Cleaning up after ourselves

The environment deserves more from us humans than the cursory glance or the occasional clean up. The way we structure our lifestyles needs to account, and take responsibility, for this. The concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) brings an interesting aspect into it that is direly needed in the Maldives.

The concept basically rounds up the entire lifespan of a product and tucks it within the scope of responsibility of the producer. This means not only will the producer have to conduct themselves within acceptable standards during production, but also take responsibility for the collection, recycling, and final disposal of the manufactured products. 

While this might sound an overreaching attempt at curbing waste mismanagement, this idea has been around since 1990 when Thomas Lindqvist first presented the strategy to the Swedish Ministry of Environment. Multiple countries, including Sweden, South Korea, and Japan, to name a few, are already implementing this policy with success. Over 30 countries in Europe have come on board, albeit  in their own ways. A nation as small as the Maldives, with environmental fragility always on its agenda of concerns, should seriously consider implementing EPR laws.

The main companies that produce plastic waste in the Maldives will be the Maldives Aerated Water Company, with its soft drinks and bottled water production, and MWSC with their line of bottled waters. By implementing these laws (proper studies have already been done by independent researchers on the feasibility of this change in operational standards), there are multiple goals to be achieved.

The framework for this is easy to understand and adopt. The innovation of ecologically sustainable and safe designs would be an obvious first priority for the producers, so as to ensure that the end of life of a product falls within certain parameters. This means incorporating better alternatives to the raw materials being currently used, creating products that have minimal impact on the environment, and so forth. This shift in attention would not only be beneficial to the company but to the nation as well.

As development continues, the companies are then incentivised into preparing proper collection methods for their products to be reclaimed for recycling. Improvements to the waste management and resource recopy would undoubtedly shift the financial burden of waste management from the public to the producers, while simultaneously reducing the amount of waste being taken to the landfills. 

The framework can be established according to three different policy instruments. One is a product take back mechanism, which will be based on performance standards that determine the extent of recycling the producer is responsible for. This standard incentivises the producer to choose production processes or even products that are easier to reuse and recycle.

Another instrument that may be applied is the Deposit Refund System, (DRS), which involves the consumer in the process. This is when the consumer puts down a deposit when purchasing the product, which is refunded when the consumer returns the consumed product to a collection service. This method will change the consumer’s behaviour, and also incentivise the recycling lifestyle best for the environment.

A third method is to involve the consumer by charging an Advance Recycling Fee (ARF) upon purchase, which finances the collection, recovery, and recycling of the product. However, the offset to this is that the consumer may not be motivated to change their lifestyles, nor play a role in easing the collection process.

In a situation where the DRS system is not adopted, there are then balances to be drawn between the producer’s involvement in the physical process of collection. In short, these balances involve financing the waste management service in collection, establishing contracts with local authorities to collect the necessary products, financing the private company tasked with the collection, or the producer establishing both the finances and the manpower needed for the collection process. The ARF would contribute to easing the financial burdens of this balance.

In a Maldivian context, a DRS would require the authorities to take a proactive step in establishing collection and refunding mechanisms. Then the government can either impose a mandatory or voluntary scheme to ensure that the population adheres to, and participates in, ensuring full functionality in the process.

Palau is one example in drawing parallels to other Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The country established a DRS in 2006, which has been successful so far. In this case, even imported products are charged what could loosely be considered as an ARF of $0.10 per container, and the money was transferred to a Special Fund managed by the Ministry of Finance. Once the bottle is returned to a Redemption Centre, operated by the state, the consumer receives a receipt which can be claimed to refund $0.05. With $0.025 then kept by the Ministry for compensation, the remainder is then funnelled to the operation costs of the Redemption Centre.

To take such a crucial step in the right direction, the producer, importers, and retailers need to be studied by volume, even though all three would be collectively referred to as 'Producers.' To this end, a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) will need to be established to organise the efforts and to take on the organisational brunt of the operation. 

A special DRS fund will be needed to get the ball rolling, which can be achieved by requiring the producers to either pay an annual fee to the fund, or to charge producers, like in Palau, based on the output of the companies, either by import or production, money which will then be deposited into the special fund.

The scheme provides authorities with four options on establishing a PRO, one of which is to utilise already existing organisations such as Parley. A second option is to establish collection options in supermarkets and retails stores. A third would be more neighbourhood-based with collection options on curb-sides. This third option could be incorporated into the WAMCO framework. A fourth option is to take steps to establish proper refund mechanisms for consumers to incentivise them to go the extra mile.

The Maldives is a small enough nation where sweeping changes can take root within a short time frame, but what the nation is lacking is a decisive leadership in the matters that matter. Since 1987, the Maldives has been involved in the fight against environmental destruction, and it is about time the talk matched the walk. Granted, there are further technicalities that need to be ironed out when it comes to recycling processes, but with due studies and preparation, the volume of the work is indeed manageable. Sustainability needs to stop being seen as an option, and become part of every development policy implemented henceforth.