PACIFIC OCEAN ADVISORY PROGRAM SERIES OF ANALYTICS Farewell to Single-use Plastics in the Pacific: REGIONAL SUMMARY REPORT Administ r d b PACIFIC OCEAN ADVISORY PROGRAM SERIES OF ANALYTICS Farewell to Single-use Plastics in the Pacific: REGIONAL SUMMARY REPORT Administ r d b STANDARD DISCLAIMER This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http:/ /www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to: Office of the Publisher The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Please cite the work as follows: “World Bank. 2025. Farewell to Single-Use Plastics in the Pacific: Regional Summary Report. Washington, DC: The World Bank.” Cover photo: left to right: ©Hamish Wyatt; ©iStock/rweisswald Report design and layout: Svenja Greenwood The World Bank © 2025 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by a World Bank team led by Delphine Arri (Senior Environmental Engineer) and composed of Kasia Mazur (Environmental Economist), Rohan Bhargava (Environmental Specialist), and Perinaz Bhada-Tata (Solid Waste Consultant). This report is based on a study led by Kasia Mazur and conducted by a consortium of OCA Global, Sustainable Seas, Asia Pacific Waste Consultants, and GRID Arendal. The team gratefully acknowledges comments provided by World Bank peer reviewers Junu Shrestha (Senior Environmental Specialist), Katelijn Van den Berg (Senior Environmental Specialist), Tom Perry (Senior External Affairs Officer), and Masud Mozammel (Senior External Affairs Officer, ECREA), as well as Andrea Volentras (Program Manager, Pacific Ocean Litter Project, SPREP). Anita Kendrick (Consultant) and Hamish Wyatt (Senior External Affairs Officer, World Bank) provided contributions at various stages of the work. Thanks to Elezor Trinidad, Annie Phan, and Nika Asasi for their support. This publication was prepared under the guidance of Marc Sadler (Regional Manager, Environment and Climate, East Asia and the Pacific) and Ann Jeannette Glauber (Regional Manager, Environment, South Asia, previously East Asia and the Pacific). The team is grateful to Stephen Ndegwa (Country Director) for his strategic guidance. The team gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided for the report by PROBLUE, a multi-donor trust fund administered by the World Bank, that supports the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources in a healthy ocean. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations iii About This Study iv Key Takeaways vi Connecting the Dots: Mapping Imports, Consumption, and Waste 1.  in Pacific Island Countries 1 Unpacking the Problem: Understanding Solid and Plastic Waste 2.  Value Chains in Pacific Island Countries 8 Waste Management in Pacific Island Countries 11 Plastic Waste Management in Pacific Island Countries 13 3. Regional Policy Landscape: Strengthening Existing Plastic Waste Initiatives 16 Moving Toward Plastic Circularity through Policy Action 17 Supporting Actions on Single-Use Plastics 18 4. Insights from Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu 23 Lack of Access to Substitutes, Suitable Alternatives, and Resource Constraints 24 Capacity Challenges 28 Lack of Regional Coordination and Knowledge Sharing 28 Fragmented Roles and Responsibilities 28 Data Collection and Monitoring 29 Who Bears the Costs? 29 5. Learning from Single-Use Plastic Strategies in the Pacific and Beyond 33 Lessons from Pacific Pioneers on Single-Use Plastics 34 Regional Approaches to Managing Single-Use Plastics 37 A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use 6.  Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries 40 Key Insights from Case Studies on Single-Use Plastics 41 Recommendations to Manage Waste Better 44 Recommendations to Import and Consume Better 45 Regional Interventions are Essential to Support National Efforts in the Pacific 47 Appendix A SUPs in Household and Commercial Waste in Pacific Island Countries 50 Appendix B Detailed Cost-Benefit Assessments for Policy Options 53 References 62 FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC i BOXES 1.1 Addressing Post-Disaster Plastic Waste in Tonga 4 2.1 Availability of SUP Data in the Pacific Region 10 4.1 Understanding the Terminology: Single-Use Plastics or Products? Alternatives or Substitutes? 25 4.2 Criteria for Assessing SUP Replacements 26 5.1 The Maldives’ Single-Use Plastic Phase-Out Plan 2020-23 38 FIGURES 2.1 Composition of waste disposed of in PICs 12 6.1 Key transitions for improving the management of waste and plastic pollution in the Pacific region 43 MAPS 1.1 Map of the Pacific Island Countries 5 TABLES 2.1 Estimates of environmental leakage of SUPs in the five PICs evaluated for this study 14 3.1 Initiatives by PICs to address various types of SUPs 19 3.2 Measures implemented to address the four SUP groups in PICs 20 4.1 Summary of recommended policy options for the priority SUPs in five PICs evaluated for this study 30 Common SUPs identified for action by the Maldives’ B5.1.1  Plastic Committee 39 A.1 Household waste generation per person of selected materials in PICs 51 A.2 Commercial waste generation per person of selected materials in PICs 52 B.1 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Kiribati policy option 1 54 B.2 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Kiribati policy option 2 54 B.3 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Samoa policy option 1 55 B.4 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Samoa policy option 2 56 B.5 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Tonga policy option 1 57 B.6 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Tonga policy option 2 58 B.7 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Vanuatu policy option 1 59 B.8 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Vanuatu policy option 2 60 B.9 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Fiji policy options 61 FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC ii ABBREVIATIONS 3 R reduce, reuse, recycle 5 R refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle, and return ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations CBA cost-benefit analysis CDS container deposit scheme DRS deposit refund scheme EPR extended producer responsibility EU European Union F$ Fiji dollar GIZ  German Agency for International Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit) ILBI International Legally Binding Instrument kg kilograms LOS Large Ocean States MLAP Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter 2018-2025 MSW municipal solid waste MT metric ton (1 metric ton = 1,000 kilograms) PAYT pay-as-you-throw PET polyethylene terephthalate PIC Pacific Island Country POAP Pacific Ocean Advisory Program PP polypropylene PRIF Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility PS polystyrene RAP Regional Action Plan SIDS Small Island Developing States SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme SUP single-use plastic SWM solid waste management ULAB used lead-acid battery UN United Nations UNEP United Nations Environment Programme USD United States dollar Note: All dollar amounts are US dollars unless otherwise indicated.   FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC iii ABOUT THIS STUDY Farewell to Single-Use Plastics in the Pacific is a World Bank-led series of analytics aimed at informing national and regional decision making, policy formulation, and investment require- ments focused on decreasing plastic imports, consumption, and plastic waste, and, conse- quently, on reducing marine plastic pollution in the Pacific Islands. These studies focus on a single type of plastic product, selected in consultation with stakeholders and government officials reflecting national priorities, to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of specific regulations on a targeted product. The series covers case studies in Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu, with an overarching objective to identify viable alternatives to single-use plastics (SUPs); a stand-alone study in Fiji, focusing on strengthening a 2021 ban on polystyrene (PS) products; and a regional summary. Each study offers a detailed assessment of policy options tailored to a specific SUP — plastic bags in Kiribati, takeaway containers in Samoa, plastic bottles in Tonga, and disposable diapers in Vanuatu — identified through waste audits conducted for the Regional Waste Data Collection, Monitoring, and Reporting (DCMR) Framework between 2018 and 2021. Each case study examines two prioritized policy interventions, selected using a multi-criteria analysis and assessed through a cost-benefit analysis. These assessments account for the economic and social impacts of each policy option, ensuring a thorough understanding of how measures could affect communities and ecosystems alike. The Fiji study provides an ex-post economic assessment of three policy scenarios to enhance the PS ban, analyzing the costs and benefits to promote sustainable alternatives. Protecting these marine environments is vital to preserving the economic and social benefits derived from the region’s blue economy sectors. The actions recommended in this study are aligned with the Cleaner Pacific 2025 Pacific Regional Waste and Pollution Management Strategy and provide crucial insights for Pacific Island Countries in the UN negotiations for an International Legally Binding Instrument to end plastic pollution.   FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC iv FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC ©World Bank/Hamish Wyatt v KEY TAKEAWAYS The Pacific Island Countries (PICs) rely on a healthy ocean for their economic growth; however, this crucial resource is under unprecedented threats from climate change and various forms of pollution affecting coastal and marine ecosystems. » Waste has become a key driver of coastal and marine pollution, and plastic pollution is further burdening already-stretched municipal waste management (MSW) systems. » Improving waste infrastructure is a priority, but alone will not suffice, as consumption and imports continue to grow, leading to exponentially growing waste generation. » While PICs’ contribution to marine plastic pollution is negligible on a global scale, they face numerous challenges in solid waste management (SWM) that exacerbate local plastic pollution issues. » With the United Nations agreeing to develop a new global instrument to end plastic pollution, PICs are increasingly exploring options to prevent plastic pollution and improve domestic waste management. Pacific Island Countries face significant challenges in MSW management due to insufficient infrastructure, geographic constraints, and limited resources, compounded by increasing climate risks. » Existing waste infrastructure is insufficient, particularly as consumption and imports increase, leading to growing waste generation and leakage into the environment. » Coastal areas where dumpsites and landfills are located are increasingly vulnerable to climate change, extreme events, and rising sea levels, posing risks to both the environment and waste infrastructure. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC Images top to bottom: ©World Bank/Ashleigh; ©google maps vi Key Takeaways » Geographic constraints, such as remoteness of islands and distance from major markets, as well as limited economies of scale, exacerbate waste management challenges. » Imported plastics and other products are rarely exported once they reach their end-of-life, further straining local SWM systems. » Limited financial resources and technical capacity hinder the development of critical infrastructure for sorting, recycling, and disposal, making it challenging to adopt advanced policies like container deposit schemes. » Waste facilities should incorporate climate adaptation measures, such as avoiding low-lying coastal areas and reinforcing infrastructure to withstand extreme weather events, in order to increase resilience to climate impacts. Single-use plastics (SUPs) contribute significantly to marine pollution in PICs due to their durability and the lack of disposal systems. » SUPs are particularly problematic given their widespread use, durability, and resistance to natural decomposition, as well as inadequate collection, recycling, and disposal systems. » An estimated 644,202 metric tons (MT) of waste are generated annually across the Pacific region, of which 133,198 MT leak into the marine environment — equivalent to the weight of 380 Boeing 777s each year.1 » Average capture rates for waste collection are reported at 65%, with 35% estimated to be mismanaged (burned, buried, littered, or dumped). » About 6-20% of MSW, excluding hygiene waste, in PICs consists of plastic. There is no evidence to indicate that plastic waste is collected or leaked more than other waste streams. » About half of the MSW in the region is organic, while the remainder is a combination of mixed waste. The composition of waste streams varies significantly across PICs based on national contexts. 1 A fully loaded Boeing 777 weighs approximately 350 MT. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC Image: ©unsplash/Jensen vii Key Takeaways Preventing marine pollution from waste and plastic requires strengthening of basic MSW services, diverting waste — especially organics — from landfills, and managing the import of products, particularly SUPs, into PICs. These measures align with ongoing UN negotiations for a new global instrument to end plastic pollution. » Better waste management is the first priority to prevent leakage into coastal and marine environments. The most pressing issues in PICs often include improving collection, estab- lishing cost recovery, and building proper infrastructure for disposal. Other important measures involve: (1) Improving service delivery, including source segregation or, at least, sorting of the various waste streams to enhance financial viability and manage plastic waste and other materials more effectively; (2) Encouraging the adoption of sustainable product designs and packaging materials to reduce waste generation at source, including incentivizing businesses to shift to reusable, biodegradable, or compostable substitutes; and (3) Promoting community engagement and awareness campaigns to encourage behavioral changes, such as reducing littering, separating recyclables, and supporting sustainable waste practices. » Diverting waste from landfill, particularly organic waste, is a second priority. This increases the lifespan of landfills, minimizing the pressure on land for new disposal facilities. ‘Zero waste’ strategies are a longer-term policy objective that aim to divert valuable waste streams from landfills, ensuring that only low-value, nonrecyclable waste is disposed of. » Managing products entering PICs is particularly important for plastic products, but also applies to other waste streams (like end-of-life vehicles). This includes introducing incentives and regulations to reduce imports of problematic materials, promote reuse, and encourage recycling. While PICs have limited influence over global plastic production, they can establish standards and restrictions on imported goods. Regional coordination is, therefore, essential to maximize the efficacy of such measures. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC Image: ©iStock/Belchenko viii Key Takeaways This study focuses on improved management of problematic plastics, exploring policies to either replace or capture targeted SUPs before they become waste, highlighting trade-offs and cost-sharing to inform policymakers. » Key challenges identified: Limited access to substitutes and suitable alternatives, compounded by resource constraints and insufficient capacity. Absence of effective policy instruments to incentivize the creation of new markets for replacements. Fragmented roles and responsibilities, and a lack of evidence to inform the decision-making process. Lack of coordination across PICs undermines efforts to combat marine pollution, as a product banned in one country can still pollute the marine environment if not managed in neighboring nations. » Key findings: Access to substitutes and improved waste services are essential for effec- tive SUP management across PICs. Collaborative approaches could address capacity and resource challenges, as well as market creation for sustainable alternatives. » Preferred policy instruments: Targeted bans and deposit refund schemes for specific items like plastic bottles, food containers, diapers, and plastic bags. Targeting specific products rather than polymers yields more efficient reductions, with bans proving highly effective, capable of reducing overall SUP volumes by 6-25% for targeted products. » Key factors for successful implementation: Successful implementation requires avail- able and affordable alternatives/substitutes and appropriate infrastructure for managing replacement products. Government investment and some cost-sharing with consumers are necessary, but in all cases, net benefits to society exceed costs. Introduction of addi- tional measures to raise awareness and foster behavioral change to promote a collective shift toward sustainable products. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC Image: © unsplash/ocg ix Key Takeaways Regional collaboration enhances the effectiveness of national interventions by addressing shared challenges in improving SWM and ending plastic pollution in the Pacific. Individually, PIC markets are too small to address these challenges, but collectively as a popu- lation of 2.5 million there is more scope to drive certain initiatives (World Bank n.d.). Regional interventions could include: » Harmonizing policies among the PICs and establishing regional standards and certification for eco-friendly replacements to single-use products and import regulations. » Developing a regional recycling hub for high-value plastics, extended producer respon- sibility (EPR) schemes, and consistent policies on biodegradability and compostability would drive economies of scale, create markets for eco-friendly products, and strengthen the nascent recycling sector. » Establishing a regional grant facility to mobilize expertise and finance small-scale infra- structure and capacity development across PICs. » Improving SWM systems, beyond plastic waste. Organic waste management infrastruc- ture (that is, composting) would also treat biodegradable alternatives to SUPs together with other organic waste, reducing pressure on landfills. » Supporting collaborative data collection efforts to improve enforcement and monitoring as well as regional strategies.  FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC Image: © unsplash/cytonn x CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLLUTION are worsening development challenges in the region FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC ©Unsplash/Giorgia Doglioni 1 1. Connecting the Dots: Mapping Imports, Consumption, and Waste in Pacific Island Countries 1. CONNECTING THE DOTS: Mapping Imports, Consumption, and Waste in Pacific Island Countries The Pacific region encompasses island nations that share 2050 Strategy for the a common vision reflected in the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent Blue Pacific Continent for “a resilient Pacific Region of peace, harmony, security, social inclusion and prosperity, that ensures all Pacific peoples can lead free, healthy and productive lives” (PIFS 2022). Known for their natural beauty and rich cultural heritage, Pacific Island Countries (PICs) struggle with significant pollution issues — including waste generation — that threaten the delicate balance of marine and 1 terrestrial ecosystems. This, in turn, affects tourism and fish- eries — the main engines of growth in the region — thereby jeopardizing the livelihoods of local communities dependent on coastal resources. The region faces significant development challenges exacerbated by climate change and environmental degradation resulting from pollution on land and at sea. While the PICs contribute very little to the triple planetary crisis — climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution — they bear the brunt of its negative impacts, increasing their vulnerability and undermining the regional economy. In addition, PICs are extremely vulnerable to extreme weather events and natural disasters, which can result in excessive disaster recovery plastic FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 2 1. Connecting the Dots: Mapping Imports, Consumption, and Waste in Pacific Island Countries consumption and waste loads beyond normal levels. For instance, Tonga has encountered waste management challenges following major natural disasters, such as the 2022 volcanic eruption (box 1.1). Although the Pacific region’s contribution to plastic pollution is negligible on a global scale, PICs are grappling with their domestic waste, which threatens the marine envi- ronment, ecosystem resilience, community well-being, and economy. It is estimated that the Pacific region contributes less than 1.3% of the world’s mismanaged plastics entering the oceans, but disproportionately bears the consequences due to its vast oceanic territory, which makes up 98% of its total area (Kumar 2022). While the majority of the regional population has traditionally engaged in subsistence livelihoods and agriculture, there has been a noticeable shift toward dependence on imported consumer goods. Economic growth and an expanding middle class have led to an influx of imported consumer goods, few of which are exported once they reach their end-of-life, thus becoming ‘waste’. These products, often packaged in plastic, have significantly increased solid waste generation, exerting pressure on limited waste disposal capacity. This is particularly problematic in sparsely populated and remote areas where waste collection and disposal services are lacking. This signifies an increasing need for public services like solid waste management (SWM) and highlights the challenges of delivering waste management services to these areas. PICs face mounting challenges in addressing plastic waste due to their geographic isola- tion, limited financial and technical resources, and underdeveloped waste management systems. Traditionally referred to as Small Island Developing States (SIDS) characterizing their small land areas and development challenges, PICs are also identifying as Large Ocean States (LOS) to highlight their vast oceanic territories and the resources under their jurisdic- tions (map 1.1), shifting the narrative from one of vulnerability to that of opportunity (Mead 2021). Nevertheless, PICs continue to grapple with typical waste management challenges associated with unique geographic areas, such as fragile ecosystems, limited land area, and insufficient infrastructure for waste sorting, recycling, and disposal. The remoteness of these islands, coupled with the vast distances from major markets and even among their own islands, drives up transportation and export costs. As a result, imported goods such as batteries, end-of-life vehicles, and various plastic items often remain on the islands, adding to the growing waste burden. Of particular concern are single-use plastics (SUPs) like bags, bottles, straws, and food packaging, which have short utility but long durability, making them resistant to natural decomposition and a major contributor to municipal solid waste (MSW). FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 3 1. Connecting the Dots: Mapping Imports, Consumption, and Waste in Pacific Island Countries BOX 1.1 ADDRESSING POST-DISASTER PLASTIC WASTE IN TONGA Tonga, among the world’s lowest-lying nations, ranks third out of 181 nations in the 2021 World Risk Index. Tonga faces natural disasters such as cyclones, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, with over 40% of the country’s population affected during a typical disaster ©iStock/Susanne Michaela Huss year (World Bank CCKP n.d.). The likelihood of natural disasters increasing under future climate scenarios is expected to rise, leading to greater waste generation from environmental damage and infrastructure loss. Disaster waste also includes waste from expired or damaged relief goods and packaging generated during distribution efforts. Historically, disaster waste mainly consisted of organic matter like fallen leaves, trees, mud, and rubble. However, with improved living standards, the waste now contains more challenging and costly nonbiodegradable materials like metals, plastics, glass, textiles, and hazardous substances such as asbestos and e-waste, requiring distinct waste management approaches. The eruption of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai volcano in January 2022, accom- panied by a tsunami, inflicted extensive damage in Tonga, resulting in prolonged displacement of residents. Among the aid provided post-disaster were 86,000 1.5-liter polyethylene terephthalate (PET) water bottles from Australia. However, these bottles, coupled with existing waste, immediately raised concerns in Tonga. Acknowledging this issue, the Government of Tonga requested Australian support in repatriating the bottles. With a compactor provided by Australia, Tonga managed to compress roughly 20% to 30% of the bottles, returning them via the assisting warship. An additional 30% was compacted after the ship departed. Since then, the majority of the remaining bottles, both compressed and uncompressed, have been stockpiled in Tonga (Enoka 2022). FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 4 1. Connecting the Dots: Mapping Imports, Consumption, and Waste in Pacific Island Countries MAP 1.1 Map of the Pacific Island Countries Northern Mariana Islands (U.S.) NATIONAL CAPITALS Manila Guam (U.S.) MARSHALL INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES PHILIPPINES ISLANDS N O R T H PA C I F I C Majuro O C E A N Palikir Palmyra Ngerulmud Atoll (U.S.) FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA PA L A U Tarawa Howland (U.S.) Jarvis Baker (U.S.) (U.S.) Yaren P A P U A NE W NAURU K I R I B A T I INDONESIA G U I NE A TUVALU S OLOM ON Dili I S LAN DS Funafuti Tokelau TIMOR-LESTE (N.Z.) Port Honiara Moresby SAMOA S O U T H Wallis-et-Futuna (Fr.) Apia Cook Is. American (N.Z.) Samoa (U.S.) Port Vila PA C I F I C VANUATU Suva French Niue Polynesia (N.Z.) (Fr.) A U S T R A L I A New FIJI O C E A N Caledonia Nuku’alofa (Fr.) TONGA IBRD 47293 | MAY 2023 Source: World Bank. Waste management in PICs is linked to social impacts, including gender roles, cultural practices, and employment opportunities. Women, primarily responsible for household waste disposal, face significant inequalities, highlighting the need for inclusive policies like Tonga’s National Women’s Empowerment and Gender Equality Policy 2019–2025. Cultural practices, such as Samoa’s fa’alavelaves or extended family gatherings, play a key role in preserving the Fa’a Samoa or ‘the Samoan way’, are replacing traditional materials with SUPs. Kiribati’s belief against burning diapers demonstrates the need for culturally sensitive approaches to waste management. Promoting traditional practices, like weaving with banana leaves, and addressing infrastructure gaps in remote areas are key to reducing plastic consumption and improving waste disposal. The potential for job creation through 3 R (reduce, reuse, recycle) policies, including local production of substitutes, waste segrega- tion, and composting, provides benefits in addition to protection of human health and the environment. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 5 1. Connecting the Dots: Mapping Imports, Consumption, and Waste in Pacific Island Countries Pacific Islands Countries are starting to take steps domestically to prevent plastic pollution by targeting different products and different polymers, with differing levels of success and limited regional harmonization on waste-related policy instruments. Numerous examples throughout this report illustrate the initiatives undertaken by PICs to prevent plastic pollution. For example, several PICs have enacted bans to phase out food packaging, containers, and bags. There is no coordination so far between the countries on the products or polymers targeted, limiting the impacts of the policies at the regional scale. Because of the transboundary nature of marine litter, if one product is effectively banned from one country, it may still reach its shores if it is still mismanaged elsewhere. Notwithstanding fragmented policy instruments, PICs are making significant efforts toward regional harmonization on climate change and plastic pollution. On climate action, Pacific SIDS are working collaboratively through international platforms with the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). Initiatives like the One Pacific Voice exemplify this coordination, advocating to keep the 1.5°C goal alive and promoting the recognition of SIDS’ special circumstances, as enshrined in the Paris Agreement (SPREP 2024). Similarly, PICs are uniting to address plastic pollution, aligning their strategies and priorities in response to the draft text of the International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) to end plastic pollution. Through extensive consultations and collaboration among member countries, they are consolidating their positions to ensure that the provisions reflect the unique challenges and needs of SIDS (Chand 2024). The World Bank is actively engaging with PICs through the Pacific Ocean Advisory Program (POAP), funded by PROBLUE, to promote the blue economy in the region. To tackle marine pollution challenges under Pillar 3 of POAP, the World Bank is adopting a multi-faceted approach to waste management in the region, addressing plastics, organic waste, and waste generated from blue economy sectors. National waste audits conducted in collaboration with SPREP have identified the most problematic SUPs for each country. Through consultations with stakeholders and government representatives across five PICs, a specific SUP product requiring targeted support was selected in each country, allowing for tailored policy recommendations based on an economic assessment. By focusing on a single product for each country, the initiative provides insights into effective management strategies and policies that may be most applicable. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 6 1. Connecting the Dots: Mapping Imports, Consumption, and Waste in Pacific Island Countries This approach facilitates the implementation of integrated policies across key priority SUPs in the PICs, fostering harmonization and enabling successful strategies from one country to be adapted by others. Regional policies may be more effective than fragmented efforts in individual PICs, as well as in other SIDS facing similar plastic waste management challenges. The case studies in this series showcase examples of ‘low-hanging’ measures across various life cycle stages — upstream, midstream, and downstream — to minimize plastic imports, consumption, and waste generation. This study also complements PICs’ engagement on the ILBI to end plastic pollution, enhancing their understanding of the critical issues involved. Concurrently, the World Bank is collaborating with SPREP on organic waste management, which constitutes the largest fraction of the MSW stream in the PICs. The aim is to divert organic waste from landfills as part of broader discussions on reducing methane emissions from the waste sector, while also delivering additional benefits such as enhancing resilience and empowering livelihoods. The World Bank is further exploring waste reduction strategies across key sectors, under- scoring the essential role of the blue economy in PICs. The Waste in the Blue Pacific series assesses the scale and impacts of marine pollution in three sectors — fisheries, tourism, and maritime transport — in 12 PICs, providing insights to guide decision making, policy formulation, and investment planning. Additionally, the management of waste generated from abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) — primarily composed of plastics — is being scrutinized in terms of its ecological impacts in the region. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 7 644,202 METRIC TONS of waste are generated annually across the Pacific region FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC ©World Bank Group 8 2. Unpacking the Problem: Understanding Solid and Plastic Waste Value Chains in Pacific Island Countries 2. UNPACKING THE PROBLEM: Understanding Solid and Plastic Waste Value Chains in Pacific Island Countries Municipal solid waste in the PICs faces several challenges. There is limited source segrega- tion of MSW, so SUPs — along with other plastics and recyclables — are mixed in the general waste stream. Plastics are neither recovered nor processed, leading to a missed opportunity for potential revenue. Despite organic waste accounting for more than half of waste gener- ated by households and commercial entities, very little composting takes place. These issues highlight significant gaps in waste management infrastructure and service delivery and an untapped potential for recycling, composting, and methane recovery. Waste quantification studies indicate that plastics are a significant waste concern across the PICs. Plastic waste in the Pacific arises from various sectors such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, with a significant share generated from daily household and commercial activ- ities (appendix A). Inefficient SWM exacerbates the issue, as plastics and other nonrecyclable or nonrepairable materials often leak into the environment. Mismanaged waste finds its way into the ocean through littering, uncollected waste, open dumping, burning, or improper handling at controlled dumpsites, compounding its environmental impact and threatening FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 9 2. Unpacking the Problem: Understanding Solid and Plastic Waste Value Chains in Pacific Island Countries the region’s fragile ecosystems.2 However, data on waste management is sparse across the region (box 2.1). BOX 2.1 AVAILABILITY OF SUP DATA IN THE PACIFIC REGION Data on waste management in the PICs is limited, hindering a comprehensive understanding of waste generation, disposal, and environmental leakage in the region. This series of reports — ©unsplash/Stephen Dawson Farewell to Single-Use Plastics in the Pacific — relies on secondary data from waste audits conducted between 2018 and 2021 across 15 PICs by various organizations, including the World Bank, which oversaw audits in Kiribati, Samoa, and Tonga. The data referenced in the audits, unless specified other- wise, forms the basis for waste and plastic-related findings presented in this series of reports. While these audits represent the best available data for the region, significant gaps remain, such as methodological inconsistencies, limited coverage of specific waste streams like SUPs, and lack of detailed explanations on certain data, affecting the robustness of this report’s findings. Specific inconsistencies include: • Variability in methodologies: Although waste audits were conducted using a broadly common methodology, the categorization of plastic waste varied signifi- cantly. Some audits detailed plastic waste by polymer type, while others grouped all plastic waste into a single category, reducing comparability. Different donor organizations funded these audits, often through consultancies, leading to a lack of uniformity in reporting standards and outputs. • Limited focus on SUPs: Few audits investigated the proportion of SUPs in the waste stream. In many cases, global assumptions were used to estimate this data due to the absence of localized figures. In some instances, waste streams 2 In the context of this study, mismanaged waste refers to waste that remains uncollected and maybe buried, burned, dumped, or leaked into the environment (including water bodies). It assumes that waste that is collected and taken to dumpsites or landfills is ‘managed’, that is, it does not leak into the environment; therefore, it does not take into account waste leakage that may occur from wind action, surface runoff, erosion, or wildlife scavenging at dumpsites or landfills due to poor design or management. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 10 2. Unpacking the Problem: Understanding Solid and Plastic Waste Value Chains in Pacific Island Countries were categorized by polymer type, while in others, they were classified based on single-use products.  rban focus: Many audits focused on urban centers, limiting their representation • U of nationwide waste management conditions, particularly in rural and remote areas. Efforts have been made to validate and analyze the available data as rigorously as possible, but these limitations must be acknowledged when interpreting the results. Despite the limitations, the audits remain the most comprehensive waste dataset available for the region. A framework for a standardized waste audit methodology specific to PICs was developed following a Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility (PRIF)- funded study in 2017 and was intended to address these inconsistencies (SPREP 2021). However, due to varying implementation, no unified system for data collection and reporting has been implemented in the PICs. The absence of a cohesive regional analysis underscores the need for consistent and systematic data collection to inform policy making at both national and regional levels. Better data is critical for developing more targeted policies and monitoring their effectiveness. Furthermore, harmonizing data across the region supports coordinated efforts, facilitates allocation of resources, and enables the development of regional solutions to shared waste management challenges. WASTE MANAGEMENT IN PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES Based on waste audits conducted across 15 PICs, it is estimated that around 644,202 MT of waste are generated each year, equivalent to 0.28 kg/person/day. In comparison, the Maldives and Indonesia, both archipelagoes, generate 1.12 and 0.38 kg/person/day, respec- tively (Moosa 2021; Indonesia, SIPSN 2023). With 416,541 MT (~65%) of this waste collected annually, the remaining 35% is assumed to be mismanaged, either through burning, burial, littering, or dumping.3 This indicates a marine plastic pollution potential of 133,198 MT/year, or 32% of the total waste generated, as a direct result of a lack of collection services from households (SPREP 2023). 3 Estimates are calculated based on recent data published by SPREP on the quantities of waste collected and disposed of (416,541 MT/year), assuming a collection rate of about 65%. The overall quantity of waste generated is corroborated by estimates from waste audits conducted in the region between 2019 and 2022, which present either total waste generated in country (Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu, Palau), generation by households per day (Fiji, Nauru, Niue, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu), or generation per person per day (Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands). FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 11 2. Unpacking the Problem: Understanding Solid and Plastic Waste Value Chains in Pacific Island Countries Organic waste (including paper and FIGURE 2.1 cardboard) and plastics (including Composition of waste disposed of in PICs hygiene items and SUPs), make up the largest share of waste collected in E-waste the PICs (figure 2.1). Among the various (6,373) types of waste, a significant portion has Glass 5% 1% (19,661) the potential for treatment or recovery. For instance, 43% of waste can be Other composted, reducing the volume sent (62,731) 15% to disposal sites while producing valu- Metal 10% 43% Organic able compost. Similarly, around 40% of (179,321) (40,196) recyclable materials, such as paper & 12% cardboard, plastic, metal, and glass, can 14% be collected and processed to recover Plastic resources, highlighting opportunities including Paper and hygiene cardboard to improve SWM and promote circular (50,568) (57,691) economy practices in the region (SPREP 2023). Source: Adapted from SPREP 2023. Note: Values provide waste quantity in MT/year and percent of total waste in the MSW stream. Waste collection services in PICs are largely concentrated in capital cities and major urban centers, leaving rural areas and outer islands with minimal to no access. Reliable collection services are primarily available to urban communities, but municipalities often struggle with inadequate resources, including limited access to suitable equipment like trucks for household waste collection. Many collection vehicles are second-hand imports and are ill-suited for the narrow, unpaved roads common in rural and remote communities. In addition, municipal authorities often lack the capacity to conduct community education and enforce compliance. Even when awareness programs are implemented, the absence of managed dumpsites further hampers efforts, leaving residents without safe disposal options for their waste. Landfills across the PICs are often unsanitary and mismanaged, leading to substantial plastic and other waste leaking into the environment, much of which may ultimately end up in the ocean. Most landfills lack critical infrastructure, such as compactors, leachate treat- ment systems, gas collection, and environmental monitoring capabilities, and few are classi- fied as engineered sanitary landfills. Many are located near coastlines and have reached or are nearing capacity, while others inland have limited remaining space. Challenges such as insuf- ficient access to electricity and resources hinder the installation of essential infrastructure, FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 12 2. Unpacking the Problem: Understanding Solid and Plastic Waste Value Chains in Pacific Island Countries including weighbridges to track waste volumes. Moreover, tipping fees, where they exist, are typically low, further complicating efforts to manage waste effectively and sustainably. PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT IN PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES A Pacific-wide waste audit funded by a range of agencies provides an in-depth analysis of household and commercial data on SUPs, showing that the consumption of SUPs varies depending on the country and that the proportion of plastics used also varies widely.4 Despite this diversity of products and uses, the most prevalent plastic items are typically food containers (targeted in Fiji and Samoa), plastic bags (targeted in Kiribati), bottles (targeted in Tonga), and disposable diapers (targeted in Vanuatu). In the five countries where specific SUPs were investigated as part of this World Bank study, the potential leakage of these SUPs is estimated based on available waste audit data. In the five countries where specific SUPs were investigated as part of this World Bank study, the potential leakage of these SUPs is estimated based on available waste audit data (table 2.1). Some geographical variations in SUP generation are evident. For instance, countries in the Micronesia sub-region such as the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, and the Marshall Islands have higher plastic composition than other countries. » Targeted SUPs, excluding hygiene items, account for 4% to 48% of the overall waste stream. » Hygiene items constitute an additional 4% to 23% of the household waste stream. » Collectively, these targeted SUPs represent between 10% to 63% of the overall waste stream, indicating their significant contribution to household waste. The composition of SUPs in waste streams across the Pacific region reveals shared challenges as well as opportunities for targeted interventions. Case studies in five PICs, focusing on four distinct SUP types and various policy instruments, highlight patterns that can inform regional strategies. For instance, items like plastic food containers and bags dominate waste streams in several countries, with plastic food containers comprising 12% of Samoa’s total plastic waste and plastic bags accounting for 23% in Kiribati. Countries like Samoa, the Marshall Islands, and Tonga report the highest proportions of plastic in MSW streams, while 4 The agencies include the World Bank, UNEP, and SPREP (through the EU-funded PacWaste Plus Programme), with support from the Australian-funded Pacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP) and the Pacific Regional Infrastructure Facility (PRIF). FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 13 2. Unpacking the Problem: Understanding Solid and Plastic Waste Value Chains in Pacific Island Countries TABLE 2.1 Estimates of environmental leakage of SUPs in the five PICs included in this study Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu Fiji (pre-ban) (post-ban) Total waste disposed of 16,208 27,057 18,553 17,500 154,500 (MT/year) Generation of 229 292 907 649 271 NA SUP of interest (MT/year) Disposal of SUP 161 228 609 218 91 14,883 of interest (MT/year) Mismanagement 68 64 298 431 180 NA of SUP of interest (MT/year) % environmental 30% 22% 33% 66% 66% NA leakage Source: Based on data from individual waste audits. Note: MT = metric tons, NA = not available, PET = polyethylene terephthalate, PS = polystyrene, SUP = single-use plastic. Fiji’s lower plastic waste rates suggest more effective capture mechanisms. Hygiene products, prevalent across all PICs, but particularly high in Tonga, are frequently mismanaged, contrib- uting significantly to environmental litter and marine pollution. These findings emphasize the need for policies that address SUP management comprehensively, balancing environmental and economic considerations to create cohesive national and regional approaches. Plastic value chains in the PICs are shorter than countries where production and manu- facturing take place. Upstream, PICs rely on imports, and have yet to regulate imported products. There are several attempts at banning products, with varying degrees of success, and no fiscal instruments in place that would be linked to the capacity of the country to manage the products (for example, higher tax on harder to recycle products). A limiting factor FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 14 2. Unpacking the Problem: Understanding Solid and Plastic Waste Value Chains in Pacific Island Countries for such regulation comes from the lack of standards and capacity to monitor quality of prod- ucts imported (for example, criteria on biodegradability). Midstream initiatives are limited to recycling, with a few initiatives on reuse with the promotion of reusable products, but their affordability remains a limiting factor. Recycling markets are nascent, regardless of the type of waste, with limiting factors on both side of the value chain: First, supply is hindered by weak collection and lack of segregation, and bring-back mechanisms are not widespread. Second, there are no incentives to create demand for second-hand or recycled products, and the export of recyclable materials is limited by high costs of transport. Container deposit schemes (CDSs) that could provide the feedstock for recycling and divert waste from landfill are being considered, for example, in Palau. In a few countries, there are emerging recycling associations, including working with women groups, for example, in Fiji. Downstream, the lack of SWM infrastructure is a systemic issue in the PICs, with no or limited segregation at source, weak collection that is limited to urban areas, and landfills or dumpsites reaching capacity on many islands. Exploring ways to divert waste from landfill, with a view of expanding the lifespan of waste infrastructure as well as fostering the development of circular measures, is becoming a priority in many PICs. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 15 LIMITED LANDFILL SPACE in PICs makes plastic circularity essential for sustainable waste management FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC ©World Bank 16 3. REGIONAL POLICY LANDSCAPE: Strengthening Existing Plastic Waste Initiatives MOVING TOWARD PLASTIC CIRCULARITY THROUGH POLICY ACTION Advancing toward plastic circularity holds the key to mitigating waste management challenges in PICs, where landfill capacity is limited. The Pacific Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter 2018-2025 (MLAP) embraces the principles of a circular economy, including the 5 R’s: refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle, and return. The MLAP serves as a roadmap for PICs in developing programs and legislation to address marine litter. Within the 5 R’s, the aspect of ‘return’ poses particular challenges for PICs. More often than not, manufacturers or producers are located in distant countries, making it impractical to enforce domestic extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations for return. Therefore, PICs must focus on reducing plastic waste volumes through refusal, reduction, reuse, and recycling as key strategies in advancing toward plastic circularity. While most PICs have developed national SWM strategies with support from SPREP and other donors over the past decade, efforts to develop national plastic policies or plans are nascent.5 Vanuatu stands out as the only country with a national plastic policy, albeit in draft form (developed with assistance from the UK-funded Commonwealth Marine Litter Project). Additionally, Tonga recently adopted a Single-Use Plastic Roadmap (2024), to address plastic pollution using a circular approach, emphasizing waste elimination, recycling, and 5 National SWM strategies were developed by the following PICs with support from SPREP: four states in the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 17 3. Regional Policy Landscape: Strengthening Existing Plastic Waste Initiatives safe disposal of plastics. Consultations conducted for this study highlight that the capacity of PICs is limited to develop comprehensive roadmaps and influences the choice to address products one at a time. Policy and legislative efforts to mitigate the impacts of specific plastics on the marine environment are increasing in PICs, spurred by various donor projects and the visible effects of plastic litter. These measures include bans and economic instruments, such as penalties for unpaid fees, advanced recovery fees, levies, and CDSs. Such market-based instruments can serve as proxies for sustainable financing mechanisms in waste manage- ment, especially in the absence of a rates base and insufficient resources to implement waste initiatives. SUPPORTING ACTIONS ON SINGLE-USE PLASTICS It is essential to balance the prioritization of interventions to improve basic access to SWM with the implementation of policies aimed at reducing the use of single-use prod- ucts and diverting valuable materials from waste streams and landfills. Thus, addressing SUPs must also include strengthening the enabling environment. Several efforts have been initiated in PICs on different types of SUPs, covering four main groups: hygiene items, plastic bags, takeaway items, and beverage containers (tables 3.1 and 3.2). Regulations addressing a fifth group of SUPs — packaging used in imported goods — are currently limited in PICs. This results in a significant quantity of materials, like multilayer packaging and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ending up in the waste stream as nonrecyclable materials, impacting the overall recyclability of the plastic waste stream. Slow uptake or reli- ance solely on voluntary EPR also discourages large-scale separation of plastic materials by polymer type. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 18 3. Regional Policy Landscape: Strengthening Existing Plastic Waste Initiatives TABLE 3.1 Initiatives by PICs to address various types of SUPs Beverage Hygiene Plastic bags Takeaway containers items items — — — — Five PICs — PNG, Vanuatu, Kiribati, and Plastic bags are the Eight out of 12 PICs Samoa, Solomon Tuvalu have taken most addressed SUP, have taken action on Islands, Tonga, and action on disposable with 10 out of 12 PICs takeaway items in the Vanuatu — report no diapers taking action form of bans action on containers — — — — Vanuatu has legislated Only Solomon Islands Four — Kiribati, Nauru, While feasibility studies a ban, whereas Kiribati and Nauru have not Tonga, and PNG — do on CDS have been and Tuvalu have implemented any not have initiatives on undertaken in these enacted levies on action on plastic bags these products countries, no concrete imported diapers — action has been taken — PNG controls the yet Feminine hygiene manufacture and — products are excluded import of plastic Few countries have from legislation in shopping bags draft regulations, not these countries — yet finalized nor imple- Samoa has set mented (e.g., FSM) minimum standards for biodegradability and licensing for imports of plastic bags, film, and pellets — Tonga has an import tax on certain plastic bags Note: CDS = Container deposit scheme, FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PIC = Pacific Island Country, PNG = Papua New Guinea, SUP = single-use plastic. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 19 3. Regional Policy Landscape: Strengthening Existing Plastic Waste Initiatives TABLE 3.2 Measures implemented to address the four SUP groups in PICs Beverage Hygiene Plastic Takeaway containers items bags items Federated States of Micronesia (National) By state (see below) None Congressional Act Congressional Act (CA) 21-73 to prohibit (CA) 21-73 to prohibit the importation of the importation of one-time use dispos- one-time use dispos- able Styrofoam and able Styrofoam and plastic food service plastic food service items, and plastic items, and plastic shopping bags, shopping bags, by by enacting a new enacting a new chapter chapter 4 of title 25 4 of title 25 of the FSM of the FSM Code Code Chuuk State, FSM None None Chuuk State Clean Chuuk State Clean Environment Act of Environment Act of 2018 2018 Kosrae State, FSM Kosrae Recycling None Code Title 11: Land None Program Regulation and Environment, Ch 2006 (Title 9, Ch. 22) 19: Control of Plastic Wastes Act of 2017; Code Title 9: Taxation amended to include & Revenue Sharing, Ch plastic grocery bags 22: Recycling Deposits (Act 11-174 of 2018) Pohnpei State, FSM Environmental Quality None Environmental None Fund and Litter Quality Fund and Reward Fund (State Litter Reward Law 6L-66-06) Title 27, Fund (State Law Chapter 3 establishes 6L-66-06) Title 27, recycling fees and Chapter 4 prohibits imposes deposits on all importation, use beverages produced or and disposal of imported nonrecyclable shopping bags less than 5mm FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 20 3. Regional Policy Landscape: Strengthening Existing Plastic Waste Initiatives Beverage Hygiene Plastic Takeaway containers items bags items Yap State, FSM Recycling Finance Law None Yap State Law 8-45 None 2009; and YAP EPA plastic Recycling Program Law bag regulations 2008; restrict distribution Recycling Program of plastic bags to Regulations 2008 customers Fiji Environment None Environment & Environmental Management Climate Adaptation Management Act 2005 (Container Deposit) Levy (Plastic Bags) (Amendment Act No. 42 Regulations 2011 not Regulations 2017 0f 2020) implemented yet Kiribati Special Fund (Waste Customs Act 2019, Customs Act 2019, None Materials Recovery) Part VI, Schedule 3 Part VI, Schedule 3 Act 2004; Special (17) (16 and 18) Fund (Waste Material Recovery) Regulations 2005 Marshall Islands Title 7 – Public Health ‘Einwot Juon’ Title 7 – Public Title 7 – Public Health Safety and Welfare campaign to include Health Safety and Safety and Welfare Chapter 5 – Styrofoam diapers in the Welfare Chapter 5 – Chapter 5 – Styrofoam Cups and Plates, and prohibition of SUPs Styrofoam Cups and Cups and Plates, and Plastic Prohibition, and Plates, and Plastic Plastic Prohibition, and Container Deposit Act Prohibition, and Container Deposit Act 2016 Container Deposit 2016 Act 2016 Palau National Code Title 11: None Plastic Bag Use Executive Order No.417 Business and Business Reduction Act, RPPL (2018) to establish a Regulation, Chapter 16: No. 10-14 2017 (to ‘Zero Disposal Plastic’ Recycling Program (as create a new Chapter policy at 2014); Plastic Bag 21 in Title 11 of the Use Reduction Act, National Code) RPPL No. 10–14 2017 (Amendment) Amended Beverage Container Recycling Regulations 2009 (amended again in 2019) FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 21 3. Regional Policy Landscape: Strengthening Existing Plastic Waste Initiatives Beverage Hygiene Plastic Takeaway containers items bags items Papua New Guinea None None Environment (Control None of Biodegradable Plastic Shopping Bags) Regulation 2011 Samoa None None Waste (Plastic Waste (Plastic Bag) Management Bag) Management Regulations 2018; Regulations 2018 Plastic Bag Prohibition on Importation Regulations 2006 Solomon Islands None None None Upcoming regulation to ban plastic shopping bags, plastic straws, plastic disposable cups, plates, cutlery, PS foam plates and cups, and water bottles less than 1.5 liters Tonga None None Waste Management None (Plastic Levy) Regulations 2013 Cap 32.18.1 Tuvalu Waste Management Waste Management Waste Management Waste Management (Levy Deposit) (Levy Deposit) (Prohibition on (Prohibition on Regulation 2019 Regulation 2019 the Importation of the Importation of Single-use Plastic) Single-use Plastic) Regulation 2019 Regulation 2019 Vanuatu None Ban on disposable Waste Management Waste Management diapers not fully Regulations 2018 Regulations 2018 implemented Note: No information available for Nauru. Information as of 2023. FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, PS = polystyrene. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 22 PICS FACE NUMEROUS CHALLENGES in tackling SUP waste FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC ©World Bank/Tom Vierus 23 4. INSIGHTS FROM FIJI, KIRIBATI, SAMOA, TONGA, AND VANUATU The case studies conducted in Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu offer valuable insights into the management of SUPs in the Pacific region and possible ways forward. These lessons reveal opportunities in accessing and affording alternatives to SUPs as well as improving services along the waste value chain (collection, transportation, recycling, and disposal) both within and across the PICs. The findings underscore the importance of a collab- orative approach to tackling SUPs in the Pacific, recognizing the challenges encountered by each country and proposing proactive steps to further develop suitable policies. LACK OF ACCESS TO SUBSTITUTES, SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES, AND RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS The case studies and experiences across the PICs highlight the challenges surrounding the availability and affordability of SUP substitutes and alternatives, alongside the high costs and logistical complexities of waste collection, transport, and recycling services. These challenges are particularly pronounced in PICs compared to other regions due to their small, remote, and dispersed populations, which amplifies the cost disadvantages of SUP alternatives and hinders the ability to achieve economies of scale. For instance, when Samoa banned Styrofoam takeaway containers, the market shifted to the next available alternative — polyethylene terephthalate (PET) takeaway containers — instead of plastic substitutes such as bagasse. Similarly, despite the ban on diapers in Vanuatu in 2019, no progress has been made on implementation due to the lack of suitable substitutes and end-of-life disposal facilities, such as composting. In Fiji, a ban on polystyrene (PS) products came into effect mid-2021 but those products are still in use in the country. Box 4.1 provides an overview of common terminology used for plastic substitutes and alternatives. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 24 4. Insights from Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu To address these challenges, governments play a crucial role in promoting SUP replace- ments and providing waste services, or assisting the private sector in providing them. The case studies suggest several approaches that governments can take to overcome resource constraints related to waste infrastructure and services while promoting alternatives to SUPs (box 4.2). These include implementing the ‘user pays’ principle for waste and recycling services, wherein users bear the full cost of services; applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle through levies or taxes on problematic waste like SUPs; and ensuring that tariffs on imports align with the promotion of sustainable substitutes and the application of levies or taxes on problematic waste. BOX 4.1 UNDERSTANDING THE TERMINOLOGY: SINGLE-USE PLASTICS OR PRODUCTS? ALTERNATIVES OR SUBSTITUTES? ©unsplash/NS This study uses the following definitions of plastic substitutes and alternatives adopted to support international efforts on mainstreaming action on plastics, such as addressing the entire plastic life cycle and providing clarity on the global trade of substitutes (UNCTAD 2023a). • Single-use plastic: Any disposable product, often used only once prior to disposal or other treatment, comprising 100% plastic, such as a polypropylene (PP) or PS containers. • Single-use product: Any disposable product, often used only once prior to disposal or other treatment, composed of one or more materials, not necessarily plastic, such as single-use diapers and multilayer packaging. • Plastic alternative: Any product made from bioplastics or biodegradable plas- tics (not derived from fossil fuels). Bioplastics are made from biobased polymers such as corn starch, straw, wood chips and should be recyclable. Biodegradable plastics must either biodegrade in the natural environment or be composted. The criteria that make them more environmentally friendly and a suitable replacement for traditional plastics include lower greenhouse gas emissions in their lifecycle compared to fossil fuel-based plastics and not hazardous to human, animal, or plant life. However, biodegradable plastics can still degrade into microplastics in FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 25 4. Insights from Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu the environment, often requiring industrial composting under high temperature conditions to fully degrade and can contaminate recycling waste streams, thus creating new challenges (Maguero 2022). • Plastic substitute: Any product made from natural materials (such as those derived from plants or animals) that have properties similar to plastics. They exclude fossil fuel-based or synthetic polymers, bioplastics, and biodegradable plastics. The criteria that make them more environmentally friendly and a suitable replacement to traditional plastics include having a reduced environmental impact along their life cycle, be either biodegradable/compostable or erodible, be suitable for reuse, recycling, or sound waste disposal, and not harmful to human, animal, or plant life. BOX 4.2 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING SUP REPLACEMENTS There are several criteria to consider when eval- uating alternatives or substitutes for SUPs: ©iStock/Alex Liew • Affordability: Several alternatives and substitutes to SUP products already exist, but tend to be pricier than their plastic counterparts, posing significant obsta- cles for businesses and consumers, especially in a region with limited disposable income. The increase in cost may also be due to higher tariffs on plastic substitutes (in the range of 5%-25%) compared to plastic products and materials (lower than 10%), according to trade data (UNCTAD 2023a). • Availability: Accessing substitutes may be challenging due to their limited availability in local markets. Consequently, businesses may need to import them, resulting in increased expenses and logistical complexities, including potential supply chain disruptions. • Small market size: Nationally, markets are small, with populations in PICs varying between 12,000 (Tuvalu) to 900,000 people (Fiji). Regionally, the market for PICs is slightly bigger, with a total population of 2.5 million, compounded by dispersed and isolated populations. This equates to higher transport costs (both within a PIC FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 26 4. Insights from Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu and the region as well as internationally), limited capacity to locally develop low(er)- cost alternatives, and limited purchasing power to exert downward pressure on the prices of imported alternatives. • Nontariff measures: Nontariff measures can hinder trade flows and the adoption of plastic substitutes, potentially more than tariffs. The most regulated products include natural fibers from plant and tree-based sources, crops, and agricultural by-products. These measures not only increase costs but also make it challenging for PICs to meet import standards, limiting the availability of substitutes. • Infrastructure: Infrastructure for composting organic materials is often lacking in many PICs. This poses a significant challenge, especially when transitioning from SUPs to naturally biodegradable substitutes such as bagasse, paper, and plant leaf products. • Consumer acceptance: Consumers must adjust to using alternative materials, and resistance to change may arise, particularly when these substitutes differ significantly or are perceived to have drawbacks, such as being more expensive. • Business adoption: Businesses may need to invest in new equipment, training, and processes to use alternative materials effectively. This can be a barrier, partic- ularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. • Food safety and packaging standards: Where SUPs are used for food packaging or serving, alternative packaging materials must meet food safety and packaging standards. Regulators may need to develop guidelines and standards for these materials. • Cultural considerations: Some food items and cultural practices may not be compatible with certain substitutes, such as banana leaves, which may not be suit- able for all types of food. • Environmentally sound: Environmentally sound substitutes are crucial to ensure that they do not inadvertently contribute to another ecological or environmental issue. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 27 4. Insights from Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu CAPACITY CHALLENGES The case studies consistently reveal a lack of capacity within these countries to not only design and implement legislative instruments, such as bans, but also to conduct market research and provide support for development, education, and enforcement of SUP substitutes. Aid programs such as PacWaste Plus, Japanese Technical Cooperation Project for Promotion of Regional Initiative on Solid Waste Management (JPRISM), and Sustainable Waste Actions in the Pacific (SWAP) support work on bans and EPR schemes in PICs, covering various aspects from design to implementation of legislative instruments and infrastructure investment. For instance, PacWaste Plus supported the design/expansion of EPR in Kiribati and Vanuatu through pre-feasibility studies, among five other PICs. Sustainable Waste Actions in the Pacific funded the development of an online course focusing on sustainable financing systems for various SUPs, along with project management and disaster waste management. The case studies also note a lack of technical, human resource, and financial capacity within the relevant ministries and waste management divisions in these countries to undertake such work as part of their regular operations. LACK OF REGIONAL COORDINATION AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING Despite recognizing SUPs as a key pollution control activity by the PICs, the Pacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP) is the only regional project focusing on SUPs and their alternatives. While all PICs have initiated some policy or legislative action on SUPs, these actions lack support in terms of data collection, reporting, and monitoring and evaluation. As a result, coun- tries are unable to accurately report on the progress or impact of these actions. For instance, in Samoa, although the impact of the Styrofoam ban is evident anecdotally, no quantification studies have been conducted to assess the impacts. A more coordinated regional approach with integrated reporting and evaluation processes would provide a better understanding of the impacts of existing interventions on SUPs and help identify gaps, leading to clearer direction for future investments. FRAGMENTED ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES All PICs have legislation governing waste management and pollution control, with SUP management coming under the waste management umbrella. Four PICs — Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu — have specific legislation on SWM at the national level. In contrast, other PICs manage waste under more general environmental management legislation. However, when waste management is embedded within environmental legislation, there is often a lack of clarity on which departments are responsible for implementation of waste management, FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 28 4. Insights from Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu leading to accountability issues and monitoring and enforcement challenges, thus hindering operational frameworks. In order to provide clear direction to the waste management sector, four countries (Palau, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu) have established national-level waste management authorities with the responsibility of providing waste management services, including collection and recycling systems and developing infrastructure. While the formation of such independent waste authorities and the development of SWM policies is evidence that PICs have identified and are addressing related challenges, progress has been slow. As more PICs enact bans and policies related to SUP management, the lack of clarity on responsible agencies for policy implementation may hinder the success of these policies. DATA COLLECTION AND MONITORING Data challenges are common in waste management and pollution control efforts, but they are particularly acute in PICs due to limited capacity and monitoring requirements. Currently, a lack of transparency and consistency in reporting across countries on the volumes of plastics imported, exported, used, collected, disposed of, and recycled hinders end-to-end traceability, and therefore, the ability to assign accountability. Lack of data also constitutes a barrier to develop initiatives for new markets and to attract private sector investments. There are currently no legislative requirements in PICs that mandate the collection of data related to waste management and plastics. While some policies and legislation related to SUPs have been implemented in PICs, there is no reliable data on their effectiveness. The PRIF-led ‘common methodology’ is an important first step toward establishing baseline data across the region (PRIF 2020). Although waste audits conducted between 2018 and 2021 used the common methodology and provided a useful baseline, there are no programs in place to ensure that this data collection takes place in an ongoing manner, that robust, reproducible data ensuring consistency among different entities is ensured, and that data from different sectors (for example, tourism, fisheries) and on gender equality disability and social inclusion (GEDSI) issues are collected. WHO BEARS THE COSTS? A range of policy options exist to transition away from SUPs toward more sustainable substitutes, with the case studies evaluating a wide array including regulatory and market-based approaches. Table 4.1 highlights the tailored solutions for managing different types of SUPs, focusing on strategies that are relevant to the local context of each country. All approaches require government investment, and some costs will be passed on to consumers. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 29 4. Insights from Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu Nevertheless, in all cases and in all proposed policies, the net benefits outweigh the costs. TABLE 4.1 Summary of recommended policy options for the priority SUPs in five PICs evaluated for this study Kiribati Samoa Tonga Vanuatu Fiji SUP bags Takeaway Beverage Disposable PS takeaway containers containers diapers products Policy Ban on Ban on SUP CDS for SUP Ban on Ban on PS option 1 importing takeaway beverage importing products SUP bags containers containers disposable diapers Policy Ban on Deposit CDS for SUP, Levy on Ban on PS option 2 import of Refund aluminum, disposable products SUP bags Scheme and glass diapers + + on SUP beverage promotion of levy on takeaway containers sustainable nonreusable containers alternatives bags Policy Ban on PS option 3 products + promotion of sustainable alternatives + investment in local production of sustainable alternatives and composting Note: CDS and DRS are systems to incentivize the return of beverage containers. In the case of Tonga, the CDS includes a refund for containers redeemed through the scheme. CDS = container deposit scheme, DRS = deposit return scheme, PS = polystyrene, SUP = single-use plastic. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 30 4. Insights from Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu In Samoa, two policy options are considered to reduce the use of disposable plastic food containers: (1) banning all takeaway plastic food containers or (2) implementing a deposit refund scheme (DRS). The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) findings demonstrate positive returns for both options. Banning SUP containers and transitioning to compostable substitutes could generate nearly USD 6 million in net benefits over a 20-year period, resulting in a USD 2.38 return for every USD 1 invested. Conversely, implementing a DRS and enhancing the recy- clability of SUP takeaway containers could yield over USD 3.5 million in net benefits over the same period, offering a return of USD 1.52 on an investment of USD 1. A ban on SUP takeaway containers offers significant benefits by reducing litter costs, contingent on the availability of biodegradable alternatives and the country’s organic waste management capacity. As SUP bags are still one of the most abundant items in the MSW stream in Kiribati despite a ban, the Government of Kiribati expressed a strong interest in conducting an ex-post analysis of policy options to reduce SUP bags. The case study considers two policy options to further reduce the use of plastic bags: (1) solely banning the import of plastic bags or (2) banning plastic bag imports plus levying a charge on all single-use bags. The CBA findings demonstrate positive returns for both options. Banning SUP bags could generate nearly USD 0.6 million in net benefits over a 20-year period, resulting in a USD 1.18 return for every USD 1 invested. Conversely, implementing a ban and levy could yield much higher net benefits of USD 4.6 million over the same period, offering a USD 1 investment with a return of USD 3.92. Option 2 is expected to deliver greater net economic benefits than option 1 under all sensitivity scenarios. In Vanuatu, which has a high generation rate of disposable diapers, two policy options are considered: (1) banning disposable diapers or (2) applying a levy on diapers that are not fully compostable. The CBA findings show that Vanuatu communities will benefit more from either option compared to the current approach of managing disposable diapers. Transitioning to compostable and reusable diapers could generate nearly USD 15 million in net benefits over 20 years, with a USD 1.26 return for every USD 1 invested. Implementing a levy on noncompostable single-use diapers could yield almost USD 11 million in net benefits over the same period, with a USD 1.24 return for every USD 1 invested. Overall, both options present positive economic outcomes and contribute to mitigating the impacts of disposable diaper waste, warranting consideration for implementation. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 31 4. Insights from Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu In Tonga, the case study focuses on developing a market for high-value recyclables by exploring midstream measures. These include increasing the collection of PET bottles through a CDS and exploring the switch from PET beverage containers to reusable containers by expanding the use of water dispensers, refill stations, and rainwater harvesting systems. Two CDSs are considered: (1) for plastic beverage containers only and (2) for all beverage containers (including aluminum and glass). The CBA findings demonstrate positive returns for both options. Introduction of CDS for plastic containers could generate nearly USD 5 million in net benefits over a 20-year period, resulting in a USD 1.54 return for every USD 1 invested. Conversely, extending the CDS to glass and aluminum could yield over USD 5.8 million in net benefits over the same period, offering a USD 1 investment with a return of USD 1.41. A material flow analysis indicates that implementing a CDS under either option would not notably reduce container consumption but would significantly decrease plastic environmental leakage and promote recyclability. In Fiji, the analysis focuses on promoting substitutes to disposable food and beverage packaging made out of foamed polystyrene. The analysis compares three scenarios, all including a ban, with other instruments introduced in sequence to promote substitutes or alternatives with a levy on disposables, followed by investment in the production of those replacements. in all cases, there is a benefit to society from the ban, regardless of additional measures. The most efficient option to reduce the use of PS containers is to complement the existing ban with a levy on disposables and enabling investments in substitutes and composting. This would yield a net benefit of F$30 million over 20 years, even without accounting for the benefits on local employment and carbon credits from reduced emissions from composting activities. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 32 REGIONAL APPROACHES can tackle the transboundary nature of plastic pollution FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC ©World Bank/Hamish Wyatt 33 5. Learning from Single-Use Plastic Strategies in the Pacific and Beyond 5. LEARNING FROM SINGLE-USE PLASTIC STRATEGIES in the Pacific and Beyond LESSONS FROM PACIFIC PIONEERS ON SINGLE-USE PLASTICS The Pacific region is taking action against plastic pollution, though these efforts are still fragmented and not yet widespread across the region. While some countries have imple- mented innovative policies and strategies, such as CDSs, broad bans on SUPs, and user-pays waste management systems, the full impact of these initiatives is yet to be felt across the region. These efforts, though promising, remain limited in scope and need to be scaled up for greater regional impact. Other regions are similarly exploring regional approaches to managing plastic waste, and the World Bank is supporting these efforts across the value chain. Examples of the work in other regions are provided later in this chapter. Container deposit schemes adopted in the Pacific region provide lessons in phased implementation and financial sustainability. Beverage CDS have been impactful in several PICs, with Palau offering a prime example of gradual yet effective implementation. While legislation was established in 2004, the program was launched in 2009 and became fully operational by 2011, allowing time to build sufficient capacity and develop complementary regulations. A distinctive feature of the program is that while it began collecting deposits from imported goods immediately, refunds for empty beverage containers did not commence until six months after the levy collection started. By then, enough funds had been generated to pay for returned legacy waste or empty containers generated before the levy was imposed. The seed money collected during this initial period provided funds to cover the costs of returned eligible legacy waste items. Palau’s system, with an 87% redemption rate, highlights the FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 34 5. Learning from Single-Use Plastic Strategies in the Pacific and Beyond importance of dedicated recycling funds, gradual rollout strategies, and robust monitoring frameworks (Palau, MPII 2020). The USD 0.10 deposit per eligible item is used to pay a USD 0.05 refund and a USD 0.025 handling fee, with the remaining USD 0.025 retained to support relevant waste management activities. The scheme’s success also underscores the need for thorough feasibility studies to miti- gate early challenges, such as adjusting deposit rates and ensuring accessible redemption centers. In the case of Palau, deposits were reduced from USD 0.15 to USD 0.10 and adding an additional drop-off point helped sustain the redemption rate. Local capacity for monitoring and reporting was also improved by developing an operation manual to guide administrative and logistical operations. Implementation is as critical as policy design, requiring adaptive approaches that balance financial viability and community engagement. Another key success story in the Pacific comes from Vanuatu, where the government implemented a comprehensive ban on certain SUPs. This approach shows the transfor- mative potential of such bans. By banning items like plastic bags, straws, and PS containers, and later expanding the ban to include items like disposable cutlery and diapers, Vanuatu has achieved a significant reduction in SUPs in the environment. The visible decrease in plastic litter demonstrates the benefits of strong policies backed by enforcement and stakeholder collaboration. Despite logistical and enforcement challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, the success of these policies can be attributed to consistent enforcement and clear commu- nication, which were crucial in increasing compliance. In addition to these regulatory measures, pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) systems have been implemented in Vanuatu to integrate financial sustainability into the SWM system (SPREP 2022). Through the ‘yellow bag’ initiative in Port Vila (2010) and the ‘red bag’ system in Luganville (2014), households purchase garbage bags, providing a stable income source for municipalities, with participation rates reaching 100% in Port Vila and 40% in the outer island of Luganville (as of 2018). Additionally, there is a noticeable improvement in cleanliness and awareness among residents through education campaigns. The implementation of the PAYT system faced several challenges, but the approach provides critical lessons in designing fair and transparent systems. Challenges include identifying reliable suppliers, agreeing on cost-sharing arrangements, enforcing regulations, ensuring accessibility in rural areas, and addressing logistical issues such as incorrect pricing and stock shortages. Key to overcoming these hurdles is political support, thorough feasi- bility studies, broad stakeholder consultations, effective branding, and adequate capital and FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 35 5. Learning from Single-Use Plastic Strategies in the Pacific and Beyond operational resources. Additionally, strong customer support and transparent audit and moni- toring frameworks are essential to ensure affordability and accessibility for all communities. Another innovative approach to financing waste management was introduced in Tuvalu in 2019 through the Waste Management Levy Deposit Regulation. The regulation includes two funding sources with staggered implementation: (1) Advanced recycling fees (through a deposit system) to support recycling operations and (2) Advanced disposal fees (through a product tax) to support collection and disposal of specific waste types. By addressing both collection and disposal, the system achieved a 67% redemption rate by 2021, highlighting the importance of staged implementation, considering legacy waste, and developing local recycling capacity to reduce reliance on government-led systems. The Palau Pledge stands out as a unique initiative in the Pacific, pioneering a new approach to engaging tourists in environmental protection. Upon arrival in Palau, visitors sign a pledge to respect the country’s environment and culture, with a strong emphasis on sustainability. This initiative highlights the growing recognition of the impact of tourism on the environ- ment and provides an example of eco-tourism practices. Building on this success, the Palau Business Pledge was introduced to encourage local businesses to promote sustainability and positively contribute to the community. To become certified, businesses must meet specific criteria, earning benefits such as cost savings, increased visibility, and enhanced reputation. These pledges demonstrate how behavioral change can be driven through innovative policies. By building a sense of shared responsibility, the initiatives align economic develop- ment and environmental preservation. In addition, they provide a replicable model for other island nations seeking to balance tourism with sustainability. As these examples illustrate, the Pacific region’s efforts to reduce plastic pollution offer valuable lessons across the region as well as to other regions facing similar challenges. Phased implementation, dedicated funding mechanisms, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and robust enforcement are essential for success. To build on these achievements, regional organizations like SPREP can play a key role in knowledge sharing and developing regional strategies to accelerate progress on managing SUPs. For example, the adoption of best practices, such as PAYT systems, can be tailored to fit local contexts while benefiting from regional support. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 36 5. Learning from Single-Use Plastic Strategies in the Pacific and Beyond REGIONAL APPROACHES TO MANAGING SINGLE-USE PLASTICS Recognizing the transboundary nature of plastic pollution, particularly SUPs, regional approaches to addressing the issue are growing globally. In South Asia, the South Asia Co-operative Environment Program (SACEP), through its Plastic Free Rivers and Seas for South Asia (PLEASE) Project, is developing regional analytics and recommendations on plas- tics, including SUPs. In East Africa, the East Africa Legislative Assembly (EALA) developed a report on the control and management of SUPs across the region (EALA 2023). Soon after, a SUP bill was proposed in 2023 to ban the manufacturing, sale, and import of select SUPs that are nonessential and deemed particularly harmful to the environment and livelihoods, cannot be recycled, and are easily substitutable (UNCTAD 2023b). In West Africa, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has also recognized the importance of regional cooperation and action, and announced in late 2024 it was considering adopting a regional action plan to combat plastic pollution, in part to help address national-level implementation challenges on policies such as SUP bans. In Southeast Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) launched a Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris (ASEAN RAP) in 2021 and included action on SUPs. The ASEAN RAP calls for a collaborative and integrated approach to addressing plastic pollution in the marine environment through a set of 14 regional actions across the waste value chain and covering (1) Policy support and planning; (2) Research, innovation, and capacity building; (3) Public awareness, education, and outreach; and (4) Private sector engagement. On SUPs, the ASEAN RAP recognizes that most ASEAN Member States have enacted some level of SUP regulations, but more coherent actions are required at the regional level to avoid industries shifting across borders. The ASEAN RAP includes one action specifically on SUPs, Develop Guiding Principles for Phasing out SUPs, which aims to help ASEAN Member States in addressing the issue of SUPs and the root causes that have made them so common, and support coherent progress among Member States toward reducing the quantity of SUPs on the market, consumed, and littered (ASEAN 2021). Since the launch of the ASEAN RAP, the ASEAN Secretariat and ASEAN Member States have implemented the outlined actions with the support of development partners including the World Bank, GIZ, and others. Notable actions include developing regional platforms for knowledge & partnerships and innovation & investment, as well as strength- ening regional policies, collaboration, and monitoring through the development of best practice manuals, guidebooks, and training materials and programs. These efforts are helping Member States develop their own policies based on best practices and align their efforts FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 37 5. Learning from Single-Use Plastic Strategies in the Pacific and Beyond across the region. Almost all Member States now have national strategies, MSW collection laws, and are increasingly introducing laws on plastics, SUP bans/fees, and EPR policies. This comprehensive regional approach provides a potential model for ensuring that action on SUPs and problematic plastics in one country is not offset by leakage or inaction in neigh- boring countries. The archipelago of Maldives, a nation of around 1,200 islands in the Indian Ocean, faces similar challenges as PICs do and has implemented a national plan to phase out SUPs. Key aspects of the phase-out plan are described in box 5.1. BOX 5.1 THE MALDIVES’ SINGLE-USE PLASTIC PHASE-OUT PLAN 2020-23 The Maldives’ Single-use Plastic Phase-Out Plan is a national initiative to phase out the production, import, and consumption of certain SUPs and to promote the use of sustainable alternatives. Given the broad spectrum of SUPs and their uses as well as the unique geographic and socioeconomic context of the Maldives, it was concluded that multiple policy instruments are required to achieve the targets set forth in the plan. ©unsplash/Ibrahim Razzan The Plan sets short-term targets to be achieved, such as improving data collection and increasing collection of SUP waste, as well as long-term targets to 2030, which include providing “affordable, accessible and reusable nonplastic alternatives”, establishing a recycling facility in the country, and devising a legal framework on circular economy. The Plan first identified the most commonly consumed and littered SUPs on land as well as in marine environments (table B5.1.1), which were agreed and ranked by the established Plastic Committee, comprising members from government and civil society appointed by the Ministry of Environment. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 38 5. Learning from Single-Use Plastic Strategies in the Pacific and Beyond Next, in addition to the environmental and health impacts of SUPs, the following were considered: (1) Do these products contribute to significant pollution on land and in the marine environment? (2) Do importers, producers, and consumers have access to readily available and affordable nonplastic or reusable alternatives for those prod- ucts? (3) The socioeconomic context of the Maldives including consumption patterns. Policy instruments were broadly categorized into regulatory (command and control), economic, and informative (education and awareness) instruments. As the country relies solely on imported plastic products in the absence of a domestic industry that would otherwise be adversely impacted, the imperative lies in imple- menting regulations to govern these plastic products effectively. Six policies were created, each addressing a different aspect of SUP use and ‘throw away’ culture and using the three policy instruments: (1) Ban selected SUPs; (2) Implement market-based instruments; (3) Strengthen data collection; (4) Introduce EPR; (5) Provide sustainable alternatives; and (6) Education and awareness. Key activities are reviewed periodically with stakeholder agencies, the private sector, and the general public. A key aspect includes suggestions to amend laws and regula- tions based on the progress achieved. Targets are set for a specified timeframe, after which a new policy directive will guide the following phase. TABLE B5.1.1 Common SUPs identified for action by the Maldives’ Plastic Committee No Product No Product 1 Plastic drinking straws 6 Plastic wrappers on food and drinks 2 SUP plates, cups, cutlery, and 7 Single-use coffee cups stirrers 3 Plastic shopping bags 8 SUP decorations 4 Plastic food containers 9 Cotton bud sticks 5 All imported and produced 10 Plastic packaging and products PET beverage containers used in beauty and hygiene Source: World Bank 2024. Note: SUP = single-use plastic. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 39 PREVENTING MARINE POLLUTION requires managing waste better and importing and consuming better FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC ©World Bank/Tom Vierus 40 6. A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries 6. A BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries KEY INSIGHTS FROM CASE STUDIES ON SINGLE-USE PLASTICS This study considered replacement policy instruments for targeted SUPs in Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, and Vanuatu, and explored a DRS in Tonga. These overlapping policy measures can support sustainable waste management and plastic reduction efforts in the PICs. The detailed cost-benefit assessments for the policy options are provided in appendix B. » In Fiji, PS products such as containers, cups, and plates could be replaced with bioplastic alternatives and plant-based products. » In Samoa, plastic food containers could be replaced by (1) bagasse, paper, and second-gen- eration bioplastic products and (2) products made from banana or plant leaves. » In Vanuatu, communities could switch from disposable diapers to reusable ones. » In Kiribati, SUP bags could be swapped for (1) reusable, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bags, (2) paper bags (both large, heavy weight carry bags and smaller, lighter bags for produce), (3) biodegradable plastic carry or produce bags, and (4) reusable cloth bags. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 41 6. A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries » In Tonga, increasing the collection of PET bottles by implementing a CDS while exploring switching from PET beverage containers to reusable containers and expanding the use of water dispensers and refill stations as well as rainwater harvesting systems. Although promising, the adoption and widespread use of substitutes to SUPs in these five countries, and the Pacific Island region, at large, face multiple hurdles. Addressing these barriers requires a comprehensive approach, encompassing public awareness campaigns to drive behavioral change, infrastructure development, and regulatory support, as well as the viability of individual options, based on factors such as availability, affordability, environmental impact, and so on. In addition, coordinated action from diverse stakeholders, particularly by policy makers, to create an enabling environment for the adoption of alternative packaging materials is crucial. Results from the analysis, past experience, and evidence suggest that banning a product is more effective than targeting a specific plastic polymer type. In the case of the latter, market dynamics often lead to a shift to the next cheapest alternative rather than curbing overall plastic waste generation. For instance, in Samoa, the ban on PS containers simply led to their replacement with PET and PP, essentially exchanging one issue for another. Banning products (such as all single-use takeaway containers, for example) necessitates seeking out more appropriate and suitable substitutes. Studies conducted in other PICs yield similar outcomes favoring bans of specific plastic products over particular polymer types. In all cases, however, raising awareness and fostering behavior change regarding SUPs are pivotal in moving toward a collective shift toward sustainable products and mitigating environmental degradation. The actions recommended in this study aim to improve overall waste management, harmonize regulations, and integrate regional markets. They are aligned with the Cleaner Pacific 2025 Pacific Regional Waste and Pollution Management Strategy and also provide crucial insights for Pacific Island Countries in the UN negotiations for an ILBI to end plastic pollution (UNEP n.d.).6 Addressing pollution from SUPs and preventing marine pollution require a well-func- tioning MSW system, alongside efforts to transition to plastic circularity (figure 6.1). Providing basic MSW services involves improving waste collection, establishing cost recovery 6 Cleaner Pacific 2025: Pacific Regional Waste and Pollution Management Strategy 2016–2025 is a comprehensive, long-term strategy for integrated sustainable waste management and pollution prevention in the Pacific Island region, developed in consultation with 21 member countries. The goals include (1) prevent and minimize generation of waste and pollution and their associated impacts, (2) recover resources from waste and pollution, (3) improve life-cycle management of residuals, and (4) improve monitoring of the receiving environment (SPREP & JICA 2016). FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 42 6. A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries mechanisms, and investing in disposal infrastructure while diverting waste to extend landfill lifespans. These measures also align with waste hierarchy principles.7 Transitioning to plastic circularity entails implementing ‘upstream’ measures such as reducing and replacing short- lived plastic products, as well as ‘midstream’ measures promoting the reuse and recycling of products. The goal is to minimize waste volumes and create value by developing markets for upstream and midstream products. Managing imports of materials, particularly SUPs, is crucial, with regulations and incentives needed to promote reusable, biodegradable, or compostable alternatives and reduce reliance on hard-to-manage plastics.8 National strat- egies, such as roadmaps to reduce SUP consumption or EPR schemes, can shift costs from FIGURE 6.1 Key transitions for improving the management of waste and plastic pollution in the Pacific region MANAGE IMPORT, WASTE CONSUME BETTER BETTER To stop the leakage To Reduce and Replace unwanted products To dispose only of low-value waste To Reuse and Recycle To divert waste from landfills 7 The waste hierarchy prioritizes prevention, reuse, recycling, and recovery to minimize the adverse impacts of waste and to improve resource efficiency. Disposal by landfilling should be undertaken only as a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted. 8 Biodegradability refers to the break-down or decomposition of organic matter by microorganisms such as bacteria or fungi (with or without oxygen) and return to nature, ideally without causing any pollution, and within a relatively short time after disposal, typically a year or less. While all compostable products are biodegradable, not all biodegradable products are compostable. The main differences between biodegradable and compostable products are related to production materials, their decomposition, and the residual elements after decomposition. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 43 6. A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries consumers to manufacturers or importers. Regionally, PICs can establish regional standards, align import regulations, and adopt sustainable practices to minimize marine leakage. The remainder of this chapter addresses how PICs can (1) manage their waste better by providing basic SWM services to stop leakage into the environment and to only dispose of low-value, nonrecyclable or nonbiodegradable waste and (2) to import and consume better by adopting waste hierarchy and circular economy principles. The last section provides suggestions for interventions at the regional level. RECOMMENDATIONS TO MANAGE WASTE BETTER Set up national-level waste management authorities. Key interventions are required at the national level to close policy gaps and other challenges to improve SWM services. One important gap identified across PICs is the lack of a national waste management authority. Except for two PICs (Samoa and Tonga), waste management is fragmented, resulting in lack of coordinated action within the countries, impacting the effectiveness of support provided by regional programs. Forming such authorities and giving them the ability to engage with other national bodies and regional and international actors ensures that waste-related issues are effectively addressed. Regardless of the policy approach or the specific product targeted, the management of plastic waste and solid waste must be viewed as mutually reinforcing. Enhancing service delivery along the waste value chain (collection, transport, treatment, and disposal) requires source segregation and boosts the financial viability of the system. Managing plastic and other waste should focus on the following priorities: » Establishing markets for substitutes to plastic products along with other measures could provide benefits beyond plastic pollution. Similar market-driven incentives could also help expand the nascent recycling sector in the Pacific region, beginning with ‘low-hanging fruit’, such as by phasing out SUPs in the tourism sector. » Building organic waste management infrastructure to treat biodegradable substitutes alongside other organic waste streams. » Enhancing service delivery, particularly through source segregation, to improve financial viability and effectively manage plastic and other waste streams. » Introducing measures to increase awareness and encourage behavioral shifts toward sustainable products. » Strengthening regional collaboration to harmonize regulations, create markets for eco-friendly alternatives and reuse systems and achieve economies of scale. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 44 6. A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries In instances where viable solutions are not immediately available to reduce, ban, or substi- tute certain single-use products for more durable or sustainable items, these single-use products will inevitably enter the MSW stream, and should be either disposed of in landfills or treated using appropriate and environmentally responsible methods, adhering to the best practices within the sector. This is necessary as transitioning from certain single-use products like diapers or multilayer packaging is not a straightforward process in the short run, requiring sustained public awareness, lasting behavior change, and policy incentives. At the national level, the transition to biodegradable or compostable substitutes also necessitates revamping waste management infrastructure, particularly in the treatment of organic waste. Not only would this facilitate efficient disposal of organic matter (including paper, cardboard [if not recycled], and the food and green waste generated by inhabitants and the tourism sector), but also could support local agriculture. The valuable compost generated can be used to enrich the soil and improve crop yields. Sustainable financing could be tapped for these investments, including climate finance. Expanding CDS to all single-use bottles (plastic, aluminum, and glass), such as the policy measure proposed to manage Tonga’s plastic bottles, offers a potential for a new market. Exploring the use of glass bottles, which can be collected, cleaned, and refilled, presents a viable business opportunity for a country like Tonga. The Maldives provides a successful example where a local industry for glass bottling has been established, keeping the process and revenues within the country. A similar market could be developed in Tonga and other PICs, fostering local business growth and sustainability. However, it is important to recognize the trade-offs associated with replacing PET bottles with glass bottles. For instance, replacing imported PET bottles with glass, which is much heavier, would have a higher carbon footprint and increased transportation costs. Therefore, while exploring such alternatives, a balanced approach considering environmental and economic impacts is crucial. RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPORT AND CONSUME BETTER For SUP products, sectors like tourism offer opportunities for quick wins in reducing SUP leakage into the environment. Drawing on successful examples from other countries, several upstream measures can be implemented in the tourism industry to decrease plastic demand. These include: (1) Discontinuing the use of plastic straws; (2) Eliminating plastic containers for food and beverages consumed on-site; (3) Replacing single-use toiletries with refillable dispensers or providing them only upon request; (4) Substituting single-use water bottles with refillable glass bottles; and (5) Charging customers for plastic containers used for takeaway items, offering reusable containers with a deposit, or using packaging that is truly FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 45 6. A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries biodegradable and compostable. Additionally, green certificates could be issued to hotels and restaurants that are regarded as best performers in implementing these measures. Developing and promoting substitutes to SUPs should accompany any measures to ban or phase out products. Action on substitutes to SUPs is key, given the lack of economies of scale and high shipping costs. This could include actions to support adoption of currently available substitutes, innovation to promote the local manufacture of new substitutes, and the provision of information on substitutes to participants in the supply chain. Creating markets for new products or services, particularly as alternatives or substitutes to problematic (single-use) products and implementing systems for reuse and repair, is crucial. This not only fosters innovation but also encourages economic growth while addressing environmental challenges. Expanding markets for eco-friendly substitutes and establishing infrastructure that promotes reuse and repair systems can significantly reduce the reliance on environmentally harmful products, leading to more sustainable and resilient economies. The decision to ban or decrease the use of SUPs and switch to more sustainable substi- tutes in the PICs not only aligns with global goals but also introduces new opportunities. In this transition, the Pacific SIDS have the potential to create a flourishing regional market for environmentally friendly products, thus fostering innovation and creating economic growth. Shifting the flow of plastic products from polluting (that is, single-use) to circular (that is, reus- able, recyclable, compostable) also shifts the profit pools to midstream activities and results in the creation of new jobs (World Bank 2022). Achieving plastic circularity necessitates three simultaneous market shifts: (1) Developing a market for reusable products to transition from a ‘throw away’ culture to a reuse economy; (2) Accelerating a market for plastic recycling by making it more stable and profitable; and (3) Reshaping and diversifying the market to facil- itate sustainable solutions to plastic, rather than merely replacing products with substitutes that shift environmental burdens rather than genuinely reduce impacts, such as in the case of banning PS takeaway containers in Samoa, which has led to an increase in the use of other types of plastic (PET and PP) containers (UNEP 2023). Crucial aspects such as the involvement of women, community engagement and aware- ness, and engaging with key stakeholders are pivotal for the success of any policy initia- tive. Women, primary caregivers and active consumers of plastics, wield significant potential to drive change by reducing plastic usage within their communities. It is recommended that policy interventions integrate gender considerations in stakeholder engagements as well as in decision making processes across the policy design, implementation, and evaluation FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 46 6. A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries phases. Inclusivity of the broader community is essential to secure public acceptance of poli- cies, address community or stakeholder concerns, and elicit innovative solutions and input for policy design. Furthermore, engaging with key stakeholders, including retailers, is integral to policy effectiveness. REGIONAL INTERVENTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL TO SUPPORT NATIONAL EFFORTS IN THE PACIFIC While some solutions to prevent plastic pollution and to transition to plastic circularity are inherently national or municipal – for example, improving basic SWM systems – others require coordination at the regional level seeking economies of scale, for example, regional harmonization of national policies. The One Pacific Voice at the United Nations negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution reflects PICs’ commitments to implementing solutions such as improving SWM and phasing out unnecessary plastics. It also emphasizes transitioning to a circular economy, through for example, increasing recy- cling and creating markets along the whole plastic value chain. Harmonization to manage plastic pollution should focus on imports of particularly damaging (or difficult to manage) products and polluter pays principle, development of standards, as well as building countries’ capacities to comply with the global requirements of the ILBI on plastic pollution, facilitating technology transfer, providing guidance, and increasing knowledge sharing between coun- tries and outside of the region. At the same time, national actions could include support for infrastructure investments and policy reforms in SWM, recycling and other small infrastruc- ture, phasing out unnecessary plastics, and providing the incentives to change from a linear system (take-make-waste) to a more circular one, with possible World Bank support through lending and technical assistance. Organic waste represents about 40% or more of the waste streams in most of the PICs and are often intermingled — a missed opportunity for circular solutions, climate benefits, and the production of by-products that can be used in agriculture.9 Regional organizations like SPREP are already providing PICs with organics management solutions appropriate for their own contexts and communities, guiding informed decision making on systems and technologies and empowering communities by raising awareness. The World Bank is partnering with SPREP to explore further how to reduce methane emissions from organic waste in the region, in particular by diverting organics from landfill and the possible benefits for countries and communities. 9 For more information on organic waste, visit the official PacWastePlus website: https://pacwasteplus.org/regional-project/organics-manage- ment/ FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 47 6. A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries The creation of regional markets is essential to support national efforts to reduce marine plastic pollution, improve waste management systems, and, importantly, to move toward plastic circularity. National markets in the Pacific are small in size; however, with a collective population of around 2.5 million, they have sufficient size to drive certain initiatives (World Bank n.d.). These include: » Establishing a regional recycling hub for recycling high-value plastics, a project developed by PRIF for several high value recyclables10; » Developing regional EPR programs; » Harmonizing policies, and developing standards on biodegradability and compostability, for the import and production of SUP substitutes and alternatives; » A regional grant facility to improve small-scale infrastructure across the region; » Initiating a comprehensive data collection effort; » Fostering a platform to share knowledge and technologies from outside the region and, in particular, from other SIDS (south-south knowledge exchange). Initiatives like the regional recycling hub spearheaded by PRIF would focus on high-value recyclables. By centralizing recycling efforts, the hub aims to streamline the collection, sorting, and processing of these materials — through cleaning, crushing, separating, and baling, ensuring that they can be exported at an increased value, accessing additional markets. A Pacific regional recycling network would include two regional hubs in Fiji and Papua New Guinea with infrastructure improvements across countries to ‘feed’ into the recycling hubs. The recycling network is expected to include local processing centers, trans-shipment, and recycling facilities and cater to recyclable materials (aluminum cans, batteries [ULAB], PET, scrap steel, paper and cardboard, glass bottles, and plastic bags). In the context of reducing plastic consumption and promoting environmentally friendly substitutes, the application of tariffs on certain products can play a pivotal role, and regional harmonization would level the playing field for the development of the substi- tutes. Tariffs can be employed to incentivize the adoption of biodegradable packaging materials and reusable products by making them more competitive in terms of pricing. By imposing preferential tariffs that reduce the costs of substitutes while simultaneously imposing taxes or higher tariffs on SUPs, governments can effectively steer businesses and consumers toward more sustainable choices. 10 Sizable markets for the recycling hub are aluminum cans, ULAB, PET, scrap steel, paper and cardboard, glass bottles, plastic bags (PRIF 2023). FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 48 6. A Blueprint for Change: Recommendations to Prevent Single-Use Plastic Pollution in Pacific Island Countries A few EPR schemes exist in the Pacific and remain complex to develop and implement, even if they are expected to help improve waste collection and increase recycling rates. The feasibility of a regional recycling hub raises the question around developing a regional mechanism, to be managed by a regional entity. A feasibility study should consider the mandate, scope, governance, and allocation of funds. The transaction costs of establishing EPR in small markets are high; however, at a regional level, an EPR framework would allow for pooling of resources and sharing costs, making the implementation and management more efficient and economically viable. A similar structure is being looked at in West Africa, where countries with limited populations and markets are exploring a regional EPR program for plastic waste. Additionally, a regional approach can harmonize regulations and standards, enhancing the overall effectiveness and impact of EPR initiatives across multiple countries, addressing the issue of fragmented policies in PICs. Harmonization of policies and activities among PICs offers numerous benefits: It could amplify the impact of individual efforts, making them more effective in reducing plastic pollution and phasing out SUPs by applying tariffs and reducing the costs of substitutes. It develops the capacity of states to manage their plastic waste effectively through the sharing of best practices and technologies. Additionally, sharing resources and expertise among countries leads to improved efficiency and lower costs. Because all PICs face capacity and resources challenges, a regional grant facility could fill a knowledge and resource gap to improve systems and small-scale infrastructure across the region. Established to provide all PICs with assistance on developing SWM systems and implementing policies and actions, such a facility could provide technical assistance and small grants for infrastructure and equipment, such as to set-up small-scale composting. The basis for the grant mechanism could include: (1) Providing evidence to develop policies through technical assistance; (2) Building capacity within governments to develop and enact policies (also through technical assistance); and (3) Funding small infrastructure and/or equipment to capture and manage valuable materials, including recyclables and compost. Data collection should be viewed as an ongoing activity, not only for developing and implementing policies but also for continuously monitoring and making necessary adjustments. Dedicated resources are required to manage the collection, collation, and dissemination of data, as well as to ensure that data are converted into actionable informa- tion. Methodologies developed at the regional level can help to streamline data collection processes and ensure consistency in data reporting and analysis across countries. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 49 APPENDIX A SUPS IN HOUSEHOLD AND COMMERCIAL WASTE IN PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES In the absence of a comprehensive regional analysis on plastic generation, disposal, and environmental leakage, this study relies on secondary data from previous audits across 12 PICs. Table A.1 presents the per person plastic waste generation relative to total household waste in the region. The findings reveal significant geographical variations in waste compo- sition, with countries like the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands exhibiting higher plastic content in their MSW streams. Within households, SUPs (excluding hygiene items) account for 4.5% to 48.1% of the overall waste stream, with hygiene items adding another 4.1% to 22.6%. Together, these SUPs represent a significant proportion of household waste. By contrast, commercial waste streams (table A.2) show a much higher percentage of SUPs (bags, beverage containers, takeaway containers, and cutlery), ranging from 1.4% to 67.3%, but a negligible proportion of hygiene items (0% - 10.9%). This indicates the need to prioritize interventions for hygiene items in households, while targeting both household and commercial sectors for other SUP categories. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 50 Appendix A TABLE A.1 Household waste generation per person of selected materials in PICs Country Total Non-single use Single-use Total plastic Hygiene waste plastic plastic MT/ MT/ % of MT/ % of MT/ % of MT/ % of person/ person/ total person/ total person/ total person/ total year year waste year waste year waste year waste Fiji 0.42 0.01 2.4% 0.04 9.5% 0.05 11.9% 0.04 9.5% FSM 0.37 0.07 18.9% 0.02 5.4% 0.09 24.3% 0.02 5.4% Kiribati 1.86 0.27 14.5% 0.21 11.3% 0.47 25.3% 0.09 4.8% Nauru 0.33 0.04 12.1% 0.06 18.2% 0.1 30.3% 0.05 15.2% Palau 0.33 0.05 15.2% 0.02 6.1% 0.07 21.2% 0.04 12.1% PNG 0.88 0.1 11.4% 0.04 4.5% 0.13 14.8% 0.13 14.8% RMI 0.44 0.1 22.7% 0.06 13.6% 0.15 34.1% 0.06 13.6% Samoa 1.29 0.04 3.1% 0.62 48.1% 0.66 51.2% 0.19 14.7% Solomon Islands 0.93 0.01 1.1% 0.09 9.7% 0.1 10.8% 0.04 4.3% Tonga 1.9 0.05 2.6% 0.54 28.4% 0.59 31.1% 0.43 22.6% Tuvalu 0.49 0.04 8.2% 0.03 6.1% 0.07 14.3% 0.02 4.1% Vanuatu 0.91 0.04 4.4% 0.11 12.1% 0.15 16.5% 0.14 15.4% AVERAGE 9.7% 14.4% 23.8% 11.4% Note: FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, MT = metric ton, PIC = Pacific Island Country, PNG = Papua New Guinea, RMI = Republic of the Marshall Islands. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 51 Appendix A TABLE A.2 Commercial waste generation per person of selected materials in PICs Country Total Non-single use Single-use Total plastic Hygiene waste plastic plastic MT/ MT/ % of MT/ % of MT/ % of MT/ % of person/ person/ total person/ total person/ total person/ total year year waste year waste year waste year waste Fiji 51.41 0.68 1.3% 16.98 33.0% 17.66 34.4% 0.09 0.2% FSM 0.69 0.19 27.5% 0.01 1.4% 0.2 29.0% 0 0.0% Kiribati 7.34 0.19 2.6% 0.4 5.4% 0.59 8.0% 0.03 0.4% Nauru 9.21 0.76 8.3% 1.79 19.4% 2.55 27.7% 0.17 1.8% Palau 0.55 0.09 16.4% 0.03 5.5% 0.12 21.8% 0.06 10.9% PNG 37.26 3.8 10.2% 4.56 12.2% 8.35 22.4% 1.52 4.1% RMI 4.29 1.46 34.0% 0.54 12.6% 2 46.6% 0.2 4.7% Samoa 25.65 0.34 1.3% 17.26 67.3% 17.6 68.6% 0.06 0.2% Solomon Islands 29.75 - - - - 4.12 13.8% 0.1 0.3% Tonga 21.81 0.5 2.3% 1.61 7.4% 2.11 9.7% 0.31 1.4% Tuvalu 1.8 0.15 8.3% 0.1 5.6% 0.25 13.9% 0.07 3.9% Vanuatu 37.57 2.59 6.9% 9.21 24.5% 11.8 31.4% 1.32 3.5% AVERAGE 10.8% 17.7% 27.3% 2.6% Note: FSM = Federated States of Micronesia, MT = metric ton, PIC = Pacific Island Country, PNG = Papua New Guinea, RMI = Republic of the Marshall Islands. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 52 APPENDIX B DETAILED COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS FOR POLICY OPTIONS This appendix provides the detailed cost-benefit assessments for the policy options for addressing the priority SUPs in the five PICs studied. Further details are provided in the indi- vidual country reports as part of this series. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 53 Appendix B APPENDIX B.1 Cost-Benefit Assessment for Kiribati Tables B.1 and B.2 provide detailed costs and benefits for the options assessed for Kiribati: • Option 1: A ban on the import of SUP bags, and • Option 2: A ban on the import of SUP bags plus a levy on all other single-use bags. TABLE B.1 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Kiribati policy option 1 20 years Benefit or cost Affected party Present value (USD million) Net Present Value $0.56 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.18 Benefits Reduced collection and transport costs Government $0.01 Reduced economic cost of landfilling Community $0.01 Reduced externality cost of landfilling Community $0.04 Reduced litter cost Community $3.64 Costs Additional costs of bags Consumers $2.52 Ban administration costs Government $0.39 Ban education and information Government $0.07 Landfill externalities for alternatives Community $0.16 TABLE B.2 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Kiribati policy option 2 20 years Benefit or cost Affected party Present value (USD million) Net Present Value $4.68 Benefit-Cost Ratio 3.92 Benefits Reduced collection and transport costs Government $0.03 Reduced economic cost of landfilling Community $0.02 Reduced externality cost of landfilling Community $0.08 Reduced litter cost Community $4.87 Reduced costs of bags Consumers $1.29 Costs Consumers $2.52 Ban and levy administration costs Government $1.27 Ban and levy education and information Government $0.13 Landfill externalities for alternatives Community $0.20 FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 54 Appendix B APPENDIX B.2 Cost-Benefit Assessment for Samoa Tables B.3 and B.4 provide detailed costs and benefits for the options assessed for Samoa: • Option 1: A ban on all plastic takeaway food containers, and • Option 2: A DRS on all plastic takeaway containers. TABLE B.3 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Samoa policy option 1 Present value Affected Benefit or cost (USD million) party 10 years 20 years Net Present Value 2.99 5.90 Benefit-Cost Ratio 2.14 2.38 Benefits 5.62 10.17 Additional value of compost – commercial Industry 0.07 0.13 composting Additional value of compost – at-home composting Consumers 0.04 0.08 Reduced collection and transport – plastic Government 0.04 0.08 Reduced economic cost of landfilling – plastic Community 0.02 0.04 Reduced externality cost of landfilling – plastic Community 0.04 0.07 Reduced litter cost – plastic Community 5.40 9.77 Costs 2.63 4.27 Reduced value of recyclate – plastic Industry 0.02 0.04 Additional purchase cost for containers Consumers 2.25 3.69 Additional collection and transport – compostable Government 0.06 0.11 Additional GHG emissions – compostable Community 0.14 0.25 Additional economic cost of landfilling Community 0.00 0.01 – compostable Additional externality cost of landfilling Community 0.01 0.01 – compostable Additional litter cost – compostable Community 0.02 0.03 Infrastructure – collection and/or processing Industry 0.00 0.00 Education and outreach campaign Government 0.11 0.11 Government administration costs for ban Government 0.02 0.02 Note: GHG = greenhouse gas. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 55 Appendix B TABLE B.4 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Samoa policy option 2 Present value Affected Benefit or cost (USD million) party 10 years 20 years Net Present Value 1.98 3.68 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.50 1.52 Benefits 5.92 10.71 Additional value of recyclate – plastic (DRS) Industry 1.24 2.24 Reduced collection and transport – plastic Government 0.04 0.07 (designated site/curbside collection) Reduced economic cost of landfilling – plastic Community 0.02 0.03 (designated site/curbside collection) Reduced externality cost of landfilling – plastic Community 0.03 0.06 (designated site/curbside collection) Reduced litter cost – plastic Community 4.59 8.31 Costs 3.93 7.03 Reduced value of recyclate – plastic Industry 0.02 0.03 (designated site/curbside collection) Additional collection and transport – plastic (DRS) Government 0.04 0.08 Additional economic cost of landfilling – plastic Community 0.00 0.00 (DRS) Additional externality cost of landfilling – plastic Community 0.00 0.01 (DRS) Education and outreach campaign Government 0.11 0.11 DRS government costs Government 0.57 1.03 DRS scheme administration costs Industry 2.28 4.12 DRS participation costs Consumers 0.91 1.65 Note: DRS = deposit refund scheme. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 56 Appendix B APPENDIX B.3 Cost-Benefit Assessment for Tonga Tables B.5 and B.6 provide detailed costs and benefits for the options assessed for Tonga: • Option 1: A CDS for plastic beverage containers, and • Option 2: A CDS for all beverage containers, including aluminum and glass. TABLE B.5 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Tonga policy option 1 Present value Affected Benefit or cost (USD million) party 10 years 20 years Net Present Value 2.6 5.0 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.48 1.54 Benefits 8.0 14.4 Additional value of recyclate Industry 1.4 2.5 Reduced collection and transport costs Government 0.1 0.2 Reduced economic cost of landfilling Community 0.0 0.0 Reduced externality cost of landfilling Community 0.1 0.1 Reduced litter costs Community 6.4 11.6 Costs 5.4 9.4 Government costs Government 0.7 1.3 Scheme administration, operating, and infrastructure Industry 3.0 5.4 costs Consumer participation costsa Consumers 0.8 1.4 Beverage industry compliance costs (labelling and Industry 0.5 0.9 ongoing) PET processing infrastructure Industry 0.3 0.3 Scheme education and information Government 0.1 0.1 Note: a. Costs incurred by consumers to participate in the scheme including time spent returning containers to refund points. PET = polyethylene terephthalate. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 57 Appendix B TABLE B.6 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Tonga policy option 2 Present value Affected Benefit or cost (USD million) party 10 years 20 years Net Present Value 2.8 5.8 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.34 1.41 Benefits 11.1 20.1 Additional value of recyclate Industry 2.0 3.5 Reduced collection and transport costs Government 0.2 0.3 Reduced economic cost of landfilling Community 0.0 0.1 Reduced externality cost of landfilling Community 0.1 0.1 Reduced litter costs Community 8.8 16.0 Costs 8.3 14.3 Government costs Government 1.1 2.0 Scheme administration, operating, and infrastructure Industry 4.4 8.0 costs Consumer participation costsa Consumers 1.2 2.1 Beverage industry compliance costs (labelling and Industry 0.9 1.5 ongoing) PET processing infrastructure Industry 0.6 0.6 Scheme education and information Government 0.1 0.1 Note: a. Costs incurred by consumers to participate in the scheme including time spent returning containers to refund points. PET = polyethylene terephthalate. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 58 Appendix B APPENDIX B.4 Cost-Benefit Assessment for Vanuatu Tables B.7 and B.8 provide detailed costs and benefits for the options assessed for Vanuatu: • Option 1: A ban on disposable diapers, and • Option 2: A levy on diapers that are not fully compostable. TABLE B.7 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Vanuatu policy option 1 20 years Benefit or cost Affected party Present value (USD million) Net Present Value 14.74 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.26 Benefits 70.75 Net value of compost (operating costs less revenue) Industry 0.46 – composting Reduced purchase cost for disposable diapers Consumers 34.13 Reduced collection and transport (curbside disposal) Government 1.53 Reduced GHG emissions Community 1.03 Reduced economic cost of landfilling Community 0.77 Reduced externality cost of landfilling Community 1.23 Reduced litter cost Community 31.60 Costs 56.01 Additional washing cost for diapers Consumers 51.51 Additional collection and transport - curbside disposal Government 0.38 - compostable Additional collection and transport - curbside disposal Government 0.08 - reusable Additional GHG emissions - compostable Community 0.30 Additional GHG emissions - reusable Community 0.07 Additional economic cost of landfilling - compostable Community 0.19 Additional economic cost of landfilling - reusable Community 0.04 Additional externality cost of landfilling - compostable Community 0.29 Additional externality cost of landfilling - reusable Community 0.06 Additional litter cost - compostable Community 0.16 Additional litter cost - reusable Community 0.00 Infrastructure - composting Industry 2.19 Education/information campaign Government 0.28 Government administration costs Government 0.45 Note: a. Costs incurred by consumers to participate in the scheme including time spent returning containers to refund points. PET = polyethylene terephthalate. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 59 Appendix B TABLE B.8 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Vanuatu policy option 2 20 years Benefit or cost Affected party Present value (USD million) Net Present Value 10.98 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.24 Benefits 56.60 Net value of compost (operating costs less revenue) Industry 0.37 – composting Reduced purchase cost for disposable diapers Consumers 27.31 Reduced collection and transport - curbside disposal Government 1.23 - disposable Reduced GHG emissions - disposable Community 0.82 Reduced economic cost of landfilling - disposable Community 0.61 Reduced externality cost of landfilling - disposable Community 0.98 Reduced litter cost - disposable Community 25.28 Costs 45.62 Additional washing cost for diapers Consumers 41.21 Additional collection and transport - curbside disposal Government 0.31 - compostable Additional collection and transport - curbside disposal Government 0.06 - reusable Additional GHG emissions - compostable Community 0.24 Additional GHG emissions - reusable Community 0.06 Additional economic cost of landfilling - compostable Community 0.15 Additional economic cost of landfilling - reusable Community 0.03 Additional externality cost of landfilling - compostable Community 0.24 Additional externality cost of landfilling - reusable Community 0.05 Additional litter cost - compostable Community 0.13 Additional litter cost - reusable Community 0.00 Infrastructure - composting Industry 2.19 Education/information campaign Government 0.28 Government administration costs Government 0.68 Note: GHG = greenhouse gas. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 60 Appendix B APPENDIX B.5 Cost-Benefit Assessment for Fiji Table B.9 provides detailed costs and benefits for the policy options assessed for Fiji: • Option 1: A ban on the import, manufacture, and sale of PS products, • Option 2: A ban on PS products plus promotion of sustainable alternatives, and • Option 3: A ban on PS products, promotion of sustainable alternatives, plus investment in local production of sustainable alternatives and composting. TABLE B.9 Detailed cost-benefit analysis for Fiji policy options Results summary Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Ban Ban + Ban + Use of Additional policies + sustainable investment in alternatives local production and disposal of sustainable alternatives Net Present Value (F$ million) 2.8 31.7 30.1 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.07 1.81 1.73 Costs (F$ million) 40.7 39.2 41.1 Packaging costs 37.03 28.87 28.87 Landfill costs (capital & operating) 0.89 0.53 -0.45 Landfill GHG emissions 2.73 3.21 0.76 International transport emissions 0.04 0.02 -0.01 Information and education 0.00 1.26 1.26 Administration 0.00 5.26 5.26 Composting 0.00 0.00 1.43 Packaging infrastructure investment 0.00 0.00 3.93 Benefits (F$ million) 43.51 70.81 71.13 Avoided litter impacts 43.25 69.78 69.78 Avoided landfill leachate 0.26 1.03 1.03 Compost value 0.00 0.00 0.32 FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 61 REFERENCES ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). 2021. ASEAN Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris in the ASEAN Member States 2021-2025. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE), Thailand. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ FINAL_210524-ASEAN-Regional-Action-Plan_Ready-to-Publish_v2.pdf. Chand, Shalveen. 2024. “One Voice on Plastic Pollution.” Samoa Observer. February 17, 2024. https://www.samoaobserver.ws/category/samoa/108054. EALA (East African Legislative Assembly). 2023. Report on the Oversight Activity on the Control and Management of Single Use Plastic Materials in the EAC. November 9 – 14, 2023. Committee on Agriculture Tourism and Natural Resources. https:/ /www.eala.org/documents/view/ final-report-of-the-committee-on-atnr-on-single-use-plastic. Enoka, Taina Kami. 2022. “86,000 Bottles of Water on the Wall: Tonga Struggles with Post-Volcano Waste Problem.” The Guardian, April 17, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ apr/18/86000-bottles-of-water-on-the-wall-tonga-struggles-with-post-volcano-waste-problem. Indonesia, SIPSN (National Waste Management Information System). 2023. “Waste management performance achievements.” Sistem Informasi Pengelolaan Sampah Nasional (SIPSN). Jakarta: Government of Indonesia, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Directorate General of Waste Management, Waste and B3. https:/ /sipsn.menlhk.go.id/sipsn/. Kumar, Sanjeshni. 2022. “Plastic pollution could put 2.3 million Pacific Islanders’ livelihoods at stake.” Pasifika Environews. https://pasifika.news/2022/09/ plastic-pollution-could-put-2-3-million-pacific-islanders-livelihoods-at-stake/. Maguero, Lea. 2022. “Biodegradable Plastic Problems.” Australia: BioPak. https://www.biopak.com/au/ resources/biodegradable-plastic-problems#:~:text=Why%20is%20biodegradable%20plastic%20 bad,contaminating%20other%20plastics%20recycling%20streams. Mead, Leila. 2021. Small Islands, Large Oceans: Voices on the Frontlines of Climate Change. Deep Dive. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). https://www.iisd.org/articles/ deep-dive/small-islands-large-oceans-voices-frontlines-climate-change. Moosa, Lubna. 2021. Maldives National Waste Accounts 2018 & 2019 Final Report. Submitted to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the National Bureau of Statistics, Maldives. https://statisticsmaldives.gov.mv/nbs/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ Maldives_National_Waste_Account_Report_2018-19.pdf. Palau, MPII (Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Industries). 2020. Beverage Container Recycling Program Annual Report FY 2020. Republic of Palau National Government, Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Industries, Division of Solid Waste Management. PIFS (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat). 2022. 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. Suva, Fiji: Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. https://forumsec.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/PIFS-2050- Strategy-Blue-Pacific-Continent-WEB-5Aug2022-1.pdf. PRIF (Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility). 2020. Waste Audit Methodology: A Common Approach. A Step-by-Step Manual for Conducting Comprehensive Country Waste Audits in SIDs. Australia: Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility. PRIF (Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility). 2023. Regional Recycling Network Scoping Study: Pre-Feasibility Study – Main Report. PRIF, Australia.https:/ /www.theprif.org/sites/theprif.org/files/ documents/PRIF%20Waste%20Audit%20Methodology%20Report%20Final-03-07-20.pdf. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 62 References SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme). 2021. “Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility” Presentation. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. https:/ /library.sprep.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/prif-presentation.pdf. SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme). 2022. Development of User Pay System (Prepaid Garbage Bags) for Waste Management Service in Vanuatu. Factsheet. January 2022. https://www.sprep.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/【FIN】_JPRISM_Good_ Practice_Vanuatu_B_web.pdf. SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme). 2023. Regional Waste Audit Analysis Report - August 2023. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. https:/ /www.sprep.org/publications/ regional-waste-audit-analysis-report-august-2023. SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme). 2024. Empowering our One Pacific Voice at COP29! Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. https://www.sprep.org/moana-blue-pacific. SPREP & JICA (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme and Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2016. Cleaner Pacific 2025: Pacific Regional Waste and Pollution Management Strategy 2016–2025. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. https:/ /sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/commit- ments/1326_7636_commitment_cleaner-pacific-strategy-2025.pdf. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2023a. Plastic Pollution: The Pressing Case for Natural and Environmentally Friendly Substitutes to Plastics. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Trade and Development. https://unctad.org/publication/ plastic-pollution-pressing-case-natural-and-environmentally-friendly-substitutes. UNCTAD. (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2023b. “East African Policymakers Unite in Efforts to Find a Harmonized Regional Approach to Beating Plastic Pollution.” Press Release Nairobi, April, 2023. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2023. Turning of the Tap: How the World Can End Plastic Pollution and Create a Circular Economy. Geneva, Switzerland: UNEP. https://wedocs. unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/42277/Plastic_pollution.pdf?sequence=3. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). n.d. “Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution.” Geneva, Switzerland: UNEP. https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution. World Bank CCKP (Climate Change Knowledge Portal). n.d. Tonga: Risk - Historical Hazards. Washington, DC: The World Bank. https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/tonga/ vulnerability. World Bank. 2022. Where is the Value in the Chain? Pathways out of Plastic Pollution. Washington, DC: The World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099100004052240464/pdf/ P17086905776c404087850cf73c75f371f.pdf. World Bank. 2024. Waves of Plastic: A Snapshot of Marine Plastic Pollution in South Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/ publication/83796814-b147-419c-92e6-5b8768f13072. World Bank. n.d. “World Bank Open Data.” Washington, DC: The World Bank. https://data.worldbank.org/. FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 63 Pacific Ocean Advisory Program The World Bank’s Pacific Ocean Advisory Program (POAP), supported by the PROBLUE Multi-Donor Trust Fund, addresses environmental threats to the Blue Economy in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). POAP provides technical assistance and analytics to support PICs, offering policy advice and filling knowledge gaps to inform decision-maker and build capacity. The program’s outcomes support the design, financing, and implementation of policies and investments for ocean-based sectors, promoting a healthier and more resilient environment, including informing investments under the Pacific Islands Region Oceanscape Program (PROP). It supports national initiatives and strengthens regional collaboration for sustainable resource and waste management, as well as climate resil- ience, through a multi-country, multi-staged approach built on three pillars, each with its own development objective: (1) Capturing greater economic benefits from coastal and oceanic fisheries; (2) Harnessing the blue economy and building climate resilience; and (3) Addressing pollution issues, focusing on marine plastic pollution. PROBLUE PROBLUE is a multi-donor trust fund administered by the World Bank that supports the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources in a healthy ocean. PROBLUE supports the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Under Water) and is fully aligned with the World Bank’s mission to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity on a livable planet. PROBLUE focuses on the following four key themes: • Improve governance in fisheries and aquaculture • Prevent and reduce marine litter and pollution • Reduce environmental impacts from traditional and new economic oceanic activities • Strengthen capacity in resilient seascape planning and management For more information, please visit: www.worldbank.org/problue. Chapter name Administ r d b FAREWELL TO SINGLE-USE PLASTICS IN THE PACIFIC 65