Abstract
The authors summarise the issue of regulation of single-use plastics (SUPs) and consider how it will affect Central America. They also discuss the importance of a regionally integrated approach, suggesting how the Central American Integration System (Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana or SICA) could and should develop such an approach, noting additional advantages, if it is done sooner rather than later.
With the pending implementation of single-use plastics (SUP) policies and law internationally, including across the European Union and in China, the spread of these commercial and environmental initiatives can be expected to impact the countries of the Central American Integration System (Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana or SICA) as early as 2021. Moreover, the efforts of the Pacific Alliance (a neighbouring regional bloc) to promote a SUP strategy for its members as part of its 2016 Green Growth Platform, provided further encouragement to SICA member States to announce a regional commitment to a bold “Plastic-Free Region”, with single-use plastics as an inevitable first test case. This commitment can be understood as a quantum leap forward on this global issue, given that the countries of SICA had arguably lagged behind other regions on plastic pollution initiatives and this.
The form that these SUP programmes will take, including their adopted methodologies, scope, performance obligations and commercial systems will raise critical questions as to how the countries of SICA should respond. In isolation, individual SICA countries may find that the worldwide pressure for local plastics pollution solutions and the pressure from international supply chains for global homogeneity make the maintenance of domestic-only SUPs difficult, if not impossible, to maintain.
On the basis of both immediate and near-term-future financial benefits, this article argues in favour of a SICA SUP strategy and states that there is a time-limited window of opportunity for the region to preserve its priorities and independence on this critical international environmental and commercial issue.
SICA Commitments to Address Plastics
The Plastics Crisis and How it Affects the SICA
According to the UN Environment Programme’s 2018 report Waste Management Outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean, 1 the region as a whole faces significant waste management challenges. For example, about a third of all waste generated – about 145,000 tonnes per day – ends up in open dumps, causing serious impacts on health and the environment. On the other hand, it is estimated that only 10 percent of the waste generated is recovered, so that a large amount of valuable material and energy resources are wasted.
The situation in respect of plastic material management is no better. World production of plastic materials in 2016 was estimated to be about 280 million tonnes, one third of which is SUPs. The UN Caribbean Environment Programme’s June 2019 report “Status of Styrofoam and Plastic Bag Bans in the Wider Caribbean” 2 noted,
The Caribbean is the second most plastic-contaminated sea in the world after the Mediterranean Sea. Estimations of the volume of plastic waste in this area range from 600 to 1,414 plastic items per square kilometer in different locations.
As of 2016, roughly 17,000 tonnes of plastic waste were placed in open dumpsites each day across Latin America and the Caribbean. In Costa Rica alone, it is estimated that of an annual production of at least 600 million bottles made of disposable plastic, almost 90 percent are not collected, much of which ends up accumulated in hydrographic basins, coasts and marine environments.
Within the SICA, SUPs in the form of drink bottles, plastic bags, caps and tops, utensils, dishes and glasses are among the items that have been identified as generating the most plastic waste, representing at least 40 percent of the overall plastic waste volumes.
Efforts to address this worldwide crisis will necessarily include a meaningful plan to address plastic waste issues in Central America, and the participation and commitment of national governments of SICA will be critical to the success of any such strategy.
Gap Between SUP Consumption and Waste Infrastructure
In understanding the current challenges within SICA (and elsewhere) around SUP-generated waste, there is a clear need to recognise the rapidly expanding gap between SUP consumption and the waste infrastructure to service that consumption.
As noted in Waste Management Outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean, there continues to be a “projected exponential growth” in municipal solid waste across Latin America and the Caribbean. Although already high (541,000 tonnes) in 2014, the daily municipal solid waste level is expected to rise by more than 100,000 tonnes per day (to 671,000 tonnes) by 2050. This creates significant health and safety challenges as more than 40 million people within Latin America and the Caribbean still lack access to a basic collection service. Some SICA members have yet to develop waste management laws and virtually none of them have the necessary infrastructure to respond to this crisis.
Arguably, any solution to address the current gap between generation and recovery of plastics waste involves both controlling the types, uses and volumes of plastics being placed on the market within Central America and undertaking reasonable and near-term infrastructure measures, matching current regional capabilities and recovery market goals.
Commitment to Integration for Environmental Goals
A shared commitment to sustainable development has existed among Central American countries since the 1990s, when long-term environmental and resource planning began to change in many parts of the world. What is relatively new, however, is the recognition that the countries of SICA will ultimately be able to achieve their goals only through regional integration. SICA is aware of this reality and, since ALIDES in 1994, 3 has opted for sustainable development which is now in line with the pillars of integration and commitment to fulfil the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Therefore, the presidents mandated that SICA seek solutions that are not only relevant but also find harmony between environmental and economic agendas.
Part of the integration effort on environmental matters includes common commitments on legislative standards for environmental preservation, water, energy and contamination control issues.
Action Plan for Plastic-free Region
During the 51st Meeting of Heads of State and Government, the Central American presidents agreed on the elaboration of an Action Plan for the conservation and protection of the environment and the integral management of risks of natural disasters, including efforts to convert the region into a plastic-free zone. In response, SICA has recognised that progress on plastic pollution matters has been occurring as part of broader waste management initiatives:
Various efforts are currently being carried out from the SICA countries, aimed at generating action plans at the national and local levels to reduce the use of plastics and solid waste, not only to reduce the use of plastic but also to correctly manage solid waste in the region. 4
Plastic-free Region
The countries of SICA have seemingly recognised the harm caused to the regional and local environment by plastics, including marine pollution, and have made the bold long-term commitment to become “plastic-free”:
A region free of plastics is one of the initiatives that are currently being designed by the governments of the SICA member countries aimed at generating action plans at the national and local levels to reduce the use of plastics and waste towards the correct management of solid waste in the region.
Both domestically and regionally this commitment is both a challenge and an opportunity. Under the far-reaching plastic-free goal, many options are available to the SICA members.
Relevant SUP Developments Outside the SICA
The immediate and near-term local and SICA-wide opportunities which will become available with the switch away from conventional plastics (including SUPs) need to be better emphasised regionally. The difficult work begins with the implementation measures supporting SICA-specific solutions to plastic pollution. In considering their options, it is valuable for SICA countries to understand the developments of SUP laws elsewhere.
What’s Been Happening Globally on SUPs?
There have been a host of other countries that have initiated some form of SUP regulation. The UN Report, Legal Limits on Single-Use Plastics and Microplastics: A Global Review of National Laws and Regulations
5
found that, as of July 2018: 127 countries (including some countries without well-developed waste diversion programmes) regulated plastic bags; 27 countries enacted legislation restricting products, materials and/or production levels; 30 countries charge consumers fees for plastic bags at the national level; 27 countries instituted a form of tax on the production of plastic bags; 43 countries have specified mandatory “elements or characteristics” of “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) for plastic bags; and 63 countries have EPR requirements for other SUPs as well, delivering programmes such as deposit-refund systems (DRSs), product take-back or recycling targets.
In short, there is no shortage of tangible examples of regulatory action.
The EU’s SUP Directive
In the area of concrete measures on SUPs, the European Union has been a first mover. Central to any regional strategy on SUPs must be some consideration (if rejection) of the regulatory measures for SUPs proposed by the European Union Directive on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment.
It would be inaccurate to posit the Directive as principally requiring prohibitions upon SUPs. It is certainly more nuanced and will likely give rise to national laws from Member States which reflect the challenges in successfully managing plastics commercially, while reducing plastic pollution, both starting in 2021 and through longer-term initiatives.
The following are some of the SUP control mechanisms in the EU Directive relevant to SICA:
Attached Caps and Lids
Beverage containers of up to three-litre capacity must have attached caps and lids; however, the beverage containers themselves, other than oxo-degradable plastic containers (discussed below), are not restricted by the EU SUP Directive in spite of being commonly associated as a principal target of SUP regulatory initiatives.
Product Markings/Awareness Measures
Some SUPs are specifically targeted. These include sanitary towels, wet wipes, tobacco products and beverage cups. The plastics must bear a “conspicuous, clearly legible and indelible” marking on the packaging or product, providing the information for consumers regarding “appropriate waste management options” for the product or waste disposal means to be avoided, and explaining the presence of plastic in the product and the resulting “negative impact of littering or other inappropriate means of waste disposal of the product on the environment”. The EU will develop harmonised specifications for these markings. The Directive also mentions the need for other awareness-raising measures to both inform and incentivise consumer behaviour in reducing plastic litter.
EPR Schemes
The directive calls for States to incorporate EPR programmes of undetermined structure, governance and oversight, particularly for, inter alia, fast-food and ready-to-eat food containers; consumption-ready food packets and wrappers; beverage cups; beverage containers holding up to three litres; and lightweight plastic carrier bags. These EPR schemes shall assume the costs (but not necessarily the control over): Awareness-raising measures around issues such as re-usable alternatives, re-use systems, waste management options and the impact of inappropriate waste disposal on the environment and infrastructure such as sewer networks; Waste management of the EPR-mandated products – everything from recapturing discarded products from the public collection system, to transport and “treatment” of those materials; Costs of cleaning up the litter (read: legacy) of those products and their subsequent transport and treatment.
It’s notable that these EPR schemes themselves do not have, as founding objectives, any necessary reduction in the amount of product they introduce into the EU market.
Consumption Reductions
The Directive calls on EU Member States to achieve a “measurable quantitative reduction in consumption” (note that this does not call for bans) of SUP take-away food containers and cups. These provisions do not apply to beverage containers, plates, packets or wrappers containing food. The reductions are to be achieved by 2026, as against 2022 baselines. The methods are not fixed: the Directive presents multiple policy options for Member States to achieve these reductions, including the following: Ensuring that alternatives to SUPs are available at consumer point-of-sale; “Economic instruments”, including (but not necessarily) charges to consumers at point-of-sale, such as deposit-refunds or a SUP levy; Sectoral agreements between government and industry on waste management targets; Marketing restrictions to promote non-SUP alternatives and re-usable products.
In short, each EU Member State will articulate for itself the content of the particular consumption reduction means it will use to achieve the commitment.
Oxo-degradable Plastics
Oxo-degradable plastics are associated with the generation of marine microplastics pollution. As such, SUP products using oxo-degradable plastic are specifically prohibited. Among the products that often include these ingredients are cotton bud sticks (also known as “cotton swabs”); plastic cutlery and plates; plastic straws and beverage stirrers; and take-away food and beverage containers and cups made of expanded polystyrene.
Summary
In sum, an examination of the EU SUP Directive essentially reveals a waste management programme for plastics not dissimilar from the types of schemes which have already been adopted for other regulated products such as electronics in the EU and elsewhere. This makes the implementation measures for SUPs somewhat less obscure given the experience the EU has had with EPR and other management measures of these other regulated materials.
China’s Coming SUP Ban
In January 2020, in a move now obscured by the intervening COVID-19 crisis, China announced a graduated five-year roll-out of bans on SUPs, including many of the same items targeted by the EU Directive, to wit: plastic bags; straws and utensils; cotton swabs; packaging and tape; and microbeads. Perhaps the most notable omission from China’s SUP ban are beverage containers – a regulated, though not necessarily banned, product under the EU SUP Directive. It is not clear that China will support alternative plastics to replace these materials, such as some form of “biodegradable” or “compostable” options. This is perhaps a sign that China is leaning towards the EU’s approach of not choosing to embrace alternative plastics for use in SUPs.
The Pacific Alliance’s Green Growth Platform
Latin America’s other regional bloc, the Pacific Alliance, has adopted a joint initiative under its Green Growth Platform of 2016. This landmark initiative agreement between Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile was not merely a regional emission reduction accord, adjunct to the Paris Agreement, but an economic strategy to be built upon the “strengthening [of] sustainable consumption and production methods, helping to promote investment for environmental goods and services, to encourage green jobs, and to support progress toward the decoupling of economic growth from its reliance on the use of natural resources”. 6 Among the ambitious goals of the initiative is “[to] develop a platform to articulate and promote a common environmental agenda that addresses shared environmental priorities and contributes to the implementation of the SDGs in the framework of a 2030 agenda, advancing information systems, measurement and indicators” [emphasis added].
The Pacific Alliance has not yet arrived at a specific and implementable set of shared environmental priorities for plastics to make the Green Growth Platform a success in addressing plastic pollution. Many of the key commercial and policy issues remain to be addressed in the process of developing those priorities.
SICA SUP Strategy Challenges
In order to determine how the EU programme, China’s coming SUP law, and the Pacific Alliance’s Green Growth Platform should inform a new SICA strategy on SUPs, it is necessary first to gain a better understanding of current regional capabilities around plastic waste.
Inconsistent Data Sets
According to the UNEP’s Waste Management Outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean report, the value of the available waste management data to domestic and regional initiatives is limited:
Information on generation and collection of municipal solid waste is generally available, but there are difficulties to integrate data between national and local levels, as well as between countries; this is due to the lack of harmonization of waste generation and management indicators.
Without the ability to truly benchmark current SUP waste volumes and movements, the requirements for a successful SUP strategy, either locally or domestically, will require modelling of outcomes, perhaps based upon comparable available data elsewhere within the region. One challenge discussed below relates to terminology, where various SICA members adopt inconsistent taxonomy for both plastic waste and its treatment.
Collection Network Challenges
An assessment of regional SUP strategy capabilities needs to start with collection. SICA countries are commonly required to rely upon localised collection activities in the place of national collection networks, even where there is national waste management law. Of the major cities within the SICA countries, the coverage of general waste collection services varies among select cities: 90 percent: Tegucigalpa and Santo Domingo 80– 90 percent: Panama City, Managua, San Salvador 70 percent: Guatemala City
Collection rates fall precipitously outside of major cities consistently across Central America. In many SICA member regions, waste collection is virtually non-existent.
Limited Waste Infrastructure
Waste disposal infrastructure also varies across SICA members. Currently, El Salvador (78.2 percent) operates with the highest rate of sanitary landfill coverage.
Dumpsites remain prevalent within Latin America and the Caribbean, with an estimated 145,000 tons per day either ending up in dumpsites, being burned or being otherwise inadequately disposed of. This is equivalent to 27 percent of the regional population, or to the waste generated by 170 million people.
It is difficult to obtain data on resource recovery facilities in Latin America and the Caribbean or that is specific to SICA countries.
The Environmental Paradox of “Light-weighting”
Within the range of SUP production (including packaging), one emphasis has been on “light-weighting”, that is, decreasing the weight of the product, primarily through reducing the amount of heavier materials (e.g., glass and metal) and thereby resulting in lower levels of transportation-related carbon emissions. These practices, however, have also diminished the value or second-use potential of the SUPs, effectively dooming them to landfill and dispersal into the environment. At that point, however, they also have diminished value to the formal and, most importantly, the informal waste sectors which are responsible for the majority of SUP collection across Central America. Product design incorporating multi-material and multi-layer construction, although a blessing to product makers, is a curse to recyclers.
The Costa Rican National Strategy recognises this dilemma:
The main problem with single-use plastics is that neither their collection nor is recycling profitable, so they are at the mercy of nature. These products are generally bulky, underweight, and not well paid, which complicates recycling.
In other words, this environmental SUP “solution”, never designed for SICA infrastructure capacities and socio-economic conditions, becomes part of the problem.
The Need for Consistent Definitions of Regulatory Terms
As a precondition for a functioning regional strategy on SUPs, consistent meanings should be adopted across the region, for important terms in a wide range of areas: Classification of materials and products; End-of-life status of materials and products; The collection, storage, handling and transportation of waste materials; Core waste processes, such as source separation, segregated collection, landfilling, recycling and other resource recovery; Classification and permitted usage of secondary feedstock; and Secondary-market and recycled-product content standards.
This is not to say that each SICA member should adopt the same performance standards and outcomes, but only that all should be assessable using the same methodology.
The Need for Agreement on Regional Movement of SUPs
Once common definitions and regulatory standards are adopted, there is an opportunity to impose standards on the regional movement of material within Central America, which would be fostered by a form of regional inter-governmental agreement on the movement of SUP materials. Consistent with other recyclables and wastes, this would simplify the regulatory and financial burdens for such movements and potentially give rise to new infrastructure built upon regional economies of scale. As part of this agreement, harmonisation with existing commitments such as those under the Basel Convention would be necessary.
SICA’s Need to Adapt, Not Simply Adopt EU-driven Plastics Methodology
Considerable work is currently focused on the improvement and development of additional standards regarding both the content of plastics and their performance at end of life. Various ASTM International (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) standards that have been used in US cities and states are being considered. Specifically, the ASTM D6400 standard “to assess compostability and degradability”, and ASTM D6400-19 standard “for labeling of plastics designed to be aerobically composted in municipal and industrial facilities” are in this category. 7
As yet, there are no international standards for domestic composting, but some countries have developed national standards for biodegradable plastics suitable for home composting. Examples include Australia’s AS 5810-2010 (Biodegradable Plastics – Biodegradable Plastics Suitable for Home Composting), France’s NF T51-800:2015 (Plastics – Specifications for Plastics Suitable for Home Composting), Germany’s DIN V 54900-1 and Japan’s Green Plan. 8 These, too, are under consideration, as are ASTM D7081-05 for “Non-floating biodegradable plastics in the marine environment” and an ASTM standard that is being developed – ASTM WK42833 on a “New Test Method for Determining Aerobic Biodegradation of Plastics Buried in Sandy Marine Sediment under Controlled Laboratory Conditions”. 9
A plastics industry initiative, led by the trade association Plastics Europe, is undertaking to produce a set of guidelines for eco-design of plastics packaging and design for recycling to maximise re-use and recycling of plastics packaging, with the goal of setting standards for plastics within the circular economy context. 10
The World Economic Forum and Ellen MacArthur Foundation have a joint action plan to tackle plastics. That plan includes the development of a set of global standards for packaging design and a Global Plastics Protocol, which many companies, cities and governments have endorsed. 11
The challenge facing the SICA countries with regard to these initiatives is that they are (implicitly, if not explicitly) designed primarily with an anticipation of waste-related infrastructure and current capabilities which many Central American countries are not in a position to develop in the near term. Perhaps more importantly, the strict methodology of these standards does not allow for the use of alternative, local materials to replace and preclude preferred international plastics materials (of whatever formulation), thereby limiting and potentially excluding local industry opportunities.
Quality and Performance Standards as Part of SUP Recovery
In addition to material content and performance standards, there are related resource recovery performance standards which anticipate and attempt to harmonise with content standards, forming a “system”, through which the solution to the plastics crisis involves becoming favoured by international supply chains. Currently, for instance, EU and ISO standards such as those relating to material recycling, organic recycling, energy recovery, waste-to-energy and labelling, include environmental performance specifications.
SICA members should see these standards as a starting point for adaptation, if not replacement, by standards which reflect regional strategy and capabilities. It is certain, however, that some form of quality and performance standards will necessarily be included in a SUP programme. These global standards initiatives are thus a starting point for local adaptation or replacement of some or all of the underlying methodologies and technical requirements in finding an economic model which best favours Central American available resources and industrial opportunities.
Matching Performance Requirements with SICA Practices
As noted in a March 2020 European Commission report entitled “Relevance of Biodegradable and Compostable Consumer Plastic Products and Packaging in a Circular Economy”,
12
there are real questions as to whether EU performance standards reflect actual plastics management practices, even in the EU Member States. Such problems also exist in Central America. For instance, the Industrial Compostability Standard – EN 13432 (the standard adopted by the Costa Rica National Strategy) – was found to contain performance assumptions which do not match actual EU practice, including the following: Aerobic biodegradation and disintegration test durations are too long; and The assumptions in the anaerobic biodegradation test do not reflect reality.
The above-mentioned EU report recommended that “Member States conduct their own trials to determine whether the Standard is fit for the purpose”. Clearly, a similar exercise needs to be conducted by SICA countries before such standards are imported into a regional (or domestic) resource recovery strategy.
Road to a Plastic-free Region
SICA SUP Landscape – Domestic Approaches and Limited Results
There is domestic and international pressure felt in countries across various regions, including in Central America, calling for immediate and visible domestic initiatives on plastic pollution, with the result that the approaches adopted so far are not coordinated regionally, nor do they necessarily reflect the domestic capabilities or needs.
Costa Rica
“National Strategy for the Replacement of Single-use Plastics with Renewable and Compostable Alternatives, 2017– 2021”
On a policy basis, Costa Rica is a leader within the SICA region on SUPs. The “National Strategy” was promoted within Costa Rica as a “process of voluntary and joint action between the public sector, the central government, local governments and the private sector through non-governmental organizations (NGOs), industry, commerce and the general public”.
The current target items under the National Strategy include many of the items contained within the EU’s SUP Directive, including plastic bags, liquid containers, plastic dishes, straws and take-away food containers. Among the goals of the National Strategy is the following:
By 2021, increase of 30 percent (compared to 2017) in the economic activity associated with the production and trade of products made from renewable sources and of recycling processes and that are compostable.
The National Strategy is more than an aspirational policy statement and promotes a range of material/waste management and public awareness measures to better achieve the intended goals. In addressing alternatives to conventional plastics, however, it adopts existing international methodology for materials performance, as well as a recovery processing standard without any comment as to whether these standards would be suitable within Costa Rica. Specifically, it directly adopts terms for its “reliability-centred maintenance” (RCM) elements from other sources, as follows: “Renewable”: using the ASTM D6866 standard for biobased/biogenic carbon content to equate the findings with an environmental “renewable” standard; “Compostable”: adopting the ASTM D6400 standard “to assess compostability and degradability”; “Compostable in a Marine Environment”: adopting the (withdrawn) ASTM 7081: 2005 “Standard Specification for Non-Floating Biodegradable Plastics in the Marine Environment”; and “Recoverable”: adopting the EU requirements of EN 13432 for packaging that is recoverable through composting and biodegradation.
This methodology, however, is a mismatched grouping. For example, the EU packaging materials standard is 20 years old and not specific to plastics. Thus it arguably has little relevance to either SUPs or Central America. This highlights the fact that standard adoption provides opportunities among the SICA members to adapt a better RCM methodology to materials choices which match the environmental, socio-political and infrastructural capabilities of the region.
The National Strategy does contain an initiative around research and development which signals an intention to identify materials (consistent with the RCM methodology) which might better serve Costa Rica (and Central America):
Stimulate research and development (R&D) between specialized laboratories, private companies, universities, technical colleges and training centers for to create and design packaging, bags and containers of solid and liquid products that are renewable and compostable.
The results of this research will likely need to serve as the regulatory standard and not merely an alternative compliance opportunity, if materials (bioplastics and alternatives) not suited for Central America are otherwise permitted and preferred by international supply chains.
The National Strategy also creates a registry of products and companies whose products promote reductions of plastics, through self-reporting targets and achievements with the UN Development Programme serving as the coordinator. This appears similar to the voluntary Waste and Resources Action Programme adopted in certain European countries and now extended to certain non-EU countries.
Costa Rica’s Plastics Laws
Perhaps recognising that this voluntary programme will yield limited results, it has been followed by two 2019 plastics management laws:
Act for the Prohibition of Expanded Polystyrene: This Act amends the Act for Waste Management, N. 8839, to ban the importation, commercialisation and delivery of expanded polystyrene (EPS) packages and containers in any commercial establishment. There are three exceptions to this general prohibition. First, the ban does not apply to situations where, due to conservation or product protection reasons, the use of alternative materials is not environmentally viable. Second, it does not apply to packaging used for certain types of products, e.g., household appliances. Third, EPS packaging may still be permitted for industrial uses.
Act to Fight Plastic Pollution and Protect the Environment: Costa Rica’s Act to Fight Plastic Pollution and Protect the Environment restricts the use of straws and plastic bags, with exceptions available for items such as bags of a certain thickness, as well as bags “certified as low environmental impact” and biodegradable bags (see the National Strategy). It also restricts the use of plastic bottles unless they meet specified recycled content requirements that are to be defined by bylaw. The latter bylaw will impose different requirements depending upon usage as well as local considerations such as the recovery technology available and accessible within Costa Rica (or perhaps regions of the country) and the availability of resin within local markets for such content.
This law imposes clear sectoral obligations on various stakeholders, mandating that importers, manufacturers, marketers and distributors of plastic bottles engage in all of the following activities: Operate a recovery/re-use/recycling/waste-to-energy system; Participate in a sectoral waste programme; Design-for-environment for plastic products and packaging; and Support one or more municipal comprehensive waste collection and management systems.
Costa Rica’s law clearly recognises that an SUP approach needs to involve both restrictions and a range of waste management measures.
Guatemala
Recently, the Guatemalan government issued a ministerial decree, to become effective in the fall of 2021, banning the use of certain SUPs, including consumer plastic bags and various products such as plastic plates, cups and straws. The decree creates uncertainty as to its requirements and allows every municipality to issue its own regulations. More than 15 local regulations are already in place, many of which appear inconsistent with the ministerial decree.
The decree also proposes to adopt substitutions of single-use plastics for compostable plastics, perhaps consistent with the ASTM standard discussed above. Interestingly, there are examples in Guatemala of banana leaf fibre being used as feedstock for alternative material to plastic – perhaps highlighting a regional economic opportunity but that also raises the health concerns due to food management and sanitation processes that would be better managed in accordance with national or regional quality requirements.
Like Costa Rica, however, the Decree does not align the materials standards with actual existing capabilities in Guatemala as there are no national industries with the ability to compost polymers. Further, Guatemala does not have an integrated national policy that harmonises SUP initiatives with other infrastructure and educational strategies.
Further, the Decree was issued in the absence of waste management regulations, which will limit its effectiveness and arguably convey the unintended message to the public that SUP laws alone are restrictions necessary to prevent waste pollution.
Belize
The government of Belize enacted the Environmental Protection (Pollution from Plastics) Regulations 2020 in January 2020, which also serves as a standard for plastics restrictions in the region.
Specifically, the Pollution from Plastics Regulations divides the target materials into two categories: “Restricted” SUPs (including “barrier bags” and plastic packaging, such as plastic films); and “Prohibited” SUPs, which includes many of the same items targeted for mandated reductions under the EU SUP Directive, including SUPs composed of styrofoam.
Somewhat similar to Costa Rica, the Pollution from Plastics Regulations include exemptions for bio-plastic materials. Such materials, however, must be biodegradable, compostable or “environmentally degradable”, a term not common in international SUP regulation.
These standards are not expressly tied to ASTM or other international bodies but instead will be determined either by the Belize Bureau of Standards (with presumably some resort to current standards elsewhere) or by third-party certification, against the general definitions in the Pollution from Plastics Regulations.
Belize has also adopted a permit system for those seeking to import a prohibited SUP similar to those used internationally for banned hazardous substances.
Nicaragua
In Nicaragua, the possible prohibition of plastic bags and provisions to “promote the recycling of other plastic products” is currently under discussion. As part of this assessment, Nicaragua is said to be studying the laws that exist in other countries of the SICA region, particularly as they relate to the use of plastic bags and the potential for biodegradable alternatives. This is consistent with the country’s 2005 National Policy on Solid Waste Integral Management which endorses the promotion of non-generation of solid waste and, similarly, the replacement of plastic bags.
Panama
Panama’s SUP law is Panama Decree Law 1, which was published in the Official Gazette on 19 January 2018. It prohibits the use of polyethylene bags to transport goods and products in supermarkets, self-service shops, retail and commercial establishments.
This SUP law also seeks to promote re-usable bags in place of the banned material. Other more comprehensive initiatives are also being contemplated, including one that considers imposing progressive reductions and restrictions on SUPs in 2021.
El Salvador
While no current SUP law exists, El Salvador’s Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources has been working on a bill to ban single-use plastic, such as straws and supermarket bags, in an effort to reduce plastic pollution. Four different initiatives appear to be circulating, but to date none of them have received the support needed to become law.
Honduras
No Honduran national SUP law currently exists. Restrictions on plastic bags have been imposed at the municipal level in the Bay Islands tourist area. It is not clear when Honduras may move to a nationwide SUP law, though its Ministry of Environment has been in consultation with industrial organisations and experts regarding this possibility.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic has a Strategic Institutional Plan for 2020– 2023 which includes a policy commitment to “regulat[e] plastic use on beaches to reduce environmental damage to marine biodiversity and productive activities in the area coastal”. To date, however, no specific laws have been developed to implement this commitment.
Summary
In short, the state of SUP regulation within the SICA countries suggests both a willingness on behalf of national governments to impose some measures regarding plastic pollution and an urgent need for a regional frame of reference under which to do so.
A Call to SICA Action on SUPs
There are numerous reasons for the SICA countries to move now to implement a regional strategy on SUPs, including these: Opportunity for near-term financial recovery: SUPs (and other plastics) represent a resource for which there are clear short-term recovery solutions which will result in near-term, tangible economic gains for local communities across Central America; Intense pressure to address plastic pollution: the plastics pollution crisis will draw increasing pressure globally, calling for the SICA countries either to develop a regional remedial plan or to have one imposed upon them; International stakeholder funding available: significant funding from international stakeholders has accompanied the push for a plastics pollution solution. Such assistance will be of particular importance during the challenging post-COVID-19 economic situation; Regional material flows need addressing following the Basel ban: a consequence of the recent amendments to the Basel Convention, making the movement of plastic waste more difficult, has been the disruption to traditional volumes and sourcing for SICA resource recovery markets – a robust regional SUP strategy would seek to address these disruptions; In the absence of a regional strategy, SUP policy will be externally imposed: the types of commercial SUP decisions being made in the EU, and perhaps China, will be effectively implemented in the SICA countries where a regional commercial alternative plan is not developed; Material bans must be feasible regionally: there remain critical issues as to which types of SUPs, for which uses and of what plastic material (or alternative plastic), should be permitted by SICA countries and only through alliance will they be able to ensure their collective choices are implementable; SUPs may be an entry point for SICA environmental cooperation: with many countries moving to greater regional harmonisation, including on environmental and commercial matters, SICA countries need to similarly coordinate their efforts to maintain independent decision-making. A SUP strategy could be a relatively easy entry point for the commencement of such a joint effort; Regional scale needed for SUP value recapture: in order to address both the leakage of SUPs and their value loss in less productive uses, it will be necessary to apply sufficient economies of scale, which can be best provided through regional (rather than domestic-only) infrastructure; Innovation and specialisation: with economies of scale will also come the conditions for investment in innovative products and specialised resource-recovery solutions, potentially serving the entire region. External solutions will be imported into SICA countries, if its members do not otherwise develop their own; Commercialisation through EPR favours regional consistency: as EPR may well form part of the solution for SUP resource recovery, the formation of effective producer responsibility groups is enhanced through regional Producer Responsibility Organisation models servicing discrete industry segments and able to administer programme consistency across multiple countries; SUP standards development suitable for SICA: the current growth of SUP content standards outside of Central America corresponds with work on resource-recovery process requirements and specifications, all of which will be implemented in SICA countries, unless those countries adopt a regional alternative. The default process is problematic, as these standards are based upon socio-economic and environmental conditions dissimilar to those of Central America; Regional labelling and recovery symbols: without direct SICA standards, the extension of international standards for SUPs will include imposed labelling and resource-recovery symbol systems which will not adhere to the current capabilities of SICA members; Regional market data will attract investment: the early adoption of regional terminology and methodologies will generate SICA-wide data necessary to better attract investment; Facilitation of material flows: due to the wide variety of SUP materials and compositions, local governments and industry are forced to domestically dispose of, as “scrap”, materials which could otherwise be valorised in other SICA countries, if the barriers to transfer were lifted, as would occur within a regional strategy; Ensuring safety: a critical issue with a SUP strategy will be the need to ensure that food and other safety measures are imposed and that the quality of the content of any SUP is assured – a regional strategy allows for SICA countries to impose tracking-and-tracing regional technology to ensure the provenance of the SUPs introduced in their markets; and Delay will make harmonisation more difficult: with individual Central American countries developing disparate programmes, which may well become the bases of investments and long-term commitments, it is clear that a move to harmonise internally will be more difficult the longer it is delayed.
In summary, there are both immediate and near-term financial benefits to an SICA SUP strategy, but there is a time-limited window of opportunity in which the region will be able to preserve its priorities and independence on this critical international environmental and commercial issue. SICA members are well positioned to take advantage of this opportunity.
Footnotes
UN Environment. 2018. Waste Management Outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean. Panama City: UNEP Latin America and the Caribbean Office.
UN Caribbean Environment Programme. 2019. “Status of Styrofoam and Plastic Bag Bans in the Wider Caribbean”.
The Alliance for Sustainable Development (Alianza para el Desarollo Sostenible de Centroamérica – ALIDES) is an agreement between the presidents of Central America, signed in 1994, aimed at improving the standard of living of their people but by promoting social equity alongside economic growth.
[This quotation may have come from the meeting reported online at https://www.sica.int/reuniones/li-reunion-de-jefes-de-estado-y-de-gobierno-del-sistema-de-la-integracion-centroamericana-sica_1_113642.html. Ed.]
UN Environment. 2018. Legal Limits on Single-Use Plastics and Microplastics: A Global Review of National Laws and Regulations. UNEP and the World Resources Institute.
See https://www.biobagusa.com/; and 
.
OECD. 2019. Waste Management and the Circular Economy in Selected OECD Countries. Online at https://www.oecd.org/publications/waste-management-and-the-circular-economy-in-selected-oecd-countries-9789264309395-en.htm; Din Certco. 2016. “Certification Scheme Products made of compostable materials for home and garden composting according to AS 5810 and/or NF T 51-800”. Online at https://www.dincertco.de/media/dincertco/dokumente_1/certification_schemes/home_composting_certification_scheme.pdf; and UNEP. 2015. Global Waste Management Outlook. Online at .
UNEP (2015), ibid.
OECD, supra, note 8.
Ibid.