"Countries such as Taiwan, Finland, Japan, Switzerland, and Australia have successful waste sorting and recycling systems, and their practices can be used as a reference for improving waste management policies in other regions."

"Countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, and Norway have the best waste sorting and recycling systems, and their practices can be used as a model for improvement."

Countries like South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan have successfully implemented waste management practices, including waste levies, which can serve as a model for other regions to improve their waste sorting and recycling systems.

The global recycling rate for plastic materials is less than 9%, with only 9% of the 6.5 billion tonnes of plastic waste created since 1950 being recycled.

The Hong Kong government will implement the urban solid waste charging system on August 1, 2024, to reduce waste generation and increase recycling rates.

"Countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore are known for their successful waste sorting and recycling systems and can be used as examples for other countries to improve their waste management policies."

"Russia is implementing waste recycling projects, including a reform in the system of extended producer responsibility (EPR) supported by President Vladimir Putin, which requires manufacturers to dispose of 100% of packaging."

The European Union has set a recycling target of 55% for municipal waste by 2025.

The Japanese government supports waste sorting and recycling by promoting e-waste reuse and extracting valuable materials, demonstrating a successful practice in improving recycling rates.

Germany has the highest household recycling rate, recycling 62% of its plastic waste.

"Countries such as Taiwan, Finland, Japan, Switzerland, and Australia have successful waste sorting and recycling systems, and their practices can be used as a reference for improving waste management policies in other regions."

Title:

Content: Hong Kong ’ s slow progress in environmental governance – why not look at the Greater Bay Area and the world?
Author: Liu Mengting
Published: Updated:
In 2005, the SAR Government proposed to develop a recycling economy, that is, to reduce the environmental burden by repairing, recycling and extending the service life of materials, to find a way out for recycling recyclable materials, and to promote the development of related industries and promote economic diversification.
However, more than a decade later, Hong Kong ’ s circular economy has not made much progress.
In this regard, some scholars suggest leveraging the advantages of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.
At the same time, Hong Kong ’ s waste management policy is not yet climate, and we must match the experience of “top students ” such as Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.
Circular Economy Enemies the Greater Bay Area
Professor Patrick Poon, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, has been developing a patented technology for converting waste glass into environmentally friendly bricks since the 1990s, with a view to improving the recycling efficiency of waste glass.
Green brick is a kind of concrete brick, can effectively use construction waste and waste glass, the third generation of green brick has been put into the market as paving brick.
For more than 20 years, the technology has been optimized by scholars to the fifth generation, but it is still “technology without market ”.
In an interview with "Hong Kong 01" recently, Poon mentioned the two main reasons why the development of the local green brick industry is hindered, which is also the dilemma faced by Hong Kong's circular economy.
Pan Chih-sheng says that the research on green bricks has been successful, but the price is not competitive. (photo by O'Cara)
One of the main reasons is that local manufacturing has caused the high enterprise products to lose market advantage. Poon analysis, because the whole production process of environmentally friendly bricks produced in Hong Kong is completed in Hong Kong, and the land price and labor in Hong Kong are very high, and the price has also risen with the water. It is necessary to open up the market to achieve maximum trade liberalization, so the possibility of contractors choosing Hong Kong materials for profit considerations is very low.
On the other hand, the Hong Kong government has not introduced relevant policies to require the actual use of environmentally friendly materials, in the absence of just the premise, the market share of environmentally friendly bricks is unstable, and the current use of the third generation of environmentally friendly bricks is about 20% more expensive than natural sand bricks, so the project side may not consider the use of environmentally friendly bricks.
Another major obstacle is that the government did not help. Pan Zhisheng pointed out that environmental protection bricks are made of recycled materials, although the quality and performance of the bricks are not lost to natural sand and stone, but the quality difference is greater.
However, according to the existing government regulations, the two are regarded as the same, that is, the quality of environmentally friendly materials is too high, but it may still be regarded as unqualified due to the degree of quality difference. This single regulation is a constraint for the application of environmentally friendly bricks. If the outlook does not improve, it will be more difficult to attract investors.
Under such a vicious cycle, the government has no intention to invest or give support, and the environmental protection brick industry chain has become a dead end.
The recycling rate of local waste in Hong Kong is low, and exports are facing many restrictions.
In an interview with Hong Kong 01, Wong Woon-chung, director of the Johan Centre for Applied Forestry Research in the Pearl River Delta (PRD), Hong Kong Baptist University, pointed out that the land resources in Hong Kong are tight, such as the opening of a recycling plant for recycled materials will double the cost.
Mr Wong stressed that the circular economy requires complementary advantages from different regions. There is no way out if the development vision is limited to Hong Kong. (photo by Mr Cheng Tze-feng)
Waste management in Hong Kong is inefficient and should be seen around the world
South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan implemented waste levies in 1995, 1996 and 2000 respectively. Since then, they have gradually developed comprehensive and mature environmental policies with local characteristics.
Hong Kong's waste management system has been fragmented for many years, and it is time to look at the world and learn from advanced experience and thinking.
Hong Kong ’ s waste management policy has not been good for many years, and the climate should be on par with other regions. (Photo by Tsai Cheng-pong)
Korea has introduced waste utilization measures in a multi-pronged manner to achieve long-term management, so the Korean waste management system is at the forefront of Asia.
For example, the city of Seoul, which has achieved the most remarkable results, introduced a series of supporting measures in a few years to change the entire waste treatment model, public perception of waste and living habits after the implementation of the garbage levy system in 1995.
In contrast, the Hong Kong Government is always "discussing" with the industry and "considering" the initiatives of environmental protection groups.
Taiwan is also a leader in waste management in Asia.
The Taiwan government sent a special cleaning team to collect household waste from residents using two types of recycling trucks – yellow garbage trucks are used to collect general waste from residents using official garbage bags, and white garbage trucks are used to collect raw and cooked food waste, plastic and other recyclable resources.
As early as 1997, the Taiwan Environmental Protection Agency launched the "Resource Recovery 4-in-1 Program", which fully mobilized the role of the government, manufacturers, consumers and licensed recycling enterprises in waste management, not only to skillfully distribute the financial costs, but also to reflect the principle of impartiality.
Singapore has a small population, similar to Hong Kong, but the waste recycling work is more professional and centralized.
In Singapore, three waste management enterprises are licensed by the National Environment Agency (NEA) to provide waste collection and recycling services to residents in different parts of the country. The waste is meticulously classified into paper, plastic, glass and metal, and the garden waste is collected separately.
In the recycling process, incineration plants reduce the volume of waste by 90%, and then use 3% of non-incineration and non-recyclable waste to landfill to reduce the environmental burden.
According to statistics, Singapore ’ s solid waste recycling rate reached 51.7% in 2020, a model that Hong Kong can learn from.
As for the administrative efficiency of the Mainland, it is also worth reflecting on the Hong Kong government. In July 2019, Shanghai implemented what has been described as the “world ’ s most stringent ” waste separation measure.
First of all, its domestic waste is strictly divided into four categories, namely recyclables, hazardous waste, wet waste and dry waste; secondly, if individuals or units do not dispose of garbage in accordance with the classification, they will be punished with severe high fines.
Under the mandatory implementation of the government, Shanghai residents have achieved good environmental protection results after experiencing "pain".
The Garbage Levy Ordinance has already been introduced, but the Government must not be complacent about it, but must think about how to tie in with the Ordinance in the next step, and adopt a systematic and comprehensive thinking to achieve long-term waste management.
Leave a comment...

"Countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, and Norway have the best waste sorting and recycling systems, and their practices can be used as a model for improvement."

Countries like South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan have successfully implemented waste management practices, including waste levies, which can serve as a model for other regions to improve their waste sorting and recycling systems.

The global recycling rate for plastic materials is less than 9%, with only 9% of the 6.5 billion tonnes of plastic waste created since 1950 being recycled.

Title:

Content: Addressing the Issue of Plastic Pollution

On the heels of a challenging year dominated by the COVID pandemic, the Global Plastic Action Partnership (GPAP) and its partner governments have met critical milestones, including:

  • Ghana, Nigeria, Indonesia, and Viet Nam came together as early adopters in the Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership
  • Ghana committed to a 100% circular economy for plastics

Africa.com connected with Kristin Huges for a more in-depth look at the work GPAP is doing. Our Q&A follows.

What is the Global Plastic Action Partnership?

The Global Plastic Action Partnership is a public-private partnership aiming GPAP is the World Economic Forum’s multistakeholder platform for shaping a more sustainable and inclusive world through the eradication of plastic pollution.

GPAP was created in 2018 by a group of public, private and civil society leaders with the World Economic Forum because they believed that when we come together, we can create real impact and real change.

Working with all of these organisations at the global and national level, GPAP delivers insights that help governments, companies, and individuals take the steps they need to turn commitments on plastic pollution into action with tangible results.

Our work to reduce plastic pollution and waste is underpinned by the transition to a circular economy for plastics, which directly addresses the root cause of plastic pollution by replacing the “take-use-dispose” model with a closed-looped approach throughout the plastics life cycle.

We focus on 6 impact areas:

  1. informing policy
  2. unlocking finance
  3. transforming behaviour
  4. boosting innovation
  5. harmonizing metrics
  6. promoting inclusivity

How serious is the issue of dumping plastic?

The issue of plastic ending up in nature due to poor behaviour and lack of infrastructure to manage the amount of plastic waste we generate is indeed very serious and is something that has only become worse due to the COVID pandemic. We know that at least 8 million tonnes of plastic waste flow into the ocean every year. Under the ‘business-as-usual’ approach, there will be more plastics than fish in the ocean by 2050. The issue has only been exacerbated by COVID. As restaurants and shops shut down and governments issued ‘shelter-at-home’ orders, many ordered food deliveries, purchased groceries online, and switched to disposable utensils for convenience and for reassurance, we saw the rise of single-use plastic. Many communities are not set up to manage the collection and recycling of this plastic so at best it ends up in landfills, but more often it flows into the environment ending in water sources and eventually the sea.

What are the consequences of ignoring this issue?

The plastic pollution crisis has ballooned over the past decade, but the good news is that awareness of this issue has also risen very sharply among the public. Only 14% of the plastic packaging used globally is recycled. Plastics entering the marine environment is set to double by 2040; without action, more than 1.3 billion tonnes of plastic waste will be dumped on land and in water bodies, and more than 2.2 billion tonnes will be open burned. Since 1950, the world has created 6.5 billion tonnes of plastic waste, 91% of which has not been recycled. Even if current recycling commitments are met, the plastics entering the ocean is on course to rise from 11 million tonnes now to 29 million tonnes by 2040.

Plastics are undeniably essential, versatile, and affordable; they are the bedrock of medical equipment and protective gear, keeping our frontline workers safe. But there is also a worrying trend: demand for disposable plastic products, driven by the fear of viral transmission, is skyrocketing. While the capacity to deal safely with these materials after use, however, is not.

What is considered global best practices for addressing the issue?

A number of countries have worked with us to develop a roadmap of action to engage in addressing the plastic pollution issue. There is not a single actor or single action that can solve this problem; rather the approach much be systemic, and a myriad of players must engage to wholistically address plastic pollution. In terms of best practices, I would suggest that countries that are taking the steps first to analyse the situation and understand the issue are moving in the right direction. Building on this analysis, we recommend a number of steps be taken upstream and down to support a transition to a circular economy for plastics.

A few of the action areas include:

  • reducing and substituting avoidable plastic use
  • redesigning plastic products and packaging for the purpose of reuse or recycling
  • increasing the collection of plastic waste
  • increasing recycling capacity
  • expanding safe waste disposal facilities to process the existing plastic that can’t be recycled

Which countries around the world are taking a leadership role to mitigate this issue?

At the Global Plastic Action Partnership, we are currently working with four countries, including Indonesia and Viet Nam in South East Asia and Ghana and Nigeria in Africa. Yesterday we also announced a partnership with Pakistan which we are excited to see engage. These countries are each working with us to take bold steps to address plastic pollution.

How effective are their practices?

We are already seeing some reduction in Indonesia as well as investments being made in the country aligned with the recommendations in our action roadmap. Investments have been committed in innovation upstream as well as recycling facilities to support better action downstream. Similarly, Ghana will publish its action roadmap soon and we understand the government is already taking positive steps to bring investments into the country to better support its waste management and promote behaviour change campaigns that will encourage a shift away from the linear take-use-dispose approach and transition more into a circular economy for plastics.

Which African countries are taking a leadership role?

We are currently working with Ghana as well as Nigeria in developing platforms for action to address the issue of plastic pollution. Together, with ministries like the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation of Ghana and the Federal Ministry of Environment for Nigeria we are co-creating solutions that will enable the governments to address the plastic pollution problem and promote a circular economy for plastics.

What role do various stakeholders have to play – individuals, communities, private sector, etc?

Everyone has a role to play. There is not one single actor who can solve this issue. Plastic pollution is truly an issue in which every segment of society needs to step up and play its part. Governments need to set targets and implement programs that will lead to concrete changes and create incentives that shape a positive environment for investing in steps aligned with plastic waste reduction. Businesses need to transition to greener supply chains; consumer goods companies, for example, need to redesign their packaging to use plastics alternatives or plastics that are recycled and recyclable. We are already seeing new business models spring to life, including reuse and refill types of businesses that encourage a circular economy for plastics. Consumers must adopt the principles of ‘reduce-reuse-recycle’ into their daily lifestyles. We have become a society that likes ease and comfort but we as consumers also have an important role to play in reducing plastic waste.  Investors must inject funding into innovations and solutions that have the potential to scale up impact dramatically while also looking to new infrastructure engagement opportunities like recycling plants versus the traditional roads and bridges types of investments.

What are the economics of this work?

In Indonesia, we worked closely with the government, academia, civil society and private sector to create a national action plan for reducing marine plastic debris by 70%. We have since produced a financing roadmap for how to mobilize the $18 billion needed in funding to fully implement this plan, and we are moving these recommended actions forward through five locally-led Task Forces. So we know that significant investments are required to support the efforts of leading governments aiming to address this issue, but the consequences of ignoring the situation and avoiding the necessary investment will end in far worse circumstances.

Who is paying to clean up the oceans?

At the Global Plastic Action Partnership, we are focused more on land-based solutions aiming to address the issue at source. A number of donor organisations and governments are supporting these efforts to assist those countries looking to address the issue and take action for positive impact. Greater investment is needed to ensure we can turn the tide on plastic pollution. Through our national plastic action partnership model we bring together the most influential and committed decision-makers, experts and changemakers to develop a joint approach to tackling plastic pollution in every country – an approach that is locally led, locally driven, and puts the livelihoods and wellbeing of people and communities at the forefront. We still have a lot of work cut out for us and we welcome the engagement and collaboration – from others whether representing the public or the private sector, civil society, academia or international organisations.

The Global Plastic Action Partnership is Making an Impact in Fighting Plastic Pollution

  • GPAP annual impact report illustrates the importance of turning the tide on plastic pollution through collaboration and public-private partnership
  • Despite progress, ocean plastic flows are expected to triple by 2040
  • Sustained collaborative action could stem the tide by more than 80%
  • Read the full report

Learn about the Forum’s impact

Scroll to Top

We are committed to Africa

Unlike many global publications, for nearly a decade we have been committed to showing a complete picture of Africa – not just a single story.  Offended by one-sided coverage of wars, disasters and disease, the founders of Africa.com created a website that provides a balanced view of Africa – current events, business, arts & culture, travel, fashion, sports, information, development, and more.

Will you support us?

The Hong Kong government will implement the urban solid waste charging system on August 1, 2024, to reduce waste generation and increase recycling rates.

Title:

Content: Waste Levy in many parts of the world urges public to pay attention to waste reduction
February 03, 2024 12: 58
Eastern Network Television
More News Clips
Ms Ho called for reducing waste generation and increasing recycling rates.
The Hong Kong Government has delayed the implementation of municipal solid waste charges until August 1 this year. The Executive Director of the Environmental Protection Promotion Council, Dr Ho Wai-ping, said today (3) that the waste charging system has been widely implemented in many parts of the world and has had some success. Charges and recycling system.
She believes that each area has different garbage bags and recycling bins, residents need to pay the corresponding fees according to the type and size of garbage, and also encourage residents to carry out waste separation and recycling at home.
In 2022, the per capita disposal of municipal solid waste in Hong Kong landfills reached 1.51 kg per day, compared with the daily disposal of many foreign cities of less than 1 kg, so the amount of waste in Hong Kong is quite high.
The waste charging system encourages the public to reduce waste generation and increase recycling rates. This will not only help reduce the burden on the environment, but also promote the sustainable development of the recycling industry and create more green jobs.
She believes that when people need to pay for their own waste, they will pay more attention to their own consumption patterns and actively strive to reduce waste generation.
She added that the implementation of waste charging also faces some difficulties and challenges, such as public understanding and acceptance, just like when you travel to other areas, you have to take away the waste produced, or do a good job of recycling.
What does it mean that the public may think that the government is just collecting extra revenue, but the waste is never automatically sent to the landfill, and it takes some procedures and a lot of resources to carry out, she pointed out that waste reduction is actually very simple, as long as the public actively do a good job of clean recycling, take "green in the area", do not have to pay for waste, and can also exchange for green reward points for daily necessities.

"Countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore are known for their successful waste sorting and recycling systems and can be used as examples for other countries to improve their waste management policies."

"Russia is implementing waste recycling projects, including a reform in the system of extended producer responsibility (EPR) supported by President Vladimir Putin, which requires manufacturers to dispose of 100% of packaging."

Title:

Content: Sergei Korolev: in the "garbage" reform of Russia it is necessary to take an example from Belarus - RIA Novosti, 19.09.2022
Registration was successful!
Please follow the link from the letter sent to
Sergei Korolev: in the “garbage ” reform of Russia it is necessary to take an example from Belarus
© Photo: REO Deputy Director General of SPC REO for investment development Sergey Korolev
Read ria.ru in
In August, Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting with the Director General of the Russian environmental operator Denis Butsaev supported the reform in the system of extended producer responsibility (EPR).
Now the obligation to dispose of 100% of the packaging will fall on the shoulders of its manufacturers.
About what other changes await the institute of ROP, how to ban plastic on Lake Baikal without scaring off tourists, and how caring for the environment can bring income, said in an interview with RIA Novosti correspondent Pavel Zyuzin Deputy Director General of the SPC REO for investment development Sergei Korolev.
- The government of the Russian Federation announced the transition to a "green" model of public procurement - a list of goods was approved, the description of which from 2023 will need to indicate the share of recycled materials used in production.
Is it planned to introduce other “green ” parameters in public procurement?
- Yes, the government decree came out, it determines, so to speak, the rules of regulation.
The list will be approved separately.
All this will work in the direction of state and municipal procurement.
This is really a new measure that should encourage entrepreneurs to switch to a circular economy.
Today, there are opportunities for this, not all, but there are some.
The full range of all regulations and state support will appear in the period from 2023 to 2025.
It should not work so that the company participates in some tenders and declares that its products are more "green" because it uses 20% of secondary raw materials.
State support is needed to produce such raw materials so that it is profitable for business and that it is competitive.
Today, strategic decisions are being made that radically change the entire system of waste management in Russia.
This is a mechanism of extended producer responsibility, but it is not possible to separate these mechanisms.
They work systematically: one complements the other, and one follows from the other.
This is how a full-fledged circular economy is formed.
The list of goods in the "green" public procurement will indeed be formed, it will be amended.
Everything will depend on how our economy of production of secondary resources will develop rapidly.
If we understand that a significant amount of recycled plastic has appeared on the market, which an entrepreneur can use in casting containers, household items, economic turnover: buckets, basins, if we understand that this product is available and it can be used, and the entrepreneur does not, then these mechanisms of "green" requirements will begin to work effectively.
It will not be some kind of prohibitive mechanism or restrictive, it will be a mechanism that complements what is already available as support measures.
- At the same time, the REO initially proposed stricter parameters of "green" public procurement...
– Yes, there was talk of banning some plastic altogether – disposable plastic, plastic straws, polystyrene products that are not recycled at all.
There were proposals to ban part, to limit part.
But we understand that we need to act step by step, systematically and compare two things: the willingness of producers, the willingness of markets to strengthen and price policy – it should not worsen the situation of consumers.
When the whole mechanism works, we should already have all the norms, all the rules of regulation that can be “taken off the shelf ” and brought to action.
- At a meeting with the President of the Russian Federation, the general director of REO Denis Butsaev asked him to support changes to the law on extended producer responsibility.
The amendments should, among other things, solve the problem with fake acts of enterprises on recycling.
What changes are waiting for the ROP Institute?
To understand what is needed for the effective work of the ROP, you need to understand why it is not working now.
ROP was introduced in 2015, when they established an environmental fee and gave the right to manufacturers of goods in packaging to dispose of it in three different ways.
The first way: you build the enterprise yourself, buy equipment and recycle your plastic bottles.
Second: you give the packaging to the recycler, get the recycling certificate and do not pay the environmental fee.
You can also contact the association that unites packaging manufacturers, it will find a recycler that will prepare such an act, and you, again, will not pay the environmental fee.
The last option: you do not apply to anyone, but pay an environmental fee to the state.
Why hasn ’ t the system been fully operational?
Because there are a lot of fake recycling acts on the market.
Such conditional disposal: according to the documents it was, but in fact - not.
When we understand that Russia collects an environmental fee about the same as Belarus, about five billion rubles a year, despite the fact that our economy is 25 times larger, then questions arise.
How does that work?
Where does everything else go?
The volume of garbage disposal at landfills does not decrease, and this means one thing - the packaging is not recycled.
Documents are somehow made only as reporting documentation, and the eco-fee is not paid.
That is why now a unified state information system is being created, where all data from product recyclers will be handed over.
They will be checked, and not just by documents, but by the availability of equipment, technologies that are able to do this.
There are cases when the recycler declares the disposal of 300 thousand tons of waste, and during the inspection it turns out that it has a capacity of 100 thousand.
Who is going to do this surveillance?
- Now Rosprirodnadzor is engaged in this, it will remain, we will participate in this, collect information, together with the department to monitor the situation.
But that ’ s just the first problem with Rob.
The second problem is low recycling rates.
In Russia, they range from 10 to 45%.
They released, conditionally, 100 thousand plastic bottles, and only 30 thousand need to be disposed of, and why not dispose of the rest?
It was introduced as a kind of transitional stage, but it was very long delayed.
All over the world, 100% is recycled: how much you produced, how much you recycle, or pay for recycling.
Russia is the only country where there is a reduced recycling rate, all over the world it is 100%.
The third element that will change is the transfer of responsibility from the producers of goods to the producers of packaging.
Conventionally, the company "Chernogolovka", which produces lemonade and bottles it in a plastic bottle, now has to pay an eco-fee, or recycle the bottles.
However, there are a lot of such enterprises - according to various estimates, from 2.5 to four million companies with different types of packaging.
It is very difficult to administer, almost impossible.
Now it has been decided that it is necessary to change the principle - to pay the eco-fee, the producers of the packaging itself should bear extended responsibility.
Whoever made the bottle, he has to pay.
This greatly simplifies administration, makes the system more transparent and easily regulated.
Will the reform of the ROP affect the population?
Don't we have to pay more?
The reform of the ROP should create an economic platform for attracting private investment in the industry and creating a fair distribution of responsibility among business and the population.
Many people say, “Let ’ s pay for recycling. ”
But this is not the case all over the world.
The population must pay for the export and for what cannot be processed.
The population is already carrying a fairly high load, although lower than in other countries.
Compare the two figures.
The total amount that the population of the whole country pays for utilities for MSW is now about 200 billion.
Basically, these are expenses for the export, collection, treatment and disposal of waste, utilization is not included here.
At the same time, the eco-fee from the manufacturer is only five billion rubles.
Why should people pay for those who produce packaging?
We are trying to change that system now.
The balance of the load distribution should be completely different.
- You don't mind business?
- There were a lot of disputes, discussions, resistance of business, but everyone came to an unambiguous conclusion: if we do not do this, we will not fulfill the tasks that were set by the president, we will not provide 100% treatment and disposal of waste.
In this case, you do not need to invent a bicycle, you need to do what other countries have gone through.
In Belarus, for example, this has been working since 2012, so we have a recycling rate of 11%, and they already have 29%.
We have to go the same way.
The President supported these initiatives, and for us this is a key, I would say, historical moment, when it is impossible to retreat back – we must implement it to the end.
What will happen to the mediators in the face of associations?
There will be no associations.
Of the possible options now will be recyclers, self-disposal or payment of environmental fees.
You ’ ve already talked about plastic.
Now they want to ban it on Baikal, in the Crimea and the Krasnodar Territory.
Tell me, how will this ban work in practice?
- Indeed, such a bill within the Baikal environmental zone was prepared by deputies.
It is being considered until a final decision has been made.
This is such an experiment, a “pilot ”, which will be implemented in this territory.
Of course, not all types of plastic will be banned there, but only non-recyclable, which cause serious harm to the environment.
How it will be regulated – these moments are in development.
Of course, the nature conservation area is good because it has clear boundaries.
The border zone can also be controlled by local authorities of Buryatia and the Irkutsk region.
At the entrance to protected areas, it is possible to exercise control, and in fact, the regions can probably apply some of their own administrative penalties for violations.
At the same time, we should not go into a completely prohibitive plane, it will be necessary to talk with the population and with associations that are engaged in tourism in order to develop the most acceptable solutions.
Otherwise, it will scare away tourists in general, and they will say: "You have such bans there that it is easier for us to go to another region."
It is necessary to save the tourist flow and interest in Baikal.
Which products will be banned?
– Plastic dishes, plastic straws.
As for the packages, their list has yet to be determined.
- And if a tourist comes to Baikal with such goods, what awaits him?
What will be the penalty?
- We need to wait for the discussion of this bill to understand what sanctions will be imposed.
I can say that in Europe such a ban has been introduced since 2021.
We are going our own way, and nevertheless, if this has already begun to work in some countries, it can probably be implemented in our country.
- REO stated that the facility for handling MSW in Magadan became 25% cheaper due to the Russian component.
Is this an exception, or is there already a trend, and we will see similar positive changes?
- We really work together with the regions, including the design of facilities.
We analyze what is being done, unfortunately, there is little experience.
Sometimes investors come and go to the first designer they find.
He begins to design an object that he did not see in his eyes.
Our industry is very unique in terms of technology.
REO has developed typical technological solutions - cheap and effective, which have already been tested at real facilities.
They allow you to fulfill the specified indicators for the treatment of waste disposal with high efficiency.
The use of such proven solutions allows, in many cases, to save costs.
We must save both budget money and the money of our consumers, because the more expensive the equipment, the more we have to pay utility bills to citizens.
- As I understand it, the waste management industry is one of the most promising in the field of import substitution.
What are the results so far?
- As for import substitution, it has already reached about 90-95% in waste treatment, and in general, in all areas - about 80%.
We are actively developing, we have even such an indicator in the federal project "Integrated system of treatment of MSW" - import substitution.
The share of imports of equipment for the treatment and disposal of MSW should be no more than 36% by the end of 2024, and we are monitoring this.
Those projects in which we invest money are checked for the import component.
The Ministry of Industry and Trade monitors this indicator, and every time we cannot find an alternative among Russian equipment, we prove that we really need it.
However, our equipment manufacturers understand that it is necessary to rebuild production now, and this is happening.
Most of the production we have in Russia.
We are also looking towards the countries of Southeast Asia, ready to cooperate with Turkey.
What we can ’ t do on our own comes from there.
– In your opinion, is the ESG strategy (environmental, social and corporate governance – ed.) still relevant in Russia?
– You know, we had such a stage after February 24, when everyone thought that now is not up to ESG, and we need to think about something else.
I thought the environmental issue would be on the back burner.
But now more than six months have passed, we see that the topic of ecology does not go anywhere, but on the contrary, it becomes even more relevant.
We see interest from the people.
The President often raises environmental issues, participates in forums.
Federal support is increasing, this task has not been removed, the topic of ESG has not gone anywhere either.
We received an ESG rating as a company.
We have developed our own green policy, we plan to issue bonds in the sustainable development sector of Moscow Exchange, the so-called "green" bonds.
- What is the amount of investments of the SPC REO expected this year?
- The total amount of our investments will amount to approximately 13.4 billion rubles in 2021 and 2022.
We just started at the end of last year, and already this amount.
That is, we will enter into projects by the end of this year with a total value of 56 billion, just our share is slightly less, and just over the past year about 100 billion rubles have been invested in the industry.
Now we have earned a program, the so-called "green" bonds.
The state subsidizes the coupon on these bonds in the amount of 90% of the key rate, and then we send this money in the form of loans at a preferential rate of about 5% per annum to investors who create objects for the treatment of MSW together with the regions.
We have already registered a $100 billion bond program with the Bank of Russia, and we have also registered a prospectus.
Now we are preparing projects - one of the first will be in the Magadan region, possibly in Yakutia, Primorsky Krai.
We are cooperating with key Russian banks.
Sber, Rosselkhozbank, Promsvyazbank, Otkritie showed interest in buying such bonds.
The task is to mobilize about 500 billion rubles in the market.
This is a long-term program, but the results of the first stage, I think, we will see this year.
Can bonds be bought by anyone?
We want to make them people.
Once the bonds are issued, we will invite all our citizens to participate in the environmental agenda with their savings.
They will be able not only to invest money, but also to receive income.
If a person is not indifferent to the environment, and he wants to make our country cleaner, it is not necessary to be a benefactor.
Charity is a good thing, we welcome it.
But if you want to participate financially and make more money on it, please.
You can buy PPK REO bonds, because the funds from these bonds will go to create infrastructure for handling household waste throughout the country.
If now the interest rate on deposits is about 6% with a key rate of 7.5%, then by buying our bonds, you can earn at least 10.5 – 11% per annum.
On the one hand, it is good for people and business, since it is a tool for investing and preserving assets.
On the other hand, it is a whole program to support the implementation of the tasks of creating a circular economy and environmental protection programs.
Read also:
News feed
0
New firstOld firstFirst
loader
On-line
Title of the material to be opened
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Title of the material to be opened

The European Union has set a recycling target of 55% for municipal waste by 2025.

Title:

Content: Circular Economy : 18 EU Member States at risk of missing waste targets

Which countries are at risk of missing the 2025 targets for preparing for re-use and recycling of municipal and all packaging waste and the 2035 landfill target? The European Commission answered this question in a recently published early warning report. But first the good news. Nine Member States are on track to meet the 2025 targets: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovenia.

And just as a reminder, these are the targets set out in the Waste Framework Directive and the Directive on packaging and packaging waste we are talking about:

  • 55% recycling and preparing for reuse of municipal waste;
  • 65% recycling for total packaging waste;
  • and material-specific packaging waste recycling targets (75% for paper and cardboard, 70% for glass, 70% for ferrous metals packaging, 50% for aluminium, 50% for plastic and 25% for wood).

Like our content? Subscribe to our newsletters!

Bad news for some countries

And now the bad news: 18 Member States are at serious risk of missing one or both of the 2025 targets.

Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal, Spain and Sweden are at risk of missing the municipal waste target.

Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia are at risk of missing both the municipal waste and the total packaging waste targets for 2025.

In addition, some countries continue to landfill most of their municipal waste and are likely to miss the 2035 landfill target. The Commission is making recommendations to these Member States, building on the ongoing financial and technical support provided to improve waste management performance. These recommendations cover a wide range of actions: reducing non-recyclable waste, increasing re-use, promoting separate collection, developing treatment capacity for sorting and recycling, improving governance, using economic instruments and raising awareness.

"Implementing waste reduction and recycling measures on the ground is key for our circular economy transition. Turning waste into resources helps us on the way to climate neutrality, increases the security of supply of energy and raw materials, and creates local jobs and innovation opportunities. The early warning report allows us, in close cooperation with the Member States, to detect shortcomings, take action ahead of the deadlines for meeting the targets, and share best practices in sound waste management," said Virginijus Sinkevičius, Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries

Waste generation on the rise

On average, Europeans generate 530 kg of municipal waste per person per year (waste from households and similar waste from businesses). Although it is increasingly recycled and less landfilled, municipal waste (MSW) is still one of the most complex waste streams to manage. In the EU, about 50% of MSW is recycled or composted and 23% is landfilled. The amount of packaging waste generated is constantly increasing. Between 2013 and 2020, the amount of packaging waste generated in the EU will increase by 15% to almost 80 million tonnes. Around 64% of packaging waste is now recycled, although this varies by material. More than 75% of paper, cardboard and metal packaging is recycled, but less than 40% of plastic packaging - a problem in most EU countries, many of which are at risk of missing the material-specific target for plastic packaging waste recycling.

The early warning report allows us, in close cooperation with the Member States, to detect shortcomings, take action ahead of the deadlines for meeting the targets, and share best practices in sound waste management.
Virginijus Sinkevičius, Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries

Significant differences between Member States

Looking at the report, one thing is clear: There are considerable differences in waste management performance across the EU. Some countries still have a long way to go to meet the targets agreed in EU legislation and further reforms are needed, in particular to ensure the treatment of biowaste, which accounts for a third of municipal waste, to ensure separate collection of waste - a prerequisite for recycling - and to improve data quality. However, most EU countries have introduced or are in the process of introducing waste reforms to improve recycling rates, some of which are expected to bear fruit in the coming years.

The results were also influenced by external factors, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which reduced or stopped separate collection in some countries. The recent rise in energy prices is also having a negative impact on recycling activities.

The early warning report builds on the Environmental Implementation Review, which had already identified problems with the implementation of EU waste legislation. In particular, almost 2000 illegal or substandard landfills are still operating in the EU, representing a significant source of pollution and greenhouse gases and a missed opportunity for the recovery of secondary raw materials.

The Japanese government supports waste sorting and recycling by promoting e-waste reuse and extracting valuable materials, demonstrating a successful practice in improving recycling rates.

Title:

Content: Point of wisdom: waste disposal
Font Size:
“Regenerating the available resources is a virtue … ”
Japan is one of the best countries in the world in terms of garbage sorting since 1980. Since April 1, 2017, it has taken two years to extract from 78,985 metric tons of white household appliances (mainly washing machines, refrigerators, etc.) and 6.21 million mobile phones. Out of 32 kg of pure gold, 3500 kg of pure silver and 2200 kg of pure copper, to create the 5000 Olympic medals to be awarded.
Through this plan, the Japanese government let the global public understand the importance of e-waste reuse, and improve the recycling rate of e-waste, of which 32 kilograms of gold is recycled and refined, the market price is more than S $2.19 million, making many people exclaim that the humble e-waste in life has huge value.
In order to reduce electronic waste, Austria launched electronic product repair vouchers, and the Dutch design team turned it into office furniture.
Austrian citizens can download maintenance vouchers to subsidize the repair cost of electronic products such as smart phones, laptops or dishwashers, and the subsidy amount is 50% of the repair cost, capped at about S $290, hoping to change the consumption habits of people.
The design team in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, promotes the “Ore Stream ” project, which uses electronic waste to make avant-garde office furniture.
For example, the computer casing forms a storage cabinet, and the aluminum plate is made into a chair, and is decorated by some mobile phone parts.
Implementation
In addition to resource recycling, we can do some small things in life to help implement the concept of environmental protection, such as: eat, use moderately, buy more do not become garbage; use more porcelain cups, environmental bowls, less paper cups and no washing tableware; bathe without bath, take a shower; do not throw things casually, reduce the production of garbage; home lighting equipment to save electric light bulbs, and develop the habit; Automatically turn on the temperature; recycle newspapers and oil you have seen; bring your own back bag or shopping bag when buying vegetables or groceries, and choose less packaged items.
Maintain the car well, not to let it smoke; often check the tires, because the lack of inflation tire is easy to break and consume oil; walk more, ride more bicycles; drive less, try to use public transport; promote subway, bus and cycling sports, and buy equipment and stationery made of recyclable materials.
QUALITY
According to statistics, it takes ten years to plant a tree, but only a few minutes to cut a tree; babies from birth to two years old must use 20 trees for diapers; for every ton of waste paper recovered, 20 logs can be cut eight meters high and 14 centimeters in diameter; and recycled paper can be used to cut about 400,000 logs a month.
Therefore, recycled paper made of recycled paper can be recycled, in addition to reducing the amount of trees cut down, but also indirectly save water.
Some people have said such things: "The average life expectancy of human beings is getting longer and shorter, and the life expectancy of nature is getting shorter and shorter." Because of human health care and endless desire, nature's resources are limited and limited, it is really unbearable for human beings to continue to destroy such things.
If everyone is environmentally conscious and implements it in life, the earth will gradually recuperate and we can have a good and healthy quality of life.
LIKE Our official Facebook page for more information

Germany has the highest household recycling rate, recycling 62% of its plastic waste.

Title:

Content:
Plastic labeling needs 'sustainability scale,' says new report

Labeling of plastic products needs a drastic overhaul, including a new "sustainability scale" to help consumers, researchers say.

Plastic pollution is a growing global problem, with an increasingly complex mix of plastics found everywhere from the Arctic to Mount Everest.

Simplistic, unhelpful labeling and low recycling rates even in the best-equipped countries are major barriers to tackling this issue.

In a new paper, experts from the University of Exeter and the University of Queensland suggest a new internationally applicable labeling system that moves focus from recyclability to sustainability, is specific to the country and region of purchase, and informs the public about plastic additive content.

"We need to empower consumers to make more sustainable choices," said first author Stephen Burrows.

"Instead of 'yes-no' recycling labels, which are often misleading, a 'sustainability scale' could take account of recyclability but also other factors such as the environmental cost of production and potential human health risks from additives.

"Requiring packaging to carry region-specific directions for disposal would shift responsibility away from consumers and towards regulators and plastic producers.

"This is vital because the mix of plastic products is so complex and confusing, industry must be responsible for clear, accurate and accessible instructions on how best to dispose of plastic items.

"The same is true for the chemical additives found in many plastics. These chemicals are added to plastics to give them certain properties such as color, flexibility and fire resistance.

"Requiring producers to list all additives would be a major step towards informing the public and helping them make decisions regarding environmental impact and human health."

The researchers stress that their recommendations should not detract from the urgent need to use less plastic—especially single-use items.

At present, about 368 million tons of plastic is produced worldwide each year.

Estimates of recycling rates vary dramatically. For example, Germany recycles 62% of its plastic waste—well above the European average of 30%.

Meanwhile, China recycles an estimated 25%, while the figure in the USA is just 8%.

Professor Tamara Galloway, from the University of Exeter, said, "Our recommendations for a sustainability scale are designed to reduce some of the confusion around plastic disposal.

"The ultimate aim is to protect the environment and human health from the harmful effects of plastic waste."

Professor Kevin Thomas, from The University of Queensland's Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences and Minderoo Centre for Plastics and Human Health, said, "We hope that our recommendations initiate a reassessment of plastics labeling and that implementation of a sustainability scale will allow individuals to make informed decisions in how they use plastics.

"This is just one small necessary step towards helping people help the environment."

Coffee cup conundrum

Speaking about consumer confusion, Burrows gave the example of PLA (polylactic acid) bioplastic single-use coffee cups.

Many such cups are now labeled as recyclable and compostable—but these are separate processes.

Depending on the composition of the cup, it might be recyclable, but it depends on whether local facilities are equipped to process PLA. So it may not be suitable for your recycling bin.

It might also be compostable—although many such cups can only be broken down in an industrial composter (not in a garden compost heap). So if thrown in general waste, it will end up as more in landfill.

"If someone uses one of these cups then sees a green recycling bin and a 'general waste' bin, where should they put it?" said Burrows.

"Most people don't know, and in fact the answer may depend on several factors not usually indicated.

"Our suggestions for a new system based around a scale are designed to tackle this confusion."

The research team included the University of Bath.

Explore further

Plastic recycling shouldn't be an end in itself

More information: Stephen D. Burrows et al, The message on the bottle: Rethinking plastic labelling to better encourage sustainable use, Environmental Science & Policy (2022). DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.015
Citation: Plastic labeling needs 'sustainability scale,' says new report (2022, February 28) retrieved 28 February 2022 from https://phys.org/news/2022-02-plastic-sustainability-scale.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
42 shares

Feedback to editors