECE 4,810 14,992 6,800 47 75 64,793 26,660 1,568 3,141 4,106 1,249 719 3,946 861 2,252 27 GRENADA 119 1,015 460 4 6 4,366 149 636 1,024 231 140 78 64 64 71 33 GUAM 5,398 36,297 16,464 32 51 99,227 9,506 4,514 10,225 4,960 2,295 2,485 1,155 1,205 2,358 1,099 GUATEMALA 29 17,520 7,947 2 3 52,976 – – – – – – – – – – GUYANA 175 2,833 1,285 3 5 11,743 107 400 2,020 945 123 400 383 178 210 124 HONDURAS 48 155 70 5 8 271 – 16 89 7 18 10 – 3 2 2 HONG KONG 87,349 12,297,616 5,578,105 1,061 1,708 220,351 4,941 5,215 7,465 10,157 3,780 4,338 4,326 3,229 4,601 2,378 ICELAND 1 1 0.4 0.2 0.3 2 – – 1 – – – – 1 – – INDIA 11,451 148,871 67,527 311 501 597,517 24,408 27,674 36,397 28,643 72,550 51,538 14,961 26,190 17,223 17,770 INDONESIA 2,987 4,751 2,155 50 80 95,051 40,032 7,119 5,346 4,002 2,933 3,734 5,778 2,357 2,692 1,472 IRAN 12 46 21 0.7 1 22 – – – – 1 – – – – – IRELAND 585 6,326 2,870 26 41 14,559 1,152 1,744 1,007 1,213 373 390 335 228 211 49 ISRAEL 175 783 355 0.6 1 974 – 77 90 14 146 279 13 28 – – ITALY 46 310 140 3 5 858 17 23 33 55 127 11 8 6 14 3 JAMAICA 9,675 160,628 72,860 104 167 722,278 3,518 18,251 298,972 69,253 11,962 24,226 6,935 10,437 10,044 13,174 JAPAN 5,009 81,053 36,765 32 51 110,119 12,508 5,312 6,599 4,658 2,575 3,121 1,062 3,723 1,341 2,216 KENYA 6,931 63,772 28,926 73 117 265,386 47,383 12,263 49,259 40,599 9,707 8,084 5,348 4,807 3,957 721 KUWAIT 532 187,366 84,988 2 3 123 – – 1 – – – – – – – MACAU 1,250 1,157 525 2 3 55,310 – 590 2,390 850 20 20 420 90 – 20,490 MALAWI 76 1,764 800 0.6 1 37,419 309 2,890 7,302 1,340 9,509 577 250 305 504 85 MALAYSIA 1,073 11,628 5,274 71 114 77,001 4,627 5,651 23,664 3,606 4,744 3,160 2,340 1,314 545 1,541 MALDIVES 159 2,190 993 8 13 1,775 2 37 499 129 60 78 40 1 9 – TOP 10 ITEMS COLLECTED GLOBALLY 3 421 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 OCEAN CONSERVANCY 2017 OCEAN TRASH INDEX COUNTRY/LOCATION PEOPLE POUNDS KILOGRAMS MILES KILOMETERS TOTAL ITEMS COLLECTED CIGARETTE BUTTS FOOD WRAPPERS PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES PLASTIC BOTTLE CAPS PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS OTHER PLASTIC BAGS STRAWS, STIRRERS PLASTIC TAKE OUT/AWAY CONTAINERS PLASTIC LIDS FOAM TAKE OUT/AWAY CONTAINERS MALTA 71 372 169 15 24 976 – 50 70 13 20 2 2 5 5 3 MARSHALL ISLANDS 303 23,082 10,470 1 2 3,785 – 105 762 93 52 53 – 11 17 3 MAURITIUS 155 1,581 717 2 3 5,994 630 707 1,197 285 29 418 66 89 66 81 MEXICO 13,722 98,521 44,688 305 490 378,206 55,942 12,384 29,230 37,170 12,367 11,560 8,729 4,088 16,583 4,518 MONTSERRAT 7 30 14 2 3 176 – 21 2 1 3 – – – – – MOROCCO 6 76 35 1 2 175 20 5 32 – 2 15 – – – – MOZAMBIQUE 19 450 204 1 2 2,845 300 85 124 287 41 50 178 7 252 9 NETHERLANDS 2,753 32,917 14,931 137 221 11,785 3,733 3 4 8,005 5 – 3 1 5 3 NEW ZEALAND 10 34 15 1 2 82 2 7 1 – 3 2 8 – 1 – NICARAGUA 1,456 20,830 9,448 19 31 66,056 3,257 5,412 7,815 4,061 4,064 3,086 3,454 1,399 2,524 1,519 NIGERIA 223 2,898 1,315 4 6 13,034 120 1,381 2,934 1,780 1,380 600 174 1,143 141 295 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 757 1,903 863 59 94 21,097 4,351 1,565 1,151 764 566 608 237 243 237 348 NORWAY 2,084 77,724 35,255 77 124 20,408 531 4 2,950 704 625 584 61 299 249 219 PAKISTAN 19 16 7 0.2 0.3 215 7 19 32 – 34 – 3 1 1 1 PANAMA 5,022 198,687 90,123 92 149 120,104 585 1,095 60,293 1,860 5,174 2,317 411 567 952 1,901 PERU 7,110 267,983 121,555 10 17 242,896 5,746 6,369 7,877 9,002 4,650 6,100 1,581 916 726 1,269 PHILIPPINES 214,165 526,933 239,013 792 1,274 4,223,167 353,025 936,998 143,617 191,806 227,278 282,513 268,983 190,324 114,957 79,555 PORTUGAL 220 5,125 2,325 20 33 14,431 4,260 775 1,612 453 269 166 303 407 94 221 PUERTO RICO 6,814 65,260 29,601 116 186 251,926 26,781 6,495 21,318 14,267 3,821 5,327 15,313 3,006 13,109 2,013 QATAR 6 19 9 0.1 0.2 151 8 11 12 29 7 – 4 8 3 3 RUSSIA 121 595 270 1 2 2,908 309 238 163 109 83 85 51 28 22 8 SENEGAL 134 3,263 1,480 11 18 1,089 – 250 373 – – – – 10 – 9 SEYCHELLES 46 251 114 5 8 1,523 2 251 56 105 353 – 23 75 2 24 SINGAPORE 3,703 32,113 14,566 38 62 195,706 20,355 9,379 18,238 6,564 4,604 7,986 14,227 3,020 1,838 2,454 SLOVENIA 172 785 356 9 14 18,300 6,337 813 353 622 886 80 204 – – – SOUTH AFRICA 18,032 27,985 12,694 327 527 174,575 11,783 15,752 10,860 17,107 3,306 2,723 9,728 1,355 2,618 2,896 SOUTH KOREA 3,912 66,432 30,133 40 65 74,452 9,902 6,246 4,970 3,086 6,349 5,712 2,458 763 1,106 578 SPAIN 1,408 9,171 4,160 17 27 54,865 6,572 867 1,536 2,235 1,032 1,078 935 470 499 144 SRI LANKA 9,067 80,379 36,459 61 98 392,697 15,699 12,817 106,304 15,112 31,557 20,446 6,933 3,616 4,290 5,026 ST. KITTS & NEVIS 477 3,620 1,642 17 27 18,136 58 462 4,967 2,598 413 579 232 156 495 419 ST. LUCIA 254 5,265 2,388 12 19 23,828 558 1,123 9,550 1,891 313 517 322 166 97 294 ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES 1 1 0.5 0.1 0.2 27 – – 3 6 – – 1 – – – SURINAME 68 1,896 860 15 24 14,407 5 4 9,749 2,577 111 16 1 7 – 293 SWEDEN 1,478 9,350 4,241 17 27 2,096 134 15 26 3 25 2 10 19 5 5 SWITZERLAND 25 88 40 1 2 4,406 2,649 174 41 56 8 19 14 24 11 5 TAIWAN 19,299 102,257 46,383 14 22 235,586 6,950 5,171 57,767 32,359 16,444 – 23,133 – – – TANZANIA 497 4,436 2,012 2 3 42,726 141 8,515 3,601 9,132 6,375 2,912 1,587 1 1,010 1,257 THAILAND 4,081 21,304 9,663 35 57 57,474 3,572 4,252 2,685 1,216 3,388 4,040 2,367 117 12,203 342 THE BAHAMAS 510 3,213 1,457 17 27 17,772 175 512 1,320 839 434 492 310 211 297 155 TONGA 7 13 6 0.5 0.8 142 – 14 15 8 9 – – 5 – – TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 1,900 24,946 11,315 25 40 126,846 937 4,913 27,320 12,554 1,783 3,451 888 1,584 1,472 2,585 TUNISIA 39 120 54 5 7 391 – – 5 3 – – – 4 1 2 TURKEY 546 1,647 747 1 2 12,828 6,440 727 593 830 110 108 20 – – – U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 74 429 195 2 3 3,391 24 253 287 252 73 32 68 42 52 27 UKRAINE 50 5,644 2,560 3 5 37,840 5,600 3,450 8,963 2,871 630 70 145 57 220 960 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 1,820 9,767 4,430 33 53 411,555 390,637 1,164 3,638 3,499 1,055 504 430 618 821 353 UNITED KINGDOM 7,325 24,761 11,231 170 275 166,892 11,933 15,996 4,727 12,893 2,489 1,736 433 2,046 277 148 UNITED STATES 209,643 3,743,118 1,697,851 12,051 19,392 5,860,996 842,837 345,241 242,534 286,678 96,815 85,070 144,464 61,827 73,305 47,259 URUGUAY 1,999 7,771 3,525 46 74 39,415 4,120 3,187 2,403 4,595 2,271 1,993 983 1,141 3,062 667 VANUATU 214 1,703 773 25 40 35,803 1,954 3,037 2,109 1,010 2,062 2,398 805 737 902 642 VENEZUELA 4,521 48,777 22,125 58 94 276,499 14,960 10,770 27,361 13,825 10,447 10,670 9,952 4,518 21,803 3,484 VIETNAM 543 16,687 7,569 5 8 20,661 999 1,461 1,409 1,305 1,494 831 843 1,382 112 635 LOCATION NOT RECORDED 10,700 63,292 28,708 177 285 523,481 – – – – – – – – – – GRAND TOTAL 789,138 20,471,242 9,285,600 18,935 30,472 20,824,689 2,412,151 1,739,743 1,569,135 1,091,107 757,523 746,211 643,562 632,874 624,878 580,570 INTERNATIONAL CLEANUPS INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 17 COUNTRY/LOCATIONPEOPLE POUNDSKILOGRAMSMILESKILOMETERS TOTAL ITEMS COLLECTED CIGARETTE BUTTS FOOD WRAPPERS PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES PLASTIC BOTTLE CAPS PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS OTHER PLASTIC BAGS STRAWS, STIRRERS PLASTIC TAKE OUT/AWAY CONTAINERS PLASTIC LIDS FOAM TAKE OUT/AWAY CONTAINERS MALTA 71 372 169 15 24 976 – 50 70 13 20 2 2 5 5 3 MARSHALL ISLANDS 303 23,082 10,470 1 2 3,785 – 105 762 93 52 53 – 11 17 3 MAURITIUS 155 1,581 717 2 3 5,994 630 707 1,197 285 29 418 66 89 66 81 MEXICO 13,722 98,521 44,688 305 490 378,206 55,942 12,384 29,230 37,170 12,367 11,560 8,729 4,088 16,583 4,518 MONTSERRAT 7 30 14 2 3 176 – 21 2 1 3 – – – – – MOROCCO 6 76 35 1 2 175 20 5 32 – 2 15 – – – – MOZAMBIQUE 19 450 204 1 2 2,845 300 85 124 287 41 50 178 7 252 9 NETHERLANDS 2,753 32,917 14,931 137 221 11,785 3,733 3 4 8,005 5 – 3 1 5 3 NEW ZEALAND 10 34 15 1 2 82 2 7 1 – 3 2 8 – 1 – NICARAGUA 1,456 20,830 9,448 19 31 66,056 3,257 5,412 7,815 4,061 4,064 3,086 3,454 1,399 2,524 1,519 NIGERIA 223 2,898 1,315 4 6 13,034 120 1,381 2,934 1,780 1,380 600 174 1,143 141 295 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 757 1,903 863 59 94 21,097 4,351 1,565 1,151 764 566 608 237 243 237 348 NORWAY 2,084 77,724 35,255 77 124 20,408 531 4 2,950 704 625 584 61 299 249 219 PAKISTAN 19 16 7 0.2 0.3 215 7 19 32 – 34 – 3 1 1 1 PANAMA 5,022 198,687 90,123 92 149 120,104 585 1,095 60,293 1,860 5,174 2,317 411 567 952 1,901 PERU 7,110 267,983 121,555 10 17 242,896 5,746 6,369 7,877 9,002 4,650 6,100 1,581 916 726 1,269 PHILIPPINES 214,165 526,933 239,013 792 1,274 4,223,167 353,025 936,998 143,617 191,806 227,278 282,513 268,983 190,324 114,957 79,555 PORTUGAL 220 5,125 2,325 20 33 14,431 4,260 775 1,612 453 269 166 303 407 94 221 PUERTO RICO 6,814 65,260 29,601 116 186 251,926 26,781 6,495 21,318 14,267 3,821 5,327 15,313 3,006 13,109 2,013 QATAR 6 19 9 0.1 0.2 151 8 11 12 29 7 – 4 8 3 3 RUSSIA 121 595 270 1 2 2,908 309 238 163 109 83 85 51 28 22 8 SENEGAL 134 3,263 1,480 11 18 1,089 – 250 373 – – – – 10 – 9 SEYCHELLES 46 251 114 5 8 1,523 2 251 56 105 353 – 23 75 2 24 SINGAPORE 3,703 32,113 14,566 38 62 195,706 20,355 9,379 18,238 6,564 4,604 7,986 14,227 3,020 1,838 2,454 SLOVENIA 172 785 356 9 14 18,300 6,337 813 353 622 886 80 204 – – – SOUTH AFRICA 18,032 27,985 12,694 327 527 174,575 11,783 15,752 10,860 17,107 3,306 2,723 9,728 1,355 2,618 2,896 SOUTH KOREA 3,912 66,432 30,133 40 65 74,452 9,902 6,246 4,970 3,086 6,349 5,712 2,458 763 1,106 578 SPAIN 1,408 9,171 4,160 17 27 54,865 6,572 867 1,536 2,235 1,032 1,078 935 470 499 144 SRI LANKA 9,067 80,379 36,459 61 98 392,697 15,699 12,817 106,304 15,112 31,557 20,446 6,933 3,616 4,290 5,026 ST. KITTS & NEVIS 477 3,620 1,642 17 27 18,136 58 462 4,967 2,598 413 579 232 156 495 419 ST. LUCIA 254 5,265 2,388 12 19 23,828 558 1,123 9,550 1,891 313 517 322 166 97 294 ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES 1 1 0.5 0.1 0.2 27 – – 3 6 – – 1 – – – SURINAME 68 1,896 860 15 24 14,407 5 4 9,749 2,577 111 16 1 7 – 293 SWEDEN 1,478 9,350 4,241 17 27 2,096 134 15 26 3 25 2 10 19 5 5 SWITZERLAND 25 88 40 1 2 4,406 2,649 174 41 56 8 19 14 24 11 5 TAIWAN 19,299 102,257 46,383 14 22 235,586 6,950 5,171 57,767 32,359 16,444 – 23,133 – – – TANZANIA 497 4,436 2,012 2 3 42,726 141 8,515 3,601 9,132 6,375 2,912 1,587 1 1,010 1,257 THAILAND 4,081 21,304 9,663 35 57 57,474 3,572 4,252 2,685 1,216 3,388 4,040 2,367 117 12,203 342 THE BAHAMAS 510 3,213 1,457 17 27 17,772 175 512 1,320 839 434 492 310 211 297 155 TONGA 7 13 6 0.50.8 142 – 14 15 8 9 – – 5 – – TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 1,900 24,946 11,315 25 40 126,846 937 4,913 27,320 12,554 1,783 3,451 888 1,584 1,472 2,585 TUNISIA 39 120 54 5 7 391 – – 5 3 – – – 4 1 2 TURKEY 546 1,647 747 1 2 12,828 6,440 727 593 830 110 108 20 – – – U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 74 429 195 2 3 3,391 24 253 287 252 73 32 68 42 52 27 UKRAINE 50 5,644 2,560 3 5 37,840 5,600 3,450 8,963 2,871 630 70 145 57 220 960 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 1,820 9,767 4,430 33 53 411,555 390,637 1,164 3,638 3,499 1,055 504 430 618 821 353 UNITED KINGDOM 7,325 24,761 11,231 170 275 166,892 11,933 15,996 4,727 12,893 2,489 1,736 433 2,046 277 148 UNITED STATES 209,643 3,743,118 1,697,851 12,051 19,392 5,860,996 842,837 345,241 242,534 286,678 96,815 85,070 144,464 61,827 73,305 47,259 URUGUAY 1,999 7,771 3,525 46 74 39,415 4,120 3,187 2,403 4,595 2,271 1,993 983 1,141 3,062 667 VANUATU 214 1,703 773 25 40 35,803 1,954 3,037 2,109 1,010 2,062 2,398 805 737 902 642 VENEZUELA 4,521 48,777 22,125 58 94 276,499 14,960 10,770 27,361 13,825 10,447 10,670 9,952 4,518 21,803 3,484 VIETNAM 543 16,687 7,569 5 8 20,661 999 1,461 1,409 1,305 1,494 831 843 1,382 112 635 LOCATION NOT RECORDED 10,700 63,292 28,708 177 285 523,481 – – – – – – – – – – GRAND TOTAL 789,138 20,471,242 9,285,600 18,935 30,472 20,824,689 2,412,151 1,739,743 1,569,135 1,091,107 757,523 746,211 643,562 632,874 624,878 580,570 3 421 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOP 10 ITEMS COLLECTED GLOBALLY 18 OCEAN CONSERVANCY 2017 OCEAN TRASH INDEX STATE/LOCATION PEOPLE POUNDS KILOGRAMS MILES KILOMETERS TOTAL ITEMS COLLECTED CIGARETTE BUTTS FOOD WRAPPERS PLASTIC BOTTLE CAPS PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES BEVERAGE CANS STRAWS, STIRRERS GLASS BEVERAGE BOTTLES PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS METAL BOTTLE CAPS OTHER PLASTIC/FOAM PACKAGING ALABAMA 3,795 35,928 16,297 217 350 96,745 18,332 6,668 6,150 6,546 5,475 3,132 2,730 2,094 2,252 1,842 ALASKA 526 2,436 1,105 57 92 20,055 1,981 1,113 447 269 351 99 115 133 150 673 ARIZONA 473 50,652 22,975 6 9 39,455 – – – 100 39,216 – 1 – – – ARKANSAS 83 5 2 27 43 10,483 2,500 650 453 51 34 857 16 39 371 20 CALIFORNIA 66,535 839,629 380,849 2,422 3,897 1,087,249 198,814 104,146 58,647 27,009 16,810 27,366 19,468 15,281 29,594 17,270 COLORADO 2,506 21,002 9,526 30 49 13,712 2,003 3,004 403 1,501 604 151 500 1,006 400 300 CONNECTICUT 2,799 28,427 12,894 157 253 856,718 32,884 10,157 6,941 10,141 4,019 3,557 3,361 1,816 4,062 1,913 DELAWARE 1,604 8,607 3,904 149 240 59,019 16,205 4,682 4,720 2,847 1,977 1,913 1,007 1,009 766 1,267 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 604 4,111 1,865 11 18 15,324 544 1,324 687 3,460 588 192 337 280 – – FLORIDA 21,010 173,552 78,722 2,904 4,674 644,422 95,679 37,683 74,420 31,948 18,545 26,500 14,009 14,190 10,562 8,431 GEORGIA 24,056 377,260 171,122 1,499 2,412 77,836 8,750 565 2,504 10,629 6,620 1,396 13,858 3,437 716 1,937 HAWAII 2,135 42,305 19,189 309 497 137,369 35,574 5,822 6,844 1,649 1,558 1,665 2,052 936 3,644 2,066 IDAHO 5 4 2 0.3 0.4 72 35 – 4 2 1 1 2 – – – ILLINOIS 2,024 3,278 1,487 135 217 205,782 18,016 8,320 4,877 2,216 1,689 2,660 1,225 1,184 2,461 840 INDIANA 481 1,465 664 6 9 15,710 4,282 747 969 270 202 450 90 79 205 419 KENTUCKY 19 818 371 1 2 3,737 267 210 83 204 292 58 385 124 165 62 LOUISIANA 1,766 22,913 10,393 125 202 47,346 4,086 3,468 4,447 5,839 2,442 2,011 1,151 1,110 726 946 MAINE 1,147 5,317 2,412 105 169 43,427 17,362 2,441 1,123 1,525 781 436 536 288 281 1,041 MARYLAND 1,429 35,060 15,903 72 116 74,933 4,951 3,782 6,416 8,514 1,187 3,866 1,208 989 528 1,450 MASSACHUSETTS 3,657 104,543 47,420 317 510 498,311 31,030 10,456 7,590 19,335 9,580 5,571 6,961 3,709 2,505 8,573 MICHIGAN 1,716 3,125 1,417 79 127 98,262 23,032 6,192 5,772 1,131 581 3,372 292 583 887 2,470 MINNESOTA 174 626 284 11 18 11,344 4,270 860 186 289 292 196 67 52 70 288 MISSISSIPPI 2,489 47,388 21,495 265 427 246,209 48,158 12,384 1,057 19,883 6,843 5,212 5,994 5,176 4,095 6,404 MISSOURI 10 46 21 3 4 505 104 59 4 41 20 6 4 10 3 13 MONTANA 7 12 5 1 2 23 – – – 2 9 – – 4 – – NEBRASKA 225 6,582 2,986 44 71 9,741 981 1,238 514 1,348 892 202 329 292 150 54 NEVADA 236 3,664 1,662 8 13 3 – – – 1 1 – 1 – – – NEW HAMPSHIRE 1,549 10,307 4,675 53 85 44,562 16,533 1,112 846 881 1,163 386 526 168 239 697 NEW JERSEY 4,931 34,648 15,716 200 322 188,184 27,102 23,277 14,822 8,792 3,262 19,822 3,078 4,705 3,867 4,487 NEW YORK 6,376 33,775 15,320 200 322 254,427 34,237 18,745 20,017 10,944 6,696 10,927 7,584 7,789 7,490 7,253 NORTH CAROLINA 5,182 73,416 33,301 396 637 114,895 39,667 8,057 5,101 10,370 6,653 2,525 2,162 3,591 940 1,191 OHIO 1,614 28,664 13,002 42 67 85,936 8,566 9,370 3,161 7,145 3,720 2,201 2,131 4,076 566 1,623 OKLAHOMA 59 1,867 847 7 12 2,540 687 246 68 142 213 161 78 73 34 3 OREGON 4,194 73,626 33,396 258 415 31,280 5,795 1,982 1,815 626 714 678 364 393 812 780 PENNSYLVANIA 13,527 861,656 390,841 62 99 74,176 28,053 9,508 5,873 7,365 4,463 71 1,923 2,783 108 2,615 RHODE ISLAND 2,635 16,502 7,485 101 162 156,921 34,036 12,150 8,534 7,371 4,773 4,552 4,231 2,866 2,857 3,666 SOUTH CAROLINA 1,885 20,427 9,266 285 459 68,743 16,836 4,129 3,397 5,733 2,503 1,635 2,189 1,312 437 1,876 TENNESSEE 35 673 305 10 16 318 24 50 7 27 14 7 1 12 1 10 TEXAS 15,442 505,703 229,383 609 981 142,930 12,186 6,909 16,875 7,857 4,101 4,744 2,220 2,712 2,690 2,426 UTAH 5 3 1 0.2 0.3 60 16 15 9 2 3 1 – 1 – – VERMONT 249 3,918 1,777 39 63 108,390 174 264 41 315 421 16 257 37 – – VIRGINIA 6,834 232,884 105,634 384 619 181,198 26,576 16,895 6,949 15,548 7,170 4,068 7,381 11,286 8,324 5,615 WASHINGTON 2,180 22,777 10,331 395 636 52,885 12,236 3,671 1,561 1,342 1,290 839 1,214 660 526 854 WISCONSIN 1,240 2,172 985 35 57 39,759 10,273 2,890 2,344 1,324 1,087 962 644 530 433 834 STATE NOT RECORDED 195 1,346 611 14 22 – – – – – – – – – – – GRAND TOTAL 209,643 3,743,118 1,697,851 12,051 19,392 5,860,996 842,837 345,241 286,678 242,534 168,855 144,464 111,682 96,815 93,917 92,209 U.S. CLEANUPS INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 19 STATE/LOCATIONPEOPLE POUNDSKILOGRAMSMILESKILOMETERS TOTAL ITEMS COLLECTED CIGARETTE BUTTS FOOD WRAPPERS PLASTIC BOTTLE CAPS PLASTIC BEVERAGE BOTTLES BEVERAGE CANS STRAWS, STIRRERS GLASS BEVERAGE BOTTLES PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS METAL BOTTLE CAPS OTHER PLASTIC/FOAM PACKAGING ALABAMA 3,795 35,928 16,297 217 350 96,745 18,332 6,668 6,150 6,546 5,475 3,132 2,730 2,094 2,252 1,842 ALASKA 526 2,436 1,105 57 92 20,055 1,981 1,113 447 269 351 99 115 133 150 673 ARIZONA 473 50,652 22,975 6 9 39,455 – – – 100 39,216 – 1 – – – ARKANSAS 83 5 2 27 43 10,483 2,500 650 453 51 34 857 16 39 371 20 CALIFORNIA 66,535 839,629 380,849 2,422 3,897 1,087,249 198,814 104,146 58,647 27,009 16,810 27,366 19,468 15,281 29,594 17,270 COLORADO 2,506 21,002 9,526 30 49 13,712 2,003 3,004 403 1,501 604 151 500 1,006 400 300 CONNECTICUT 2,799 28,427 12,894 157 253 856,718 32,884 10,157 6,941 10,141 4,019 3,557 3,361 1,816 4,062 1,913 DELAWARE 1,604 8,607 3,904 149 240 59,019 16,205 4,682 4,720 2,847 1,977 1,913 1,007 1,009 766 1,267 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 604 4,111 1,865 11 18 15,324 544 1,324 687 3,460 588 192 337 280 – – FLORIDA 21,010 173,552 78,722 2,904 4,674 644,422 95,679 37,683 74,420 31,948 18,545 26,500 14,009 14,190 10,562 8,431 GEORGIA 24,056 377,260 171,122 1,499 2,412 77,836 8,750 565 2,504 10,629 6,620 1,396 13,858 3,437 716 1,937 HAWAII 2,135 42,305 19,189 309 497 137,369 35,574 5,822 6,844 1,649 1,558 1,665 2,052 936 3,644 2,066 IDAHO 5 4 2 0.3 0.4 72 35 – 4 2 1 1 2 – – – ILLINOIS 2,024 3,278 1,487 135 217 205,782 18,016 8,320 4,877 2,216 1,689 2,660 1,225 1,184 2,461 840 INDIANA 481 1,465 664 6 9 15,710 4,282 747 969 270 202 450 90 79 205 419 KENTUCKY 19 818 371 1 2 3,737 267 210 83 204 292 58 385 124 165 62 LOUISIANA 1,766 22,913 10,393 125 202 47,346 4,086 3,468 4,447 5,839 2,442 2,011 1,151 1,110 726 946 MAINE 1,147 5,317 2,412 105 169 43,427 17,362 2,441 1,123 1,525 781 436 536 288 281 1,041 MARYLAND 1,429 35,060 15,903 72 116 74,933 4,951 3,782 6,416 8,514 1,187 3,866 1,208 989 528 1,450 MASSACHUSETTS 3,657 104,543 47,420 317 510 498,311 31,030 10,456 7,590 19,335 9,580 5,571 6,961 3,709 2,505 8,573 MICHIGAN 1,716 3,125 1,417 79 127 98,262 23,032 6,192 5,772 1,131 581 3,372 292 583 887 2,470 MINNESOTA 174 626 284 11 18 11,344 4,270 860 186 289 292 196 67 52 70 288 MISSISSIPPI 2,489 47,388 21,495 265 427 246,209 48,158 12,384 1,057 19,883 6,843 5,212 5,994 5,176 4,095 6,404 MISSOURI 10 46 21 3 4 505 104 59 4 41 20 6 4 10 3 13 MONTANA 7 12 5 1 2 23 – – – 2 9 – – 4 – – NEBRASKA 225 6,582 2,986 44 71 9,741 981 1,238 514 1,348 892 202 329 292 150 54 NEVADA 236 3,664 1,662 8 13 3 – – – 1 1 – 1 – – – NEW HAMPSHIRE 1,549 10,307 4,675 53 85 44,562 16,533 1,112 846 881 1,163 386 526 168 239 697 NEW JERSEY 4,931 34,648 15,716 200 322 188,184 27,102 23,277 14,822 8,792 3,262 19,822 3,078 4,705 3,867 4,487 NEW YORK 6,376 33,775 15,320 200 322 254,427 34,237 18,745 20,017 10,944 6,696 10,927 7,584 7,789 7,490 7,253 NORTH CAROLINA 5,182 73,416 33,301 396 637 114,895 39,667 8,057 5,101 10,370 6,653 2,525 2,162 3,591 940 1,191 OHIO 1,614 28,664 13,002 42 67 85,936 8,566 9,370 3,161 7,145 3,720 2,201 2,131 4,076 566 1,623 OKLAHOMA 59 1,867 847 7 12 2,540 687 246 68 142 213 161 78 73 34 3 OREGON 4,194 73,626 33,396 258 415 31,280 5,795 1,982 1,815 626 714 678 364 393 812 780 PENNSYLVANIA 13,527 861,656 390,841 62 99 74,176 28,053 9,508 5,873 7,365 4,463 71 1,923 2,783 108 2,615 RHODE ISLAND 2,635 16,502 7,485 101 162 156,921 34,036 12,150 8,534 7,371 4,773 4,552 4,231 2,866 2,857 3,666 SOUTH CAROLINA 1,885 20,427 9,266 285 459 68,743 16,836 4,129 3,397 5,733 2,503 1,635 2,189 1,312 437 1,876 TENNESSEE 35 673 305 10 16 318 24 50 7 27 14 7 1 12 1 10 TEXAS 15,442 505,703 229,383 609 981 142,930 12,186 6,909 16,875 7,857 4,101 4,744 2,220 2,712 2,690 2,426 UTAH 5 3 1 0.2 0.3 60 16 15 9 2 3 1 – 1 – – VERMONT 249 3,918 1,777 39 63 108,390 174 264 41 315 421 16 257 37 – – VIRGINIA 6,834 232,884 105,634 384 619 181,198 26,576 16,895 6,949 15,548 7,170 4,068 7,381 11,286 8,324 5,615 WASHINGTON 2,180 22,777 10,331 395 636 52,885 12,236 3,671 1,561 1,342 1,290 839 1,214 660 526 854 WISCONSIN 1,240 2,172 985 35 57 39,759 10,273 2,890 2,344 1,324 1,087 962 644 530 433 834 STATE NOT RECORDED 195 1,346 611 14 22 – – – – – – – – – – – GRAND TOTAL 209,643 3,743,118 1,697,851 12,051 19,392 5,860,996 842,837 345,241 286,678 242,534 168,855 144,464 111,682 96,815 93,917 92,209 TOP 10 ITEMS COLLECTED IN THE UNITED STATES 3 421 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 OCEAN CONSERVANCY STATUS UPDATEBUILDING A CLEAN SWELL THROUGH POLICY AND PARTNERSHIP As director of Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas® program, Nicholas Mallos oversees Ocean Conservancy’s marine debris work, including the annual International Coastal Cleanup, our ocean plastics research initiatives and the Trash Free Seas Alliance®, a co-operative group of businesses, conservationists and scientists focused on reducing plastic inputs into the ocean. Ocean Conservancy has been tackling marine debris for more than thirty years through the International Coastal Cleanup, and I’ve had the honor of participating in the past nine events. It’s with this hindsight that I can say with confidence that global momentum around this critical ocean issue is growing. For one, as our chief scientist George Leonard points out (page 9), the body of science continues to expand. More and more researchers are exploring critical elements of the problem, whether it’s the impact of sunlight on the molecular structure of plastic or the effectiveness of certain legislation (e.g., bag bans, bottle bills, etc.) in reducing plastic beach trash and the amount of trash and plastic flowing into the ocean. These studies, and the issue of ocean plastic more broadly, are making headlines. In September 2017, a photo of a seahorse clinging to a cotton swab off the coast of Bali was shared worldwide. That same month, activists petitioned the UN to recognize the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as a country, garnering global headlines. U.K.-based Sky News went so far as to launch Sky Ocean Rescue, dedicated exclusively to covering the challenges facing our ocean. The ocean plastic crisis is resonating with the public in far-reaching ways. When Ocean Conservancy launched our Skip the Straw campaign back in 2014, we had no idea how (un)popular this little object would become. Now, a variety of similar campaigns have cropped up around the world. Last year, BBC’s Blue Planet II series—which featured an episode on ocean threats, including marine debris—was the most-watched show in all of the U.K., and led the British government to take on plastic pollution as a policy issue, with the Queen banning straws and plastic bottles on royal estates. Governments around the world are making moves. In April 2017, Kenya banned plastic bags; and Vanuatu became the first country to ban straws in May 2018. Corporations, too, are taking action. At the World Economic Forum in January 2018, longtime Ocean Conservancy partner The Coca-Cola Company announced the ambitious goal of collecting one can or bottle for every such item sold. This came just a few months after the Trash Free Seas Alliance® announced the launch of the Closed Loop Ocean fund to accelerate investments in waste collection and recycling systems in Southeast Asia, where plastic leakage into the ocean is currently greatest. The list could go on, but suffice it to say that we at Ocean Conservancy and all the amazing people coordinating and volunteering through the International Coastal Cleanup are part of a bigger, global movement. We are collectively building a clean swell. In February 2018, Ocean Conservancy scientists conducted the first-ever ocean plastic baseline survey on the island of St. Helena. INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 21 Sponsor Spotlight: NOAA In March 2018, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—a longtime ICC partner and strong advocate for healthy, trash-free oceans—co-hosted the sixth International Marine Debris Conference (6IMDC) in San Diego, California. Approximately 700 people attended from all over the world: researchers, advocates and activists, and plastics manufacturers; people who work on beach cleanups and underwater cleanups; entrepreneurs developing new ways of tackling ocean plastic; artists; and more. Over 70 technical sessions covered all aspects of the marine debris problem, from grassroots organizing around plastic bag bans to corporate social responsibility on plastic production, from best practices in educating young students about ocean trash to social justice and inclusivity in the trash-free seas movement. One thing was absolutely clear: a lot of people care about marine debris and are working to solve the problem. And though a seventh IMDC has yet to be announced (they are not an annual event), the desire for more regular meetings like these was palpable. Rest assured that until the next one, Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas® team, and the many people dedicated to solving the marine debris crisis—including our ICC partners and volunteers—will continue working toward a healthy ocean free of trash. More than 70 ICC coordinators gathered in San Diego ahead of 6IMDC to swap stories and learn from one another. Bank of America The Coca-Cola Foundation National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Altria Group, Inc. Brunswick Public Foundation Cox Enterprises, Inc. The Dow Chemical Company The Forrest C. & Frances H. Lattner Foundation ITW The Martin Foundation Owens-Illinois Inc. Pacific Life Foundation DC CLEANUP PARTNER Patagonia OUTREACH PARTNERS Keep America Beautiful Project AWARE United Nations Environment Programme U.S. Department of State Waterkeeper Alliance Sponsoring Partners 2017 INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 22 OCEAN CONSERVANCY INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS GLOBAL Dive Against Debris® Underwater Cleanups Project AWARE Hannah Pragnell-Raasch ARGENTINA Asociación ReCrear Liliana Toranzo AUSTRALIA Tangaroa Blue Foundation Heidi Taylor BAHAMAS ABACO Friends of the Environment Olivia Patterson Maura GRAND BAHAMA ISLAND Bahamas Ministry of Tourism Jeffrey Pinder & Andre Cartwright BANGLADESH Kewkradong S. M. Muntasir Mamun BARBADOS Caribbean Youth Environment Network — Barbados Sade Dean & Jamilla Sealy BELIZE The Scout Association of Belize Ricardo N. Alcoser BERMUDA Keep Bermuda Beautiful Anne Hyde BRAZIL Instituto Gremar Resgate e Reabilitação de Animais Marinhos (GREMAR) Rosane Farah Fundação Mamíferos Aquáticos Daniela Araujo BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS Conservation & Fisheries Department Jasmine Bannis BRUNEI Coastal Cleanup Brunei Alan Tan CAMBODIA Marine Conservation Cambodia Nina Clayton CANADA Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup, Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre Kate Le Souef & Rachel Schoeler CAYMAN ISLANDS Dolphin Discovery Grand Cayman Lisa Leopardi CHILE Aquatic Environment Preservation Department, DIRECTMAR, Chilean Navy Macarena Maldifassi CHINA Shanghai Rendu NPO Development Centre Yonglong Liu COLOMBIA EcoPazifico Rommy Schreiber & Andrea Aramburo Fundación Bahía y Ecosistemas de Colombia Jose Yunis & Diana de la Vega Seaflower Research and Conservation Foundation & Help 2 Oceans Foundation Alexandra Pineda-Muñoz & Jorge Sánchez COSTA RICA Asociación Terra Nostra Giovanna Longhi CYPRUS ISOTECH and AKTI Project and Research Centre Demetra Orthodoxou DENMARK NOVASOL Coastal Care Cecilie Winther DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Fundación Vida Azul Oscar Oviedo & Laura Santana ECUADOR Mar y Ambiente Consultores Jaime Paredes FIJI Frontier Fiji Sarah Wilson GERMANY Kieler Forschungswerkstatt Henrike Bratz GHANA Smart Nature Freak Youth Volunteers Foundation of Accra-Ghana Tyler Kobla GREECE HELMEPA Constantinos Triantafillou & Christiana Prekezes GRENADA St. George’s University Dr. Clare Morrall GUAM Bureau of Statistics & Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program Patrick Keeler & Marilyn Guerrero GUYANA Caribbean Youth Environment Network — Guyana Elon McCurdy & Kiefer Jackson HONG KONG Hong Kong Cleanup Lisa Chistensen Green Council Issac Ho INDIA Indian Maritime Foundation Commodore P K Malhotra, Admiral K R Srinivasan & Tilbin Thambi INDONESIA Bali Hotel Association Jacinta Julianti Widiana & N.S. Widiari IRELAND Clean Coasts Ireland, An Taisce — Environmental Education Unit Sinead McCoy & Richard Curtin ISRAEL Ministry of Environmental Protection Galia Pasternak JAMAICA Jamaica Environment Trust Suzanne Stanley & Tamoy Singh JAPAN Japan Environmental Action Network Azusa Kojima & Yoshiko Ohkura OKINAWA Okinawa Int. Clean Beach Club’s I Love Okinawa Campaign by World O.C.E.A.N E Heinrich-Sanchez KENYA Kenya Conservation of Aquatic Resources David Olendo Watamu Marine Association Steve Trott World Student Community for Sustainable Development Ezra Onyango KUWAIT Kuwait Dive Team Dari AlHuwail MALAWI Malawi Beach and Underwater Cleanup Moses Laija Banda & Innocent Sopha Mjumira MALAYSIA The Body Shop Malaysia Cheryl Cheam, Jesse Siew & Loshini John Reef Check Malaysia Julian Hyde MARSHALL ISLANDS Marshall Islands BluCru Benedict Yamamura & Candice Guavis MAURITIUS Belle Verte Courtney Jenkins, Lee Foley & Virginia Lamarque MEXICO BAJA CALIFORNIA Proyecto Fronterizo Margarita Diaz COLIMA Universidad de Colima Lidia Silva Iñiguez QUINTANA ROO ARSE CARIBE Araceli Ramirez Lopez SONORA Centro Intercultural de Estudios de Desiertos y Oceanos Paloma Valdivia & Sherie Steele TAMAULIPAS Club Regatas Corona, A.C. Alejandra López de Román MOROCCO Surfrider Foundation Morocco Yassine Belhouari MOZAMBIQUE Dolphin Encounters Angie Gullan & Diana Rocha NETHERLANDS The North Sea Foundation Marijke Boonstra NICARAGUA Paso Pacifico Liza González & Sarah Otterstrom NIGERIA Marine and Coastal Conservation Society of Nigeria Oyeronke Adegbile NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality, Coastal Resources Division Coastal Resources Management Office William T. Pendergrass, Jihan Buniag, Mallory Muna & Janice Castro NORWAY Keep Norway Beautiful Lise Gulbransen & Malin Jacob PAKISTAN Scuba Adventures Pakistan Syed Mansoor Ahmed PANAMA Asociación Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (ANCON) & Fundación para la Protección del Mar (PROMAR) Jenny Echeverria & Ricardo Wong PERU VIDA — Instituto Para la Protección del Medio Ambiente Arturo Alfaro Medina PHILIPPINES ICC Philippines Geronimo P. Reyes Philippine Coast Guard Auxiliary Vice Admiral Valentin B. Prieto, Jr. PCGA PORTUGAL Portuguese Marine Litter Association João Frias Sailors for the Sea Portugal Mel Amancio & Isaac Silveira PUERTO RICO Scuba Dogs Society Silmarie Sánchez, Argenis Cátala Sánchez & Angela Perez RUSSIA Maritime State University Yana Blinovskaia SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS Nevis Historical & Conservation Society Nicole Liburd & Pauline Ngunjiri Department of Physical Planning and Environment Sylvester Belle 2017 CLEANUP COORDINATORS INTERNATIONAL COASTAL CLEANUP 23 SAINT LUCIA Caribbean Youth Environment Network — St. Lucia Marcia Dolor-Lashley SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES Sustainable Grenadines Inc. Kristy Shortte, Orisha Joseph & Martin Barriteau SENEGAL Barracuda Club Dakar Julie Bernier SINGAPORE Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, National University of Singapore N. Sivasothi SLOVENIA Eco Vitae Andreja Palatinus SOUTH AFRICA Plastics SA John Kieser Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Wayne Munger SOUTH KOREA Our Sea of East Asia Network Dr. Jongmyoung Lee & Sunwook Hong SPAIN Asociación Ambiente Europeo Daniel Rolleri SRI LANKA Marine Environment Protection Authority Jagath Gunasekara SURINAME Green Heritage Fund Suriname (GHFS) SWEDEN Clean Sweden Anton Hedlund TAIWAN Tse-Xin Oragnic Agriculture Foundation / Kuroshio Ocean Education Foundation Jing-Juan Hsu & Ron Shih TANZANIA Nipe Fagio Ltd. Cathy Hadlow & Anton Fouquet THAILAND Department of Marine and Coastal Resources Suhaitai Prasankul & Niphon Phongsuwan Global Vision International Katie Woodroffe TRINIDAD & TOBAGO Caribbean Network for Integrated Rural Development Marissa Mohamed TURKEY TURMEPA Şeyda Dağdeviren Hill U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS ST. CROIX University of the Virgin Islands — VIMAS Marcia Taylor ST. JOHN Friends of the Virgin Islands National Park Karen Jarvis ST. THOMAS University of the Virgin Islands Howard Forbes, Jr. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES A Beach Cleanup Dubai (ABCD) Mostafa Ibrahiem Emirates Diving Association Reema Abbas & Ibrahim Al-Zubi Dubai Municipality, Environment Department Zehra Zawawi UNITED KINGDOM Marine Conservation Society Lauren Eyles URUGUAY EcoPlata, MVOTMA Cristina Quintas VANUATU Vanuatu Environmental Science Society Dr. Christina Shaw VENEZUELA FUDENA Déborah Bigio, Luisa Escobar, & Nelson Ovalles VIETNAM Centre for Marinelife Conservation and Community Development Hoang Anh GreenHub — IUCN — Bhaya Group Nguyen Thu Trang, Nguyen Bich Hien & Darius Postma The Body Shop Vietnam Mr. Tu Bui US PARTNERS ALABAMA ADCNR State Lands Division Coastal Section Angela Underwood ALASKA Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies Henry Reiske ARKANSAS Arkansas Department of Parks & Tourism Julie Lovett CALIFORNIA California Coastal Commission Eben Schwartz COLORADO Colorado Springs Utilities Allison Plute CONNECTICUT Save the Sound, Connecticut Fund for the Environment Annalisa Paltauf DELAWARE Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control Joanna Wilson DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Ocean Conservancy Tess Krasne FLORIDA Multiple Coordinators GEORGIA Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Rivers Alive Harold Harbert HAWAII Keep the Hawaiian Islands Beautiful Chris Woolaway ILLINOIS Alliance for the Great Lakes Gabby Petrelli & Tyrone Dobson INDIANA Alliance for the Great Lakes Gabby Petrelli & Tyrone Dobson LOUISIANA Save Our Lake, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation Joann Haydel MAINE Maine Coastal Program Theresa Torrent MARYLAND National Aquarium Stephanie Mathias & Geri Schlenoff MASSACHUSETTS Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Robin Lacey MICHIGAN Alliance for the Great Lakes Jillian Edwards & Tyrone Dobson MINNESOTA Alliance for the Great Lakes Jillian Edwards & Tyrone Dobson MISSISSIPPI Mississippi Marine Debris Task Force Ed Cake, Cyndi Moncreiff & Eric Sparks NEBRASKA Keep Nebraska Beautiful Jane Poleson NEW HAMPSHIRE Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservation Jen Kennedy NEW JERSEY New Jersey Clean Communities Council Sandy Huber & Paula Berg Clean Ocean Action Catie Tobin NEW YORK American Littoral Society Natalie Grant NORTH CAROLINA Multiple Coordinators OHIO Alliance for the Great Lakes Tyrone Dobson Partners for Clean Streams Jessica Batanian & Mike Mathis OREGON SOLVE Joy Hawkins PENNSYLVANIA Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful Michelle Dunn RHODE ISLAND Save the Bay July Lewis SOUTH CAROLINA South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium Susan Ferris Hill S.C. Dept. of Health & Environmental Control, Adopt-A-Beach Program Liz Hartje TEXAS Texas General Land Office Reneé Tuggle VERMONT Rozalia Project for a Clean Ocean Rachael Miller & Ashley Sullivan VIRGINIA Clean Virginia Waterways — Longwood University Katie Register & Sandy Miller WASHINGTON Puget Soundkeeper Alliance Kathryn Davis Washington CoastSavers Jon Schmidt WISCONSIN Alliance for the Great Lakes Todd Brennan & Tyrone Dobson NIGERIA 24 OCEAN CONSERVANCY MANAGING EDITOR Jordana Merran SCIENCE REVIEWERS George Leonard, PhD Chelsea Rochman, PhD DESIGN Dever Designs PRINTING Linemark PHOTO CREDITS Front Cover: Nigeria, Shine Gabienu Inside Front Cover: Mexico, Alejandra López de Román Page 2: NorthernMarianaIslands, Jihan Younis, Bureau of Environmental and Coastal Quality; Florida,USA, Keep Palm Beach County Beautiful; Nigeria, Shine Gabienu; Hawaii,USA, Keep the Hawaiian Islands Beautiful Page 3: Kenya, Watamu Marine Association; NewYork,USA, Hunter Newby; Ecuador, Santiago Diaz; HongKong, Lisa Christensen Page 4: Florida,USA, Apalachicola Riverkeeper; Jamaica, Jamaica Environment Trust; Vietnam, Centre for Marinelife Conservation and Community Development Page 5: California,USA, Kimberly Heinrichs; Senegal, Marios Savva; PuertoRico, Scuba Dogs Society Pages 6-7: SouthAfrica, Megan-Rose Francis, Two Oceans Aquarium SEA Team; England, Tom Green; Scotland, Catherine Gemmell; California,USA, Ocean Conservancy/Clean Swell; Texas,USA, Ocean Conservancy/Clean Swell; Maldives, Shafraz Naeem; Kenya, U.S. Embassy Nairobi; Norway, Pukka Travels; UnitedArabEmirates, Emirates Marine Environmental Group; Washington,D.C.,USA, Joy Asico Page 8: Washington,D.C.,USA, Joy Asico; U.S.Capitolicon, adapted from original created by MRFA, The Noun Project Page 9: NewHampshire,USA,Ocean Conservancy/Clean Swell; Malaysia, Ocean Conservancy/Clean Swell; Brunei,Ocean Conservancy/ Clean Swell Page 20: St.Helena, Nicholas Mallos Page 21: California,USA, Lisa Ristuccia Page 23: Nigeria, Shine Gabienu Page 24: Vietnam, Centre for Supporting Green Development TRASH FREE SEAS® PROGRAM Nicholas Mallos Allison Schutes Eric DesRoberts Sarah Kollar Tess Krasne Mathilde Badoud ACKNOWLEDGMENTS VIETNAM 1300 19th Street, NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036 With offices in Alaska and on the West, Gulf and East coasts. TOLL-FREE +1 800.519.1541 FOLLOW US www.oceanconservancy.org facebook.com/oceanconservancy twitter.com/ourocean instagram.com/oceanconservancy Food Ware Ordinance Pilot Report Food Ware Ordinance Pilot Report - Straws |3 FOOD WARE ORDINANCE PILOT REPORT - STRAWS INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Monica has become a global leader in sustainability by setting clear goals for reducing resource consump- tion. In 2008, Santa Monica implemented the Non-Recyclable Food Service Container Ban.¹ The ban was an important first step in eliminating plastics from our beaches. The city followed that up in 2011 with a ban on single-use carryout bags and regulated the use of paper carryout bags in Santa Monica retail establishments, further helping to eliminate plastics from our beaches.² Now the city needs to address the issue of plastic straw pollution. Reducing the distribution of plastic straws has to be balanced against local businesses taking on an excessive burden. To that end, Sustainable Works conducted a survey of 13 foodservice businesses to determine the best way to move forward. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Americans use 500 million drinking straws every day and plastic straws can’t be recycled. For more than 20 years, plastic straws have been among the top 10 items found at beach clean ups. Plastic straws contain polypropylene; a petroleum bi-product that have a very negative impact on the environment. Upon disposing of the straw, the picture isn’t pretty either. “Nearly every piece of plastic ever made, regardless of whether it has been recycled, still exists. And while polypropylene is a versatile plastic, straws are small and hard to pick out when workers sift through recycling, meaning they are rarely recov- ered.”³ Straws are then individually wrapped in sleeves or bulk-packed in plastic or cardboard containers. As plastic straws never completely biodegrade – they breakdown into tiny micro plastic pieces that persist for hundreds of years in our soil, air and ocean. “90% of all trash floating in the world’s ocean is comprised of plastic.” [Surfrider Foundation]. These facts are causing a serious issue for the county of Los Angeles and even more for the city of Santa Monica as Santa Monica’s financial health relies heavily on tourism.⁴ Santa Monica promotes how beautiful our city is, as a beachfront city surrounded by mountains. However, pollution on our streets and beaches is an eye sore and a health hazard.⁵ Furthermore, the Santa Monica foodservice industry prides itself on serving delicious drinks and food, but their use of plastic straws contradicts the statement made by Santa Monica Travel and Tourism;⁶ “Santa Monica provides many eco-friendly restaurants, hotels, attractions and transportation alternatives so you can travel guilt-free and protect the destination you love to visit.” A good majority of the litter ending up in the Santa Monica Bay is comprised of plastic⁷ as a result of discarded straws, lids and to-go containers on the streets, eventually ending up in the ocean. Beverage-related items, including cups, straws and lids, account for roughly 40% of the trash in our environment. Plastic pollution is a major problem, in fact it’s estimated that by 2050 there will be more plastic in the sea by mass than fish.⁸ Plastic in the ocean is often consumed by fish, resulting in the contamination of seafood. Wild seafood from all over the world is consumed by Santa Monica residents and tourists. If this cycle continues, we will lose the opportunity to enjoy healthy beaches and consume ocean fish. Santa Monica is located within a fragile eco-system. To maintain our fragile eco-system, along with our “Sustainable Santa Monica” reputation and status, we must join the anti-plastic fight along with other ocean adjacent California cities such as Malibu, by banning single use disposable items, like plastic straws and cutlery.⁹ “Visitor spending injected $1.87 billion into the local Santa Monica economy in 2016. Visitor spending within the accommodation, dining, retail and activity spaces continues to be a true economic engine for the city, and a fundamental element of the strength of Santa Monica‘s local economy” -Santa Monica Travel and Tourism website Food Ware Ordinance Pilot Report - Straws RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES What if Santa Monica could start building an even “cleaner and greener” reputation? Like when people visit Canadian cities and often comment on how “litter-free’ the streets are in comparison to USA cities. Wouldn’t it be great for a USA city to have a similar reputation as Canadian cities? As it has been said before, small changes can make big positive impacts. By eliminating the distribution of plastic straws from restaurants, cafes, bars, and grocers serving drinks made to order, we can make a big dent in the number of straws ending up in the Santa Monica Bay. The average Santa Monica resident is unaware of the impact of plastic straws on the natural environment and our city. Most individuals have the false belief that all plastic used can be recycled and/or is recycled. On the disposal end, the picture isn’t pretty either. Nearly every piece of plastic ever made, regardless of whether it has been recycled, still exists."¹⁰ The main objective of this pilot study is to survey Santa Monica foodser- vice establishments to gage their reaction to two ideas: • Eliminating or minimizing the use of plastic straws by only “providing straws upon request”. • Discontinuing the purchase of plastic straws, replacing with paper straws. STUDY POPULATION AND SAMPLING We surveyed 13 foodservice businesses that distribute straws – ranging in sector from small (less than 5 employees) to large (100+ employees) as follows: • 7 restaurants - 4 independently owned - 3 franchises • 3 bars; independently owned • 2 cafes - 1 independent - 1 LLC • 1 grocer - Co-op STUDY PERIOD • Surveys were conducted from Feb 22 – Apr 9, 2018 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE The following questions comprised of the survey: 1. Do servers currently provide straws only upon request? 2. What type of straws are currently purchased (plastic, paper etc.)? 3. Name of company that supplies your straws? 4. Price paid per box/ # straws per box 5. Number of straws distributing per month? 6. Cost spent on straws per month? 7. Considering switching to biodegradable straws? List type i.e. paper, bamboo, etc. 8. Are there barriers to switching to paper straws? If so, what are they? 9. Does current supplier offer non-plastic straw alternatives? List types they offer. 10. Would you display materials regarding a “straw only upon re- quest” ordinance? B. Spanish translation needed? “Never doubt that a that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” -Margaret Mead Plastic straw wrapped in plastic wrap – Subway Groundwork Coffee Main St. straw box |5 Business Name Food ser- vice Type Ownership BID Size Contact Food Served/ Alcohol Hours Straw Upon request? Bru's Wiffle LLC Restaurant Independent LLC N/A S Chelsea, GM Breakfast/ Lunch only 8am - 3pm YES Locanda del Lago +Caffe Bella Restaurant Independent DTSM M Megan Heritage Full Service w liquor license + Bella Annex 8am - 10pm YES Subway Restaurant Franchise Pico M Mario, Manager Sandwiches & salads 6am-12am YES Grey Block Pizza Restaurant Independent Pico M Dagamara Pizza 10am- 10pm depends on drink The Daily Pint Bar Independent Pico M Kathleen, Manager Bar only + snacks (no cooked food) 2pm-2am (later on Wed) depends on drink Bareburger Restaurant Franchise Main St M Mark Turner, Owner Full service w liquor license 11:30am- 10pm YES Back on the beach Restaurant Independent N/A M Jim Christel Full service w liquor license Oct-May: 8am-3pm Summer: 8am-8pm YES Cafe Bolivar Cafe Independent Ocean Park S Jose Coffee + Juices -light foods 7am-7pm M-Sat Co-op Grocer N/A L Aung Grocer w deli + food bar 7am-10pm YES Ground- work Coffee LLC Cafe Independent LLC Main St S Miguel "Coffee + patries, premade sandwiches 6am-6pm YES JINYA Ra- men Bar Restaurant Franchise Main St M Jessie Full service w liquor license 11:30am- 11pm NO The Craftsman Bar Independent DTSM S John, Manager Bar with full-service kitchen 4pm- 1:50am Kitchen: 4pm-10pm depends on drink The Brixton Bar Independent Pico M David, Manager Bar only + packaged snacks M-Th 11:30am- 10pm Wknds open later depends on drink The following 13 Foodservice managers and/or owners were surveyed by phone, email or in person: Food Ware Ordinance Pilot Report - Straws RESPONSIVE THEMES After several attempts with contacting business owners and/or managers by phone, email and in-person the results were: • 10 / 13 foodservice businesses were able to answer all survey questions during the study period. • 6/10 businesses required several weeks to check their purchasing orders/ gather information from appropriate personnel to provide answers to questions #4, 5 and 6 above. • In order for Sustainable Works to obtain the requested numbers for the remaining six businesses, over 5 attempts by phone, email and in-person were performed. • 3/ 13 businesses were not able to access/ provide the data for questions 4,5 and 6 within the study period due to lack of staffing bandwidth and/or time to gather the information requested • 10/13 businesses responded that current suppliers offer alternatives to plastic straws naming paper and PLA (plant based plastic) straws. RESPONSES BY SECTOR Restaurants In this study, restaurants seemed the most open foodservice establishment to switch to paper straws and /or provide straws upon request. • Independent - 3/ 3 are considering switching to paper straws OR have already switched to paper i.e. Back on the Beach - 2/ 3 are considering paper straws with concern about the increased cos - 1/ 3 are concerned about paper straws will disintegrate into beverages and as a result will ruin enjoyment/ experience of the beverage i.e. Locanda del Lago/ Caffe Bella • Franchise - 1/3 already switched to paper i.e. Bareburger - 2/3 would only switch to paper or other compostable straws if mandated by law - 1/3 attempted ‘providing upon request’ but it added too much time for servers to walk to counter to get a straw, so they went back to placing straws in all drinks including water i.e, Jinya Ramen - Jinya was told by Health Dept. that servers would need to carry wrapped straws in apron, which they feel is a waste of paper in addition to adding cost. Cafes In this study, coffee focused establishments seemed fairly open to switch to paper straws once they find a straw that will “stand up to” not disintegrating in a hot liquid. Expressed that some iced coffee beverages, like blended ones, require a straw to be enjoyed; therefore it would not make sense to provide straws upon request for these types of beverages. • 2/2 are in process of considering switching to paper straws • 1/ 2 are slightly concerned that paper will disintegrate more quickly in a hot beverage but they would still be agree- able to attempting paper Bars In this study bars seemed least open to switch to paper straws and/or provide straws upon request. • 2/ 3 are not considering switching to paper straws • 2/ 3 are concerned about paper straws due to increase in cost i.e. The Brixton, Daily Pint • 2/ 3 bars do not want to switch to paper and would only do it if required i.e. Brixton and Daily Pint (bars only serv- ing no food) • 1/ 3 oppose providing straws upon request, expressing it would reduce beverage sales due to belief that people consume beverages 15-20 faster with a straw i.e. Brixton • 1/3 oppose providing straws up on request OR switching to paper straws as a small business owner already strug- gling to stay in business. They feel implementing either would result in losing their business i.e. Brixton • 1/ 3 bars prefer banning straws over implementing ‘straws upon request’ i.e. the Craftsman |7 RESPONSES BY SIZE OF BUSINESS IMPLEMENTING A BAN ON STRAWS Support Without being prompted with the question, 2/10 businesses expressed supporting a ban on straws i.e. Back on the Beach and The Craftsman SWITCHING TO PAPER STRAWS Support 2/ 10 businesses not currently using paper straws, support switching with no barriers. 6/ 10 businesses not currently using paper straws support switching but are concerned with increase. Barriers 75% of the businesses surveyed expressed the main barrier is increased cost as shown below in Figure 1. Food Ware Ordinance Pilot Report - Straws ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO SURVEY ANSWERS Displaying Materials Regarding a ‘straw only upon request’ ordinance? • 9/ 13 businesses responded YES • 2/13 businesses responded NO • 1/13 businesses responded UNSURE • 3/ 13 businesses responded YES to having the signs be translated into Spanish Comments from Restaurants currently using paper straws (Back on the Beach) • Majority of customers are happy to use paper straws, but many are resistant. • Plastic straws keep up better than paper straws. • Usually females who wear lipstick prefer the ‘mouth-feel’ of a smooth plastic straws. • Bees wax coated paper straws break down and get a little mushy after several sips due to the heat and moisture of mouth/lips. • Part of the straw that is submerged in the iced beverage stays intact because of the cold liquid. Sample Comments from Back on the Beach customers “Just in case the cup is dirty, I prefer to use a straw. It is more sanitary/ safer to use a straw.” “I want a straw so I don’t ruin my lipstick by drinking out of the glass” “I don’t like the feel of the paper straw on my lips and it removes my lipstick. I prefer the smooth feel of a plastic straw. Can I have a plastic straw instead?” CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Sustainable Works recommends implementing ‘straws upon request’ for: • Restaurants • Cafes • Grocers serving hot and cold beverages made to order 2. Sustainable Works recommends implementing a ban on plastic straws with a recommendation to switching to paper straws in conjunction with a ‘straws upon request’ policy for: • Restaurants • Cafes • Grocers serving hot and cold beverages made to order 3. Sustainable Works recommends performing an in-person focus group with 7-10 Bars that serve drinks only (no food) for the following reasons already expressed in this pilot study: • Bars seem the most concerned with implementing ‘straws upon request’ and switching to paper straws due to the associated cost increases. • It is a fact that bars’ bottom line rely solely on beverage sales. • Bar owners feel they have a high chance of being negatively affected by requiring them to switch to paper and/or implement ‘straws upon request’. • Sustainable Works feels all bars surveyed in this study will be open to attending a focus group scheduled in the morning. |9 ENDNOTES 1 City of Santa Monica. 2017. Business Non-Recyclable Food Service Container Ban. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www. smgov.net/Departments/OSE/Business/Non-Recyclable_Food_Service_Container_Ban.aspx. Last accessed 12th Apr 2018. 2 City of Santa Monica. 2017. Business Bag Ban Frequently Asked Questions. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.smgov. net/Departments/OSE/Business/Bag_Ban_Frequently_Asked_Questions.aspx. Last accessed 10th Apr 2018. 3 Gaelle Gourmelon. (2015). PLASTIC STRAWS: A LIFE CYCLE. Available: http://blogs.worldwatch.org/plastic-straws-a-life- cycle/. Last accessed 10th Apr 2018. 4 Santa Monica Travel and Tourism. (2016). ECONOMIC VALUE OF TOURISM. Available: https://www.santamonica.com/ about-smtt/economic-value-of-tourism/. Last accessed 10th Apr 2018. 5 Heal the Bay (2016). Santa Monica Beach Most Polluted In LA County. Available: http://www.smobserved.com/sto- ry/2016/06/03/news/santa-monica-beach-most-polluted-in-la-county/1321.html. Last accessed 10th Apr 2018. 6 Santa Monica Travel and Tourism. (2018). GO GREEN IN SANTA MONICA. Available: https://www.santamonica.com/go- green-santa-monica/. Last accessed 10th Apr 2018. 7 Benjamin Kay. (2017). Barrage of Plastic Pollutants Entering Santa Monica Bay from Monday Rains Goes Viral. Available: http://www.smobserved.com/story/2017/01/22/science/barrage-of-plastic-pollutants-entering-santa-monica-bay-from- monday-rains-goes-viral/2296.html. Last accessed 10th Apr 2018. 8 Heal the Bay. (2017). Make it a Strawless Summer All Year Round. Available: https://healthebay.org/make-strawless-sum- mer-year-round/. Last accessed 10th Apr 2018. 9 Amanda Lee Myers. (2018). Last Straw: Malibu Bans Plastic Straws and Cutlery. Available: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/ news/local/Last-Straw-Malibu-Bans-Plastic-Straws-and-Cutlery-475321753.html. Last accessed 10th Apr 2018. 10 Gaelle Gourmelon. (2015). PLASTIC STRAWS: A LIFE CYCLE. Available: http://blogs.worldwatch.org/plastic-straws-a-life- cycle/. Last accessed 10th Apr 2018. 1 City Council Meeting: August 14, 2018 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER 2216 (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING CHAPTER 5.44 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF NON-MARINE DEGRADABLE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND POLYSTYRENE BEVERAGE LIDS WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica (“City”) has been a leader in setting goals for sustainable resource consumption, including maintaining ecosystems in order to provide clean water from sustainable sources, keeping marine waters safe for active and passive recreation, supporting a sustainable climate that supports thriving human life and a flourishing biodiverse environment, and implementing comprehensive waste disposal systems that do not degrade the environment; and WHEREAS, the state Legislature has recognized that littered plastic products have caused and continue to cause significant environmental harm and have burdened local governments with significant environmental cleanup costs (California Public Resources Code Section 42355); and WHEREAS, the state Legislature has further declared its intent to ensure that environmental marketing claims, including claims of biodegradation of plastics, do not lead to an increase in environmental harm associated with plastic litter by providing 2 consumers with a false belief that certain plastic products are less harmful to the environment (California Public Resources Code Section 42355); and WHEREAS, over one hundred municipalities in California, including the City, have adopted ordinances prohibiting or restricting polystyrene food service ware and requiring the utilization of cost-effective reusable, recyclable, or biodegradable alternatives, which have reduced the volume of polystyrene products in our waste streams and throughout our natural environment; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to prohibit the distribution of certain non-marine degradable disposable food service ware and polystyrene beverage lids by food and beverage providers within the City in order to promote health, safety, and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 5.44 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 5.44 NON-MARINE DEGRADABLE NONRECYCLABLE PLASTIC DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE CONTAINERS 5.44.010 Definitions. (a) “Director” means the Director of Public Works or his or her designee.“Biodegradable” refers to the ability of a material to decompo se into elements normally found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after disposal. 3 (b) “City facilities” refers to buildings and structures owned or leased by the City of Santa Monica. (cb) “Disposable food service warecontainer” means single-use disposable products used in the restaurant and food service industry for serving or transporting prepared, ready-to-consume food or beverages. This Disposable food service ware includes, but is not limited to, plates, cups, bowls, trays, and hinged or lidded containers, straws, stirrers, lid plugs, and utensils. This Disposable food service ware does not include single-use disposable items such as straws, cupbeverage lids, or utensils, nor does it include single-use disposablepackaging for unprepared foods or beverages. (d) “Expanded polystyrene” (EPS) means polystyrene that has been expanded or “blown” using a gaseous blowing agent into a solid foam (ec) “Food or beverage provider” means any business, organization, entity, group, or individual providing prepared food or beverages for public consumption on or off its premises within the City of Santa Monica. any establishment, located or providing food within the City of Santa Monica, which provides prepared food for public consumption on or off its premises and includes without limitation any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, grocery store, supermarket, delicatessen, catering truck or vehicle, or any other person who provides prepared food; and any organization, group or individual which regularly provides food as a part of its services. (f) “Nonrecyclable plastic” refers to any plastic which cannot be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program in the State of California, including polystyrene and expanded polystyrene. 4 (d) “Marine degradable” means products recognized as “marine degradable” under California state law, Public Resources Code Section 42357, or designed to biodegrade under the marine environmental conditions of aerobic marine waters or anaerobic marine sediments in less than 120 days. Products predominantly made with plastics, either petroleum or biologically based, shall not be considered marine degradable. (ge) “Polystyrene” means a synthetic material made from polymerizing styrene. This type of plastic can be identified as Plastic #6. and includes expanded polystyrene which is a thermoplastic petrochemical material utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, form molding, and extrusion - blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). The term “polystyrene” also includes clear or solid polystyrene which is known as “oriented polystyrene”. (hg) “Prepared food” means any food or beverage prepared for consumption on the food provider’s premises, using any cooking or food preparation technique. This does not include any raw uncooked meat, fish or eggs unless provided for consumption without further food preparation. (i) “Recyclable plastic” means any plastic which can be feasibly recycled by a municipal recycling program in the State of California. Recyclable plastics comprise those plastics with the recycling symbols No. 1 through No. 5 including polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), and polypropylene (PP). 5 5.44.020 Prohibition on the use of non-marine degradable recyclable plastic disposable food service warecontainers. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this ChapterSection 5.44.030, a food or and beverage providers shall dispense are prohibited from dispensing prepared food or beverages to customers only in marine degradable disposable food service warecontainers made from expanded polystyrene. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this ChapterSection 5.44.030, a food or beverage provider shall not use polystyrene lids when dispensing beverages to customers food providers are prohibited from dispensing prepared food to customers in disposable food service containers made from nonrecyclable plastic . (c) A food or beverage provider shall provide marine degradable disposable straws and utensils to customers only upon request. A food or beverage provider may ask customers whether disposable straws or disposable utensils are needed. (d) All City facilities, whether owned or leased by the City, City-managed concessions, City-sponsored events, and City-permitted events shall use only marine degradable disposable food service ware to dispense prepared food or beverages. City facilities, whether owned or leased by the City, City-managed concessions, City- sponsored events, and City-permitted events and shall not use polystyrene lids when dispensing beverages. are prohibited from using disposable food service containers made from expanded polystyrene or nonrecyclable plastic . 6 5.44.030 Exemptions. (a) The Director may exempt a food or beverage provider from the requirements of this Chapter, in whole or in part, upon showing by the food or beverage provider that complying with the requirements of this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship to the food or beverage provider and no reasonable alternative exists that is consistent with the requirements of this Chapter and would mitigate such significant economic hardship. (b) Exemptions shall be granted only in one -year intervals and only upon written application by the food and beverage provider setting forth the factual basis for the exemption. The Director of the Environmental and Public Works Management Department (EPWM), or his/her designee, may exempt a food provider from the requirements of this Chapter for a one-year period, upon showing by the food provider that the conditions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. An “undue hardship” shall be found in: (1) Situations unique to the food provider where there are no reasonable alternatives to expanded polystyrene or nonrecyclable plastic disposable food service containers and compliance with this Chapter would cause significant economic hardship to that food provider; (2) Situations where no reasonably feasible available alternatives exist to a specific and necessary expanded polystyrene or nonrecyclable plastic food container. 7 A food provider granted an exemption by the City must re-apply prior to the end of the one-year exemption period and demonstrate continued undue hardship, if it wishes to have the exemption extended. Extensions may only be granted for intervals not to exceed one year. (b) An exemption application shall include all information necessary for the City to make its decision, including but not limited to documentat ion showing the factual support for the claimed exemption. The Director may require the applicant to provide additional information to permit the Director to determine facts regarding the exemption application. (c) The Director may approve the exemption application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. (dc) Exemption decisions are shall be effective immediately and shall not be subject to administrative appealand final and are not appealable. 5.44.040 Regulations Enforcement and notice of violations. (a) The Director is authorized to promulgate regulations to implement the provisions of this Chapter. (b) The Director may authorize food and beverage providers as well as City facility, City-managed concessions, City-sponsored events, and City-permitted events to retain and dispense upon request a limited number of disposable plastic drinking straws to customers with medical conditions for whom flexible marine degradable straws are unsuitable or to the caretakers of such customers. 8 5.44.050 Enforcement, penalties, and fines. (a) Any person violating any provision of this Chapter, including any administrative regulation authorized herein, shall be guilty of an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine of not more than two hundred and fifty dollars per violation. (b) Any person violating any provision of this Chapter, including any administrative regulation authorized herein, may be subject to administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 1.09 of this Code. (c) The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or any other relief to enforce this Chapter, including any administrative regulation authorized herein. The Director of EPWM or designee shall have primary responsibility for enforcement of this Chapter and the Director of EPWM or designee shall have a uthority to issue citations for violation of this Chapter. The Director of EPWM or designee is authorized to establish regulations or administrative procedures and to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to further the purposes of this Chapter or to obtain compliance with this Chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any vendor’s premises to verify compliance in accordance with applicable law. 9 (b) Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter or of any regulation or administrative procedure authorized by it shall be guilty of an infraction. (c) The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or any other relief to enforce this Chapter and any regulation or administrative procedure authorized by it . (d) The remedies and penalties provided in this Chapter are cumulative and not exclusive of one another. 5.44.050 Penalties and fines for violations. Violations of this Chapter shall be enforced as follows: (a) For the first violation, the Director of EPWM or designee, upon determination that a violation of this Chapter has occurred, shall issue a written warning notice to the food provider which will specify the violation and the appropriate penalties in the event of future violations. (b) Thereafter, the following penalties shall apply: (1) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for the first violation following the issuance of a warning notice. (2) A fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars for the second and any other violation that occurs following the issuance of a warning notice. (c) Fines are cumulative and each day that a violation occurs shall constitute a separate violation. 10 5.44.060 Effective Dates. (a) No food provider shall distribute or utilize disposable food service containers containing expanded polystyrene or nonrecyclable pl astic on or after one year following the adoption of the ordinance codified in this Chapter by the City Council. (b) No City facilities, City-managed concessions, City-sponsored events or City- permitted events shall distribute or utilize disposable food service containers containing expanded polystyrene or non-recyclable plastic on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter. SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. 11 SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ LANE DILG City Attorney I t e m 7 - E 0 8 / 1 4 / 1 8 1 o f 5 I t e m 7 - E 0 8 / 1 4 / 1 8 1 Vernice Hankins From:Mary <hubbellmary@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 14, 2018 10:17 AM To:Ted Winterer; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez; Pam OConnor Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:Agenda Item: 7.E Prohibiting Distribution of Non-Marine Degradable Food Service Ware Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers: I urge you to support reduction of single use plastics in our city by approving the proposed ordinance to Prohibit Distribution of Non‐Marine Degradable Food Service Ware. This is a huge improvement, however; it needs to be further amended to include cup lids and all those supposedly “reusable” plastic bags now being distributed in our local markets. They are just as polluting as the plastic bags that were previously banned. I’ve learned from our Office of Sustainability & the Environment that the use of these bags are the result of language in the plastic ban legislation that allowed for thicker plastic bags. They are now showing up in the ocean and on our shorelines and we need to ban them. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mary Hubbell Ocean Park Sent from my iPad Item 7-E 08/14/18 2 of 5 Item 7-E 08/14/18 CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION | 1215 K Street, Suite 700 | Sacramento, CA | T: 916.448.3545 | F: 916.448.2793 | www.cagrocers.com August 14, 2018 The Honorable Ted Winterer Mayor, City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA RE: Food Packaging Ordinance Dear Mayor Winterer, On behalf of the California Grocers Association, I write to inform you of initial concerns with the regulation of food packaging. As food retailers our primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of food packaged in-store. As grocers we must ensure the quality and freshness of prepared foods both at the store and with the consumer at home. With these two mandates in mind we choose varying packaging types to accomplish these specific tasks. Since the draft ordinance has been made available we have been able to discuss with city staff our food safety and quality concerns. We appreciate Santa Monica retaining the current definition of “Prepared Foods” to provide clarity and the opportunity to ensure shelf-stable prepared foods can be properly packaged. Grocers offer a wide variety of prepared foods each with their own packaging needs. For example, raw meat packaging needs to perform well at cold holding temperatures of 40 degrees or below. Many cooked products need to withstand hot holding temperatures of 140 degrees or above. There are also items that require packaging that can keep food shelf stable both in-store and at home with the consumer for numerous days, even weeks. Any prohibition on using the necessary packaging type could jeopardize the safety and quality of the prepared food. Retaining the existing definition of “Prepared Food” provides grocers clarity so we can package items appropriately to ensure safe and fresh food products. It is also important to consider the impacts of eliminating a specific type of food packaging. There can be unintended, negative consequences when choosing one type of packaging over another. Along with safety and quality concerns replacement packaging options can be more resource intensive, more difficult to properly dispose of and can significantly increase costs. It can be a move backwards to require packaging that does not perform as well and increases the cost to provide food. It should also be noted that replacement food packaging does not exist for all uses. We believe the staff recommendations removes many of these concerns for grocery food items. We respectfully ask the Council to accept the staff recommendations regarding definitions and shelf- stable foods. We would also like to show appreciation for the open access for stakeholders to communicate with the city. Please consider us a partner and resource as you continue to consider food packaging options. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, TIMOTHY M. JAMES Sr. Manager, Local Government Relations cc: Members, Santa Monica City Council Item 7-E 08/14/18 3 of 5 Item 7-E 08/14/18 1 August 14, 2018 Mayor Ted Winterer City Councilmembers City of Santa Monica 1685 Main St. Santa Monica, CA 90401 Via Email To: Sue Himmelrich, Mayor Ted Winterer, Mayor Pro Tempore Gleam Davis, Kevin McKeown, Tony Vazquez, Pam O'Connor, Terry O’Day; via council@smgov.net. Re: Support with revisions for Agenda Item 7.E (August 14, 2018 Council Agenda) on the Ordinance Modification Prohibiting Distribution of Non-Marine Degradable Food Service Ware by Santa Monica Food Providers Dear Honorable Ted Winterer and Members of the Santa Monica City Council: The undersigned organizations support and encourage the Santa Monica City Council to move forward with adopting the revisions proposed by the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, and included in Appendix A of this letter. We ask for some critical missing elements to be added to the ordinance, detailed below, to strengthen it even further. By adopting this ordinance, Santa Monica will truly be an environmental leader locally and statewide. We strongly support the City of Santa Monica’s effort to extend the scope of the existing polystyrene ban to include Food Service Ware more broadly; to ban bio-plastic/polylactic (PLA) #7; to encourage the use of alternatives such as paper, fiber, bagasse and wood; and to require that all products used are marine degradable, with the exception of beverage lids which cannot be made from plastic #6. We also support the addition of a clause on “Straws Upon Request” and “Utensils Upon Request.” These changes will continue to help protect our neighborhoods, parks, and coastal and marine resources from polystyrene litter pollution. We recognize the efforts that the City of Santa Monica has made over the years to balance environmental and socioeconomic needs. The City’s ordinance on polystyrene has and will continue to serve as an example for other cities to model the language of their own polystyrene ordinances. In addition, the proposed modifications are an important step in continuing to drive the necessary change for the State of California to pass more comprehensive legislation on polystyrene. We believe that Santa Monica is seen as a very progressive city, and as such we would like to encourage the Councilmembers to consider including the following points in the modifications to the ordinance: 1. Include Retail Sales: The current ordinance and proposed modifications apply to the restaurant and food service industry, but do not mention retail sales. We encourage the councilmembers to consider including retail sales, the language can be modeled after the City of Manhattan Beach’s polystyrene ordinance section 5.80.035, which prohibits against the retail sale of polystyrene food service ware and polystyrene coolers and ice chests not otherwise encapsulated or enclosed in a more durable material. The section reads: “No person shall sell any polystyrene food service ware or polystyrene cooler at any location within the City.” We encourage the City of Santa Monica to include this language on retail sales in the proposed ordinance. Item 7-E 08/14/18 4 of 5 Item 7-E 08/14/18 2 2. Prohibit retail sales and use of polystyrene packing items: Similar to the Manhattan Beach polystyrene ordinance Section 5.80.038 (and San Francisco, Malibu, and other cities): "No business or vendor in the City shall sell, distribute, or use polystyrene packing material, including but not limited to foam peanuts, packing peanuts, foam popcorn or packing noodles." 3. Prohibit use and sales of expanded polystyrene food trays for raw uncooked meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, fruit and expanded polystyrene egg cartons (similar to San Francisco, Malibu, and Manhattan Beach ordinances). 4. Prohibit Polystyrene (#6) and “bioplastic” (#7) beverage lids: The proposed Santa Monica ordinance wording would allow for PLA (#7) beverage lids which Starbucks is now using in some cities including Manhattan Beach. Guidance on beverage lids that are "compostable" though perhaps non-marine-degradable other than #6 and #7 would be beneficial in the proposed ordinance. We urge the City of Santa Monica to move forward with adopting the modifications proposed. Furthermore, we encourage the City of Santa Monica to consider joining San Francisco, Malibu, Manhattan Beach and others, in adopting a more comprehensive polystyrene ordinance that not only prohibits the use of polystyrene food service ware, but also prohibits retail sales of all single- use disposable polystyrene food service ware. The modifications to this ordinance will increasingly enable Santa Monica businesses, residents, and visitors to realize a higher quality of life through the enjoyment of a clean and healthy environment and stronger local economy, and at the same time help to protect our neighborhoods, parks, ocean, waves and beaches. Thank you for your consideration and leadership on this important issue. Sincerely, Craig Cadwallader Policy Coordinator Surfrider Foundation South Bay Chapter Katherine Peace Science and Policy Director Heal the Bay Mary Luna Coastal and Marine Scientist Heal the Bay Item 7-E 08/14/18 5 of 5 Item 7-E 08/14/18