Waves of Plastics: A Snapshot of Marine Plastic Pollution in South Asia March 2024 Cover page © 2024 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved This work is a product of The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, links/footnotes and other information shown in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The citation of works authored by others does not mean the World Bank endorses the views expressed by those authors or the content of their works. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution—Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2024. Waves of Plastic: A Snapshot of Marine Plastic Pollution in South Asia. Washington, DC: The World Bank.” Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Report design and layout: Ha Doan & Yen Doan. South Asia's mountain economies of Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal join the region's ocean economies of Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka to curb marine plastic pollution. This report is part of a larger series of stocktaking and analytical products on plastic pollution in South Asia. This work is undertaken as part of the World Bank’s work program on South Asia Marine Plastics Pollution, which aims to promote circular plastic economy solutions, advance related country-level policy and investment dialogues, and raise awareness of the deleterious impacts of marine plastic pollution on people’s lives and livelihoods. It supports the Bank’s commitment to work with countries of South Asia to pursue and scale-up policies and programs that help them move toward a circular plastic economy and, in partnership with civil society and the private sector, harnesses the power of innovation to bring viable and sustainable solutions for plastic waste reduction and management across the region. This study is supported with generous funding from the South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI) and the publication of this report was funded by PROBLUE. Both SAWI and PROBLUE are multi-donor trust funds administered by the World Bank. TABLE OF Acknowledgments iv Abbreviations v CONTENTS Summary 1 CHAPTER ONE Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 7 CHAPTER TWO Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 18 CHAPTER THREE Plastic Policy Effectiveness in South Asia 34 CHAPTER FOUR Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 42 CHAPTER FIVE Transitioning to a Circular Plastic Economy in South Asia to Reduce Plastic Pollution 52 Appendix A 58 Adapting the UNEP/IUCN Model Appendix B 65 Country Data Inputs to the UNEP/IUCN Model Appendix C 70 Assessing Policy Effectivenes Appendix D 77 National Waste and Plastic Policies and Legislation in South Asian Countries Appendix E 82 Typology of Waste and Plastic Policies and Regulations References 83 ii List of Boxes List of Figures 1.1 World Bank Plastic Free Rivers and Seas for South ES.1 Summary of the plastic value chain in South Asia Asia Project 9 (kt/year) 3 1.2 Why are Plastics Problematic? 15 ES.2 Plastic value chain in South Asia 4 1.3 The South Asia Co-operative Environment B2.1.1 Material flow analysis methodology 21 Programme 17 B2.2.1 The plastic cycle 22 2.1 UNEP/IUCN National Guidance for Plastic Pollution 2.1 Plastic consumption in South Asia by country Hotspotting and Shaping Action 19 and end-use application (2021) (kt/year) 24 2.2 The Plastic Cycle 22 2.2 Plastic consumption per person by country in 3.1 Methodology to Assess the Effectiveness of Plastic- South Asia and by polymer type (2021) 25 and Waste-related Policies in South Asia 38 2.3 Summary of plastic waste generation and 3.2 The Maldives’ Single-use Plastic Phase-out Plan (mis)management in South Asia 28 2020-2023 40 2.4 Reasons for plastic leakage in South Asia 30 4.1 The Montreal Protocol as a Model for the Global 4.1 Summary of reasons for regional cooperation Plastic Treaty 50 on plastic pollution 43 5.1 Circular Economy Action on Plastics in the 5.1 Circular plastic economy framework 53 European Union 56 A.1 Step 1: Determination of generated plastics 58 A.2 Step 2: Flow of plastic waste from generation to leakage into waterways and the ocean 59 A.3 Detailed ‘Pedigree Matrix’ used for scoring quality of data from the UNEP/IUCN model 63 ii List of Maps List of Tables 1.1 Rivers of South Asia 11 ES.1 Summary of differences and similarities along the 2.1 Plastic leakage hotspots across South Asia 31 plastic value chain in South Asian countries 5 2.1 Production, imports, and exports of plastics in South Asia (2021) 23 2.2 Ease of recycling by plastic polymer type (2021) 26 2.3 Imports and exports of plastic waste by country in South Asia (2021) 27 2.4 Plastic leakage by catchment in South Asia ranked by leakage 32 3.1 Summary of waste and plastic policies and legislation in South Asia 36 3.2 Effectiveness of policies and regulations to reduce plastic waste in South Asia 37 B3.1.1 Overall policy effectiveness scoring matrix 38 B3.2.1 Common SUPs identified for action by the Maldives’ Plastic Committee 40 4.1 Data gaps along the plastic value chain in South Asia 47 5.1 Recommendations to transition to a circular plastic economy in South Asia 54 A.1 Availability of SWM data for this study 61 B.1 Data inputs for Afghanistan 65 B.2 Data inputs for Bangladesh 65 B.3 Data inputs for Bhutan 66 B.4 Data inputs for India 67 B.5 Data inputs for the Maldives 67 B.6 Data inputs for Nepal 68 B.7 Data inputs for Pakistan 69 B.8 Data inputs for Sri Lanka 69 C.1 Typology of plastic policies and regulations 70 C.2 Scoring matrix 1: Policy approval 71 C.3 Scoring matrix 2: Policy implementation 71 C.4 Scoring matrix 3: Policy coverage 72 C.5 Inclusion of monitoring and reporting based on on-the- ground evidence 72 C.6 Overall scoring matrix 73 C.7 Summary of stakeholders interviewed for this study 73 D.1 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Afghanistan 77 D.2 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Bangladesh 77 D.3 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Bhutan 78 D.4 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in India 79 D.5 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in the Maldives 79 D.6 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Nepal 80 D.7 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Pakistan 80 D.8 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Sri Lanka 81 E.1 Typology of plastic policies and regulations 82 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by a World Bank team Patricia Anne Janer (Consultant, Cartography), comprising Karin Shepardson (Lead Environmental Christina Leb (Senior Counsel), and Janet Lynn Specialist), Nina Tsydenova (Environmental Specialist), Minatelli (Operations Officer). and Perinaz Bhada-Tata (Solid Waste Consultant) with contributions from Nathalia Silva De Souza Lima Cano The team also thanks Gayle Martin (Operations (Plastic Waste Consultant). Manager), Lada Strelkova (Operations Manager), Chiyo Kanda (Country Manager), Hideki Mori (Operations This report is part of a larger series of stocktaking and Manager), Gailius Draugelis (Operations Manager), analytical reports on plastic pollution in South Asia. Hadia Samaha (Practice Leader), Elsa Le Groumellec The research is undertaken as part of the World Bank’s (Senior Counsel), Ximena Talero (Lead Counsel), Hanna South Asia Marine Plastics Pollution Platform, which Jang (Senior Counsel), and Fabiola Altimari (Senior aims to promote circular plastic economy solutions, Counsel) for their support and guidance. advance country-level policy dialogue, promote investments in solid waste management, and raise The team extends its appreciation to the Director public awareness of the deleterious impacts of marine General of the South Asia Cooperative Environment plastic pollution on people’s lives and livelihoods. The Programme (SACEP) and its staff, including W.K. Platform reflects the World Bank’s strong commitment Rathnadeera and Priyankari Alexander. The team to support the countries of South Asia to pursue and extends its appreciation to the UNEP team that scale up policies and programs that help the countries was consulted on the UNEP/IUCN Plastic Pollution of South Asia move toward a circular plastic economy Hotspotting Model. The report benefited from and, in partnership with civil society and the private administrative support from Poonam Rohatgi and sector, harness the power of innovation to bring viable Hanny Hanny. Maps for this report were created by and sustainable solutions for plastic waste reduction Marlee Jennean Beers. and management across the region. The team gratefully acknowledges comments This diagnostic study was conducted by IMC provided by World Bank peer reviewers Helena Worldwide Ltd. and Seureca, led by Marie Gouttebroze, Naber (Senior Environmental Specialist), Nalaka Jonathan Parkinson, and Stephanie Trigg, Mansoor Ali, Gunawardene (Communications Consultant), Thierry Pierre Bazus, and Jonathan Essex, with contributions Michel Rene Martin (Senior Urban Development from Dr. Irshad Ahmad (Afghanistan), Monir Alam Specialist), Grzegorz Peszko (Lead Economist), and Chowdhury (Bangladesh), Kamal Dan Chamling Kanako Hasegawa (Environmental Specialist). Hina (Bhutan), Asit Nema (India), Hafeeza Abdulla Salim Lotia (Operations Officer), Diana Ya-Wai Chung (Maldives), Nabin Bikash Maharjan (Nepal), Saadat (Senior External Affairs Officer), and Junko Funahashi Ali (Pakistan), and Malaka Dassanayake (Sri Lanka). (Lead Counsel) also provided useful comments. Numerous stakeholders were interviewed and shared The study was prepared under the guidance of their knowledge and vision on plastic management, Christophe Crepin (Practice Manager, South Asia for which the team is grateful. Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy), For technical guidance and feedback, the team Dina Umali-Deininger (Regional Director for thanks Pawan Patil (Senior Environmental Economist), Sustainable Development in South Asia), and Cecile Lisbet Kugler (Senior Environmental Specialist), Fruman (Director, South Asia Regional Integration and Sayed Mujtaba Shobair (Environmental Specialist, Engagement). Afghanistan), Shahlla Matin (Consultant, Afghanistan), This research was funded by the South Asia Water Rahat Jabeen (Senior Environmental Specialist, Initiative (SAWI), a trust fund supported by the Pakistan), Suiko Yoshijima (Senior Environmental United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Specialist, Bangladesh/Bhutan), Bushra Nishat Development Office; Australia’s Department of (Environmental Specialist, Bangladesh), Tijen Arin Foreign Affairs and Trade; and Norway’s Ministry (Senior Environmental Economist, Nepal), Annu of Foreign Affairs. The trust fund was designed to Rajbhandari (Senior Environmental Specialist, Nepal), increase regional cooperation in the management of Sulochana Nepali (Environmental Analyst, Nepal), the major Himalayan river systems in South Asia to Charu Jain (Environmental Specialist, India), Joseph deliver sustainable, fair, and inclusive development and Ese Akpokodje (Senior Environmental Specialist, climate resilience. India), Asferachew Abate Abebe (Senior Environmental Specialist, India), Mokshana Nerandika Wijeyeratne PROBLUE provided funding for finalizing the (Senior Environmental Specialist, Sri Lanka/Maldives), publication of this report. PROBLUE, a multi-donor Disna Bandara (Environmental Specialist, Sri Lanka), trust fund administered by the World Bank, supports Bruno Bonansea (Program Manager, Cartography), the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources in a healthy ocean. iv ABBREVIATIONS 3R reduce, reuse, recycle PPP public-private partnership ALDFG abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded PS polystyrene fishing gear PVC polyvinyl chloride ASA Advisory Services and Analytics SACEP South Asia Co-operative Environment CBO community-based organization Programme CPP Convention on Plastic Pollution SAS South Asia Seas EPR Extended Producer Responsibility SASP South Asian Seas Programme EPS expanded polystyrene SAWI South Asia Water Initiative EU European Union SDG Sustainable Development Goals FMCG fast-moving consumer goods sq. km square kilometer GBM Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna SUP single-use plastic GHG greenhouse gas SWM solid waste management GIS geographic information system UN United Nations GNI gross national income UNEA United Nations Environment Assembly HDPE high-density polyethylene UNEP United Nations Environment Programme HKH Hindu Kush Himalaya WAMCO Waste Management Corporation Limited (Maldives) HS Harmonized System (trade code) IDA International Development Association (World Bank) Currency Units and Exchange Rates IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature Currency Unit Exchange Rates (Effective as of March 2024) kg kilogram Afghani (Af) $1 = Af 71.16 Af 1 = $0.014 km kilometer Bangladesh taka (Tk) $1 = Tk 109.67 Tk 1 = $0.009 kt kilotons (1 kt = 1,000 metric tons) Bhutanese ngultrum (Nu) $1 = Nu 83.08 Nu 1 = $0.012 LDPE low-density polyethylene Indian rupee (₹) $1 = ₹83.08 ₹1 = $0.012 MFA material flow analysis Maldivian rufiyaa (Rf) $1 = Rf 15.40 Rf 1 = $0.065 MLAP Marine Litter Action Plan Nepalese rupee (Nr) $1 = Nr 132.99 Nr 1 = $0.008 mm millimeter Pakistan rupee (PKR) $1 = PKR 278.39 PKR 1 = $0.0036 MPW mismanaged plastic waste Sri Lanka rupee (SL Rs) $1 = SL Rs 304.40 SL Rs 1 = $0.0033 MSW municipal solid waste All dollar amounts used in this report are US dollars MT metric tons NGO non-governmental organization NIMBY not-in-my-backyard nm nanometer OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PE polyethylene PET polyethylene terephthalate PLEASE Plastic Free Rivers and Seas for South Asia PM particulate matter PP polypropylene v SUMMARY The South Asian region is woven together with diverse languages, traditions, and cultures, as well as by shared socioeconomic contexts and geographical features. Classified as middle-income countries (except Afghanistan, which is low-income), these nations grapple with meeting the needs of growing populations amid pressing environmental concerns like air pollution, biodiversity loss, and the degradation of land and water resources.1 Geographically connected by the majestic Hindu Kush Himalaya mountain range which influences climate patterns and serves as the source of transboundary rivers, South Asia paradoxically faces high water stress, exacerbated by escalating demands due to urbanization, industry growth, and climate change impacts. Six of the eight South Asia countries (excluding the Maldives and Sri Lanka, which are islands), share transboundary river systems. In Plastic pollution is total, these six countries share twenty major rivers, thereby facilitating a regional problem not only the flow of water but also the transport of pollution across in South Asia borders, such as solid waste (including plastics), industrial effluents, given multiple domestic wastewater, and microplastics. Besides rivers and other transboundary river cross-border environmental issues (for example, air pollution), these systems countries share similar socioeconomic and solid waste sectoral challenges. The aim of this report is to shed light on the mounting concerns around inadequate waste management across urban and rural areas in the region, given the interconnectedness of the transboundary rivers and how plastic pollution, particularly single- use plastics, is having a detrimental impact on the environment and human health. This study seeks to establish a comprehensive baseline of plastic waste flow into water bodies in the region and aims to support the formulation of evidence-based policies and strategies for plastic pollution reduction and a transition toward a regional circular economy framework for plastics. Specifically, the objectives of the report include (1) providing an overview of the plastic value chain (from production and imports to disposal and leakage) for the regional project, Plastic Free Rivers and Seas for South Asia (P171269); (2) assessing the flow and quantity of transboundary plastic leakage in the region; (3) analyzing the effectiveness of plastic- and plastic waste-related policies in South Asia countries; and (4) providing recommendations to transition to a circular plastic economy in the region. The report targets policy makers, the private sector, civil society, and NGOs working on plastic waste, marine pollution, and ocean sustainability. In order to understand the plastic value chain in the region and assess plastic leakage into South Asian seas, several models were evaluated based on scalability, usability, and output differences. 1 South Asia comprises Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Summary 1 Among these, the National Guidance for Plastic Pollution Hotspotting and Shaping Action (referred to as the UNEP/IUCN model) was chosen for its country-scale integrated GIS hotspotting tool, aiding visual representation of areas experiencing plastic leakage (UNEP 2020). The tool allows for an in-depth examination of the entire plastic value chain, from production to disposal, aiding in the stocktaking of plastic data in South Asia. The study also gleaned key insights from this analysis on plastic production, trade, consumption, and waste management practices across the region (figure ES.1). Highly populated areas close to rivers Overall, some key lessons emerge: and coastal areas are the main hotspots of The rapid growth in both population and industrial sectors has plastic pollution led to highly populated areas becoming hotspots for plastic waste generation. Consequently, these epicenters become primary sources of plastic leakage into river systems. These areas show far higher levels of plastic leakage (greater than 26.5 MT/year/sq. km) compared to large areas across the region which correspond to rural areas (less than 2.1 MT/year/sq. km). The presence and variety of marine litter found across beaches in the region underscore a related point: Litter from populated coastal settlements is a key factor in marine plastic pollution. Research shows that only about half of all plastics found on beaches in the Northern Indian Ocean come from the Bay of Bengal, highlighting the importance of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna system as a significant source of plastic pollution (Anakur 2018). Adequate treatment In South Asia, plastic packaging is an overwhelming component of plastic packaging at 62.56 percent of total plastic consumption. The effective — comprising over management and treatment of plastic packaging waste has 62% of plastic use significant barriers, not the least from a lack of funding and in the region — is investment across the entire value chain. There is currently little impeded by a notable focus on reducing plastic production and improving the collection, lack of funding and separation, and recycling of plastic waste. While plastic consumption investment is low compared to more economically developed countries, it is increasing in the region. While alternatives such as bioplastics are being proposed as a solution, there are no clear standards or guidelines available. Summary 2 Figure ES.1 Summary of the plastic value chain in South Asia (kt/year) Plastic exports 4,357 Agriculture 398 Automotive - Tires 470 Automotive - Others 1,157 Afghanistan 153 Construction 723 Bangladesh Electrical & Electronics 2,118 953 Bhutan Fishing 14 16 Plastic waste exports Medical 29 16 Textile Plastics in use (in stock) 2,118 9,679 India Imports and domestic Tourism 26,288 production of plastics 118 31,830 Plastic waste in Afghanistan Others 612 Domestic consumption 4,317 of plastics Plastic waste in the Maldives 27,474 20 The Maldives Plastic waste in Bangladesh 28 1,533 Nepal Packaging Plastic waste in Bhutan 316 17,188 14 Pakistan Plastic waste in India 2,518 1,188 Plastic waste in Nepal Leakage to Sri Lanka marine 366 40 environment Plastic waste Plastic waste in Pakistan 863 136 3,075 Plastic waste in Sri Lanka 292 Sources: World Bank based on the following input data: for imports, exports, domestic consumption, and imports and exports of waste: United Nations 2022; for production in India (2017): Plastindia 2018; for production in Pakistan: Tufail 2023; for end-use type: Based on expert interviews; total MSW generation and percent of plastic waste in MSW: Kaza et al. 2018 except Afghanistan and India (see appendix B); leakage calculated by UNEP/IUCN model based on data provided in appendix B. Note: Values for India (2017)and Pakistan (2023) include domestic production and imports. Plastic waste imports and exports refer to materials categorized under HS3219 (parings and scrap of plastic waste). Plastic leakage for the Maldives was not modeled due to the lack of rivers, catchments, and runoff data required to run the model. This diagram is based on data provided in tables 2.1 and 2.3 and figures 2.2 and 2.4. Summary 3 The region’s high Escalating mismanaged plastic waste can be attributed mismanaged plastic to several interconnected challenges in the region. waste rate stems First, historically there has been insufficient emphasis on from inadequate recyclability during in the initial design phase of products, focus on recyclability which contributes to the proliferation of single-use plastics during the design with limited recycling potential. Second, the problem phase (upstream), is exacerbated by inadequate infrastructure for waste inadequate collection collection services in urban and rural areas across the services, and limited region. Finally, the limited presence of formal recycling formal recycling facilities aggravates the issue, leading to a reliance on (downstream) informal recycling. The informal sector plays a pivotal role in the region, operating in a decentralized and unregulated manner, yet plays a significant role in collecting, sorting, and processing recyclable materials. In South Asia, the informal sector, comprising a network of waste pickers, small-scale recyclers, and local waste collectors, serves as The informal the backbone of plastic waste management, especially in sector’s role in areas where formal infrastructure is lacking or insufficient. waste collection and While there are similarities in waste management and recycling is crucial related policies across the region, there are variations in when transitioning plastic production, manufacturing, and use among South toward a circular Asian countries (table ES.1). plastic economy Figure ES.2 Plastic value chain in South Asia Upstream Midstream Consumption Downstream Production of Manufacturing Product Waste resins (plastics phase of design Consumption management in primary form) plastics and use and treatment Source: World Bank. Summary 4 Table ES.1 Summary of differences and similarities along the plastic value chain in South Asian countries Resin Manufacturing Product design Consumption Waste management production of goods and use • Only India and • Plastic • The Maldives • The Maldives • Pakistan has the lowest plastic Differences Pakistan have manufacturing leads the way has the highest waste leakage rate in South Asia; Sri production is an important with the SUP domestic Lanka has the highest plastic waste capacities for industry in Phase-Out plastic leakage rate in South Asia plastics in its India, Pakistan, Plan, where the consumption • Bhutan and Nepal are the only primary form Bangladesh government per person due land-locked countries in South Asia; • Only India and and Sri Lanka rolled out to the large however, plastic waste still reaches Pakistan export a business tourism sector the ocean via rivers plastics in its facilitation • Afghanistan program • India and the Maldives have higher primary form has the lowest collection rates compared to other to support domestic investments South Asian countries plastic in plastic-free consumption packaging and per person alternatives for menstrual products and diapers • All South Asian • Plastic product • Plastic • Plastic • All countries have access to the sea Similarities countries import manufacturing alternatives/ consumption either directly or indirectly through plastics, either in occurs in all substitutes (e.g., is currently low river systems primary form or South Asian compostable or in the region • Rates of plastic waste collection are as semi-finished countries, biodegradable compared fairly low across South Asia, with and finished although products) are to countries variations within the countries plastic products the scale of being proposed with more • Most waste is disposed of in • Imports of plastic activities differs as a solution to industrialized dumpsites, either legally or illegally, in primary form • In terms of reduce plastic economies consumption, contributing to a large part of come mainly exports, South • The packaging mismanaged waste in the region from outside Asian countries but clear sector the South Asia mainly standards/ consumes the • Alongside insufficient waste region, even if export plastic guidelines are largest share of collection coverage and there are some products lacking plastic segregation, there is inadequate trade flows capacity for controlled final disposal • PE and PP across South Asia from India and are the most Pakistan consumed • Urban areas, particularly more polymer types densely populated cities, are found in South Asia to be geographical hotspots of plastic waste leakage in individual • PS is the least countries in South Asia consumed polymer type in • All South Asian countries have South Asia policy/legislation on waste management and ban certain SUPs, however, they are not fully enforced • The informal sector is very active in collection and recycling of plastic waste in the region • Plastic recycling is mainly done by informal and micro and small enterprises, except for PET recycling that is mainly done at industrial scale Source: World Bank. Summary 5 To reduce plastic waste leakage, interventions are needed along the entire value chain. This includes reducing or substituting the use of plastics, introducing a reduce, reuse, and recycle (3R) hierarchy to prioritize investments and to support the transition to a circular Despite a number of economy for plastics, implementing efficient collection relevant policies and and recycling systems, and enhancing waste management regulations, their extent and treatment infrastructure. and effectiveness is limited; a holistic and South Asian countries lack coordination in reducing common regional plastic consumption or managing specific plastic approach is needed at waste across the region. While plastic waste and marine the regional level pollution have garnered increasing policy attention over the years, their implementation and enforcement remain poor due to various factors like inadequate enforcement, lack of implementation capacity, and limited public awareness. Effective policy implementation necessitates robust infrastructure, logistical support, strong leadership, and active participation from private and informal sectors. While implementing regional policies might face challenges, regional organizations like the South Asia Substantial data gaps Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP) could on plastic value chain, focus on articulating common goals and targets. including consumption, The study also mirrors SACEP’s Marine Litter Action waste management, Plan’s findings that the region lacks enforcement of leakage, and the existing regulatory regimes to tackle marine litter, thus involvement of the underscoring the necessity for coordinated efforts and informal sector exist and improved policy implementation to effectively reduce must be addressed plastic consumption, manage plastic waste, and mitigate to advance gains marine pollution across South Asia. in the sector National waste management strategies, where present, generally only set out positive intentions rather than being supported by policies, regulations, and action plans required for implementation. In addition, there are significant gaps in the required infrastructure to support recycling. As a result, there is no effective implementation of national waste management strategies in the region. Governments must be supported in establishing Although regional integrated waste management, while collectively collaboration remains moving toward a circular economy for plastics. Targets crucial in addressing need to be framed around outcomes and aligned to collective challenges, national policies, as opposed to activities, which would individual countries provide greater flexibility to develop programs and must take proactive promote investments to strengthen policy effectiveness steps toward a and monitoring. Solutions should be integrated in circular economy terms of the plastic value chain and waste hierarchy and considering stakeholder perspectives, resulting in economic and environmental benefits associated with improvements of livelihoods and transition toward a circular economy. Summary  6 CHAPTER ONE Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 1.1 Shared Challenges — and Opportunities 10 1.2 Understanding Land- and Marine-based Plastic Pollution at the Regional Level 13 1.3 About This Study 15 The eight countries of South Asia are a patchwork of diversity in terms of language, traditions, foods, history, and culture, but they also share similarities in terms of socio-economic conditions and geography.2 Socio-economically, most of the countries in the region are classified as lower middle-income, with a GNI per person ranging from $1,136 to $4,465. Only Afghanistan is classified as low-income and the Maldives as upper middle-income (World Bank 2024a). In this context, these countries struggle to meet the needs of rising populations, such as access to energy, healthcare, and education, and deal with exacerbating environmental threats, including air pollution, biodiversity loss, and degradation of land and water resources. The lack of adequate waste management (solid waste and wastewater) is increasingly a growing concern, not just in urban areas—where the majority of these wastes are created—but also in rural areas. Geographically, the region is connected by, and benefits from, the majestic Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) mountain range, stretching over 3,500 km from Pakistan in the west to Bangladesh in the east (GRID-Arendal 2018). The mountains strongly influence the climate of the region, containing the monsoons over the sub-continent as well as preventing the cold Central Asian winds from blowing south. The HKH is often referred to as the third pole, as it has the most extensive snow and ice deposits outside the two poles. It is not surprising, then, that all the transboundary rivers in the region originate in the HKH. Ironically, South Asia falls into the category of ‘high to extremely high’ water-stressed areas, along with the Middle East and North Africa, and faces water scarcity (Dholakia 2019). As the demand for water increases due to growing populations, industries, urbanization, and hydropower requirement, climate change will further amplify the current water management challenges in South Asia (Hirji et al. 2017; ICIMOD 2020). Unfortunately, all of the region’s water resources are facing pressing challenges such as unregulated infrastructure development, unplanned land use practices, and depleted groundwater resources. In addition, pollution from plastics in the waterways of the region is creating other long-lasting impacts, which are slowly being recognized. Field work undertaken for this study shows first-hand that plastic waste is a substantial contaminant flowing through the water veins of the region, making it a serious transboundary pollution issue. Throwing garbage into or along nullahs (drains or gullies), streams, or rivers may appear to be a local environmental issue, but it quickly becomes a regional—and even global—pollution problem. Hence, the solutions to this issue must necessarily include regional-level interventions that adopt a holistic approach to plastic pollution. A circular economy approach presents an opportunity to mitigate these multifaceted challenges by emphasizing resource efficiency, waste reduction, and responsible 2 South Asia comprises Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 8 consumption.3 Implementing circular principles in the region offers a sustainable pathway to safeguard water resources, improve air quality, decrease GHG emissions, and reduce waste by addressing the complex interplay between plastic pollution, climate change, and water and air quality. Recognizing these transboundary challenges, the World Bank, with funding from the South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI) and PROBLUE, initiated a study analyzing land-based plastic leakage into South Asian rivers, assessing current initiatives related to plastic waste management, and undertaking a baseline study of related policies of plastic pollution both within countries in South Asia as well as at the regional level. In addition, a related study also looked at marine-based plastic pollution in the form of abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) in the region’s coastal waters. Through the lessons learned from these two studies, the World Bank is operationalizing investments in the sector through the Plastic Free Rivers and Seas for South Asia (PLEASE) project (box 1.1). BOX 1.1 WORLD BANK PLASTIC FREE RIVERS AND SEAS FOR SOUTH ASIA PROJECT The Plastic Free Rivers and Seas for South Asia (PLEASE) project aims to strengthen innovation and coordination of circular economy solutions to plastic pollution across South Asia. This project is financed through an IDA grant. The project started in 2020 to drive innovation and results for plastic waste and plastic pollution reduction that would lead to cleaner coasts, rivers, and seas in the region. PLEASE helps the region curb its plastic pollution through providing grants to eligible organizations working on innovative solutions. Also, PLEASE engages with decision makers from public and private sectors to promote a circular economy for plastics and supports SACEP to drive this agenda in the region. In today’s world, where rapid urbanization and population growth continue to reshape our communities, the need for waste management data, particularly plastics, takes on heightened importance. Understanding the magnitude of waste generated, especially in the context of surging urban growth, as well as the specific types of waste being produced are crucial for local governments to be able to make informed decisions about which waste management methods are suitable and to plan for future service delivery. This data-driven approach empowers governments 3 Multiple definitions of circular economy exist. The primary goal of the circular econ- omy is to minimize waste and pollution by returning products, materials, and resources into the product cycle at the end of their use. Minimizing waste and pollution mitigates negative environmental impacts, thus leading to significant benefits for public health (World Bank 2022). Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 9 to tailor their systems, optimizing the number of waste collection vehicles, establishing efficient routes, setting ambitious targets for waste diversion, and tracking progress. As waste generation patterns evolve, accurate data enables governments to stay agile by adjusting budgets, allocating land, assessing innovative technologies, and even collaborating with strategic partners such as the private sector and NGOs to enhance waste management services, particularly when it comes to the pressing issue of plastic waste. Given the inter-connected geographies and water resources, coupled with the increase in plastic waste in the regional environment raises some questions that this study seeks to answer: First, why is plastic pollution a transboundary issue in South Asia? And second, why should it be tackled as a regional issue? 1.1 Shared Challenges — and Opportunities Plastic waste, particularly single-use plastics (SUPs) as the fasted growing type, is now widely recognized as an environmental problem on a global scale. It is estimated that 80 percent of the plastic waste in the oceans comes from land-based sources (Mendenhall 2018). This poses national, regional, and global threats to ecosystems with far-reaching environmental, economic, and health impacts. South Asia faces a unique situation; six of the region’s countries (excluding the Maldives and Sri Lanka, which are islands), share transboundary river systems — all of which originate in the HKH region — thereby creating multiple interconnected systems. In total, these six countries share twenty major rivers (map 1.1). Bhutan has four major river systems, flowing north to south, fed by the Himalayan glaciers and the monsoon rains. The rivers flow out of the Himalayas, through the Indian states of Assam and West Bengal, to join the Brahmaputra River in India. Nepal has three major river systems from east to west: Kosi, Gandaki, and Karnali rivers. They all ultimately become major tributaries of the Ganges River in northern India, which flows into the Bay of Bengal. Afghanistan has four major river systems but only the Kabul River joins the Indus River in Pakistan, which flows into the Arabian Sea at the Indus Delta. Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 10 Map 1.1 Rivers of South Asia Amu D a r ya Panj mir MAJOR RIVERS OF SOUTH ASIA Pa Harrirud In us du Ind s nd lum ma Jhe enab B e as el h j Sutle C i Rav H le Sut Brahmaputra Ya m us Ga ng Ind es Luhit u na Gh as agh an Ya ara M Ga pt m ra aput l Tis n una Sa ba da Ganges Bra h m ta am a k Bana s Ch t w Be Balak Son r b a ti i Sa ah nk M Pa h Kalada a Narmad Mahanadi es Tapi ang Mouths of the G Waingan Brahm a ni l Ma Te hana God di avar Indravati ga i Go Bh da ima va Kr ri Arabian Sea ishna ish na ra Kr d ha nga b Penn er Bay of Bengal Tu Pala r Cauvery li we ha IBRD 47585 | Ma OCTOBER 2023 This map was produced by the Cartography Unit of the World Bank Group. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of the World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any INDIAN OCEAN territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Source: World Bank. Although Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Nepal are not located near an ocean or sea, they are connected to neighboring countries by large river systems. In this way, any material — plastics or otherwise — that ends up in the rivers has the ability to travel and become a pollutant — and a problem — elsewhere in the region. Water from the rivers of the HKH is a source of drinking water and provide irrigation, food, energy, livelihood, and ecosystem services to more than 1.3 billion people who live downstream (Mukherji et al. 2015). Unfortunately, rivers and streams are becoming increasingly polluted due to inputs of solid waste, industrial effluents, domestic wastewater, and even microplastics. Coupled with water stress, the region collectively faces shared challenges related to its rivers. The shared challenges also extend to the transboundary consequences of environmental issues such as fine particle releases (for example, PM2.5) from burning and the presence of microplastics in the air. The release of PM2.5 particles from unregulated open burning of waste and airborne microplastics from roads and agricultural dust can have far-reaching health and environmental impacts that extend beyond national borders. The same is true of microplastics in the marine environment that are transported by rivers to the ocean, leach into groundwater aquifers, and also travel by air (Koelmans et al. 2019; Jones 2023). Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 11 Besides rivers and cross-border environmental issues, the countries in South Asia share similar socioeconomic and solid waste sectoral challenges that are summarized below. • Socioeconomic challenges: ■ Rapid population growth and increasing population density: South Asia is home to over 1.92 billion people (2022), nearly one fourth of the world’s population. It is the most populous and densely populated region in the world with 395 people per sq. km (2020) (World Bank 2024d). ■ Multi-dimensional poverty: At 8.6 percent, the level of poverty across the region is just slightly above the global average of 8.5 percent (2023) (Baah et al. 2023).4 ■ Pressure on the environment and natural resources: Population and economic pressures have a direct impact on land- and marine-based natural resources, resulting in numerous environmental challenges such as land degradation, deforestation, air, water (ground and surface) and soil pollution, loss of ecological habitat, and so on. ■ Vulnerability to flooding: An emerging threat in the face of natural disasters and escalating climate change impacts is the growing problem of plastic leakage leading to blocked drains and subsequent flooding in urban areas in the region, which poses public health risks by creating breeding grounds for vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue (Ali 2024). • Solid waste sector challenges: ■ Poor solid waste management (SWM) services: Regionally, the sector is characterized by poor SWM. On average, only 44 percent of MSW is collected and about three-fourths of waste is openly dumped (Kaza et al. 2018). ■ Inadequate funding: Despite the pressing need for efficient waste disposal systems, inadequate funding and limited resources have hindered the development of comprehensive infrastructure to handle the escalating volumes of waste. ■ Mismanagement of solid wastes: The lack of appropriate infrastructure for waste means waste is either directly dumped into nullahs (drains or gullies), streams, and rivers; it is dumped in open areas and litter is often washed away through runoff and floods into drains and rivers; or it is openly burned. ■ Lack of service delivery: Waste collection services vary widely by country and even within countries, with almost negligible service delivery in rural areas. 4 Based on poverty headcount ratio at $2.15/day (purchasing power parity, 2017). Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 12 ■ Dominance of the informal sector: Informal waste workers play a prolific role in collection and recycling in the region. With the lack of formal SWM services, this sector often plays a primary role in keeping cities clean and in materials recovery. ■ High plastic waste generation: South Asia is one of the largest contributors of plastic waste globally, and its contribution to global plastic waste is expected to escalate significantly (OECD 2022). ■ Multi-layered packaging is ubiquitous: Sachets, which often comprise three or four layers of different polymer types, are an important form of packaging commodities in South Asia. Initially introduced in the 1980s to reach poor rural consumers, sachets are now commonly used in the food and beverage sector, especially for online food delivery and on-the-go meals. Unfortunately, due to their small size, difficulty in recycling, and low monetary value, they are frequently left uncollected by waste pickers. Due to the shared riverine geography, the inter-linked environmental impacts of waste plastics on air pollution and climate emissions, and the spread of microplastics across the region, it becomes clear that the impacts of mismanaged plastics are regional. Consequently, the opportunities to solve this crisis are also regional. Coordinated policy response and market development both could lead to effective and improved governance and private sector responses in dealing with these challenges. This is true not only in South Asia, but also in other regions. The next section looks at why plastic pollution in South Asia should be tackled regionally rather than piecemeal by each country. 1.2 Understanding Land- and Marine-based Plastic Pollution at the Regional Level Plastic waste has become a sustainable developmental challenge that requires the convergence of coordinated actions and solutions at multiple nested levels: local, national, regional, and international to fully tackle the challenges of plastic waste. However, little data exists on the quantities, trends, sources, and leakage of plastic waste to terrestrial and aquatic environments, and very little is known about the extent and nature of the problem across the South Asia Region. Moreover, the South Asia Regional Seas (SAS) member countries (that is, all the countries in South Asia) do not Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 13 currently possess a consolidated marine litter database drawn from a standardized set of indicators to monitor plastic waste pollution. Availability of accurate data pertaining to plastic waste at this level is needed to prepare and implement proper regional policies, strategies, and management plans to reduce the quantity of marine litter. In this context, the World Bank, with funding from SAWI, initiated two related studies to quantify plastic waste leakage into rivers and seas in the region, take stock of the various stakeholder initiatives at the regional, national, and local levels, and conduct a gap analysis of policies required to move toward a circular plastic economy. This study looks at land-based sources of plastic pollution that travel across boundaries through the rivers and seas of South Asia by looking at material flows for certain polymers. Using the UNEP/ IUCN hotspotting model to calculate plastic leakage into the marine environment (see box 2.1 for more information), it provides an estimate of plastic waste flow through transboundary rivers in South Asia. The other study, Tangled Seas: A Snapshot of Abandoned, Lost, or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear in South Asia (World Bank 2023), focuses on sea-based sources of plastic waste, particularly ALDFG. Together, these two reports represent the first ever holistic overview for macroplastic leakage into the rivers and seas of South Asia. This body of work is intended to support the South Asia Regional Marine Litter Action Plan of SACEP (see box 1.3 for more information) and the development and implementation of plastic action plans in each member country by producing an evidence-based, objective baseline of all aspects that govern and relate to plastic pollution flowing into the water bodies of South Asia. 1.3 About This Study This study encompasses four tasks: (1) A material flow analysis (MFA) focused on mapping and understanding the flow and fate of plastics in each country and estimating plastic leakage into the environment. Whilst the MFA provides a view on the overall quantity of plastics leaking into the environment, (2) a hotspot analysis provides a geographical analysis of plastic leakage into the environment. In parallel, (3) an analysis of the regulations and policies impacting the plastic chain and (4) stakeholder mapping and analysis were carried out as complementary activities. The study centers on macroplastic waste as a core component of municipal solid waste with consideration of the different polymer types, particularly in relation to their recyclability. The overall aim of this work is to establish a consistent and comparable dataset for the countries in this region, recognizing that the availability of accurate data on plastic waste is crucial to (1) prepare and implement proper policies, strategies, and management plans to reduce the quantity of marine litter, (2) provide recommendations toward a common framework for regional monitoring, management, and policy framework for plastic waste reduction, and (3) enable a regional circular economy framework for plastics. This study aims to build upon and supplement existing reports and studies as a first step to understand the existing situation in order to develop a common framework and strategic approach, incorporating the principles of circular economy, to address issues and measure the regional impact of different interventions. It draws together current policies and regulations, linking this with the overall pollution context in terms of the actual flows and scale of plastic waste to the resulting impacts on society including on the informal sector and on livelihoods. BOX 1.2 WHY ARE PLASTICS PROBLEMATIC? Pollution from plastics — on land and in the oceans — is one of the most pressing global environmental concerns today. Plastics have transformed the world since the 1950s and provided ample benefits. Some examples include packaging to extend the shelf life of food, making vehicles and planes lighter (and thus safer, more inexpensive, and less polluting), and producing life-saving devices, such as incubators and dialysis machines. But it was not until the 1970s that the production of disposable — often referred to as single- use — plastics drastically increased. This provided convenience and facilitated our increasingly ‘on-the-go’ lives (for instance, take- Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 15 out meals, to-go cups, straws, grocery bags), while concurrently exponentially increasing the amount of plastic waste generated. Of the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics manufactured since the 1950s, almost half have been produced in the past 15 years alone (Lindwall 2020). Today, SUPs comprise 40 percent of the plastics produced every year (Parker 2024). More than half the plastics produced for most sectors becomes waste within a year. Overall, 74.2 percent of plastics generated become waste over the span of a year (Geyer et al. 2017). It is evident that packaging (which accounts for almost all SUPs) is the dominant type of plastics that is disposed of, followed by textiles, which are also increasingly seen as short-lived (‘fast fashion’, that is, cheap clothes worn for one season to keep up with the current fashion trends). In contrast, plastics used in building and construction have much longer average lifespans of approximately 35 years, and hence these sectors generate less plastic waste overall. Plastics are chemically composed of synthetic or semi-organic polymers made from fossil fuels and primarily categorized into seven different polymer types: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high- density polyethylene (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), and others, which include layered or mixed plastics. From these, UNEP considers any plastics made from PET, HDPE, LDPE, PP, and PS (including Expanded Polystyrene or EPS, a form of PS) to be SUPs (UNEP 2018a; UNEP 2018b). In low- and middle-income countries with sizeable informal sectors in waste collection and recycling — such as those in South Asia — certain polymer types such as PET and HDPE are collected while others such as LDPE and multi-layered packaging are not. They are often mismanaged due to inefficient solid waste systems, that is, improper collection, sorting, recovery, and disposal. The polymers that contribute the most to waste generation are the ones used to manufacture SUPs, for example, LDPE for garbage and dry-cleaning bags and EPS for takeaway food containers. The more durable polymers like PVC that are often used in building and construction typically do not end up as much in the form of waste given their longer-term usage. In terms of circularity or the ability to ‘close the loop’, certain polymers like PET and HDPE can be recycled more easily than others (for example, LDPE, PVC) and in a manner that is financially viable. Circularity implies that products that are no longer considered useful are converted into new products and applications in order to reduce the loss of material (and, thus, minimize waste) and reduce the need to use virgin resources. Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 16 BOX 1.3 THE SOUTH ASIA CO-OPERATIVE ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME The South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP) is an inter-governmental organization established in 1982 by the governments of the eight South Asian countries to promote and support the protection, management, and enhancement of the environment in the region. SACEP works on climate change, waste management, sustainable consumption and production, and protection and management of the coastal environment. It also supports a post-2015 South Asia Development Agenda aimed at delivering the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UNEP 2024). SACEP houses the Secretariat of the South Asian Seas Programme (SASP, one of UNEP’s Regional Seas Programmes), which was adopted by the region’s five maritime countries (Bangladesh, India, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) in 1995. SASP is a regional platform that works on various need-based actions to address marine pollution and degradation of oceans and coastal areas. These actions include the preparation of regional action plans and policies, coral reef task force, capacity development, awareness-raising, and experience- sharing among member countries. SACEP developed the SASP’s Regional Marine Litter Action Plan (MLAP) in 2019, which provides programs and measures for marine litter prevention and reduction as well as a timeframe for implementation. The plan was prepared with data from country action plans along with consultative workshops, literature review, and analysis of existing gaps and challenges (SACEP 2018). SACEP is now also implementing the World Bank-funded PLEASE regional project (box 1.1), which aims to boost innovation and coordinate circular economy solutions that minimize plastic pollution in South Asian seas, such as by scaling up plastic recycling and promoting the use of alternatives to SUPs. The regional PLEASE project is implemented over five years in all eight countries in the region (World Bank 2020; UNEP 2024). SACEP’s role includes: • Stakeholder engagement with all national, regional, and international institutions, governmental and non-governmental, as well as experts and groups engaged in co-operation and conservation efforts • Training and capacity building • Regional environmental co-operation in South Asia • Supporting conservation and management of natural resources (SACEP 2022). Navigating Plastic Challenges in South Asia 17 CHAPTER TWO Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 2.1 Plastic Production and Trade in South Asia 23 2.2 Consumption of Plastics in South Asia 24 2.3 Plastic Waste in South Asia 27 2.4 Transboundary Plastic Leakage in South Asia 31 One of the objectives of this study is to provide an understanding of the plastic value chain in the region and assess the plastic leakage into the seas of South Asia using a material flow analysis (MFA). Based on a literature review and consultations with experts, it was observed that there are various models that focus on plastic waste and plastic pollution, following which a review of alternative methodologies and models for MFA, leakage calculation, and hotspot assessment was undertaken. These tools differ in terms of (1) their scalability (some are more suited to industrial areas or small towns or cities), (2) usability (some are very complex to use), and (3) final outputs. Some tools also require a very large set of data as inputs. Based on a detailed evaluation of the models and their suitability in relation to the study objectives, the National Guidance for Plastic Pollution Hotspotting and Shaping Action (referred to as the UNEP/IUCN model or tool) was selected. This publicly available model, developed by UNEP and IUCN (in collaboration with Earth Action [EA] and Quantis International) has the added benefit of an integrated GIS hotspotting tool at country scale, allowing a visual representation of the areas where leakage is occurring. The UNEP/IUCN tool allows for an examination of the entire plastic value chain, from plastic production to disposal of plastic waste, as part of a stocktaking of plastic data available in the South Asia region. The methodology used for the MFA analysis in this report is provided in box 2.1, with further details provided in appendix A. The sections that follow in this chapter summarize the most important insights, as shown in figure 2.1. The chapter also looks at how much plastic waste is mismanaged and how much leaks into the environment and is, therefore, likely to end up in the ocean. BOX 2.1 UNEP/IUCN NATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR PLASTIC POLLUTION HOTSPOTTING AND SHAPING ACTION The objective of the UNEP/IUCN National Guidance for Plastic Pollution Hotspotting and Shaping Action (UNEP/IUCN model) is to calculate plastic leakage into the marine environment and to identify the main geographical hotspots for plastics leakage within a country. These hotspots are areas that are the most likely to present a risk of plastics leaking into the marine environment (UNEP 2020). As plastic leakage has been calculated for each individual 1 sq. km grid square of each country and normalized by area, these leakage values can be compared across all countries. For this study, plastic waste leakage has been estimated with dedicated modules and tools from the UNEP/IUCN National Guidance for Plastic Pollution Hotspotting and Shaping Action common methodological framework released in its interim version in October 2020. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 19 When working at the national level, it is encouraged to increase the granularity of the analysis by defining several archetypes to reflect different contexts potentially calling for different solutions. An archetype is defined as a category of areas within the country where the waste generation rate and the waste management infrastructure are considered homogeneous. For example, urban areas, rural areas, and coastal areas can be considered examples of archetypes. Modules T1 to T5 of the tool were used to create an MFA and regional hotspots; other tools in the methodology are also available and can be used for further development and analysis in the future: • Module T1: Inventory Plastic Flows • Module T2: Characterization of Waste Management • Module T3: Modelling Polymer/Application Sector Hotspots • Module T4: Identification of Waste Management Hotspots • Module T5: Modelling Regional Hotspots. The overall process of the development of the MFAs is presented in figure B2.1.1. The model calculates mismanaged waste and estimated leakage based on the: • The import/export data provided by UN Comtrade (United Nations 2022). • Solid waste estimated in the country (waste generation per person). • Plastic waste from fishing activities (the model estimates the fishing nets and gear that are discarded/abandoned at sea and assumes that the plastic packaging consumption of fishermen is twice the national plastic packaging consumption). • Plastic waste from medical activities. • Plastic waste generated by tourists. There are three main steps in the process: 1. Calculate the theoretical quantity of plastic waste generated in the country over a one-year period. 2. Determine the end-of-life of the generated plastic waste (calculated in the first step). 3. Determine the disposal method for the end-of-life of the generated plastic waste (calculated in the first step). The main purpose is to quantify the mismanaged plastic waste that is likely to leak into the environment. Further information regarding each step, the input data, and the outputs of the model are provided in appendix A. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 20 Figure B2.1.1 Material flow analysis methodology INPUTS OUTPUTS Export of Import primary and of waste product Source: Source: UN UN Comtrade Comtrade Domestic Increase in plastic stock consumption Calculated regarding the Calculated by Import of summarizing the evolution of the product inputs minus the manufacturing Source: activities of the exports of primary country and sector UN Comtrade and product breakdown of Domestic Plastic Consumption Import of primary Source: Waste Export UN Comtrade generation of waste Source: Equivalent to UN Comtrade Domestic Plastic Consumption minus the Increase in Stock Recycled Production From plastic waste of primary management Source: archetypes UN Comtrade Properly disposed From plastic waste management archetypes (Incineration, sanitary landfill) Improperly Burnt at disposed dumpsite From plastic waste management archetypes (dumpsite) Remaining at Mismanaged dumpsite likely to leak into the Uncollected Littered, environment From plastic waste discarded management archetypes Leakage Backyard burnt Source: World Bank, based on UNEP 2020. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 21 BOX 2.2 THE PLASTIC CYCLE The plastic cycle shown in figure B2.2.1 shows the land-based sources (shown in blue boxes) and sinks (shown as yellow boxes) of plastic waste. The main sources of plastic waste include urban areas, wastewater treatment, agricultural runoff, and mismanaged waste (including dumpsites and littering). Plastic waste is transported in the environment through mechanisms such as runoff (urban and agricultural), erosion, flooding, and industrial effluents. This waste may end up in lakes, soil, and rivers and may remain in these ‘sinks’ or storage areas, or it may be transported from drains, streams, and rivers into seas and oceans. In the sinks, plastics have the tendency to break down into smaller and smaller particles, resulting in the generation of macroplastic (greater than 5 mm), microplastic (particles greater than 100 nm and less than 5 mm), and nanoplastic (particles smaller than 100 nm) waste. This waste not only pollutes the environment but also impacts the food chain and public health. The plastic cycle also shows how transboundary movements of plastic waste can occur, particularly in a region like South Asia that has so many interconnected waterways. Plastic waste generated in one country may be transported to another country where it may end up in a sink or eventually make its way to the sea. Figure B2.2.1 The plastic cycle Credit: Based on Horton and Dixon 2017. Source: Horton and Dixon 2017. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 22 2.1 Plastic Production and Trade in South Asia Table 2.1 Production, imports, and exports of plastics in South Asia (2021) Plastics (MT/year) Domestic Country Production Imports Exports consumption Afghanistan 0 153,064 278 152,786 Bangladesh 0 2,118,465 102,452 2,016,013 Bhutan 0 13,853 583 13,270 India 17,769,000 8,519,545 3,955,700 22,332,844 The Maldives 0 27,903 8 27,895 Nepal 0 315,789 24,118 291,671 Pakistan 745,000 1,772,616 244,447 2,273,169 Sri Lanka 0 396,541 28,971 367,570 Total 18,514,000 13,317,776 4,356,558 27,475,218 Sources: For imports, exports, and domestic consumption: United Nations 2022; for production in India: Plastindia 2018; for production in Pakistan: Tufail 2023. Note: Production in India for 2017 and production in Pakistan for 2023. • In South Asia, only India and Pakistan produce plastics in its primary form domestically, while other nations in the region import plastics in its primary form as well as finished plastic products. • All South Asian countries import plastics in two forms: either as plastics in primary form to be used to manufacture plastic products or as semi-finished and finished plastic products, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) films. • Across South Asia, imports of plastics in primary form are higher than that of plastic products, while exports of plastic products are higher compared to primary plastics. • India and Pakistan, despite their own production, import both plastic products and plastics in its primary form. • In terms of exports, India has a sizeable export market for plastics (both in primary as well as plastic products) at almost 91 percent of the total. It is followed distantly by Pakistan (5.6 percent) and Bangladesh (2.4 percent). • India is responsible for almost 71 percent of plastic trade (including imports and exports) in the region. • India is the region’s largest consumer of plastics, using just over 81 percent of the amount used by the rest of the region combined. In contrast, Bhutan ranks as the smallest consumer of plastics in the region. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 23 2.2 Consumption of Plastics in South Asia Figure 2.1 Plastic consumption in South Asia by country and end-use application (2021) (kt/year) Agriculture 398 (1.45%) Automotive - Tires 470 (1.71%) Automotive - Others 1,157 (4.21%) Construction 723 (2.63%) Electrical & Electronics 953 (3.47%) Afghanistan 153 Fishing 16 (0.06%) Bangladesh Medical 2,016 16 (0.06%) Bhutan Textile 13 2,118 (7.71%) Tourism 118 (0.43%) Others India Domestic consumption 4,317 (15.71%) 22,333 of plastics 27,476 Packaging The Maldives 17,188 (62.56%) 28 Nepal 292 Pakistan 2,273 Sri Lanka 368 Sources: Domestic consumption: United Nations 2022; end-use type: Based on consultant assumptions from expert interviews. • The study computed plastic consumption in South Asia by sector as well as by polymer type. • An overwhelming proportion of plastics is used in packaging, at 62.56 percent, resulting in the consumption of more than 17 million metric tons (MT) of plastics each year. This is followed by ‘other’ types of plastics that are difficult to categorize (15.73 percent), and textiles (7.71 percent). Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 24 Figure 2.2 Plastic consumption per person by country in South Asia and by polymer type (2021) 53.5 50.0 Plastic consumption per person 40.0 (kg/person/year) 30.0 20.0 17.1 15.9 16.6 11.9 10.0 9.7 9.8 3.8 0.0 Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka The Maldives PE PP PET PVC PS Others Source: United Nations 2022. Note: The Maldives has the lowest population and high input due to the tourism sector, hence plastic consumption per person is the highest in the region. PE = polythene or polyethylene, PET = polyethylene terephthalate, PP = polypropylene, PS = polystyrene, PVC = polyvinyl chloride. • Although plastic consumption per person in India is not as high as compared to some other countries in the region (Bhutan, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka), total plastic consumption in India alone is 81.2 percent, not surprisingly due to its huge population. • On a per person basis, the Maldives has the highest domestic plastic consumption at 53.5 kg/person/year, which is likely related to its thriving tourism sector and low population compared to other South Asian countries. The tourism sector generates a substantial amount of waste, and in some places, it is estimated that tourists produce twice as much waste as local inhabitants (STI 2024). This is further substantiated by the large quantities of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and other plastic types (often including sanitary wastes and multi-layered packaging) generated in the Maldives, which are commonly found in tourist areas (World Bank 2024b). Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 25 Table 2.2 Ease of recycling by plastic polymer type (2021) Plastic resin Quantity of polymer Regional share Examples of plastic Ease of recycling identification type consumed in South of plastics products code Asia (MT/year) imported (%) Easy to recycle PET Soda bottles 1,545,730 6% Packaging, tubes, PP 6,889,632 25% textiles Possible to recycle Milk and juice bottles in some places (HDPE), cellophane, PE 7,737,609 28% disposable diaper liners (LDPE) House flooring, pipes, PVC garden hoses, house 6,217,189 23% siding Coffee cups, food Difficult to recycle PS containers/packaging, 621,364 2% egg cartons Includes all plastic Other resins other than 1-6 4,463,695 16% and/or mixture of resins Sources: Patil et al. 2023; RSNZ 2024; United Nations 2022. Note: a. Ease of recycling refers to the economic viability of the process required to recycle plastics, which depends on the properties of the plastic material. Not every type of plastic is recyclable: Single-material plastics, which are clean and can be melted to create new products (thermoplastics) are preferred for recycling, over mixed and multi-layered plastics that are dirty. This is marked by recycling symbols with polymer identification codes 1-7 on plastic products, with 1 (PET) being the most preferred. HDPE = high-density polyethylene, LDPE = low-density polyethylene, PE = polyethylene, PET = polyethylene terephthalate, PP = polypropylene, PS = polystyrene, PVC = polyvinyl chloride. PE includes HDPE and LDPE; it is not possible to distinguish the proportion of each. • Fifty-three percent of plastic waste (mostly PP and PE) generated in South Asia is possible to recycle depending on technology, cost, and other factors, while 41 percent (comprising PVC, PS, and other Just over half types of plastic) are hard to recycle. In terms of ease of recycling, of plastic waste only 6 percent of plastic waste (PET) generated in South Asia is generated in South easy to recycle. Asia is possible to recycle based • By polymer type, polythene or polyethylene (PE) is one of the most on available common polymer types and is used in products such as plastic technologies and bags, films, and containers. It is the most commonly used polymer costs in South Asia at 28 percent, followed closely by PP (25 percent) and PVC (23 percent). Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 26 2.3 Plastic Waste in South Asia Across South Asia, plastics — particularly SUPs — leak into the environment (including rivers, streams, and drains) due to insufficient waste management systems. There are major constraints all along the waste value chain, from poor waste collection and segregation, to lack of recycling and recovery systems, to improper waste disposal and processing sites. While poor waste management affects all types of wastes, plastics are particularly problematic owing to their durability and light weight. This section covers the downstream plastic waste value chain — from generation to disposal — in South Asia. Table 2.3 Imports and exports of plastic waste by country in South Asia (2021) Plastic Waste (MT/year) Country Imports Exports Afghanistan 633 43 Bangladesh 6,492 18,513 Bhutan 71 0 India 95,562 7,223 The Maldives 21 224 Nepal 44 23 Pakistan 31,937 3,537 Sri Lanka 1,590 123 Total 136,350 29,686 Source: United Nations 2022. Note: Plastic waste refers to materials categorized under HS3219 (parings and scrap of plastic waste). • India is the largest importer of plastic waste in the region, comprising 70 percent of total regional plastic waste imports, whereas Bangladesh is the biggest exporter of plastic waste in the region (62 percent of the total regional plastic waste exported). • India plays a central role in the region, in terms of trade of both plastics and plastic waste. 2.3.1 Mismanaged Plastic Waste and Plastic Leakage in South Asia Mismanaged plastic waste (MPW), though not universally defined, includes waste that remains uncollected or is disposed of inadequately, posing risks to marine environments. This report uses the definition of MPW from the US National Academies, which states that MPW is “plastic waste not making it into (for example, illegal dumping, litter) or leaking out of (for instance, blowing litter or unregulated leaking or discharge) our management systems … as ‘mismanaged’ plastic waste.” (NAS 2022) Mismanaged plastic waste is a key indicator of plastic waste that is either littered or improperly disposed of, which includes waste Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 27 that is not formally managed (that is, remains uncollected or is collected but disposed of in dumps or uncontrolled landfills). Mismanaged plastic waste has a high risk of entering marine environments via inland waterways, wind, or tidal transport. However, not all mismanaged plastic waste will end up in the ocean as terrain, distance from river basins to the ocean, and land use have an impact on how much debris ends up in marine environments (figure 2.3). Figure 2.3 Summary of plastic waste generation and (mis)management in South Asia Plastic waste in Afghanistan 612 (10%) Plastic waste in Bangladesh 1,533 (4.67%) Plastic waste in Bhutan 14 (13%) Plastic waste Plastic waste in India Leakage to in 11,884 (10%) marine South Asiaa environmentb 17,796 863 Plastic waste in the Maldivesc 20 (3%) Plastic waste in Nepal 366 (15.14%) Plastic waste in Pakistan 3,075 (9%) Plastic waste in Sri Lanka 292 (7%) Note: a. Calculated based on total MSW generation and share of plastic waste in MSW (2016). Percent values refer to percent of plastic waste in MSW (Kaza et al. 2018). b. From UNEP/IUCN model, calculations based on data provided in appendix B, which was the best available data in 2021. c. Plastic leakage for the Maldives was not modeled due to the lack of rivers, catchments, and runoff data required to run the model. MSW = municipal solid waste, MT = metric tons, NA = not available. • Solid waste collection rates tend to be low in all countries across South Asia, and the same extends to plastic waste, which is considered a part of municipal solid waste (MSW). • Plastic waste is frequently collected alongside MSW and is rarely separated from other types of waste. Where segregated, the informal sector actively participates by having waste pickers segregate and sort high-value recyclables such as PET and HDPE. • Waste collection services are almost non-existent in rural areas, which results in non-biodegradable waste being indiscriminately dumped or burned in order to reduce waste volumes. • Plastic recycling across the region is mostly done at a very small scale by informal, micro, and small enterprises. The exception is PET recycling, which is done at industrial scale. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 28 • Where waste collection rates are higher this still can often mask significant gaps in infrastructure and treatment systems needed to avoid mismanaged waste. For instance, the Maldives has the highest plastic generation rate per person even though its collection rate is the highest in the region. This is attributed to a high rate of tourism, which often results in a significant increase in plastic waste generation, and a low rate of recycling and lack of waste management facilities, resulting in the bulk of the waste being generated at risk of going directly into the sea. The plastic waste fraction that is collected is shipped overseas for recycling. Sri Lanka is also observed to have a very high mismanaged rate of 82.3 percent, resulting in a high per person leakage rate. Both countries are surrounded by the ocean and have significant disposal of waste into the marine environment, either directly or due to poorly managed waste disposal facilities. • Landlocked states also show a high rate of mismanaged wasted due to underdeveloped waste management systems and low recycling. Bhutan has a per person leakage rate of 1.35 kg/person/ year. Similarly, Afghanistan also has a high rate of leakage per person at 1.19 kg/person/year due to low degree of recycling and inadequate waste collection and disposal, in addition to greater instability and unregulated waste services. In contrast, Nepal has a lower rate of leakage (0.71 kg/person/day) due to better recycling and waste management systems compared to Afghanistan and Bhutan. • The more populous nations (Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan) have significantly lower per person leakage rates than the other countries in the region given their comparatively higher recycling rates (37 percent for Bangladesh, 40.6 percent for India, and 19.2 percent for Pakistan [see appendix B]). • Due to the lack of sanitary landfills in South Asian countries, waste is most often disposed of in dumpsites, both legal as well as illegal, contributing to large volumes of mismanaged plastic waste. • Although MSW collection rates in South Asian cities have risen recently, there remains a significant need for enhanced treatment infrastructure. The region would benefit from the establishment of more comprehensive sorting and recycling centers, which are crucial for effectively reintegrating recycled materials into the production cycle and promoting sustainable waste management practices. • The high leakage rates for Bhutan and Sri Lanka reflect their higher mismanaged waste index (the ratio of the mismanaged waste and total waste) as backyard or open burning is not a common practice. It should be noted that while backyard or open burning can reduce the mismanaged proportion and, therefore, the leakage rate, it also poses significant risks to human health and the environment. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 29 Figure 2.4 Reasons for plastic leakage in South Asia Lack of High population collection Inadequate High generation density in large services, both in waste disposal of plastic waste cities urban and rural areas High values of Weak Proximity of Inadequate runoff and river enforcement of large treatment and flows assist in populations to sorting waste transfering rivers and mismanaged infrastructure management coastline plastics into for plastic legal waterways waste framework Source: World Bank. Map 2.1 shows plastic waste leakage in MT/year/sq. km across all countries in South Asia (except the Maldives which was not modeled due to the lack of rivers, catchments, and runoff data required to run the model). The leakage ranges are common to all the countries so that leakage can be compared across the whole region. The map insets show a selection of the urban hotspots in the region with the highest ranges of plastic leakage. The map shows other areas in the region with low levels of leakage, too; generally lower than 2.1 MT/year/sq. km. These correspond mainly with rural areas where plastic waste generation rates tend to be generally lower than in urban areas. Cities with highest plastic leakage rates are typically located near waterways, including Chittagong in Bangladesh, New Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai, and Kolkata in India, Islamabad in Pakistan, and Colombo and Kandy in Sri Lanka. These cities were found to be geographical hotspots in the individual country hotspot modeling. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 30 Map 2.1 Plastic leakage hotspots across South Asia PLASTIC LEAKAGE Kabul, Afghanistan New Delhi, India Kathmandu, Nepal (tonnes/year/km²) 0-0.1 0.1-2.1 2.1-9.2 9.2-26.5 26.5-64.5 64.5-111.6 Kabul Thimphu, Bhutan Dhaka, Bangladesh 111.6-230 Islamabad Islamabad, Pakistan New Delhi Kathmandu Thimphu Karachi, Pakistan Karachi Dhaka Kolkata Chittagong/ Chattogram Kolkata, India Bangalore, India Mumbai Arabian Sea Hyderabad Bay of Bengal Mumbai, India Colombo, Sri Lanka Hyderabad, India Bangalore Chennai Chennai, India Chittagong/Chattogram, Bangaldesh Colombo This map was produced by the Cartography Unit of the World Bank Group. The boundaries, colors, denominations IBRD 48002 | and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of the World Bank Group, any judgment on APRIL 2024 the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Source: World Bank. 2.4 Transboundary Plastic Leakage in South Asia The South Asia region is dominated by very large river basins, some of which span across national boundaries, and the modeling for this study estimated plastic leakage from these river basins. Table 2.4 shows plastic leakage at the discharge points for the 15 major catchments in South Asia, ranked by highest leakage to lowest. The plastic leakage by catchment was calculated by summing the plastic leakage rate per sq. km for the main catchments across the region. The two major transboundary river basins, Ganges-Brahmaputra- Meghna (GBM, that includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal) and the Indus River basin (including Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan) are highlighted due to their high leakage rates. Plastic leakage into these two basins has been calculated based on individual country results obtained from the UNEP/IUCN model. The limitations of this approach include the fact that leakage does not necessarily Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 31 accumulate along the river network and leakage estimates do not include the effects of natural or artificial/physical barriers (for example, barrages, dams, or weirs) to prevent or redirect the flow of inputs into the river. In the top 15 catchments in South Asia (table 2.4), there are four transboundary catchments (ranked 1, 2, 5, and 7). Of the remaining catchments, the most are in India and one in Sri Lanka. Table 2.4 Plastic leakage by catchment in South Asia ranked by leakage Leakage Ranking Country River Main cities in catchment area (MT/year) Bangladesh, Ganges-Brahmaputra, New Delhi, Dhaka, Kathmandu, Lucknow, 1 316,911 Bhutan, India, Nepal Meghna Patna Pakistan, 2 93,512 Indus Kabul, Islamabad, Lahore, Hyderabad, Karachi Afghanistan, India 3 India 65,694 Krishna River Hyderabad 4 India 36,751 Godavari River Nagpur, Nashik 5 Pakistan/India 26,513 Nava Canal/Luni River Nawabshah, Jodhpur Tiruchirapoalli, Combatore, Mysuru, and parts 6 India 19,582 Kollidam River of Bengaluru 7 India/Bangladesh 17,910 Hooghly River Part of Kolkata, Shantipur, Krishnangar 8 India 15,308 Mahanadi River Raipur, Bilaspur, Raigarh, Sambalpur 9 India 12,508 Damodar River Dhanbad, Bankura 10 India 12,132 Tapti River Jalgaor, Burhanpur 11 India 10,226 Sabarmati River Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar 12 India 10,070 Narmada Jabalpur, Khandwa, Bharuch 13 India 7,416 Vasai Creek Ulhasnagar, Bhwandi 14 India 6,285 Brahmani River Rourkela, Kandujhar 15 Sri Lanka 6,082 Kelani Ganga Colombo Source: World Bank. Note: Red denotes transboundary catchments. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 32 2.4.1 Plastic Leakage from the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna River Basin In total, without considering any barriers, the model indicates that around 316,911 MT/year of plastic waste potentially leaks into the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna river system from the four countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal).5 Essentially, all the plastic leakage from Nepal and Bhutan flows into the GBM river system, and a portion of the plastic leakage from India and Bangladesh (39 percent of Indian plastic leakage and 73 percent of Bangladesh plastic leakage) flows into the same system. Given that India’s plastic leakage is significant compared to the other countries, it is natural that its overall contribution is more significant. 2.4.2 Plastic Leakage from the Indus River Basin A similar analysis was conducted for the Indus River basin: The model indicates that 93,512 MT/year of plastic waste potentially leak into the Indus from the three countries (Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan).6 Sixty-eight percent of Afghanistan’s plastic leakage, 66 percent of Pakistan’s leakage, and 1.5 percent of India’s leakage flows into the Indus. 5 The model does not consider the catchment area in the Tibet Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China which is outside the South Asia Region but is con- nected to the GBM river system. 6 As in the case of the GBM river basin, the model does not consider the catchment area in the Tibet Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China which is out- side the South Asia Region but is connected to the Indus River system. Tracing Plastic Leakage into South Asian Seas 33 CHAPTER THREE Plastic Policy Effectiveness in South Asia 3.1 Development and Effectiveness of Plastic Policies Across the Region 35 Plastic waste and marine plastic pollution are increasingly gaining the policy attention of South Asian governments. While waste management policies have been introduced in various countries since the early 1980s, it is only in the last decade or so that plastics have been the subject of policies at the national level. Until the early 2000s, policies were mainly focused on waste management and single- use plastic (SUP) bags. It was not until the 2010s that policies related to market-based instruments were introduced, followed later by Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). National policies and their effective implementation are fundamental to reducing plastic waste flowing into rivers and seas and, thus, preventing marine plastic pollution. While national ministries (usually the environment ministries) are in charge of approving such policies, their implementation is dependent on national rules as well as state/provincial and local government institutions. Implementation is also contingent on the availability of vital infrastructure and logistical support, which necessitates strong leadership and institutions. For this sector, in particular, the private and informal sectors play important roles in policy implementation, and without them, policy success would be restricted. Several policies are implemented and enforced at the sub-national or city level, which are usually more efficient due to local mandates in terms of implementation and enforcement of plastic policies. All South Asian countries have policies in place with regard to plastics, with the most common type focusing on bans or phase- outs of SUP bags or products. Nevertheless, these bans are poorly enforced across the region, due to complacency in enforcement, lack of capacity for implementation, and poor public awareness. In order for any public policy to be successful, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring are key, all of which require willpower of decision makers and officials and funding. Step-wise products or use-specific phase-out strategies have been more successful and are currently being implemented across some South Asian countries like the Maldives (box 3.2). 3.1 Development and Effectiveness of Plastic Policies Across the Region While all countries have established overall environmental policy frameworks, including some policies to address plastic production and the plastic waste value chain, the extent of these initiatives varies significantly across the region. Policies were grouped into the following broad categories and tracked in terms of their initiation and effectiveness (table 3.1, with further details in appendix E): • Solid waste management regulation/policy • Single-use plastic bag policies and bans • Wider single-use plastic product bans Plastic Policy Effectiveness in South Asia 35 • Regulations for source segregation of waste • Product standards and specifications • Extended Producer Responsibility • Single-use plastics phase-out plans • Other market-based instruments • Other waste legislation (hazardous, medical, e-waste). Table 3.1 Summary of waste and plastic policies and legislation in South Asia Wider Single- Other wastes Waste SUP single- use Hazardous waste Medical waste E-waste Product Other management SUP plastic use plastics Country standards/ EPR market-based regulation/ ban bag product/ phase- specifications instrumentsc policyd policies plastic out ban plan Afghanistan x x x x x x Bangladesh x x x x xi x x Bhutan x x x x x j x x India x xa x x x f x x i x x x The Maldives x x x x x h x x k x x Nepal x x x x xe Pakistanb x xa x x x x Sri Lanka x x x x xg x l x x Source: World Bank. Note: a. SUP bans are in effect in some states in India and some provinces in Pakistan. b. The four provinces of Pakistan have their own regulations on waste management. c. Includes imports. d. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have plastic action plans. India has Plastic Waste Management Rules (2016, amended in 2018, 2021, 2022) (CPCB 2022). The Maldives has a plan to phase out SUP use. e. Medical waste comes under the Public Health Service Act, 2075 (2018) and Public Health Service Regulation, 2077 (2020). f. Includes specifications for use of plastic waste in road construction, replacing 10% of bitumen. g. Includes eliminating colored pigment from plastic bottles (voluntary agreement with bottle manufacturers); banning the use of PET or PVC for packaging of agrochemicals and marking all plastics in accordance with the international Plastic Material Identification Standards to aid recyclers (approved in January 2021). h. The development of the phase-out plan was supported by the Maldives Clean Environment Project (World Bank 2024a). i. Includes bans on plastic waste imports. j. Other market-based instruments in Bhutan include fiscal incentives such as (1) Five-year income tax holiday for new waste management and/or recycling entities, including scrap dealers; (2) Indirect tax incentives (e.g., sales tax, customs duty, and Excise Equalization Tax); and (3) Exemptions on plants and machinery for waste management and recycling industries. These have been applied to Greener Roads and Greener Way businesses that recover plastic waste for road surfacing and segregate plastic waste for use in fence posts. In addition, plastic packaging requires a license for import along with special permission issued by the concerned agency. Moreover, legislation in 2020 set the Excise Equalization Tax at 20% for all plastics, which is nearly three times higher than the standard 7%. k. Includes import duty of 400% on non-biodegradable plastic bags, sacks, and drinking straws, and 200% on imported SUP films and sheets; import duty on biodegradable bags is 0%. The Strategic Action Plan (2019-2023) included incentives for plastic- free packaging on locally made food and other products. l. National Policy on Health-care waste management and National Guidelines on Health Care Waste Management are still in draft stage. However, they serve as broad guidelines. EPR = Extended Producer Responsibility, SUP = single-use plastics. See appendix E for an explanation of typology of policies and regulations. It is also evident that, so far, there has been no coordination in efforts to reduce plastic consumption (through bans, for example) or manage certain plastic wastes (such as SUPs) across South Asia. While regional policies may be difficult to implement due to Plastic Policy Effectiveness in South Asia 36 the geo-political situation across the region, it may be feasible for regional organizations like the South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP) to focus on non-legally binding regional strategies to articulate common goals and targets, while leaving the implementation of policies to individual states. The region’s policy effectiveness aligns with SACEP’s Marine Litter Action Plan (2019), emphasizing the need for new regulations to combat marine litter. The Plan found that the region fares poorly in terms of enforcement of existing regulatory and management regimes to reduce marine litter and urgently needs to develop new laws or modify current regulations in this field. The analysis of policy effectiveness across six broad areas is summarized in table 3.2, while the methodology used to assess the effectiveness of plastic- and waste-related policies in South Asia is provided in box 3.1 and described in detail in appendix C. Extensive interviews with over 50+ of the most relevant stakeholders both within and across countries were carried out to garner feedback on various policies and regulations and to understand the relationship and dynamics among stakeholders.7 Table 3.2 Effectiveness of policies and regulations to reduce plastic waste in South Asia Waste SUP bag Wider single- regulations Products Other Country policies and use product/ for separate standards/ EPR market-based bans plastic bans waste specifications instruments collection Afghanistan Limited Negligible None None None None Bangladesh Limited Negligible Negligible None None Negligible Bhutan Significant Significant Significant None None High India Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited The Maldives Limited Limited Negligible None Negligible Limited Nepal Limited Negligible Limited None None None Pakistan Limited None None None Negligible None Sri Lanka Limited Significant Significant Significant Negligible None Source: World Bank. Note: EPR = Extended Producer Responsibility, SUP = single-use plastics. • None: No policy in this area; policy does not exist or has not been drafted. • Negligible: Policy is not fully approved nor able to be implemented. • Limited: Policy is approved; may have some geographical coverage and/or compliance. • Significant: Policy is implemented with significant geographical coverage and/or compliance. • High: Policy is implemented with full geographical coverage and significant compliance/full compliance across part of the country, with plans for expansion across the entire country. Phase-out plans are not included in policy analysis. 7 Stakeholder interviews were conducted between December 2020 and March 2021 online due to COVID-19 restrictions. Interviews were conducted with a semi-structured list of questions for four stakeholder groups: (1) government departments, (2) NGOs, (3) the private sector, and (4) key informants. See appendix C for more details. Plastic Policy Effectiveness in South Asia 37 BOX 3.1 METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PLASTIC- AND WASTE-RELATED POLICIES IN SOUTH ASIA Assessing the effectiveness of policies and regulations in each typology (provided in table 3.2) considered the following aspects, along with extensive stakeholder input across the countries: 1. Approval (A): Whether policies have been formally approved (up to 3 points); 2. Compliance and Enforcement (CE): Whether policies are complied with and enforced (up to 2 points); 3. Coverage (C): Weighting for the implementation of policies depending on their coverage: local, significant, or national coverage (up to 3 points); and 4. Policy Monitoring and Reporting (MR): Whether the impact of the policy is monitored and reported and is recorded but does not contribute to the score. For more information on each of these aspects, please see appendix C. The overall scoring algorithm is as follows: Effectiveness = A (0-3) + [C (0-3) x CE (0-3)] This is made up from combining the following two simple equations: 1) Overall Effectiveness = Approval + [Coverage x Implementation Effectiveness] 2) Implementation Effectiveness = Compliance/Enforcement + Monitoring/Reporting The overall policy effectiveness scoring matrix is provided in table B3.1.1. Table B3.1.1 Overall policy effectiveness scoring matrix Effectiveness ranking (Impact on plastic Scoring Description leakage) None 0 No policy in this area. Policy does not exist or has not been drafted. Negligible 1-2 Policy is not fully approved and able to be implemented. Policy is approved and may have some geographical coverage and/or Limited 3-6 compliance. Policy is implemented with significant geographical coverage and/or Significant 7-9 compliance. Policy is implemented with full geographical coverage and significant High 10-12 compliance/full compliance across part of the country, with plans for expansion across the whole country. Source: World Bank. Plastic Policy Effectiveness in South Asia 38 Single-use plastic bag policies Waste regulations for segregation Infrastructure for recycling There are significant and While many policies for waste Overall, there is a lack of expanding policies and bans management exist, waste segregation is supporting infrastructure for SUPs (particularly for plastic extremely limited, except in Bhutan and and monitoring bags), but they are largely Sri Lanka. The supporting infrastructure systems for recycling. ineffective across the region. for source segregation, including Key infrastructure for Lack of implementation and storage, transportation, and processing storage, transportation, weak effectiveness are common facilities are limited. Where these have processing, recycling, and challenges, and approved been constructed, poor operations final disposal is lacking policies lose momentum and maintenance have been an issue, across the region. The low quickly. There are numerous leading to citizen’s resistance in the density and high volumes reasons for this, including lack form of NIMBY. of plastic wastes make of stakeholder consensus, high the logistics chain more costs of replacement products Traditionally, source separation of challenging. or alternatives, challenges in various recyclables for sale to itinerant changing citizen behavior, and waste buyers is common in South lack of supporting infrastructure. Asian cities although there is no official policy or legislation to integrate this positive driver into formal strategies or plans. Traditional source segregation mechanisms are not fully incorporated into existing policies as municipal institutions struggle to establish legitimate business relationships with the informal sector. Product standards and Extended Producer Responsibility Other market-based specifications instruments There is a lack of product It is vital that EPR policies have The use of other market- standards and specifications sufficient scope and deal with the whole based instruments for the use of recycled plastics plastic chain rather than focus only on (beyond EPR) is extremely to make new products. Few collecting and extracting value from limited, except for import options are available for plastic plastic waste. EPR policies will not be taxes and controls in replacement materials or effective unless their scope includes place in Bhutan and the alternatives. There is a need to effective sorting, collection, traceability, Maldives and import bans enhance regulations for the use of and processing. for plastic waste in India plastic recycling, such as ensuring and Bangladesh. that PET bottles are of uniform EPR policies are planned or exist in color (as has now been agreed draft form in Bangladesh, the Maldives, with producers across Sri Lanka) Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, but none have and introducing standards and been approved or implemented yet. rules to allow PET to be recycled India has piloted some elements of an to food and medical standards. EPR system, but the implementation In Sri Lanka, the types of plastic mechanism is yet to be confirmed and packaging for agrochemicals like fully agreed. It also provides a good pesticides are restricted. This is opportunity to integrate the informal done to ensure that pesticide sector into a formal system and to residues from these containers do develop infrastructure with financial not infect recycling streams. Such support from the private sector. standards might be examined and implemented across the region. Plastic Policy Effectiveness in South Asia 39 BOX 3.2 THE MALDIVES’ SINGLE-USE PLASTIC PHASE-OUT PLAN 2020-2023 The Maldives’ Single-use Plastic Phase-out Plan is a national initiative to phase-out the production, import, and consumption of certain SUPs and to promote the use of sustainable alternatives. Given the broad spectrum of SUPs and their uses as well as the unique geographic and socioeconomic context of the Maldives, it was concluded that multiple policy instruments are required to achieve the target set forth in the plan. The Phase-out Plan sets short-term targets to be achieved by 2023, such as improving data collection and increasing collection of SUP waste, as well as long-term targets to 2030, which include providing “affordable, accessible and reusable non-plastic alternatives”, establishing a recycling facility in the country, and devising a legal framework on circular economy. The Plan first identified the most commonly consumed and littered SUPs on land as well as in marine environments (table B3.2.1), which were agreed and ranked by the established Plastic Committee, comprising members from government and civil societies appointed by the Ministry of Environment. Table B3.2.1 Common SUPs identified for action by the Maldives’ Plastic Committee No. Product No. Product 1 Plastic drinking straws 6 Plastic wrappers on food and drinks 2 SUP plates, cups, cutlery, and stirrers 7 Single-use coffee cups 3 Plastic shopping bags 8 Single-use plastic decorations 4 Plastic food containers 9 Cotton bud sticks All imported and produced PET beverage Plastic packaging and products used in beauty and 5 10 containers hygiene Source: World Bank. Next, in addition to the environmental and health impacts of SUPs, the following were considered: (1) Do these products contribute to significant pollution on land and in the marine environment? (2) Do importers, producers, and consumers have access to readily available and affordable non-plastic or reusable alternatives for those products? (3) The socioeconomic context of the Maldives including consumption patterns. Policy instruments were broadly categorized into regulatory (command and control), economic, and informative (education and awareness) instruments. Plastic Policy Effectiveness in South Asia 40 As the country relies solely on imported plastic products in the absence of a domestic industry that would otherwise be adversely impacted, the imperative lies in implementing regulations to govern these plastic products effectively. Six policies were created, each addressing a different aspect of SUP use and throw away culture and using the three policy instruments in proportionate measure: (1) Ban selected SUPs, (2) implement market-based instruments, (3) strengthen data collection, (4) introduce EPR, (5) provide sustainable alternatives, and (6) education and awareness. Key activities are reviewed periodically with stakeholder agencies, the private sector, and the general public. A key aspect includes suggestions to amend laws and regulations based on the progress achieved. The targets are set until the end of 2023, after which a new policy directive will be set for the next five years. Source: MoECCT, Maldives 2021. Plastic Policy Effectiveness in South Asia 41 CHAPTER FOUR Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 4.1 Prioritize Upstream Solutions on the Way Toward Circular Plastic Economy 44 4.2 Reduce Cross-border Pollution and the Spill-Over Effect 45 4.3 Share Knowledge on Various Initiatives to Accelerate Uptake and Replication for Scale 47 4.4 Cooperate to Achieve Economies of Scale and Strengthen Capacity 48 4.5 Secure a Global Plastic Treaty that Benefits the Region Collectively 49 Plastic pollution is a transboundary issue in South Asia given the number of interconnected river systems. To mitigate plastic leakage into the environment, a plastic circularity approach is needed, given its holistic and systemic strategy toward resource utilization. Such an approach minimizes waste generation and pollution by addressing the root causes of plastic leakage, unlike the traditional linear model of ‘take-make-waste’. It encourages a shift from an ‘end-of-life’ mindset to retaining value, reducing the reliance on virgin resources, promoting recycling, and other techniques to close the loop on plastic, thereby lowering the likelihood of plastic waste leaking into the environment. Key aspects of a circular plastic economy include eliminating all problematic and unnecessary plastics, innovate so that the plastics that are used are reusable, recyclable, or compostable, and circulate the plastic items in use for as long as possible (Ellen MacArthur Foundation n.d.). A comprehensive approach to reduce plastic pollution at the regional level is necessary for the reasons summarized in figure 4.1. Regional efforts can play a pivotal role in addressing transboundary and marine plastic pollution due to their broader impacts and shared responsibilities. The reasons for regional action are described in this chapter (World Bank 2023). At the same time, national actions are crucial for implementing localized policies, regulations, and waste management systems. These are discussed in more detail in chapter 5. Figure 4.1 Summary of reasons for regional cooperation on plastic pollution Prioritize Upstream Solutions on the Way Toward Circular Plastic Economy Secure a Global Plastics Treaty Reduce that Benefits Cross-border the Region Pollution and Collectively the Spill-Over BENEFITS OF Effect REGIONAL COOPERATION Share Knowledge on Cooperate to Various Achieve Initiatives to Economies of Accelerate Scale and Uptake and Strengthen Replication for Capacity Scale Source: Based on World Bank 2023. Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 43 The South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP), established in 1982, has made meaningful progress, particularly over the past few years, in convening all eight South Asia member- states on the need for action on waste management, specifically on combating marine plastic pollution. 4.1 Prioritize Upstream Solutions on the Way Toward Circular Plastic Economy A critical point of consideration is the hidden costs of handling and treatment of post-consumption plastics. While plastics generate benefits and have fueled economic growth, it has come at a cost to both people and the planet in the form of negative externalities. At the same time, valuable raw materials worth billions of dollars are discarded each year in the form of waste due to inefficiencies in design as well as downstream interventions such as collection, recycling, and disposal of products containing plastics. This is exacerbated by the fact that most plastics today are petroleum-based, estimated to account for 6 percent of total oil demand and more than 850 million MT of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions in 2019 (CIEL 2019). Moreover, the economic, environment, and health costs of plastic pollution and marine debris are significant and are not yet fully understood or well quantified. Working upstream in the plastic life cycle has multiple benefits, particularly in moving toward a circular economy. Estimated benefits from reductions in virgin plastic manufacturing include cost savings to the private sector, significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and overall benefits to society as a regional or global public good. Increasing the circularity of plastic products by reducing, reusing, and recycling plastic waste has considerable economic potential, as once plastic reaches the waste stage, the expenses incurred for its collection, sorting, and processing increase significantly. By intercepting and addressing challenges upstream, downstream costs associated with waste management and environmental remediation can be mitigated or significantly reduced. Upstream (production and design) policy options work better at the regional (or even global) level or by the private sector, whereas downstream (waste management) measures necessarily need to be implemented at the local, or in some instances at the state/provincial, level. For instance, policies such as mandating recycled content in packaging, designing out waste, and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) work better at a regional level as they Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 44 offer scale and reduction in costs, while other policies such as taxes or subsidies could be adopted at the national level. Importantly, it would be cheaper in the long run as countries share experiences on policy development and implementation as well as share costs on developing common standards for recycling, labelling, certification, and so forth. At the regional level, SACEP could promote investments on a circular economy for plastics, pilot innovations to reduce plastic pollution while at the same time supporting the development of substitutes, and helping to scale up initiatives to other countries in the region. 4.2 Reduce Cross-border Pollution and the Spill-Over Effect Although pollution originates locally, its impacts often transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Similarly, the issue of plastic waste has evolved beyond being merely a local or national concern — it is now a global challenge. The far-reaching consequences of plastic pollution on the environment, economy, and public health are evident as increasing volumes of mismanaged plastics infiltrate our surroundings (see box 1.2 on why plastics are problematic). Pollution doesn’t stay within national borders, so why should solutions? Given the non-local nature of plastic pollution effects, localized solutions prove insufficient. While national policies establish overarching strategies and form the basis for future actions within a country, they may be stymied in their overall benefit depending on a neighboring country’s actions. For instance, envision a scenario where India enforces a nationwide ban on plastic bags while Nepal does not. Plastic bags originating in Nepal’s rivers (such as Kosi, Gandaki, Karnali, and Mahakali) that eventually flow into the Ganga River in Uttarakhand, India pollute the environment further downstream. Thus, adopting common measures across neighboring nations would amplify the efficacy of national strategies in combating plastic pollution. Some examples include: Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 45 Holistic approach: A comprehensive strategy goes beyond banning single-use plastic (SUP) bags, extending to a wider array of single-use products. This includes supporting alternatives through incentives, subsidies, education, and skills enhancement. A holistic approach enables addressing various aspects of plastic production, use, and end-of-life treatment, creating a more sustainable framework for the future. Collaborative regional efforts: Collaboration within a region is vital to achieve collective targets in managing plastics. Sharing knowledge, resources, and strategies creates a unified approach that is more effective in addressing the cross-border issues of plastic pollution, fostering a sense of shared responsibility for a cleaner environment. Integrated solutions: Aligning solutions across the entire plastic value chain and to the 3R hierarchy is crucial. This integrated approach considers diverse stakeholder perspectives, driving economic benefits, promoting a circular plastic economy, and improving livelihoods while tackling the challenges of plastic pollution comprehensively. Policies targeted at specific polymers: Focusing on specific polymers for more efficient management is key to streamlining efforts to move toward a circular plastic economy. Prioritizing the most commonly used or problematic (in terms of recyclability) plastics allows for targeted interventions and to also manage other types of plastics effectively. Integrate municipal solid waste management: Effective plastic management integrated into the municipal solid wase (MSW) management system is essential. It addresses plastic leakage at its source and all along the value chain, to effectively manage waste and prevent environmental harm. Investment shift: Addressing plastic leakage by redirecting investments toward the 3Rs (waste reduction, reuse, and recycling), collection, and the development of a circular plastic economy is crucial. Shifting financial resources toward a larger scale can significantly impact the reduction of plastic leakage. Supporting innovation: Providing financial support, incentives, and establishing product standards for enterprises involved in recycling plastic waste stimulates innovation. It also encourages businesses to develop and innovate sustainable practices, resulting in a more robust recycling infrastructure. Monitoring and resource allocation: Implementing policies that collect data, monitor impact, and allocate resources efficiently is essential. This ensures that the strategies in place are effective, allowing for necessary adjustments and promoting comprehensive management of plastic waste. Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 46 4.3 Share Knowledge on Various Initiatives to Accelerate Uptake and Replication for Scale In the context of South Asia, there is already a multiplicity of actors (public, private, and civil society organizations) working on solutions for the plastic pollution problem. There are numerous examples of active engagement by such organizations in South Asia toward solving issues related to plastic pollution. A key challenge — and opportunity — lies in expanding and scaling up these interventions and to promote larger-scale and replicable solutions. SACEP can play a role in monitoring various initiatives at the regional, national, state/provincial, and local levels and in aggregating and disseminating knowledge and data among member-states. The region is experiencing numerous data gaps concerning plastic trade, consumption, and waste, hindering an accurate picture of plastic flow and its environmental leakage (table 4.1). A pivotal challenge arises from the need to gather data from a variety of diverse sources. Some specific recommendations to close these data gaps are provided in table 4.1. Table 4.1 Data gaps along the plastic value chain in South Asia Category in value chain Current data gap Import-export records on plastics and plastic waste Plastic trade data Standardized reporting on plastic trade Information regarding informal and illegal trade of plastics and plastic waste Information on waste quantities at controlled waste disposal sites Waste collection Information on quantities of waste gathered through informal collection Tracking systems at local levels of government Share of plastics in waste Data on waste composition stream Uniform guidelines for waste characterization studies Records of recycling companies (quantity and type of plastic recycled) Quantity of recycled plastics Information on plastic flows at all stages of the plastic value chain Data on the role of informal sector in the plastic value chain Role of the informal sector Guidelines on the formalization of informal recycling industries Source: World Bank. Note: The color scheme indicates varying levels of data availability: Green – generally high level of availability; yellow – moderate or some availability; red – low or no availability. At the regional level, SACEP could promote knowledge exchange, foster cooperation, organize events such as technical visits among countries to facilitate knowledge and technology exchange. Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 47 4.4 Cooperate to Achieve Economies of Scale and Strengthen Capacity The sheer size of the population of South Asia — 1.86 billion in 2020, nearly one in four people worldwide —makes it one of the largest consumer markets in the world (World Bank 2024d). By 2030, India (ranked 2nd after China), Pakistan (ranked 7th), and Bangladesh (ranked 11th) will be in the top-ranked consumer markets of this decade (Kharas and Fengler 2021). The FMCG sector is one of the largest users of single-use packaging. These statistics are linked to the amount of consumption and, subsequently, of waste generation of certain plastics. Plastics already contribute to 8 percent of total MSW in South Asia (Kaza et al. 2018). As these countries continue to expand economically, this proportion is only likely to increase. Due to its population size, the region as a whole has a significant role in influencing the private sector. The interconnectivity of markets can play a powerful role in influencing the reduction and phase-out of certain plastics, particularly SUPs, through mandating the private sector and adopting wider market-based mechanisms. In addition to laws targeted directly at the private sector, governments can collectively sync policies such as import duties and restrictions for plastic products, and technology transfer, all of which could play a role in decreasing the economic burden, minimizing further pollution, and moving toward a circular plastic economy. This has the following benefits: • It enables the promotion of stronger environmental standards across the region rather than piecemeal by individual countries. For instance, the EU has made plastics a key priority in its Circular Economy Action Plan (EUR-Lex 2020). • It also makes it more streamlined (and less expensive) for the private sector if standards (for instance, for use of recycled material, design, additives, labeling, and so on) are common across a region (and in fact, globally). • Adopting policies that are scaled up across a region can lower implementation costs. • Finally, working together with a common voice enhances the negotiating power of individual governments toward the private sector. Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 48 Strengthening the capacity of national governments, as well as SACEP regionally, to develop effective policy frameworks and to support their delivery through sufficient investment, capacity building, enforcement, and wider public engagements to build compliance is crucial. SACEP is encouraged to create a network of national-level associations to enhance sharing of best practices, promote peer-to-peer learning, and to increase leverage of private and public sector engagement and solutions through a regional policy research center for circular economy. It could also create a legal base for regional action on plastic pollution, focusing on plastic circularity solutions. 4.5 Secure a Global Plastic Treaty that Benefits the Region Collectively In early 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted a resolution to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, with the ambition of completing the treaty by the end of 2024. UNEA Resolution 5.2 specifies that the treaty could include both binding and voluntary approaches, based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics, including upstream, midstream, and downstream stages (EIA 2021). This has potentially far-reaching consequences, as it requires engagement with industry, financial institutions, and civil society at both the regional as well as global levels. It is expected that the plastic treaty will define the way forward, from the manufacturing of plastics to the disposal of plastic waste. South Asian countries could successfully work together to contribute to the effective implementation and adoption of the treaty. Plastic pollution disproportionately impacts countries with emerging economies and socioeconomically challenged communities, including those in South Asia. Regional representation is vital to champion the unique needs of the region, to promote collective ambitions, and to improve the lives of underserved and underprivileged people. Regional representation would also ensure that the future global plastic treaty complements existing national and regional initiatives without hindering or impeding the development of any nation. In the context of the global plastic treaty, strong regional support can advocate for special circumstances, such as the need for immediate and increased investments in SWM, cost recovery, technology transfer, and data collection and monitoring. The ongoing negotiations increasingly acknowledge the importance of trade policies that can foster regional cooperation in combating plastic pollution. There is also growing awareness that collaboration across platforms and regions is essential. Learning from East Africa’s experience with banning SUPs shows that sharing common measures and lessons at a regional level is vital for effective implementation. This includes collaborative efforts in monitoring borders and changing consumer behavior, among Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 49 others. Regional initiatives like PLEASE in South Asia (see box 1.1 for more information) support countries in working together to identify and to invest in solutions to end plastic pollution while facilitating knowledge exchange. This not only ensures better implementation but also fosters collaboration and shared learning on a larger scale. BOX 4.1 THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AS A MODEL FOR THE GLOBAL PLASTIC TREATY The parallels between the Montreal Protocol (1987) and the ongoing negotiations for the Comprehensive Plastic Pollution (CPP) treaty are striking in their focus on mitigating the impacts of harmful substances. While the Montreal Protocol targeted the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, the CPP aims to address the issue of harmful plastics. A key similarity lies in their approach to tackling global issues through international cooperation. The Montreal Protocol stands out as a pinnacle of successful collaboration, marked by its ability to navigate and mitigate regional conflicts of interest. Similarly, the CPP negotiations echo the need for collective efforts in addressing the various challenges posed by plastic pollution. Moreover, the success factors of the Montreal Protocol offer valuable insights for the CPP negotiations. The equitable burden-sharing mechanism employed by the Montreal Protocol, ensuring that responsibilities were distributed among nations according to their capabilities, presents a pertinent model for the plastic treaty negotiations. The success of the Montreal Protocol depends critically on the commitment of substantial amounts of development assistance by OECD Member States to developing countries (known as Article 5 countries, comprising 147 out of 197 Parties to the Protocol) through the Multilateral Fund. As of November 2023, the contributions received by the Multilateral Fund from non-Article 5 countries totaled over $4.7 billion (Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund 2024). The CPP could adopt a similar framework to allocate responsibilities to reduce plastic usage, production, and disposal based on the capacity of each nation, fostering a balanced and effective approach. Another parallel is the role of public awareness and perception in driving change. The Montreal Protocol succeeded, in part, due to a robust awareness campaign that mobilized public opinion. Similarly, the CPP negotiations could leverage the growing public awareness on the detrimental effects of plastic pollution to garner widespread support for the treaty. The Montreal Protocol also involved significant collaboration with the private sector, which held observer status in the negotiations, ensuring industry perspectives were considered. Additionally, the treaty focused on the importance of final applications and pledged to promote alternatives, where applicable. This comprehensive approach, combining public support and private Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 50 sector involvement, could also create a strong foundation for the successful adoption and implementation of the CPP treaty. Despite these parallels, differences also exist between the two agreements. The nature of the substances being targeted — ozone- depleting chemicals versus a wide array of plastic materials — poses distinct challenges. Plastics encompass a diverse range of materials with varying degrees of harmfulness and recyclability, demanding a more nuanced and complex approach compared to the relatively uniform focus of the Montreal Protocol. Additionally, while the Montreal Protocol involved the phasing out of specific substances, the CPP faces the complex task of addressing the entire life cycle of plastics, from production and use to disposal and recycling, requiring a comprehensive strategy that goes beyond prohibition. Learning from the success of the Montreal Protocol while adapting approaches to suit the complexities of plastic waste management is essential for the success of the CPP treaty. Making the Case for Regional Cooperation Toward Plastic Circularity 51 CHAPTER FIVE Transitioning to a Circular Plastic Economy in South Asia to Reduce Plastic Pollution Moving toward a circular economy for plastics necessitates a shift in the entire value chain, as well as, crucially, transboundary collaboration. In a circular economy, plastics would be less incinerated, dumped, or landfilled, and instead would be used as a resource for new products (Johansen et al. 2022). Therefore, transitioning to a circular economy requires transformations along the plastic value chain. In the context of moving toward a regional closed- loop system for plastics, particularly to reduce plastic leakage into shared waterways, countries in South Asia need to tackle sustainable plastic management through a life cycle approach to ensure that a circular economy approach is used to derive strategies and actions. This study recommends a four-pronged strategic approach (figure 5.1). Strategies identified throughout the various phases of the plastic life cycle establish a comprehensive approach rooted in circular principles: production (design and manufacturing), consumption, waste stream management, and regeneration. By closing the loop, a circular economy approach can drive green growth by creating new value chains, generating employment opportunities, and introducing innovative products, all while tackling social and environmental issues. The EU is leading efforts to promote a circular plastic economy through policies that prioritize waste management, stakeholder engagement, citizen awareness and information, and monitoring. These strategies can spur changes beyond Europe to other regions; in fact, the EU has been instrumental in the global plastic agenda, through initiatives such as the Global Plastics Platform and the Plastic Waste Partnership (EU Monitor 2019). Box 5.1 describes action taken by the EU to move toward a comprehensive circular plastic economy. Figure 5.1 Circular plastic economy framework STRATEGY 1: Adopt STRATEGY 4: Implement design-for-environment practices extended producer responsibility, using recycled plastics and economic instruments and RAW alternatives and safe chemicals for innovative virtual platforms to MATERIAL primary and secondary plastic reduce plastic leakage. production. REGENERATION PRODUCTION STRATEGY 3: Improve waste STRATEGY 2: Adopt management infrastructure to MANAGEMENT CONSUMPTION resource-efficient technologies, capture, sort and recycle incentivize sustainable plastics across sectors to divert procurement, and influence plastics from landfills and consumer behavior and choices. eliminate hotspots. Source: World Bank 2021. Transitioning to a Circular Plastic Economy in South Asia to Reduce Plastic Pollution 53 Each of the strategies has an array of interventions that could be adapted at the global, regional, or national level (table 5.1). While some are particularly suited at the regional level, others are traditionally considered domestic policies. Nonetheless, regional coordination to adopt domestic policies would increase policy support in individual countries through knowledge exchange, result in lower costs for implementation and technology sharing, support standardization for labeling, certification, and recycled content, while also allowing the region to play a bigger global role. Table 5.1 Recommendations to transition to a circular plastic economy in South Asia Area of Stakeholder Recommendation intervention level Immediate Action Expand consumer education and awareness campaigns (concerning the C G, N, R environmental benefits of recycled plastics and plastic alternatives) Support citizen initiatives, such as bring-your-own-bag to promote reuse and C G, N, R reduction of plastic consumption and recycling Restrict the use of additives (e.g., colors, plasticizers) in plastic manufacturing P G Enforce restrictions on SUPs, including bans, regulating the distribution of SUPs, C N and designating plastic-free zones in tourist areas Restrict imports of certain hard-to-recycle plastics C N Expand source segregation programs, which reduce contamination of materials, W N making them easier to recycle Strictly enforce penalties for littering, open burning, and dumping of waste in W N unauthorized areas Create spaces for waste segregation in urban centers and drop-off points W N Mandate recycling schemes through both rewards (e.g., vouchers) or fees (e.g., pay- R N as-you-throw and deposit refund schemes), while prioritizing the 3R framework Consider future benefits of more upstream systemic changes while prioritizing R N investments to allow transition to circular plastic economy Global and Regional Frameworks Support taxes and levies, such as on virgin plastics, certain imports of plastics, and P G, R production of plastics that are hard to recycle Strengthen international frameworks on plastics, allocating responsibilities to P, C, M, R G, R reduce plastic usage and production based on each country’s capacity Data and Knowledge Enable collaboration between academia and industrial partners for technology transfer to extend the lifespans of products through the use of more durable P, R G, N, R materials, substituting plastic with alternate materials, designing for reuse and repair Improve information sharing and transparency regarding the use of additives (e.g., colors, plasticizers, flame retardants) in plastic products to reduce uncertainty for p G, N, R recycling efforts Create best practices for citizens, institutions, and sectors, and behavior change C G, N, R toolkits to address barriers to plastic alternatives Transitioning to a Circular Plastic Economy in South Asia to Reduce Plastic Pollution 54 Area of Stakeholder Recommendation intervention level Data and Knowledge Improve data disbursement and frequently update relevant information platforms W G, N, R with the latest information Improve collaboration and knowledge sharing of best practices, lessons learned, W G, N, R and available technologies Build governments’ capacities to strengthen national policy frameworks and ensure P, C, W, R N compliance/enforcement Establish waste management platforms to promote collaboration and partnership on a catchment basis, particularly for two large transboundary river basins in South W G, N, R Asia (Indus and GBM) Adopt standardized indicators to monitor progress on the plastic value chain P, C, W, R N, R Private Sector Engagement Encourage redesign of plastic products to promote end-of-life value and circularity P N, R Incentivize the use of recycled plastics through regulations or incentives (and disincentives). Increase the value of secondary materials, such as by introducing P N, R mandatory recycled content Establish charges for plastics where viable alternatives exist C N Establish environmental certification for product manufacturers who adopt C N, R environmentally friendly designs for reusing plastics and reducing SUPs Enable access to financing for improving SWM systems and service delivery (e.g., W N results-based financing) Improve labeling information on products to guide consumers on source W N, R segregation Support recycling industries with economic incentives (including subsidies and tax R N rebates) Establish recycling standards, certification programs, and labels for plastic recycling R N Secure private sector finance through the development of EPR systems and through leveraging private sector investments through incentives and regulatory R N changes Support substitutes for SUPs, such as bio-based and biodegradable plastics P N, R Define and enforce standards or guidelines for use of plastics in packaging and to P G, N, R facilitate recycling, e.g., standards for food-grade recycled plastics Introduce labeling for bio-based plastic products C N, R Engage/formalize informal sector for encouraging collection of low-end plastic waste and encourage the creation of waste picker cooperatives or associations to W N monitor the quantity of plastics recycled and promote better working conditions Source: World Bank. Note: Areas of intervention are grouped as follows: C = Consumption, P = Production, R = Regeneration, W = Waste management. Stakeholder level is denoted as follows: G = global, N = national, R = regional. Transitioning to a Circular Plastic Economy in South Asia to Reduce Plastic Pollution 55 BOX 5.1 CIRCULAR ECONOMY ACTION ON PLASTICS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Transitioning to a circular economy has become a central focus of the European Commission’s policy agenda, aiming to foster a more sustainable economy. Since the first European Commission (EC) Circular Economy Package in 2015, the concept has evolved to become central to the 2019 European Green Deal and also factors in the EU’s 2020 Industrial Strategy. The 2020 Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) establishes a policy framework focused on improving product design, encourages sustainable consumption among consumers, and promoting circularity in production processes to prevent waste and keep resources in use for as long as possible. The EU’s efforts in promoting regional cooperation and collaboration on circularity provide some key lessons on how this can be achieved, as described below. The CEAP mainstreams circular principles into plastic production and consumption, water management, food systems, and the management of specific waste streams, which was made possible with strong support and engagement of Member States, the private sector, and citizens. Member States must regularly update and make available the 10 indicators that are part of the EU Monitoring Framework for the Circular Economy. Some Member States have even developed additional national circular economy indicators. Active engagement of citizens is made possible through the use of ‘Ecolabels’ offering consumers accurate environmental information about products. Companies can also make environmental claims through the ‘Product Environmental Footprint’ and the ‘Organisation Environmental Footprint’, which allows consumers to make informed decisions. Based on experiences from the energy-labelling regulation, the EC is also developing a scoring system on product reparability. An essential aspect of circularity is having effective waste management systems. A 2018 revision of the waste legislative framework aims to modernize waste management systems in the EU and establish the European model as one of the most effective in the world. This includes (1) ambitious yet realistic recycling rates, (2) simplifying and harmonizing definitions and calculation methods for recycled materials and products, (3) establishing new rules on separate collection of certain wastes (for example, bio-waste, textiles, Transitioning to a Circular Plastic Economy in South Asia to Reduce Plastic Pollution 56 household hazardous waste, construction and demolition waste), minimum requirements for Extended Producer Responsibility, and (4) strengthening waste prevention and waste management, including for marine litter. A considerable amount of effort has been put in with respect to plastics. The EU Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy adopts a life cycle approach and with a clear vision and quantified objectives at the regional level so that by 2030 all plastic packaging in the EU market will be reusable or recyclable. Stakeholders have been asked to make voluntary pledges to boost the uptake of recycled plastics in products. The Circular Plastics Alliance will help businesses meet targets. A framework on the biodegradability of plastics will be introduced to encourage the development of such materials. The EU is also supporting developing countries in their efforts to tackle plastic pollution, particularly on single-use plastics, through bilateral and multilateral engagement. These and other efforts have helped the EU make progress toward reaching its goals. The number of EU countries with circular economy policy frameworks has increased from three in 2016 to 20 in 2022, and 15 countries have developed their own monitoring frameworks. By committing to circular principles, the EU is expected to substantially reduce its dependency on raw material imports, achieve the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality target, and halt biodiversity loss. However, a number of challenges still remain: • There is a lack of common understanding of what a circular economy is, requiring simple and clear indicators to facilitate communication and sharing knowledge. • National environmental targets should be integrated into recommendations. • A coordinated approach at the international level is needed, taking into account current trade relations and the dynamics of value chains with other countries. • Highlight that circularity can be good for business and climate. • Immediate improvements are necessary, but must be implemented gradually to avoid having undue financial burden. Sources: EU Monitor 2019; WRF 2023; Alberich 2022/3; World Bank 2022. Transitioning to a Circular Plastic Economy in South Asia to Reduce Plastic Pollution 57 Appendix A Adapting the UNEP/IUCN Model This appendix provides further details on the UNEP/IUCN Hotspotting Guidance Model used to calculate plastic material flows and leakage for countries in South Asia for this study. An overview of the methodology is provided in box 2.1, and this appendix describes the steps used in the process, the data inputs, and the outputs of the model, including limitations faced in using this model. A.1 Steps in the Modeling Process There are three main steps in the modeling process: 1. Calculating the theoretical quantity of plastic waste generated in the country over a one-year period (section A.1.1). 2. Determining the end-of-life of the generated plastic waste (section A.1.2). 3. Determining the disposal method for the end-of-life of the generated plastic waste (section A.1.3). A.1.1 Step 1: Generated Plastic Waste Calculations The quantity of generated plastic waste is calculated by summarizing all the inputs (production and imports of plastics in primary form, imports of products, and waste) minus the outputs of the country (exports of plastics in primary form and plastic products). The sum of the increase in stock and the plastic waste generation constitutes the domestic plastic consumption of the country. This step is illustrated in figure A.1. Figure A.1 Step 1: Determination of generated plastics Waste Import Net increase of stock Waste export Import of applications Export of primary and applications (thousand tonnes/year) Recycling Properly managed Total waste Import and production generated of primary Mismanaged Leakage INPUT OUTPUT COMPONENT COMPONENT Source: World Bank, based on UNEP 2020. Appendix A 58 Imports and exports of plastics are estimated based on the UN Comtrade database (United Nations 2022), which provides an inventory of official international trade statistics (2021 data used for this study). Each trade of plastics is associated with a plastic quantity, with a polymer type (for example, PVC, PS, etc.), with an application (for example, baby diapers, pipes, bottle, etc.), and with a sector (for example, agriculture, packaging, construction, etc.). The increase in stock is based on the evolution of the manufacturing activities in the country and on the sector of the plastic product. For instance, the model will classfy PVC pipes used for construction in ‘Increase in stock’ within the year of its production/import because the lifespan of this product is estimated at 35 years. In the opposite sense, a PET bottle used for packaging will be classified as waste within the year of its production because its lifespan is supposed to be 0.5 of a year; it has no time to be stored. A.1.2 Step 2: Determination of Plastic Waste End-of-life The second step of the process consists of determining the end-of- life of the generated plastic waste. It is necessary to know whether it is sent for domestic recycling, exported, incinerated, disposed of at dumpsites, buried in sanitary landfills, or another option. The objective is to quantify the mismanaged plastic waste that is likely to create macroplastic leakage into the environment. Figure A.2 represents the usual end-of-life methods of plastic waste and especially the methods likely to result in leakage. Figure A.2 Step 2: Flow of plastic waste from generation to leakage into waterways and the ocean Export of primary Import of waste and product Import of product Increase in stock Export of waste Recycling Import of primary Properly disposed Improperly disposed (burnt) Improperly disposed (remaining) Mismanaged waste likely to leak into Uncollected (discarded) the environment Import of primary Uncollected (burnt) Source: World Bank, based on UNEP 2020. Appendix A 59 A.1.3 Step 3: Calculation of Plastic Leakage in Waterways This step generates estimates of plastic waste leakage that end up in waterways for each local archetype. Plastic waste leakage is found by combining the mismanaged plastic waste with a GIS model of the country to assess the potential leakage to the marine environment. The model assesses the potential leakage based on: • Demographical parameters: Population distribution, rural/urban split • Solid waste management (SWM) data gathered during the second step: Plastic waste generation, collection, mismanaged plastics likely to leak • Geographical parameters: Catchments, locations of rivers and oceans • Meteorological parameters: Water runoff at coastlines. A.2 Input Data Needed To build a reliable and consistent plastic material flow analysis (MFA), various and large sets of data are needed, including the following examples: • Trade data: Imports and exports of plastics (virgin, product, waste) • Industry data: Quantity of plastic production and plastic recycling, polymer types • Plastic data: Plastic sources and applications, flows • Waste management data: Waste composition, collection, and mismanaged rates • Demographic data: Population • Fishing activity data: Number of boats and fishermen, fishing gear types and quantities • Medical data: Number of hospital beds and occupancy rates • Tourism data: Number of international tourist arrivals and length of stays • Geographical data. A.2.1 Approach for Data Collection for This Study Based on the scope and duration of this study, secondary data was used due to limitations in collecting primary data. Data was collected from multiples sources, in collaboration with country representatives. This included previous studies, academic research, data monitored and recorded by local and national authorities, and data from private Appendix A 60 organizations (for example, waste management companies, recycling associations, plastic manufacturers). Where available, national data was collected. However, to assess and represent the heterogeneity of the situation in some countries, local data was also collected, and provincial and district archetypes were built based on available local data. Given the variety in terms of size in South Asia, the same level of detail was not possible for all countries. For example, in countries such as the Maldives and Sri Lanka, with limited sizes and populations, it was possible to collect more detailed data on the location of landfill sites than in a country like India. A.2.2 Data Availability The availability of data was a key limitation from the outset of this study and part of the objectives were precisely to identify the gaps in the data sets. SACEP had undertaken preliminary work for the preparation of the Roadmap for Sustainable Waste Management and Resource Circulation in South Asia, 2019-2030, using data collected through official channels in the eight countries and this represented the best available data at the time. Table A.1 presents the data collected by SACEP during the preparation of the Roadmap, which was limited but served as an important first step. Table A.1 Availability of SWM data for this study Percent of MSW MSW Recycling of plastic waste in collection Comments generation plastic waste MSW rate Waste generation and collection Afghanistan ≈  ≈  data available only for Kabul city No source for data provided, data Bangladesh     for waste generation from 2014 Data available from a study done Bhutan ≈ ≈ ≈  in 2008 National data from 2019, no India     specifics on plastic waste Few data on MSW generation The Maldives ≈    from 2008, estimated quantity of plastic waste recycled (no source) Nepal     Data from ADB 2013 Pakistan ≈  ≈ ≈ Source of data unclear Sri Lanka     Data from CEA 2017 Note: = data available, ≈ = data partially available,  = data not available. MSW = municipal solid waste. Appendix A 61 On data availability, three key limitations were identified: • An absence or very limited monitoring of information. For example, in most countries in the region, there are no weighbridges at disposal facilities; therefore, the weight of waste is not recorded and instead needs to be estimated based on other factors such as the number of trucks. In the Maldives, Waste Management Corporation Limited, the SWM company in Malé, reported that the implementation of a weighbridge at the landfill revealed that previously estimated tonnages of waste disposed of were overstated. • A lack of mutualization/common data measures at the national and regional level. For example, in most countries, SWM is handled at the local level, and if monitored, the data are not necessarily shared with higher government levels nor are they compiled at higher levels. The data may be available on paper or digitally (for example, in notebooks or on computers) in the field but is difficult to reach and aggregate. • Private and informal activities. The informal sector usually operates without oversight, and plastic waste collected or recycled by informal workers is often not measured nor monitored. Private entities rarely disclose information about quantities produced or treated, unless required by regulatory bodies. A.2.3 Data Quality Another challenge lies in the accuracy and reliability of the data collected. The UNEP/IUCN model proposes a ‘Pedigree Matrix’ to assess the quality of the data, as shown in figure A.3. This matrix has been used to assess the quality of the data used in the model, and this assessment helps define if the data quality is sufficient to support the needed conclusions and assist in precisely identifying which data must be improved. Plastic waste management data of each homogeneous archetype have been compiled based on previous studies and then summarized to calculate the national mismanaged plastic waste quantity. A.3 Outputs from the Model The UNEP/IUCN model utilizes waste management data by archetype for each country and a gridded population count per ~1 sq. km GIS layer for 2020 to generate outputs. The best archetypes to use are districts, states, provinces, or similar. The main outputs by archetype from the UNEP/IUCN model for the MFA are: Appendix A 62 Figure A.3 Detailed ‘Pedigree Matrix’ used for scoring quality of data from the UNEP/IUCN model 1 2 3 4 5 Best Good Average Bad Worst Verified (e.g., Verified data Unverified data Documented Undocumented peer-reviewed or based on from estimate estimate highly trusted calculation, measurement Reliability source) data multiple sources or calculation based on showing and/or from measurements, coherent values single source multiple sources showing coherent values Less than 3 years Adapted to the Adapted to the Not adapted Not adapted of difference with reference year reference year to the reference to the reference Temporal date of study based on clear based on unclear year (data <10 year (data >10 correlation population or population or years) years) GDP correlation GDP correlation Data is completed Data extrapolated Data extrapolated Data extrapolated Data from and representative to the study area to the study area to the study area unknown area or Geographical of the study area based on assuming in spite of with very correlation weighted average homogeneous un-homogeneous different (multiple conditions conditions conditions archetypes) Data is complete Modelling based Modelling based Modelling Modelling based and on allocation on allocation based on on estimates representative of rules rules (non- global average Granularity the polymer/ (comprehensive comprehensive application/sector and specific) or unspecific) of interest Source: Based on UNEP 2020. • Plastic waste generation (in MT/year) • Plastic waste collected (in MT/year) • Mismanaged plastics (in MT/year) • Leakage (MT/year). The UNEP/IUCN model also creates plastic waste generation and leakage outputs by each individual 1 sq. km grid square for the whole country so that waste generation and leakage maps can be produced. These country maps can then be used to show leakage across the region (map 2.1). Appendix A 63 Mismanaged plastic waste considers the plastic waste that is likely to leak into the environment and hence includes uncollected waste, improperly disposed of waste (collected but sent to non-sanitary landfills/dumpsites minus the waste that is burned at the landfills/ dumpsites), but does not include backyard burning where this a common practice. Leakage is the portion of the mismanaged waste that is likely to leak into the marine environment and is generated using a GIS model to spatially distribute the mismanaged waste around the country and then uses a leakage calculation to apply in-model proximity to rivers and coast criteria to create a spatial distribution of the leakage. The leakage calculation then sums this spatial distribution by waste archetype to create leakage by archetype. Appendix A 64 Appendix B Country Data Inputs to the UNEP/IUCN Model This appendix summarizes the data, by country, used as inputs to the UNEP/IUCN model. Table B.1 Data inputs for Afghanistan Data Value Full source Imports (2018) 147,303 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Exports (2018) 199 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Generation rates: World Bank. 2018. Rapid Assessment of Kabul Municipality’s City of Kabul 0.78 kg/person/day Solid Waste Management System. Report No. ACS19236. Entire country 0.44 kg/person/day Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Plastic share: 17% NEPA (National Environmental Protection Agency). n.d. Waste City of Kabul Management. Kabul: The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Entire country 10% World Bank. 2018. Rapid Assessment of Kabul Municipality’s Solid Waste Management System. Report No. ACS19236. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. National collection rate 51% World Bank. 2018. Rapid Assessment of Kabul Municipality’s Solid Waste Management System. Report No. ACS19236. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Recycling rate 10% Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. Rate of open burning at 13% of waste Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett. 2014. “Global dumpsites disposed of at non- emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous sanitary landfills air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste”. Environmental science and Technology, 48(16):9523-9530. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Table B.2 Data inputs for Bangladesh Data Value Full source Imports (2018) 3.066 million MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Exports (2018) 498,000 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Generation rate: Kaza S., L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata, F. van Woerden. 2018. What a Dhaka City Corporation 0.62kg/person/day Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management Other City Corporations 0.48/0.27/0.44/0.25 to 2050. Urban Development Series. Washington, D.C.: The /0.30 kg/person/day World Bank. Other urban areas 0.57 kg/person/day Ahsan, A., M. Alamgir, M.M. El-Sergany, S. Shams, M.K. Rowshon, Rural areas 0.26 kg/person/day N.N. Nik Daud. 2014. “Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Management System in a Developing Country”. Chinese Journal of Engineering. 2014(1-11), 561935. Plastic share: 9.78% Waste Concern. 2014. Bangladesh Waste Database. Waste Dhaka CC Concern Technical Report Series. Dhaka, Bangladesh. Appendix B 65 Data Value Full source Other city corporation 8.45% Waste Concern. 2021a. Baseline Survey for Material Flow Other urban areas 7.35% Analysis for Waste Plastic and Hotspots Assessment for Rural area 5.64% Marine Plastic Debris in Dhaka, Chattogram ad Cox’ Bazar, Bangladesh – Task 1 report. World Bank. Waste Concern. 2021b. Baseline Survey for Material Flow Analysis for Waste Plastic and Hotspots Assessment for Marine Plastic Debris in Dhaka, Chattogram ad Cox’ Bazar, Bangladesh – Task 2: Waste Composition and Material Flow Analysis for Waste Plastics. World Bank. National collection rate 43.4% Kaza S., L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata, F. van Woerden. 2018. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development Series. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Ahsan, A., M. Alamgir, M. M. El-Sergany, S. Shams, M. K. Rowshon, N. N. Nik Daud. 2014. “Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Management System in a Developing Country”. Chinese Journal of Engineering. 2014(1-11), 561935. Recycling 37% World Bank. 2021. Towards a Multisectoral Action Plan for Dhaka City Corporation 87,843 MT Sustainable Plastic Management in Bangladesh. December. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Urban areas 293,285 MT Rural areas 80,181 MT (half of Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. PET waste) Rate of open burning at 13% of improperly Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett. 2014. “Global dumpsites disposed of waste emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste”. Environmental science and Technology, 48(16):9523-9530. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Table B.3 Data inputs for Bhutan Data Value Full source Imports (2018) 24,276 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Exports (2018) 7,328 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Generation rate: Kaza S., L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata, F. van Woerden. 2018. What a Thimphu 0.49 kg/person/day Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management Phuentsholing 0.45 kg/person/day to 2050. Urban Development Series. Washington, D.C.: The Other urban areas 0.12 kg/person/day World Bank. Rural areas 0.19 kg/person/day Plastic share: Kaza S., L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata, F. van Woerden. 2018. What a Thimphu 16.6% Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management Phuentsholing 15.6% to 2050. Urban Development Series. Washington, D.C.: The Other urban areas 14.5% World Bank. Rural areas 29.2% National collection rate 32% Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. Recycling rate 9.9% United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Appendix B 66 Data Value Full source Rate of open burning at 13% of waste Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett. 2014. “Global dumpsites disposed of at non- emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous sanitary landfills air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste”. Environmental science and Technology, 48(16):9523-9530. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Table B.4 Data inputs for India Data Value Full source Imports (2019) 10,468,231 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Exports (2019) 6,914,261 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. National generation rate 0.24 kg/person/day Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. National plastic share 10% Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. National collection rate 88.8% CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). 2019. Annual Report for the year 2018-2019 on Implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules (As per Rule ‘17(4)’ of PWM Rules, 2018). Government of India: Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. National recycling rate 40.6% Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. Material recovery rate 28.1% CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). 2019. Annual Report for the year 2018-2019 on Implementation of Plastic Waste Energy recovery rate 12.5% Management Rules (As per Rule ‘17(4)’ of PWM Rules, 2018). Government of India: Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Rate of open burning at 13% of waste Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett. 2014. “Global dumpsites disposed of at emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous dumpsites air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste”. Environmental science and Technology, 48(16):9523-9530. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Table B.5 Data inputs for the Maldives Data Value Full source Imports (2018) 33,412 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Exports (2018) 250 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Generation rate: Maldives Ministry of Tourism. 2015. Assessment of Solid Waste Malé area 2.3 kg/person/day Management Practices and its Vulnerability to Climate Resorts islands 5.3 kg/person/day Risks in Maldives – Increasing Climate Change Resilience Other islands 0.9 kg/person/day of Maldives through Adaptation in the Tourism Sector, Maldives. Republic of Maldives: Ministry of Tourism. World Bank. 2017. Maldives to Improve Solid Waste Management with World Bank Support. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Appendix B 67 Data Value Full source Plastic share: Maldives Ministry of Environment and Energy. 2018. Feasibility Malé area 6.5% Study Report for Regional Solid Waste Management Facility Resorts islands 5.0% in Thilafushi. Republic of Maldives: Ministry of Environment Other islands 5.0% and Energy. National collection rate 87.2% Maldives Ministry of Environment and Energy. 2019. Single Use Plastic Phase Out Plan 2020-2023. Republic of Maldives: Ministry of Environment and Energy. National recycling rate 1% United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Rate of open burning at 13% of waste Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett. 2014. “Global dumpsites disposed of at emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous dumpsites air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste”. Environmental science and Technology, 48(16):9523-9530. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Table B.6 Data inputs for Nepal Data Value Full source Imports (2017) 44,720 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Exports (2017) 35,126 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. National generation rate 0.24 kg/person/day ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2013. Solid Waste Management in Nepal: Current Status and Policy Recommendations. Pathak, D.R. 2017. Solid waste management baseline study of 60 new municipalities. Government of Nepal: Solid Waste Management Technical Support Centre (SWMTSC). National plastic share 14.3% ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2013. Solid Waste Management in Nepal: Current Status and Policy Recommendations. Pathak, D.R. 2017. Solid waste management baseline study of 60 new municipalities. Government of Nepal: Solid Waste Management Technical Support Centre (SWMTSC). National collection rate 48.4% ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2013. Solid Waste Management in Nepal: Current Status and Policy Recommendations. Pathak, D.R. 2017. Solid waste management baseline study of 60 new municipalities. Government of Nepal: Solid Waste Management Technical Support Centre (SWMTSC). Recycling rate 14.7% Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. Rate of open burning at 13% of waste Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett. 2014. “Global dumpsites disposed of at emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous dumpsites air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste”. Environmental science and Technology, 48(16):9523-9530. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Appendix B 68 Table B.7 Data inputs for Pakistan Data Value Full source Imports (2019) 2,730,174 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Exports (2019) 6,251,447 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. National generation rate 0.34 kg/person/day Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. National plastic share 11.4% Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. Collection rate 51% Kaza S., L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata, F. van Woerden. 2018. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development Series. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. National recycling rate 19.2% Consultant assumptions based on expert interviews. Rate of open burning at 13% of waste Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett. 2014. “Global dumpsites disposed of at non- emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous sanitary landfills air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste”. Environmental science and Technology, 48(16):9523-9530. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Table B.8 Data inputs for Sri Lanka Data Value Full source Imports (2017) 607,380 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. Exports (2017) 83,227 MT United Nations. 2022. UN Comtrade Database. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. National generation rate 0.52 kg/person/day Thennakoon, T.M.S.P.K., Rev. Pinnawala Sangasumana, Rev., and G.M. Bandaranayake. 2018. “Spatial Variation of Plastic Waste Generation in Present Sri Lanka.” International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 8(5). National plastic share 6.89% Sri Lanka Ministry of Environment. 2021. National Action Plan on Plastic Waste Management 2021-2030. Collection rate 32% JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2016. Data Collection Survey of Solid Waste Management in Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Final Report. Kokusai Kogyo Co. Ltd. Rate of open burning at 13% Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett. 2014. “Global dumpsites emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste”. Environmental science and Technology, 48(16):9523-9530. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Appendix B 69 Appendix C Assessing Policy Effectiveness Table C.1 Typology of Assessing the effectiveness of policies and regulations for each plastic policies and typology (table C.1) considered four aspects, described below, along regulations with input from over 50+ key stakeholders within and across the South Asian countries. Single-use plastic bag policies and bans 1. Policy Approval (A): Whether policies have been formally approved (up to 3 points) Wider single-use 2. Policy Implementation (Compliance and Enforcement [CE]): product/plastic bans Whether policies are complied with and enforced (up to 2 points) Waste regulations for 3. Policy Coverage (C): Weighting for the implementation of separate waste collection policies depending on their coverage: local, significant, or national coverage (up to 3 points) Products standards/specifications 4. Policy Monitoring and Reporting (MR): Whether the impact of the policy is monitored and reported and is recorded but does not Extended Producer contribute to the score. Responsibility (EPR) Each aspect is described in more detail in this appendix. Other market-based instruments including The overall scoring algorithm is as follows: imports Effectiveness = A (0-3) + [C (0-3) x CE (0-3)] Source: World Bank. This overall effectiveness scoring algorithm is made up from combining the following two equations: 1. Overall Effectiveness = Approval + [Coverage x Implementation Effectiveness] 2. Implementation Effectiveness = Compliance/Enforcement + Monitoring/Reporting C.1 Policy Approval (A) The first distinction made here is whether any policy is known to be under development. This would normally take the form a draft policy. This is not the same as outputs delivered as a result of project discussions between a donor and government. This does not represent the existence of a policy, although it could lead to a potential policy being developed. Also, the status of such draft documents is disputed, with some prepared by donor-funded projects without full buy-in from governments and do not have any impact on plastic leakage. In some countries, draft policies may exist in the public domain in draft form for many years. For example, waste management policies have been in draft form in Bangladesh since 2005, and since that time, Appendix C 70 have been noted at various points as being with the Ministry of Law for approval. Even so, this is still recognized as a step on the pathway of policy development, so is given a score of 1. In a few cases, a policy may have been formally approved but not yet implemented. An example of this is where implementation options are being publicly consulted, such as the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies in India. As this is policy where there is a commitment to implementation in future, this may already have an impact on investment decisions and practices of the private sector, local governments, and/or the public. This has been scored as 2. Finally, where policies have been formally approved and published together with secondary legislation (where appropriate) such that it can be implemented, these have been given a score of 3. These positions are summarized in table C.2. Table C.2 Scoring matrix 1: Policy approval (3 points) Score Policy existence or approval 0 Policy either does not exist or has not been drafted. 1 Policy under development (in draft form only). 2 Policy is approved but under consultation as to how it will be implemented. 3 Policy and associated regulations (where needed) approved, published, and able to be implemented. Source: World Bank. C.2 Policy Implementation (Compliance and Enforcement [CE]) The second part of the assessment is looking at the policy implementation. This comprises a weighting for the coverage of the policy (from local to national) together with scores for enforcement and compliance and monitoring and reporting. Some policies will be effective just by being implemented (for example, import duties), which in some cases will require investment by government. In other instances, implementation will require compliance for the implementation to be effective. Compliance with a policy through public awareness campaigns may start before a policy is formally approved. However, one of the key ways of ensuring compliance is enforcement, which can only take place once a policy is approved. This matrix considers the extent and effectiveness of the policy in being complied with over the area that the policy has been implemented (table C.3). Table C.3 Scoring matrix 2: Policy implementation (Compliance and enforcement, 3 points) Score Policy implementation status 0 Policy has no evidence of compliance. 1 Policy has minimal compliance, such as due to limited awareness raising and/or enforcement. Policy has a significant level of compliance, with behavior change resulting from a combination of 2 behavior change and enforcement, which has a noticeable effect on the level of plastic waste/leakage. 3 Policy implementation is effective with full or close-to-full compliance. Source: World Bank. Appendix C 71 C.3 Policy Coverage (C) This measure considers the coverage of the policy and/or its implementation. In some cases, policies have been approved but implementation is still awaited, limited to a small number of local authorities, or implemented in one region as opposed to the whole country. In other cases, the approved policy is limited to a state or region of the country. The scoring on the extent to which a policy has been implemented across a country is summarized in table C.4. Table C.4 Scoring matrix 3: Policy coverage (3 points) Score Policy coverage status Policy has minimal or no implementation attached to it. Coverage is limited to pilots, such as within a 0 local government area. Policy has funding (where applicable) and/or is clearly implemented with some coverage (e.g., in one 1 state/town/area of the country only). Policy is implemented across a substantial part of the country, with plans in place for expansion across 2 the entire country. 3 Policy is fully implemented across the entire country. Source: World Bank. C.4 Policy Monitoring and Reporting (MR) Monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of a policy is important to ensure that where there is a lack of compliance that this is identified so that governance (including enforcement) is then improved. In some cases, this may be straightforward, such as collection of import duties. In other cases, this requires new systems, such as measurement of actual changes in the level of waste being collected and recycled (rather than assumptions on levels of waste generation per person in different areas). This is recorded separately as it does not directly impact the effectiveness of the policy (table C.5). Table C.5 Inclusion of monitoring and reporting based on on-the-ground evidence (not scored) Yes/No Policy monitoring and reporting status No Policy does not lead to actual performance being monitored. Policy does lead to actual performance of the policy being monitored and the results reported Yes back. This could include establishing a baseline of the situation before the policy is introduced. Source: World Bank. The assessment of effectiveness combines these scores, as noted above, to give an overall ranking based on the scoring matrix summarized in table C.6. Appendix C 72 Table C.6 Overall scoring matrix Effectiveness ranking (Impact on Scoring Description plastic leakage) None 0 No policy in this area. Policy does not exist or has not been drafted. Negligible 1-2 Policy is not fully approved and able to be implemented. Limited 3-6 Policy is approved; may have some geographical coverage and/or compliance. Policy is implemented with significant geographical coverage and/or Significant 7-9 compliance. Policy is implemented with full geographical coverage and significant High 10-12 compliance/full compliance across part of the country, with plans for expansion across the entire country. Source: World Bank. C.5 Stakeholder Consultations Stakeholder interviews were conducted between December 2020 and March 2021 online due to COVID-19 restrictions. Interviews were conducted with a semi-structured list of questions for four stakeholder groups: (1) government departments, (2) NGOs, (3) the private sector, and (4) key informants. Each group was interviewed with slightly different sets of questions, regarding their existing involvement with plastic waste policies, their role in implementation of policies, extent of existing programs, and overall stake in the plastic waste value chain. In addition, remote/online workshops were organized in May 2021 to share key findings and to gather feedback on strengthening the policy and regulatory environment and monitoring arrangements. Table C.7 provides a list of stakeholders consulted in every South Asian country. Table C.7 Summary of stakeholders interviewed for this study NGO/ IFIs & National Local/State Organization Private sector Informal international government government sector organizations AFGHANISTAN ▲ ▲ Kabul Municipality and Ministry of Finance ▲ Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce and Investment (ACCI) and Afghanistan Environment Experts Association (AEEA) ▲ National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) Jalalabad Municipality ▲ ▲ Herat-e-Bastan and Proma Herat Plastic Ministry of Culture and Information ▲ Appendix C 73 NGO/ IFIs & National Local/State Organization Private sector Informal international government government sector organizations BANGLADESH ▲ BRAC (formerly known as Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee) Bangladesh Plastic Goods Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BPGMEA) ▲ Department of Environment ▲ Practical Action, Bangladesh ▲ ▲ Bangladesh Environmental Law Association Recycling business (value chain) ▲ Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) ▲ ▲ Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) UNDP ▲ BHUTAN ▲ National Environment Commission (NEC) Thimphu Thromde Municipality ▲ The Green Road, Thimphu ▲ Greener Way, Thimphu ▲ INDIA ▲ Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) GEM Recycling ▲ ▲ International Forum for Leadership and Sustainability (IFLS) East Delhi Municipal Corporation ▲ Indian Pollution Control Association ▲ Kerala State Pollution Control Board ▲ Central Pollution Control Board ▲ ▲ National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management GAIA Asia Pacific ▲ Appendix C 74 NGO/ IFIs & National Local/State Organization Private sector Informal international government government sector organizations UN-Habitat ▲ Banyan Nation ▲ THE MALDIVES Parley Maldives ▲ Zero Waste Maldives ▲ Asian Development Bank (ADB) Project Management Unit (PMU) and the ▲ World Bank Maldives Clean Energy Project (MCEP) PMU, within the Waste Management Department of Ministry of Environment ▲ Waste Management Corporation Limited (WAMCO) Asian Development Bank (ADB) ▲ NEPAL ▲ Ministry of Forest and Environment, Department of Environment Nepal Waste Recycling Association ▲ Bottlers Nepal Limited (Coca-Cola) ▲ Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Environment Management Department ▲ Himalayan Climate Initiative ▲ Himalayan Life Plastics ▲ ▲ Nepal Academy of Science and Technology ▲ Sanyukta Safai Jagaran (organization of informal waste workers) Solid Waste Management Association ▲ PAKISTAN World Wide Fund for Nature- Pakistan ▲ Green Earth Recycling ▲ ▲ Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency Ministry of Climate Change ▲ Appendix C 75 NGO/ IFIs & National Local/State Organization Private sector Informal international government government sector organizations ▲ Sindh Environmental Protection Agency National Institute of Oceanography ▲ ▲ Marine Pollution Control Department, Karachi Port Trust ▲ Pakistan Plastic Manufacturers Association, Karachi UNDP Pakistan CoRe Alliance ▲ SRI LANKA Sevanatha Urban Resources Centre ▲ ▲ Waste Management Authority (WMA) - Western Province Central Environmental Authority (CEA) ▲ Coca-Cola ▲ ▲ Marine Environmental Protection Authority Source: World Bank. Note: IFI = international financial institution, UNDP = United Nations Development Programme. Appendix C 76 Appendix D National Waste and Plastic Policies and Legislation in South Asian Countries This appendix summarizes the national plastic-related policies and legislation in all South Asian countries. Table D.1 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Afghanistan Year Policies and legislation 2003 Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, Afghanistan 2007 Environmental Law of Afghanistan 2009 Water Law of Afghanistan Scoping Strategic Options for Development of the Kabul River Basin 2010 National Waste Management Policy 2012 Act on Plastic Bag 2014 Comprehensive Health Care Waste Management Plan (HCWMP) 2016 Environmental guide for determining the area and organization of urban municipal waste National Policy for Waste Management and Safe Disposal of Pharmaceutical Products 2017 Environmental guide for determining the field and regulating waste process of hazardous Environmental guide for the field of hospitals and clinical waste management Plastic Assessment report, Afghanistan 2020 Draft policy for control and reduction of disposable plastics/single-use plastics, NEPA Afghanistan Table D.2 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Bangladesh Year Policies and legislation 1993 The Dhaka City Corporation Ordinance Environment Conservation Act 1995 National Environment Management Action Plan (1995-2005) 1997 Environment Conservation Rules Bangladesh Environment Conservation (Amendment) Act 2002 Plastic Bag Ban (reinforced through Supreme Court 2020 order) 2008 Bangladesh Medical Waste Management and Processing Rules 2009 Local Government (City Corporation) Act National 3R Strategy for Waste Management 2010 Jute Packaging Act 2011 Hazardous Waste and Shipwreck Waste Management Rules 2013 Mandatory Jute Packaging Rules 2015 Import Policy Order (2015 – 2018) Appendix D 77 Year Policies and legislation 2017 Mandatory Jute Packaging (Amendment) Rules 2018 National Environmental Policy National Plastic Industry Development Policy (7th Draft) 2020 High Court Order to Ban Single-Use Plastic Products Solid Waste Management Rules 2021 E-Waste Management Rules Multi-sectoral Action Plan for Sustainable Plastic Management in Bangladesh 2022 High Court Directive to Implement Mandatory Jute Packaging 2023 Plastic Industry Development Policy Table D.3 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Bhutan Year Policies and legislation 1995 Forest and Nature Conservation Act of Bhutan 1999 Ban Use/ Sale of Plastic Carry Bags, Doma Wrappers and Homemade Ice Cream (Pepsi) Pouches 2000 Environmental Assessment Act 2005 Reinforcement of Plastic Ban Notification issued by National Environment Commission 2006 Forest and Nature Conservation Rules of Bhutan National Environment Protection Act 2007 Thimphu Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations Reinforcement of Plastic Ban Notification issued by National Environment Commission 2009 Waste Prevention and Management Act of Bhutan 2012 Waste Prevention and Management Regulation 2014 Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategy 2016 Waste Prevention and Management Regulation (Amendment) Forest and Nature Conservation Rules and Regulations (Amendment) Fiscal Incentives Act of Bhutan 2017 Trade Classification and Tariff Schedule (6th edition) Customs Act National Waste Management Strategy 2019 Reinforcement of Plastic Ban Notification issued by National Environment Commission as per letter no. NEC/WMD/2019/67 Ecology Note: Towards a Clean and Beautiful Bhutan 2020 Forest and Nature Conservation (Amendment) Rules and Regulations Appendix D 78 Table D.4 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in India Year Policies and legislation 1974 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1977 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act 1981 The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act The Environment Protection Act (amended 1991) 1986 The Environment Protection Rules 1991 Coastal Regulation Zone Notification The 73rd Constitution Amendment Act 1992 The 74th Constitution Amendment Act 1999 Recycled Plastics Manufacture and Usage Rules (amended 2002, 2003) 2006 EIA Notification 2010 National Green Tribunal Act Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2011 Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and labelling) Regulations Solid Waste Management Rules Plastic Waste Management Rules (amended 2022, 2023, 2024) Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules 2016 Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Trans-boundary Movement) Rules (amended 2017, 2019, 2024) Biomedical Waste Management Rules 2018 Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules (prohibiting 20 identified single-use plastic items by 2021 1st July 2022) 2022 E-Waste (Management) Rules (amended 2024) Table D.5 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in the Maldives Year Policies and legislation 1993 Environmental Protection and Preservation Act 2006 Regulation on the Protection and Conservation of Environment in the Tourism Industry 2010 Solid Waste Management Regulation 2013 Waste Management Regulation 2015 National Solid Waste Management Policy 2016 National Health Care Waste Management Policy 2019 Strategic Action Plan (SAP) of Maldives 2019-2023 2020 17th and 18th Amendments to Export/Import Act Single-Use Plastic Phase-out Plan for the Maldives 2021 Fifth Amendment of the Waste Management Regulation 2022 Waste Management Act Appendix D 79 Table D.6 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Nepal Year Policies and legislation 1987 Solid Waste (Management and Resource Mobilization) Act and Regulations 1996 Solid Waste Management National Policy 1999 Local Self Governance Act Solid Waste Management Act 2011 Plastic Bag Regulation and Control Directive Environment Friendly Local Governance Framework 2013 Solid Waste Management Rules 2015 Parliament Environment Committee Direction to Ban Plastic Bags 2018 Plastic Bag Below 40 Microns Ban 2019 Environment Protection Act Environmental Protection Rules 2020 National Health Care Waste Management Standards and Operating Procedures 2021 Ban on Production, Import, Sale and Usage of Plastic Bags Less than 40 Microns 2022 Action Plan for Ban on Plastics Table D.7 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Pakistan Year Policies and legislation 1997 Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 2003 Hazardous Substances Rules 2005 National Environmental Policy 2005 Guidelines for Solid Waste Management 2005 Hospital Waste Management Rules (repealed 2022) 2012 National Climate Change Policy 2012 Guidelines for Processing and Using Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) in Cement Industry 2013 Prohibition of Non-degradable Plastic Products (Manufacturing, Sale and Usage) Regulations Amendments to Prohibition of Non-Degradable Plastic Products (Manufacturing, Sale, Usage) 2015 Regulations of 2013 Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency Ban on (Manufacturing, Import, Sale, Purchase, Storage, 2019 and Usage) Polythene Bags Regulations 2021 National Climate Change Policy (Updated) 2022 Hospital Waste Management Rules 2022 National Hazardous Waste Management Policy 2023 Single-use Plastics (Prohibition) Regulations Appendix D 80 Table D.8 Waste and plastic policies and legislation in Sri Lanka Year Policies and legislation 1862 Nuisance Ordinance No. 15 1939 Urban Councils Ordinance No. 61 1947 Municipal Councils Ordinance No. 29 1980 National Environmental Act No. 47 Pradeshiya Sabhas Act No. 15 1987 Provincial Council Act No. 42 1988 National Environmental Act No. 56 1990 North-Western Provincial Council Statute No. 12 1993 National Environmental Procedure for Approval of Projects 1996 Hazardous Waste Regulation No. 924/14 2000 National Environmental Act No. 53 2007 National Solid Waste Management Policy Marine Pollution Prevention Act No. 35 2008 National Environmental Protection and Quality Regulations Gazette Notification No. 1533/16 2009 Western Provincial Council Statute No. 9 Government Gazette Notification No. 2034/36 2017 Government Gazette Notification No. 2034/33, 34, 35, 37, 38 2018 National Waste Management Policy National Policy on Waste Management 2020 National Action Plan on Plastic Waste Management 2021-2030 2021 Government Gazette Notification No. 2211/50, 51 2022 National Environmental Action Plan 2022-2030 Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 2341/30 banned nine single-use plastic items ( drinking 2023 straws and stirrers; single-use plates, cups, spoons, forks, and knives; plastic garlands; and plastic string hopper trays) PET Regulations No. 2353/55 , Order under Section 23W of the National Environmental Act, No. 47 of 1980, prohibited the manufacture of bottles from colored PET to be used for the purpose of storing 2023 water; the use of PVC for labeling bottles; and the use of polythene or any other non-degradable material as extra seal (shrink cap) for bottle). Appendix D 81 Appendix E Typology of Waste and Plastic Policies and Regulations The typology of plastics policies and regulations used in this study is presented in table E.1. This includes policies and legislation on municipal and other solid wastes (rows 1-4), government intervention in the plastic chain (rows 5-9), and market-based instruments (rows 10-11). Table E.1 Typology of plastic policies and regulations No. Type Description and examples Solid waste 1 This includes legislation specifically on solid waste management, as well as on management specific waste types, including hazardous, medical, and e-waste. Hazardous 2 Hazardous waste waste includes materials that are potentially harmful to human health or the environment; medical waste consists of waste generated in healthcare facilities 3 Medical waste that may be infectious or bio-hazardous; and e-waste refers to discarded electronic devices that may contain hazardous materials. 4 E-waste 5 SUP bans Banning specific products (e.g., SUP bags, EPS, plastic cutlery, multi-layered plastic 6 SUP bag policies sachets). Levies to reduce the scale of production or consumption of single-use Wider single-use plastics/products are also considered here. SUP policies (e.g., levies) and bans for 7 plastic bags had a greater policy focus and were considered separately. Phase-out product/plastic bans plans include the use of various policies to phase out the production, import, and/ Plastic phase-out or consumption of certain SUPs, including promoting alternatives. 8 plans This specifically relates to enabling the use of recycled materials to make new Product standards/ products or applications (e.g., food contact materials) and determine requirements 9 specifications and restrictions on hazardous substances (e.g., separate collection of plastics containing hazardous materials). Extended Producer This includes any deposit return schemes (e.g., for plastic bottles) and subsidies 10 Responsibility provided by producers for improved waste management and recycling. policies This includes any ban or tax on imports (including of plastic waste) or incentives Other market-based 11 (e.g., tax relief) on capital investment and/or manufacturing that uses recycled instruments materials, or taxes to dissuade from the use of specific plastic types (e.g., PVC tax). Sources: Adapted from Watkins et al. 2019; UNEP 2018b; and World Bank. Note: EPS = expanded polystyrene, PVC = polyvinyl chloride, SUP = single-use plastics. Appendix E 82 REFERENCES ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2013. Solid Waste CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). 2022. Management in Nepal: Current Status and “Waste Management – Plastic Waste – Rules.” Policy Recommendations. Manila: Asian New Delhi: Central Pollution Control Board, Development Bank. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. Ali, Nurshad. 2024. “The recent burden of dengue infection in Bangladesh: A serious public Dholakia, Amit. 2019. “Transboundary Rivers of health issue.” Journal of Infection and Public South Asia – The Case for Regional Water Health, 17(2): 226-228. Management.” Environment, Politics & Foreign Affairs, Impakter. London: Impakter. Ahsan, A., M. Alamgir, M. M. El-Sergany, S. Shams, M. K. Rowshon, N. N. Nik Daud. EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency). 2014. “Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste 2021. “Plastic pollution is a global problem Management System in a Developing requiring a global solution.” Country”. Chinese Journal of Engineering. 2014(1-11), 561935. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. n.d. “Plastics and the circular economy – deep dive.” Isle of Alberich, Josep Pinyol. 2022/3. “Motivations of Wight: Ellen MacArthur Foundation. European Union Members States to Adopt Circular Economy Strategies: Towards a EU Monitor. 2019. “Legal provisions of Critical Geopolitical Approach.” No. 39, p.45- COM(2019)190 - Implementation of the 72. Journal of Innovation Economics & Circular Economy Action Plan.” March 4. Management. EUR-Lex. 2020. Communication from the Anakur, L.B. 2018. Closing the Western Indian Commission to the European Parliament, Ocean’s Plastic Tap. June 5. Story. Gland: the Council, the European Economic and International Union for Conservation of Social Committee and the Committee of the Nature and Natural Resources. Regions – A New Circular Economy Action Plan For A Cleaner And More Competitive Baah, Samuel Kofi Tetteh, R. Andres Castaneda Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of Aguilar, Carolina Diaz-Bonilla, Tony Fujs, the European Union. Christoph Lakner, Minh Cong Nguyen, and Martha Viveros. 2023. “March 2023 global Geyer, Roland, J.R. Jambeck, K.L. Law. 2017. poverty update from the World Bank: the “Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever challenge of estimating poverty in the made.” Sci. Adv. 3, e1700782. pandemic.” Blog, March 29. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. GRID-Arendal. 2018. “The Hindu Kush Himalayan region.” Outlook on climate change CEA (Central Environmental Authority). 2024. adaptation in the Hindu Kush Himalaya. Battaramulla: Central Environmental Arendal: GRID-Arendal. Authority, Ministry of Environment, Government of Sri Lanka. Hirji, Rafik, Alan Nicol, and Richard Davis. 2017. South Asia Climate Change Risks in Water CIEL (Center for International Environmental Management. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Law). 2019. Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Costs of a Plastic Planet. Management Institute (IWMI). CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). Horton and Dixon. 2017. “Microplastics: An 2019. “Annual Report for the year 2018- introduction to environmental transport 2019 on Implementation of Plastic Waste processes.” WIREs Water, 5(2). Management Rules (As per Rule ‘17(4)’ of PWM Rules, 2018).” New Delhi: Central ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Mountain Development). 2020. “South Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Asia’s transboundary rivers.” Regional Government of India. Webinar Series, River Basins and Cryosphere References 83 Programmes. Kathmandu: International Maldives through Adaptation in the Tourism Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. Sector, Maldives. Republic of Maldives: Ministry of Tourism. JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2016. Data Collection Survey of Solid Waste Mendenhall, E. 2018. “Oceans of plastic: Management in Democratic Socialist a research agenda to propel policy Republic of Sri Lanka. Final Report. Kokusai development.” Marine Policy, 96, 291-298. Kogyo Co. Ltd. MoECCT, Maldives (Ministry of Environment, Johansen, Mathilde Rosenberg, T.B. Christensen, Climate Change and Technology). 2021. T.M. Ramos, K. Syberg. 2022. “A review of the Single-use Plastic Phase-out Plan. plastic value chain from a circular economy Government of Maldives. perspective.” Journal of Environmental Management, 302(A). Mukherji, Aditi, David Molden, Santosh Nepal, Golam Rasul, and Patrick Wagnon. 2015. Jones, Nicola. 2023. “Microplastics Are Filling the “Himalayan waters at the crossroads: issues Skies. Will They Affect the Climate?” February and challenges.” International Journal of 1. Yale Environment 360. Water Resources Development, 31:2, 151-160, DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2015.1040871. Kaza, Silpa, L. Yao, P. Bhada-Tata, and F. Van Woerden. 2018. What a Waste 2.0–A Global NAS (National Academies of Sciences, Snapshot of Solid Waste Management Engineering, and Medicine). 2022. Reckoning to 2050. Urban Development Series. with the U.S. Role in Global Ocean Plastic Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Waste. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Kharas, Homi and Wolfgang Fengler. 2021. “Which will be the top 30 consumer markets NEPA (National Environmental Protection of this decade? 5 Asian markets below the Agency). Waste Management. Kabul: The radar.” Future Development Blog, Brookings, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. August 31. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2022. Global Plastics Koelmans, A.A., N.H.M. Nor, E. Hermsen, M. Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060. Paris: OECD Kooi, S.M. Mintenig, and J. De France. 2019. Publishing. “Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water: Critical review and assessment of data Parker, Laura. 2024. “The world’s plastic pollution quality.” Water Resources, 155:410-422. crisis, explained.” Environment. National Geographic. Lindwall, Courtney. 2020. “Single-Use Plastics 101.” Guide, January 9. New York, NY: NRDC Pathak, D.R. 2017. Solid waste management (Natural Resources Defense Council). baseline study of 60 new municipalities. Government of Nepal: Solid Waste Maldives Ministry of Environment and Energy. Management Technical Support Centre 2018. Feasibility Study Report for Regional (SWMTSC). Solid Waste Management Facility in Thilafushi. Republic of Maldives: Ministry of Patil, P., N. Stankevich, N. Tsydenova, Z. Diana. Environment and Energy. 2023. Plastic Waste in Road Construction: A Path Worth Paving? Washington, D.C.: The Maldives Ministry of Environment and Energy. World Bank. 2019. Single Use Plastic Phase Out Plan 2020-2023. Republic of Maldives: Ministry of Plastindia. 2018. Report on the Indian Plastics Environment and Energy. Industry. Edition 2. 10th International Plastics Exhibition, Conference and Convention, Maldives Ministry of Tourism. 2015. Assessment Ahmedabad, India. January. Plastindia of Solid Waste Management Practices and Foundation. its Vulnerability to Climate Risks in Maldives - Increasing Climate Change Resilience of RSNZ (Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi). 2024. “Plastic factsheets. 5 Rima Recycling plastics”. References 84 SACEP (South Asia Co-operative Environment Waste Concern. 2014. Bangladesh Waste Programme). 2018. Towards Litter Free Indian Database. Waste Concern Technical Report Ocean – Summary of the Regional Marine Series. Dhaka, Bangladesh. Litter Action Plan for South Asian Seas Region. Colombo: South Asia Co-operative Waste Concern. 2021a. Baseline Survey for Environment Programme. Material Flow Analysis for Waste Plastic and Hotspots Assessment for Marine Plastic SACEP (South Asia Co-operative Environment Debris in Dhaka, Chattogram ad Cox’ Bazar, Programme). 2022. “About us.” Colombo: Bangladesh - Task 1 report. Washington, D.C.: South Asia Co-operative Environment The World Bank. Programme. Waste Concern. 2021b. Baseline Survey for Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund. 2024. Material Flow Analysis for Waste Plastic and Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of Hotspots Assessment for Marine Plastic the Montreal Protocol. Montreal: Secretariat of Debris in Dhaka, Chattogram ad Cox’ Bazar, the Multilateral Fund (UNEP). Bangladesh - Task 2: Waste Composition and Material Flow Analysis for Waste Plastics. Sri Lanka Ministry of Environment. 2021. National Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Action Plan on Plastic Waste Management 2021-2030. Watkins, Emma, Jean-Pierre Schweitzer, Eeva Leinala, and Peter Börkey. 2019. “Policy STI (Sustainable Travel International). 2024. approaches to incentivise sustainable plastic “Tackle Waste & Pollution.” design”. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 149. Paris: OECD Publishing. Thennakoon, T.M.S.P.K., Rev. Pinnawala Sangasumana, and G.M. Bandaranayake. 2018. Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett. 2014. “Spatial Variation of Plastic Waste Generation “Global emissions of trace gases, particulate in Present Sri Lanka.” International Journal of matter, and hazardous air pollutants Research in Social Sciences, 8(5). from open burning of domestic waste”. Environmental science and Technology, Tufail, Tehreem. 2023. “Plastics - A Growing 48(16):9523-9530. Washington, D.C.: American Industry In Pakistan.” Karachi: Zaraye. Chemical Society. UNEP (United Nations Environment World Bank. 2017. Maldives to Improve Solid Programme). 2018a. Banning single-use Waste Management with World Bank plastic: lessons and experiences from Support. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. countries. World Bank. 2018. Rapid Assessment of Kabul UNEP (United Nations Environment Municipality’s Solid Waste Management Programme). 2018b. Single-Use Plastics: A System. Report No. ACS19236. Washington, Roadmap for Sustainability, Rev. ed., pp. vi; 6. D.C.: The World Bank. Nairobi: UNEP. World Bank. 2020. “South Asia Ramps up Eco- UNEP (United Nations Environment Innovation to Curb Marine Plastic Pollution.” Programme). 2020. National guidance for Press Release, June 8. Washington, D.C.: The plastic pollution hotspotting and shaping World Bank. action – Introduction report. Authors: Boucher, J., M. Zgola, X. Liao, A. Kounina, G. World Bank. 2021. Towards a Multisectoral Action Billard, P. Paruta, A. Bouchet, EA, Quantis Plan for Sustainable Plastic Management in International. Nairobi: UNEP. Bangladesh. December. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2024. “South Asian seas.” World Bank. 2022. Squaring the Circle: Policies Regional Seas Programmes. Nairobi: UNEP. from Europe’s Circular Economy Transition. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. United Nations. 2022. “UN Comtrade Database.” Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. References 85 World Bank. 2023. Tangled Seas: A Snapshot of Abandoned, Lost, or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear in South Asia. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank. 2024a. Maldives Clean Environment Project. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank. 2024b. Maldives: Country Environmental Analysis – Towards a More Sustainable and Resilient Blue Economy. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank. 2024c. “World Bank Country and Lending Groups.” Data. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank. 2024d. World Bank Open Data. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. WRF (World Resources Forum). 2023. “Circular Economy – Policies and Learnings from Europe”. December 5. St. Gallen: World Resources Forum. References 86 South Asia Water Initiative The South Asia Water Initiative (SAWI) is a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF) supported by the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and administered by the World Bank. The MDTF was launched in 2008 to strengthen water resources management within and between the countries sharing the rivers of the Greater Himalayas (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, and Pakistan) to deliver sustainable, fair, and inclusive development and climate resilience. SAWI works in three river basins (Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra) and one landscape (Sundarbans). The aims of SAWI are to (1) Strengthen awareness and knowledge about regional water issues, (2) Enhance technical and policy capacity, (3) Support dialogue and participatory decision processes to build trust, and (4) Scope and inform World Bank investments. SAWI is also involved in regional cross-cutting work that supports non-basin specific activities such as groundwater management and water resources planning. In this context, the program seeks to promote poverty alleviation, economic development, gender inclusion, and climate change adaptation. PROBLUE PROBLUE is a multi-donor trust fund administered by the World Bank that supports the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources in a healthy ocean. PROBLUE supports the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Under Water) and is fully aligned with the World Bank’s mission to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity on a livable planet. PROBLUE focuses on the following four key themes: 1. Improve governance in fisheries and aquaculture 2. Prevent and reduce marine litter and pollution 3. Reduce environmental impacts from traditional and new economic oceanic activities 4. Strengthen capacity in resilient seascape planning and management For more information, please visit: www.worldbank.org/problue. © 2024 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org