Marine Debris in Indonesia. Ecology, Social, and Economic Aspects


Anthology, 2020

145 Pages


Excerpt


Table of Contents

PREFACE

Acknowledgment

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

Definitions

1. Introduction
1.1. Marine Debris Definition
1.2. Sources of Marine Debris

2. The Cost of Marine Plastic Debris
2.1. Ocean Plastic
2.2. Impact and Public Loss of Marine Plastic Debris
2.3. Economic Valuation Technique for Plastic Waste Pollution
2.4. Marine Plastic Debris Damage Value
2.5. Summary and Policy Implication

3. Indonesian Marine Litter Management Behavior: Institutional Perspective
3.1. Plastic Issue
3.2. Theoritical Framework
3.3. Coastal society Factors
3.4. Factors of perceptions about marine litter
3.5. Factors of Anti-littering behavior
3.6. Factors of social system behavior
3.7. Size and Weight Characteristics of Marine Debris
3.8. Legal Regulation on the Institutional Authority of Marine Plastic Waste Management in the Regions
3.9. Conclusion

4. Modelling Approach to Mitigate Marine Debris
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Numerical Modelling
4.3. Remote Sensing
4.4. Instrument (Drifter & Web-cam)

5. From Education to Behavior Change, to Research and Action, from Divers Clean Action to Indonesia
5.1. DCA and Outreach in Kepulauan Seribu
5.1. Issues in Kepulauan Seribu
5.3. Local Actions

6. Marine Debris Outreach: from research to community
6.1. Global Outreach
6.2. Education and Outreach

7. How is the current technology for cleaning marine debris?
7.1. Development of Marine Debris Technologys
7.2. Future challenges

8. Marine Debris and Our Role to Overcome It
8.1. Marine Debris Issues
8.2. Commitment of KOMITMEN
8.3. Oureach Programme
8.4. Scientific Measurement

9. Regulations and Policies Related to Marine Debris
9.1. International Rules and Policies
9.2. National Regulations and Policies

10. Coastal Community Behavior in Treating Waste
10.1. Introduction
10.2. Indonesia as a Maritime Country
10.3. Profile of Household Behavior in Waste Management
10.4. Conclusion

11. Marine Debris in the coastal ecosystem: Lessons Learn from Research
11.1. The Marine Debris Issues
11.2. Water Park Kupang and its surroundings
11.3. Biawak Island
11.4. Future Challenges

Authors:

Zuzy Anna, Achmad Rizal, Yudi N. Ihsan, Ibnu Faizal, Abizar Ghiffary, Lady Zaenab Miftadi, Dwi Puspitasari, Bryan Auriol, Finri S. Damanik, Erik Sugianto, Alfinna Yebelanti, Fiqih Abdul Jafar, Kemaal Sayyid, Rd. Salsa Dewi Kusuma, Marine K. Martasuganda, Wawan Hernawan, Noir P. Purba

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Hibah Internal Universitas (HIU) Padjadjaran: Academic Leadership Grant (ALG) 2020-2024

Academic Leadership Grant (ALG) program is an assignment scheme that is specifically given to Unpad professors to conduct guidance and increase the capacity of lecturers in research activities.

Partnership

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

PREFACE

Contamination of the world's oceans due to marine debris, especially human-engineered materials, is a global problem and a challenge for many countries, especially those with coastal communities. Marine debris has entered a new chapter since the international and national conferences were held since the 1950s. The UN (United Nation) in the environmental sector is known to explicitly state that marine debris has damaged the seas an oceans for a long time and has an impact on all areas of life. In 2016, the World Economic Conference (WEC) also stated that a global meeting was needed to discuss in detail the management of this problem.

Currently, more than 1.2 trillion plastic bags are used every year around the world for daily needs. About 2 million plastic bags are used every minute worldwide and around 32 million tonnes of plastic waste are generated annually, representing 12.7% of total solid waste. Every resident in Indonesia produces an average of 800 plastic bags per year. This means that the use of plastic has become a necessity for humans. However, it is not balanced with a reduction or how it can be reused. Poor waste management, especially in developing countries, is one problem/challenge that must be addressed by the government. Almost all developing countries do not have complete infrastructures and legal regulations for waste management. For example, in a country like Indonesia, the recycling rate of waste is low at under 50%. The awareness not to litter is also a cause for concern. Garbage is easily found in gutters, roads, rivers, and coasts.

As we all know, the earth is a unitary system with humans. It means that there is an interrelationship that is mutually beneficial and supportive for survival. From 100% of the relationships that have been made, at least our status as parasites can be seen. There is an interesting story about the floods that occurred in America in the 1990s. This flood resulted in the destruction of many factories on the river side, and almost 90% of the buildings were lost to the river flow. Very large losses were incurred and the company lost both revenue and profit. It was later discovered that the destroyed companies had been producing waste which was dumped into the river. There is an interesting statement from American journalists regarding the various devastations that afflict humans, "nature has its own way of balancing itself". Will our littering cause the natural balance to be disturbed?

Prof. Zuzy Anna

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank various parties who have contributed either directly or indirectly to the publication of this book. Specifically, this book was funded by an Academic Leadership Grants (ALG) research grant for the year 2020-2024.

This book was written by researchers from various institutions and for that, we thank you for the contributions that have been given. We also express our gratitude to the leaders at FPIK Universitas Padjadjaran who have provided moral support during the process of making this book. We would like to thank all those who have helped and provided constructive input and suggestions so that this book can be published and read by interested parties.

List of Figures

Figure 1.Reduction time of several types of waste

Figure 2. Prediction of the waste amount in the oceans

Figure 3. Economic Valuation of Marine Plastic Debris

Figure 4. Total Economic Value

Figure 5. Economic Valuation Methods for Plastic Marine Debris

Figure 6. Macro-micro-macro relations: methodological individual

Figure 7. Macro-micro level model

Figure 8. Marine Debris Modeling in the North Pacific

Figure 9. Microplastic marine debris modelling uses model trajectories. There are 3 Start Points (SP) from this simulation

Figure 10. Hypothetical Source Simulation Results with Waste Sampling Location

Figure 11. Simulations of the floating waste movement before and after reclamation

Figure 12. PALSAR Imagery on 15 March 2011

Figure 13. Spectral signals from several types of waste that are often encountered

Figure 14. Source of plastic waste from river estuaries. Trash trajectory based on multitemporal satellite detection in the Bay Island and Gulf of Honduras.

Figure 15. Driver Location Points in the Mediterranean Sea

Figure 16. FAD Tracking Pathway (a) FAD1 and (b) FAD2.

Figure 17. Comparison Graph of Garbage Density

Figure 18. Kepulauan Seribu

Figure 19. People of Kepulauan Seribu

Figure 20. TPST Bantargebang and Trash in Kepulauan Seribu

Figure 21. Gerobak Motor (Germor)

Figure 22. Heaps of Waste in Kepulauan Seribu

Figure 23. Household Waste

Figure 24. Tourism Activity at Kepulauan Seribu

Figure 25. Debris on the Coast and in the Ocean

Figure 26. Behavioral Change Curve

Figure 27. Door-to-door education in (top) Pramuka Island, (bottom) Panggang Island

Figure 28. Examples of pages inside a flipbook as a visual education tool

Figure 29. Workshop with the Local Citizens

Figure 30. Workshop with School

Figure 31. Multi-stakeholder (top) RPTRA Harapan Island and (bottom) forum in Mitra Praja Building, Kepulauan Seribu Regency Office

Figure 32. Compost bins

Figure 33. Informal waste collectors and collected waste

Figure 34. Local moms managing the waste bank

Figure 35. Video about waste segregation from home for Kepulauan Seribu residents

Figure 36. Refill store in Kepulauan Seribu

Figure 37. Example of DCA Webinars

Figure 38. Clean Up and Research Activity

Figure 39. Indonesian Youth Marine Debris Summit 2017 and 2019

Figure 40. School Education

Figure 41. Experience Box Installation

Figure 42. (top) Laut Kita Exhibition and (bottom) Virtual Reality depicting diving amongst marine debris

Figure 43. Students are involved in collecting waste data

Figure 44. Students are involved in collecting waste data in TRAX Expedition

Figure 45. Material Education of Materi Marine Debris Towards Students in SMKN 1

Figure 46. Education Materials of Marine Debris to Communities in Pangandaran

Figure 47. Waste socialization in Rote

Figure 48. Marine vessel for collecting floating debris

Figure 49. Marine debris grapple device

Figure 50. (a) Floating debris harvesting system with a cross-section type + (Horton et al., 2014) (b) water surface garbage cleaning ship with conveyor

Figure 51. (a) Ocean Cleanup for cleaning marine debris (b) the Interceptor for cleaning waste in river

Figure 52. (a) River cleaner boat with conveyor and paddle wheel, (b) Sea cleaner, a multi-hull ship to collect and process waste

Figure 53. Furthermore, other studies suggest that about 70% of plastic waste from all anthropogenic marine debris is washed up to coast or coastal areas

Figure 54. Documentation of T-RAX to Untung Jawa Island, Jakarta.

Figure 55. Field data collection activities for oceanographic parameters by KOMITMEN in Untung and Rambut Island, Jakarta.

Figure 56. Study sites for simulation. Red square indicates MPAs area for simulations

Figure 57. Currents and wind condition in three MPAs

Figure 58. Abundance of Marine Debris in the three MPAs

Figure 59. Contribution of the Fisheries Sub-Sector to the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Sector and to Indonesia's GDP in 2010 Constant Prices (%), Year 2014-2019

Figure 60. Contribution of the Food Crops Sub-Sector to the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Sector and to Indonesia's GDP in 2010 Constant Prices (%), Year 2014-2019

Figure 61.Percentage of Households Throwing Waste into the Sea / River / Sewer Based on Each Income Class

Figure 62. Percentage of Education Level of Heads of Households Throwing Waste into the Sea / River / Sewers in Regencies / Cities of Indonesia with Coastal Areas

Figure 63. Percentage of Each Head of Household Livelihoods Disposing of Waste into the Sea / River / Sewer in a Regency / City of Indonesia that Has a Coastal Area

Figure 64. Waste in the ecosystem, (left) seagrass beds and (right) mangrove roots

Figure 65. The condition of macro waste in the mangrove ecosystem

Figure 66. Waste accumulation in the Mangrove Ecotourism Area and Tanjung Sulamo

Figure 67. Waste images found in the mangrove forest

List of Tables

Table 1. The Construction Difference of Float Artificial Debris FAD1 and FAD2

Table 2. The most frequent treatment of waste by households in Indonesia (%)

Table 3. The Most Frequent Treatment of Waste by Households Per Province

Table 4. The Most Frequent Treatment of Waste by Households Per Region

Table 5. Households per income class are most often treated to waste (40% lower, 40% Middle and 20% Upper)

Table 6. The most frequent treatment of waste by households per income class (40% lower, 40% middle and 20% upper)

Table 7. Households Throwing Waste into the Sea / River / Sewer Based on Income Class (40% Lower, 40% Middle and 20% Upper) in Regencies / Cities

Table 8. Education Level of Heads of Households Throwing Waste into the Sea / River / Sewers in Indonesian Regencies / Cities

Table 9. Average Age of Household Heads Throwing Waste into the Sea / River / Sewer in a Regency / City

Definitions

Convention: a rule of state behavior based not on laws but on constitutional customs.

Coral Reef: A group of coral animals in symbiosis with a type of algal plant called zooxanthellae. Coral reefs are included in the phylum Cnidaria, class Anthozoa which has tentacles.

Ecosystem: An ecological system formed by an inseparable mutual relationship between living things and their environment.

Industrial Revolution: It is the period between 1750-1850 when there were massive changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation and technology, and had a profound impact on social, economic and cultural conditions in the world.

Island: A piece of land smaller than a continent and larger than a reef, surrounded by water. Collections of several islands are called islands or archipelago (English: archipelago).

Macroplastic: plastic larger than 200 mm.

Mangrove: Mangrove forest is a forest that grows in brackish water, and is influenced by the tides of sea water.

MARPOL 73/78: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as amended by the 1978 Protocol. (“MARPOL” stands for marine pollution and 73/78 is short for 1973 and 1978.)

Nanoplastic: plastic particles <100 nanometers in size and at least one dimension.

NOAA: [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] United States government agency focused on earth research.

Polymer: High molecular weight molecules, like plastics, consist of up to millions of repeated linked units called monomers.

Seagrass meadows: A typical shallow marine ecosystem in warm, sandy bottom and dominated by seagrass, a group of plants belonging to the Alismatales race that are adapted to salt water.

UNEP: [United Nations Environment Program] is an agency under the United Nations that synergizes about the environment.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Piles of garbage in a river mouth in Ambon bay

1. Introduction

Marine debris is an issue that currently challenges the whole world, not only in developed countries but also in developing countries. It is considered the largest issue after global warming in this century. The problem of marine debris is also a global issue for the next 50 years if it is not resolved. Waste pollution has become a global concern where in 2011 there was a UNEP report on marine health. Then, in 2012, a UN conference (Rio + 20) was held with results that said a plan was needed to tackle waste pollution that would damage coastal and sea ecosystems (GESAMP, 2015). In 2016, the World Economic Forum (WEF) stated that by 2050, the number of marine debris would be the same as fish populations and is currently increasing exponentially until 2025.

The existence of marine debris cannot be separated from the growth in global plastic production. Although the issue of living things being entangled or ingesting garbage in the sea has been around since the 1700s, the number of living things affected by marine debris has increased significantly from 50 years ago. The amount of plastic produced during 2012 accounted for 288 million tonnes and increased by 4% annually (PlastiksEurope, 2013).

This issue is increasingly becoming a global problem due to its effects, distribution spread and source. Indonesia is the second largest country in the world to produce marine waste after China (Jambeck et al., 2015) and this has made it a waste emergency status for Indonesia. If not addressed, marine debris will be a disaster. This is because marine debris, especially plastics, have serious impacts on all aspects. Marine debris knows no borders, therefore they can be anywhere and from anywhere.

Table 1. The 10 most common types of marine debris (UNEP, 2016).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Marine Debris affects socio-economic locally and nationally. Various negative impacts caused by marine debris result in high losses (Gregory, 2009). For example, cleaning trash on Kuta beach every day requires high operational costs. Furthermore, the ecosystem restoration due to damages towards the ecosystem leads to direct or indirect costs for a long period of time. The study results also suggest that the losses in the tourism sector are influenced by garbage on the beach. As a result, tourists will move to other locations, and possibly to other countries. Marine plastic debris that floods beautiful beaches, tourist destinations and even remote islands keeps tourists from coming back to visit these areas because it seems dirty. Lastly, it affects people's income from the tourism sectors. In addition, fishermen will find it difficult to get fish if the sea is contaminated with plastic waste, even seaweed cultivation will not succeed. The fishermen will decrease as a result of this situation and economic improvement in the area will be hampered. Due to the persistent nature of the plastic material, coupled with its light weight which causes it to float easily, plastics has a very common impact on society, i.e. its aesthetics. Plastic waste floating on water surface is very disturbing to see and can result in a decrease in the number of tourist visits in an area. Not only that, plastic waste is usually mixed with household waste, causing an unpleasant odor. A decrease in tourist visits means reducing regional income and affect the people’s economy in the area.

Other sectors that are harmed by the presence of plastic waste in the sea is shipping or marine transportation. Plastic waste could get caught in a ship‘s propeller and jeopardize shipping. Furthermore, the plastic waste can also obstruct the process of taking seawater to the ship (water sea intake) and the ship's evaporator. This affects fund transfers for ship repair, reduced productive time and consequently reduced income. Debris in coastal waters is believed to have a significant impact on society, especially towards tourism and recreation (UNEP, 2009; Brouwer et al., 2017). Marine debris that is stuck on the beach causes negative impact on visuals and aesthetics which makes tourists reluctant to go to the beach and cause a decrease in the tourism sector’s income (Munari et al., 2016). The economic impact of marine debris is quite large and affects income from tourism because local governments need to regularly pay for cleaning coastal areas.

A study from the United Nations (2017) on the socio-economic impact of marine debris, showed that the negative impact of waste on the environment and ecosystems has negative implications for local communities and certain economic sectors. Economic impacts can occur for a long term on fisheries and tourism through a decrease in coastal protection and productive functions due to coral reefs degradation. The incurred social costs are reduced opportunities for recreational activities, health risks to coastal communities and beach visitors (for example due to contaminated sea water, injuries caused by sharp objects), foregone benefits from access to coastal environments for the community that can usually be beneficial to reduce pressure and stress. Apart from that, marine debris can also have potential risks related to the consumption of contaminated marine products. Marine debris can also have an impact on the development of invasive (alien) species which may have a major impact on species and ecosystems, for example in the form of the spread of non-native parasites, or disease. or even destroying the infrastructure of ships and pipes in the sea, then it will have an impact on the economic sector and the welfare of the people.

1.1. Marine Debris Definition

Marine debris is also referred to as marine litter or ocean garbage. In this book, the term used is marine debris. According to NOAA (2017), marine debris is a persistent solid object, produced by humans directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally disposed of or left in the marine environment. The types of marine debris found consisted of various types of plastics, fabrics, foam, styrofoam, glass, ceramics, metals, paper, rubber and wood. Several size categories are used to classify marine debris, i.e. megadebris (> 100 mm), macrodebris (> 20-100 mm), mesodebris (> 5-20 mm), and microdebris (0.3-5 mm). This garbage comes from humans and nature itself. When we talk about marine debris, we describe its amount, volume, size, type, distribution, and mechanism. The sea itself is defined as water column, coast, and sediment. This includes ecosystems and biota as well as humans.

Researchers first discovered tiny plastic fragments made of polystyrene in the ocean in the early 1970s (Carpenter et al., 1972). The term 'microplastic' was introduced in the mid-2000s. Microplastic is generally defined as plastic fragments that turn into small pieces up to 5 millimeters. The definition of microplastic size was defined by NOAA at the first international microplastic research workshop in 2008. The smaller the size is, the particle is not included in the microplastic category. To obtain samples it is necessary to use neuston nets with a mesh size of (333 m or 0.33 mm) (Arthur et al., 2009).

Microplastics are categorized into two types: primary microplastics and secondary microplastics. The difference in primary and secondary microplastics are very useful in identifying potential sources of microplastics and can help identify mitigation measures to reduce microplastic input to the marine environment. Primary microplastics are made from micro particles, such as from cosmetic scrubs or plastic raw materials used in industries. Secondary microplastics are formed from the marine environment which comes from macroplastic waste that fragments into small pieces due to weathering. Several studies have shown that these microplastics can be consumed by marine animals. In the study, the researchers observed that particles from microplastics can cover the intestinal wall and can disrupt the digestive system in the tissue. The digestive process take six times longer than the normal process. This is because the size of the microplastic is smaller than the mouth of the biota and can mix with food.

Marine debris is one of the pollutions and wastes that is a major obstacle in the world. Old waste are still difficult to decompose like plastics and become the biggest influence on this problem. According to Gregory (2009) plastic waste has spread widely and has become a problem from an environmental, ecological, and economic perspectives. The amount of waste is estimated to keep on increasing by 10% of all newly produced plastic which will then be discarded and end up in the ocean. Plastic waste is categorized as one of the hazardous waste, especially in the sea.

From the research results in various locations, it was found that plastic is the material most commonly found in the ocean. It is a strong, lightweight, inexpensive and durable (Laist, 1987). Additionally, most of the plastics are also floating materials, so that it will eventually settle in a place (sediment, beach, and stable water column). This material has a different degradation period, depending on the mixture used.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1.Reduction time of several types of waste (Purba et al., 2018)

In the graph above, it can be seen that the waste will dissolve/degrade in sea water with a relatively variable time. In general, the things we use every day take a long time to dissolve. Organic waste, or waste originating from natural materials such as vegetables, fruit, and wood, will be destroyed in a matter of days to months. Paper waste decompose within two to six months. Typical plastic bags can take 10 to 12 years to break down. Plastic bottles take even longer. This is because the polymers are more complex and thicker. For styrofoam which is commonly used for food wrapping, it will take more than 500 years to completely disintegrate.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2. Prediction of the waste amount in the oceans

According to the Global Healt Index (GHI) report, Indonesia is in the 145th place out of 221 countries with an index point of 65. GHI is a global measure of good and healthy sea conditions. This index is very comprehensive because the measure describes the conditions during measurement as well as in the future, and integrates human life as an important part of marine ecosystems (Husain, 2018). One of the GHI parameters is marine debris and other pollutants.

Waste can be found in various bodies of biota such as whales, dolphins, turtles, and other commercial fish. Marine debris will disrupt the “health” of the sea because it releases pollutants in water columns (Cozar, 2014). In the end, marine debris has entered the food chain and ecosystem (Maharani, 2018; Boerger et al., 2010) with an aesthetic and economic impact (Derraik, 2002; Trouwborst, 2011). This is because waste is related to a lot of things such as the economic system, the entity of a country, the health of the sea (Andrady, 2015), and ultimately affects humans. Basically, marine debris will reflect the culture of a nation. The results of the research by Purba et al. (2017) stated that waste in Indonesian waters comes from the Indonesian people themselves and from outside Indonesian waters. The last point is called the transborder issue. The source of this waste disaster is also separated from tourism, fishery, residential, industrial and shipping sectors. Waste in Indonesian waters will continue to accumulate in the water columns due to the very complex local sea current system in Indonesia.

Waste, especially plastic, is a very important problem for all countries because it is a material that cannot be destroyed by organisms (non-biodegradable), so it is durable or persistent. Many synthetic materials that can be recycled (recycle-able) have been developed in developed countries but this is not the case with developing countries which are still having difficulties in terms of waste management. For example, in several countries, of all amount of plastics, the ones that are recycled are only polyethylene terephlate (PETE) types like soft drink bottles, and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) like milk and water. Plastic is a synthetic polymer material that is made through a polymerization process which cannot be separated from our daily lives that we generally encounter in the form of plastic packaging or its use in electrical and household appliances. Its nature that is difficult to degrade in nature makes it the biggest contributor to waste that damages the natural balance.

Currently, more intensive research is being carried out so that it can provide recommendations to the government. The characteristics of the waste will be different in each location and country. Therefore, more specific research is needed. Recent research has also revealed that micro and nanoscale waste already exists in food ingredients such as salt and mineral water. Marine debris has also become a topic that is always discussed at international meetings. This means that the government policies are in line with the wishes of other countries in tackling marine debris. From a historical perspective, this is the implementation of short-term policies by the government.

1.2. Sources of Marine Debris

Waste, especially with the characteristics of plastic in the ocean, will undergo a variety of complex processes. Physically, it will be degraded into smaller sizes through weathering processes. Afterwards, it sinks to the bottom of the waters or spreads to other areas due to the influence of ocean currents, winds and other factors. The presence of plastic can also affect the distribution of other contaminants.

Plastics clog sewer systems in cities and increase the risk of flooding. Larger plastics can collect rainwater, making them a breeding ground for mosquitoes which then spread diseases. About 13 million tonnes of plastic waste ends up in the oceans each year; by 2050, there will probably be more plastic than fish in the oceans. The plastic that is washed ashore costs the tourism industries millions of dollars every year. Plastics are also bad for humans. Even though the ones that are commonly used to package our food are non-toxic, most plastics are loaded with chemicals from smootheners (which can irritate endocrine glands) to refractory materials (which may be carcinogenic or have higher toxic concentrations). These chemicals can travel to the ocean and affect the ocean food chain as well as our food chain.

Furthermore, waste that enters the sea can be scattered in water columns, coastlines, and seabeds (sediment). The entry of these microplastics certainly has an initial source. The sources of plastics and microplastics in the marine environment are numerous and varied, but the amount is still unknown. The paragraphs below shows the origins of microplastics that can spread in marine and coastal areas. Marine debris that are washed ashore ar generally classified based on the size and type of material. For the study that is going to be carried out, the relevant measures that need to be considered are macro- and mega-sized marine debris.

References

Arthur, C., Baker, J. & Bamford, H. (2009). Proceedings of the international research workshop on the occurrence, effects and fate of microplastik marine debris. September 9-11, 2008: NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R30.

Boerger, C.M., Lattin, G.L., Moore, S.L., Moore, C.J. (2010). Plastik ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 2275–2278.

Brouwer, R., D. Hadzhyska, C. Loakeimidis, H. Ouderdorp. 2017. The Social Costs of Marine Litter Along the European Coasts. Ocean and Coastal Management 138: 38-49.

Carpenter, E.J., Anderson, S. J., Harvet, G.R., Miklas, H.P., Peck, B.B. (1972). Polystrene spherules in coastal waters. Science 178, 749-750.

Cozar, A., Echevarríaa, F., González-Gordillo, J.I., Irigoien, X., Úbeda, B., Hernández-León, S., Palma, A.T., Navarro, S., García-de-Lomas, J., Ruiz, A., Fernández-de-Puelles, M.L., and Duartei, C.M. (2014). Plastik debris in the open ocean.

Derraik, J. G. B., (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastik debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44, 842-852.

European Commission Joint Research Centre. GESAMP. (2010). Proceedings of the GESAMP International Workshop on plastik particles as a vector in transporting persistent, bio-accumulating and toxic substances in the oceans. In GESAMP Reports and Studies (ed. T. Bowmer & P. J. Kershaw): MO/FAO/ UNESCO IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP.

Gregory, M.R. (2009). Environmental implications of plastik debris in marine settings – entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking, and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 2013-2026.

Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R. & Kosior, E. (2009). Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 2115-2126. Kershaw, P., Katsuhiko, S., Lee, S., Leemseth, J. & Woodring, D. 2011 Plastik debris in the ocean. In UNEP year book: emerging issues in our environment. Nairobi: UNEP.

Husain, A. (2018). Harmonisasi dan Koordinasi Tatakelola Menuju Pembangunan Kelautan Berkelanjutan di Indonesia. Pokok Pikiran Iskindo, DWF-Indonesia, Hal. 10-13

Jambeck, J., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., and Law, K.L. (2015). Plastik waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347 (6223), 768-771.

Kershaw, P., Katsuhiko, S., Lee, S., and Woodring, D. (2011). Plastik debris in the ocean. United Nations Environment Programme.

Laist, D. W. (1987). Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastik debris in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 319 - 326.

Maharani, A. Handyman, D.I., Salafy, A., Nurrahman, Y., and Purba, N.P. (2018). Macro Debris Condition in Mangrove Ecosystem Untung Jawa Island, Seribu Archipelago. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Geomatika 2017 (Jakarta, Indonesia), pp. 55-64.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program. (2017). Report on Marine Debris as a Potential Pathway for Invasive Species. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 31p.

PlastikEurope. (2013). An Analysis of European latest plastic production, demand, and waste data. Report, 37p.

Purba, N.P., Laksmini, M.L., R. Sandro, Isnan A.P., M. R. Prasetio. (2017). Distribution of on marine debris in Biawak Island, West Java, Indonesia. Journal of World Scientific News.

Trouwborst, A. (2011). Managing Marine Litter: Exploring the Evolving Role of International and European Law in Confronting a Persistent Environmental Problem. Merkorius, Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 27(73), 04-18.

2. The Cost of Marine Plastic Debris

Zuzy Anna

Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universitas Padjadjaran

SDGs Center, Universitas Padjadjaran

z.anna@unpad.ac.id

2.1. Ocean Plastic

In these days, the word ‘plastic’ gives the notion of things that are cheap, fragile and fake. Its negative connotation become bigger because of the damage that plastic waste brought to the seas and oceans, making it known as one of the largest issues of marine environment. Plastic waste in water is an issue that has begun to emerge in line with the development of plastics in the late 19th century, and developed massively in the 20th. Science History (2019) stated that the first plastic produced was cellulose-based in 1862 by Alexander Parkes, so it was later referred as Parkesin. Furthermore Freinkel (2011) described that polymer synthetic paper was first discovered by John Wesley Hyaat in 1869, in response to winning US $10,000 at a competition organized by a company in New York for anyone who could replace natural ivory to play billiards, although in the end Hyaat did not win this race. The material used at the time was cellulose from cotton fiber and camphor. This discovery is considered very important because humans can finally get new materials as a substitute for wood, metal, stone and others that can be formed as needed. In addition, it became a savior for humans as natural resources are limited and the environments have been reduced due to exploitations of (for example) wood and ivory.

As described by Freinkel (2011), this plastic was later developed by a chemical expert named Leo Baeklend in 1907 as the first synthetic plastic with the name Bakelite for the liquid resin material. It is used as a substitute for synthetic shellac, a natural electrical insulator which at the time was needed to supply electricity for the people of the United States. Bakelite is a good insulator, durable, heat-resistant, and easily formed. Therefore, it is called a material with a thousand uses. This discovery led to many large chemical companies investing in research and development for new polymers, and developed as the plastic it is now.

Plastics are becoming popularly used by humans because of their low density, high durability, excellent barrier properties and relatively low manufacturing costs, making them ideal for a variety of manufacturing and packaging applications. Plastics consist of a variety of synthetic polymers whose main elements are carbon and hydrogen. Its flexible nature causes plastics to be the most widely used and produced commodity for decades. For example, in 2018, plastic has been produced as many as 359 million metric tons globally, with 62 million metric tons produced in Europe (Garside, 2019). The plastics can offer an alternative carbon footprint that is lower in cost than other materials (Boucher and Friot, 2017). China is one of the largest plastic producers in the world, producing more than 25% of global production. Plastic has been integrated into our daily lives and there is not one home without any plastic goods.

Unfortunately, these beneficiary characteristics of plastic have its own disadvantage which is its hard inability to decompose. Despite its downside, plastics are still produced widely and has gotten into an over-production status that often cause environmental problems from its disposition and become waste in nature that poses threats to serious environmental problems. Even recycling has not been an effective solution to plastic waste problems. Plastic often ends up in waste disposal, even in waters such as rivers and the sea. Plastic-filled sea has become our daily view. The issue of marine plastic debris began to emerge in the 1960s in the United States when environmental awareness began to exist in society at the time. Nowadays, plastic waste at sea has become an extraordinary issue. Long durability means they can exist at sea for many years. Although physical abrasion can degrade them into smaller pieces, their low density means that they can be carried easily by water everywhere for thousands of kilometers, even to remote areas in the world (Ryan et al., 2009, 2012; Barnes et al. 2009, Elias 2018).

Plastic in the sea can be very dangerous and cause huge losses both financially and non-financially. The impact of plastic waste in the sea is certain to affect marine ecosystems. Nowadays, we often see images in various mass media taken from marine organisms that suffer from consuming micro- and macro- sized plastics. Furthermore, various scientific papers related to plastic waste that are consumed and ensnared by various marine organisms have also been published in scientific journals from the late 1960s to the present (Kenyon and Kridler, 1969; Berland, 1971; Harper and Fowler, 1987). However, there have not been many studies related to economic losses that occured due to plastic waste at sea. Challenges and obstacles in the study of the total economic costs (due to plastic waste at sea) are related to the complexity of plastic waste that has a broad impact on economy, social and environment. It is difficult to identify the magnitude of the impact because the vast area is uncertain (plastic waste in the sea moves to follow ocean currents). The impacts are also not instantaneous, for example the incident of oil pollution. Therefore, the identification of economic impacts on other economical activities such as tourism, fisheries, sea transportation as well as on natural resources and the environment are relatively demanding tasks (Newman et al., 2015). This paper discusses various techniques to calculate the value of environmental damage due to plastic waste pollution, complete with examples of existing applications from references (journals and articles).

2.2. Impact and Public Loss of Marine Plastic Debris

Before discussing the technique to calculate the damage values due to plastic waste pollution at sea, it would be better to discuss the impact and public costs of marine plastic debris first. Plastics that are thrown into the sea are durable for many years and even when destroyed, they will produce small materials called microplastics which also greatly affect various living organisms in the sea such as fish, seagrass beds, coral reefs, and others.

Plastics thrown away at sea will reduce the sea’s beauty and its surrounding scenery, therefore some beaches will experience a decline of tourism activity. In addition to incurring the cost of losing tourism by reducing the number of arriving tourists, it will also incur costs for cleaning up coastal waters. Plastic waste in the sea can also interfere with various economic activities including sea transportation, fishing activities, coastal and marine tourisms that can cause sea accidents. Plastic waste in the sea can damage marine propellers, fishing vessels and fishing nets. Even fishing nets that are supposed to be able to catch fish could get plastics stuck in them, which bring loss for fishermen who couldn’t get fish and have their fishing net damaged. The fishing gear itself, which is mostly made of plastics, is often disposed in the sea when damaged and causes even more trouble to the environment as it is often stuck in coral reef ecosystems which are nursery grounds for many ocean organisms (Balesterosa et al., 2018; Lewis et al., 2009). The phenomenon of plastic waste from fishing gear disposal at sea is often referred as ghost fishing, ghost net or derelict fishing gear (Gilardi et al., 2010; Gilman et al., 2010; Uhlmann and Broadhurst 2015; Edyvane and Penny 2017; Wilcox et al., 2015). Marine tourism activities such as swimming, diving, speed boating and water slides are also disturbed by the presence of plastic waste in the sea.

Marine plastic in large sizes are also often consumed by various types of sea organisms. There are plenty of photos on social media which shows how countless types of fish has numerous plastics in their stomach. This will definitely lead to their deaths and it is feared that the plastics will reduce the ability of fish resources to regenerate due to damage to fish organs, which in turn will reduce fish stocks in the sea. Marine plastic debris also affects other types of marine ecosystems such as coral reefs, seagrass and others. In fact, the ecosystems and animals in coastal areas and the seas have good functions that we can directly use, e.g. food, medicine, and non-use or intangible worth that have great values (Barbier, 2012; Barbier et al., 2011; Fourqurean et al., 2012; McArthur and Boland. 2006; Laurans et al., 2013). Constanza (1999) calculated the value of the world's marine and coastal ecosystem services at $ 21 trillion dollars per year for human welfare. Many of these environmental services are concentrated along the coasts, which are only 95 of the earth’s total area.

Thus, the various costs suffered by the public due to the presence of marine plastic debris include:

a. Actual expenses that must be incurred by the government/community/business for prevention and clean up of coastal and marine areas; the cost of repairing tourist boats, fishing vessels and transportation of goods and people damaged by plastics, the cost of repairing fishing gears and medical costs related to accidents and illnesses due to marine plastic debris. Expenses like these are relatively easy to calculate.
b. Loss of income due to marine plastic debris pollution, for example fishermen who lost their catch due to plastics in fishing gears or damaged fishing vessels, reduction of fish stocks due to pollution, and the loss of income for actors and operators of tourism businesses due to the reduced number of visitors from plastic waste.
c. Welfare costs involve happiness obtained from coastal environmental services, loss of environmental services as a beauty and tourism site, as well as loss of intangible and non-use value functions from various natural resources, coastal and marine ecosystems and habitats damaged by marine plastic debris.

2.3. Economic Valuation Technique for Plastic Waste Pollution

Various debates about plastic waste in the sea usually involve a variety of things, including why we need to care about plastic waste. Does the plastic waste at sea hurt communities? Does it need to be controlled and prohibited? Economists see this as an economic issue as this matter involves the most fundamental definition of economics which is the study of resource allocation. In this case, plastic waste in the sea certainly leads to the question of whether it should be banned altogether or not due to its adverse consequences. Kirkley and McConnell (1997) stated that economy, as a study, provides framework that can analyze the damage towards society caused by marine debris plastics so that solutions can be found. Resource allocation in economy will involve decision making in terms of resource utilization. In this case there is a trade off between whether to keep plastic waste thrown in the sea or the need to ban it. One of the instruments used in economics is Benefit Cost Analysis. If rubbish disposal in the sea has more benefits than losses, it may be an option to dispose plastic waste in the sea, but if more losses occur from the public side, it should be banned. Calculating the amount of benefits and costs from the public side in economics is known as economic valuation, which is a counting technique that consists of benefits and costs of market and non-market values as well as direct and indirect values.

Studies related to economic valuation of plastic waste up-to-date mostly use market-based valuation techniques obtained from surveys/metadata or use value transfer techniques (Lee, 2015). Although the calculations using market techniques are still debated between the scientific community regarding the spatial distribution and travel of plastics in water columns, it is uncertain whether these plastics end up accumulating in the deep sea or in the food chain, or even oscillating in the water column (Woodall et.al 2014; Koelmans et al. 2017; Kooi et al. 2017). If it ends in the deep sea then that possibility cannot be calculated in the market valuations. The impact on deep seas has also not been recorded in governance research so it is difficult to calculate non-market valuation. In addition, there are difficulties in calculating the value of economic losses by plastic waste in terms of determining how much plastic is thrown into a coastal or marine area. Some studies show differences in the amount at each regional level. For example, globally, some studies produce values varying from 4.8 Mt per year to 12.7 Mt per year (Jambeck et al. 2015; UN Environment 2018; Eunomia 2016; Boucher and Friot 2017). However, the study of economic impacts on marine plastic debris in particular and marine solid waste in general still focuses more on the direct value of adverse economic activities (Mouat et al., 2010; Mcilgorm et al., 2011), and does not involve much cost calculation. Non-market, intangible, social and ecological impacts (Newman et al., 2015)

Non-market value calculations are still rarely performed given the complexity of the calculations as described in the introduction. However, this technique is important to calculate the damage caused by plastic waste in the ecosystem and also to assess people's behavior in managing the environment, marine organisms, human health and food security. This could be due to the scarcity of researches that are related to the impact of plastic waste on these matters. However, the calculation of the damage value or costs incurred by plastic waste requires us to understand the process and impact of plastic waste on various natural resources and other environments including humans, various species that lives in the sea, and their habitats.

Mcilgorm (2020) stated that the value of economic damage from marine debris is not only the direct and indirect costs of the damage, but also concerns the choice of cost policies related to the benefits of controlling marine debris. Marine plastic debris is "avoidable cost" and it is important to remember that prevention is cheaper than treatment. Further explanation says that the direct costs of damage due to plastic marine debris to other users are externalities and economic losses can be measured. While indirect damage will require vectors and damage functions, other costs involve remediation costs.

The process of calculating costs from marine plastic debris as adapted from Beaumont et al. (2019) can be seen in the image below. The conditions of governance, legislation that does not support the management of marine waters and also plastic waste, coupled with irresponsible behavior from the industry and society, led to the addition of massive marine plastic debris in almost all parts of the earth. The source of plastic pollution in the sea is usually more than non-point sources like household waste. Some can also be from point sources such as industries that are discharged into the sea or through rivers which finally reach the sea. Marine plastic debris can disrupt the ecology and marine ecosystem services. The impacts on these two things which are calculated using market and non-market economic valuation techniques will result in a social cost value which is the loss value to the public if it continues to leave plastic waste disposed of at sea. The loss values in the form of social costs must be informed to the policy makers to manage plastic waste management better which will produce economic efficiency including through one of the decision-making criteria, i.e. by conducting further analysis related to Benefit Cost. Besides that, various other criteria such as physical or biological impacts, economic efficiency, equity distribution, social and cultural and religious acceptance, operational practicality, administrative feasibility, and legality, will be decisive for decisions on the management of plastic waste at sea.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 3. Economic Valuation of Marine Plastic Debris (Adapted from Beamont et al 2019)

The economic valuation method is basically a study that calculates the value of benefits or costs from natural resources, the environment, environmental services, health, etc., or the impact of activities or policies on natural resources, the environment and the community such as health, etc. Economic valuation has been widely used. Even the World Bank and other world financial institutions require the use of economic valuation for every project submission within the framework of economic benefit cost analysis (Silva and Pagiola, 2003).

The concept of value in the economic valuation approach refers to Total Economic Value (TEV), which is the comprehensive assessment of different sources of utilitarian values from the same resource, including direct use, indirect use, non-use values (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). TEV shows that the values can be obtained from various ecosystem sources. Figure 2 shows some examples of various ecosystem services that can contribute to TEV. Not all values ​​that contribute to this TEV can be calculated due to the difficulty of the data. However we usually calculate those that are closer to the TEV concept.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4. Total Economic Value (Beukering et al., 2007 in Salcone et al. 2016 )

An economic valuation analysis for plastic marine debris is strongly related to the loss of environmental and marine ecosystem services as a whole. However it is difficult to calculate the TEV value of marine plastic debris which is the total cost of losing environmental services due to marine plastic debris and insufficient data. Some studies only calculate the loss values from the perspective of direct market-based lost services and others calculate them from the non-market value of natural resources and environmental services affected through non-market valuation techniques.

Selecting the method to be used to calculate the impact of marine plastic debris requires an understanding of its usage basis. The following is a scheme for the use of several economic valuation techniques of both market and non-market based. For market based valuations as shown in Figure 5 below, with prices available in the market, the environmental impact of the marine plastic debris can be calculated using the productivity approach or surrogate market approach. The case of marine plastic debris, for example, will disturb the productivity of fishermen in catching fish, so the difference between the condition of fishermen production without the presence of marine plastic debris and with the presence of marine plastic debris can be known from the fisheries production data. The difference in consumer surplus is the value of the market cost of marine plastic debris at sea. Besides being used to calculate changes in productivity, the market based approach is also used in calculating changes in environmental quality (habitat, air and water), health effects and recreation using a cost and expenditure based approach. While for non-market based methods, for changes in environmental quality (air and water), death, recreation, aesthetic valuse, biodiversity, cultural and historical assets, Contingent Valuation is the most widely used choice.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 5. Economic Valuation Methods for Plastic Marine Debris

2.4. Marine Plastic Debris Damage Value

Studies related to damage values from marine plastic debris have not been done much. However, several existing studies are able to provide an estimation of economic losses suffered by the community. This section will describe some of the research results that are related to the economic value of marine plastic debris with their market based and non-market based direct costs, which are carried out using the economic valuation method.

Some references from Mouat et al. (2010) show some values of beach cleaning costs in several countries using market values. Some of these estimates are basically for cleaning up solid waste on the beach. However plastic covers 60% of all waste, and the biggest cost in this activity is for the workers (labor cost). Countries like the United Kingdom spend US $24 million per year to clean up some of its coastal cities from litter, while the Netherlands and Belgium spend US $13 million per year. Provinces in Sweden with a population of 300,000 people spent US $1.5 million per year to clean beaches.

Cruz et al. (2020) conducted a study on the calculation of beach cleaning costs using manual beach cleaning data, measuring and comparing the efficiency and productivity of private and government company workers in Spain. The research obtained an average cost of 1 euro per kg litter, and 27.6 kg of litter per hour per person. Previous studies from Mouat et al. (2010) and Ryan and Jewitt (1996) also discuss the investment costs of a litter collection with a market approach. The cost calculation of marine plastic debris can also be seen from the cost of cleaning plastics that clog waterways and cause flooding. In Bangkok, for example, there are around 2000 tons of garbage, most of which are plastic bags in drainage channels that must be cleaned every day (In World 2016). This happens in most of the major cities in the world.

Studies on the value of losses from marine plastic debris can also be seen from the loss of economic value from tourism due to the reduction in tourists coming to the beach and the sea because of marine plastic debris. Balance et al. (2000) used Travel Cost Methods to calculate losses due to marine plastic debris to tourism. Nearly half the respondents from the Capetown region in South Africa are willing to pay seven times the average travel cost to visit a clean beach. In addition, 97% of the value of these beaches are lost due to a decrease in hygiene standards. Dense waste of more than 10 macro waste per square meter of beach will reduce 40% of foreign tourists and 60% of domestic tourists. The loss value is between 3 million Rand to 23 million Rand.

Shen et al. (2019) conducted a study that is related to the marine debris economic value using the Contingent Valuation Model (CVM) and the Choice Experiment Model (CEM). The study results showed that around 74.1% of the people interviewed were willing to volunteer to participate in the cleaning program and were willing to spend an average of 1.5 days per month in their daily lives, which is equivalent to the potential income loss of US $1.08 per day. In all four sample cities, people’s willingness to pay for cleaning major types of waste ranges from US $0.12 to $0.20 per visitor which is mainly determined by removal rates, coastal city densities and visitor perceptions. The social costs are US $1.08-1.40 per visitor using the CVM model, and US $1.00-1.07 per visitor with the CEM model.

Marine plastic debris in the European Arctic is also a significant problem. In the Svalbard area, plastics are found on beaches, water columns, seabed and ice. Abate et al. (2019) calculated the economic value of marine plastic debris in this region by using the CVM technique to see the willingness to pay (WTP) of Norwegian households to reduce marine plastic pollution around the Svalbard’s archipelago. The results show that each household is willing to pay a sum of NOK 5,485 (US $642) per year. Even people who are relatively more concerned about marine plastic pollution have the desire to pay more by 85% and 50%.

2.5. Summary and Policy Implication

The paper's description shows several important things that need to be considered, i.e. pollution from plastics in the sea can cause significant economic losses from the presence of other disrupted economic activities such as tourism, as well as reduced welfare values due to lost productivity, aesthetics, pleasure, and health. In addition, plastic waste at sea can also be damage goods and other infrastructures, and can cause havocs such as accidents at sea and flooding on land.

There are plenty of loss value analysis techniques from marine plastic debris with an economic valuation approach can that can be performed, including use and non-use value analysis. The most used value is the value of use. The value of direct costs can also be calculated from the costs incurred for cleaning plastic waste at sea. As for the non-use value, TCM and CVM approaches are the most widely used techniques to date. Both of these approaches provide flexibility in terms of revealing the cost value of marine plastic debris in terms of both the reveal and state public preferences.

The cost calculation of marine plastic debris that has been published shows the value of various measurement techniques, including the value of lost productivity from economic actors like fishermen, the value of beach cleaning due to plastic waste, the value of tourism loss, the value of disasters that occur due to clogged channels by plastic waste, the value of the desire to pay to clean the beaches, as well as the value of the desire to allocate time and energy to clean the beach from plastic waste.

Many seems to agree that marine plastic debris is very detrimental to the economy, but there isn’t any specific answer on how much cost is borne by the public in the presence of plastic waste in coastal and marine waters. Thus a research effort is needed for economic valuation related to marine plastic debris. It is clear that more monitoring is required in relation to the cost values due to marine plastic debris, both in terms of direct and indirect loss costs. Information about the cost of marine plastic debris can be used for advocacy for the community about how detrimental marine plastic debris are. Information from this paper can also be a helpful data for the government to consider various policies that will be implemented in the form of economic, social and other instruments which can then provide effectiveness and efficiency in its implementation. Understanding the economic value of losses from marine plastic debris can also be an input for consideration of prevention policies that can be cheaper than cleaning costs.

References

Mouat, J., Lozano, R.L. dan Bateson, H. (2013). Economic Impacts of Marine Litter. KIMO International, pp. 105. Retrieved from http://www. seas-at-risk.org/1mages/Economic%20impacts%20of%20marine%20litter%20KIMO.pdf.

Shen, M., Mao, D., Xie, H., dan Lie, C. (2019). The Social Costs of Marine Litter along the East China Sea: Evidence from Ten Coastal Scenic Spots of Zhejiang Province, China. Sustainability, 11.

In World. (2016). Flood Threat as Plastic Bags Clog Bangkok’s Sewers. The National: International. Retrieved from https://www.thenational.ae/world/asia/flood-threat-as-plastic-bags-clog-bangkok-s-sewers-1.199299

Cesia J.Cruz, Juan J. Muñoz-Perez, Maribel I. Carrasco-Braganza, Patricio Poullet, Patricia Lopez-Garcia, Antonio Contreras, dan RodolfoSilva. (2020). Beach Cleaning Costs. Ocean & Coastal Management, Volume 188.

P. Ryan, D. Jewitt. (1996). Cleaning Beaches: Sweeping The Rubbish Under The Carpet. South African Journal Science, Volume 92(6), 275

MEAM and MPA News. (2019, May 10). Retrieved from meam.openchannels.org: https://meam.openchannels.org/news/skimmer-marine-ecosystems-and-management/what-marine-plastic-pollution-costing-us-impacts

Salcone, J., Brander L., dan Seidl A. (2016). Guidance Manual on Economic Valuation of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services in The Pacific. Suva, Fuji: Report to the MACBIO Project.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well Being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press.

Mcilgorm, A. (2018). The costs of Marine Debris in The Marine Economy - Practical Considerations for Future Policy Action. Sixth International Marine Debris Conference. San Diego, California, USA.

Barbier, E. B. (2012). Progress and Challenges in Valuing Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Volume 6, Issue 1, 1-19

Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S., Kennedy, C., Koch, E., Stier, A., dan Sillman, B. (2011). The Value of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystem Services. Ecological Monograph, Volume 81, 169–193.

Fourqurean, J., Duarte, C., Kennedy, H., Marbà, N., Holmer, M., Mateo, M., Apostolaki, E., Kendrick, G., Krause-Jensen, D., McGlathery, K., et al. (2012). Seagrass Ecosystems as a Globally Significant Carbon Stock. National Geoscience, Volume 5, 505–509.

McArthur, L.C., J.W. Boland. 2006. The Economic Contribution of Seagrass to Secondary Production in South Australia. Ecological Modelling 196(1-2): 163-172.

Newman S., Watkins E., Farmer A., Brink P., dan Schweitzer JP. (2015). The Economics of Marine Litter. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter, pp367-394. Switzerland: Springer Link.

Silva, P. dan Pagiola, S. (2003). Washington D.C. : World Bank Environmental Economic Series, Paper No. 94. Washington D.C. : World Bank

Ballesterosa, Laura V., Jennifer, L. Matthewsb, dan Bert W. Hoeksema. (2018). Pollution and Coral Damage Caused by Derelict Fishing Gear on Coral Reefs Around Koh Tao, Gulf of Thailand. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 135, 1107-1116

Gilman, E. (2015). Status of International Monitoring and Management of Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear and Ghost Fishing. Marine Policy, Volume 60, 225–239.

Lewis, C.F., Slade, S.L., Maxwell, K.E., dan Matthews, T.R., (2009). Lobster Trap Impact on Coral Reefs: Effects of Wind-driven Trap Movement. New Zealand Journal of Marine Freshwater Research, Volume 43, 271–282.

Edyvane, K.S., Penny, S.S. (2017). Trends in Derelict Fishing Nets and Fishing Activity in Northern Australia: Implications for Trans-boundary Fisheries Management in The Shared Arafura and Timor Seas. Fisheries Research Elsevier, Volume 188, 23–37.

Wilcox, C., Heathcote, G., Goldberg, J., Gunn, R., Peel, D., dan Hardesty, B.D. (2015). Understanding The Sources and Effects of Abandoned, Lost, and Discarded Fishing Gear on Marine Turtles in Northern Australia. Conservation Biology, Volume 29, 198–206.

Uhlmann, S.S., Broadhurst, M.K. (2015). Mitigating Unaccounted Fishing Mortality From Gillnets and Traps. Fish Fisheries, Volume 16, 183–229.

Gilardi, K.V.K., Carlson-Bremer, D., June, J.A., Antonelis, K., Broadhurst, G., dan Cowan, T. (2010). Marine Species Mortality in Derelict Fishing Nets in Puget Sound, WA and The Cost/ Benefits of Derelict Net Removal. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 60, 376–382.

Science Matter: The Case of Plastics. Retrieved from www.sciencehistory.org: https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-plastics

Nicholson, Joseph L. dan Leighton, George R. (August, 1942). Plastics Come of Age. Harper’s Magazine, 306.

Ryan, P. G., Moore, J. M., Van Franeker, J. A., dan Moloney, C. L. (2009). Monitoring The Abundance of Plastic Debris in The Marine Environment. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, Volume 364, 1999–2012.

Ryan, P. G., Bouwman, H., Moloney, C. L., Yuyama, M., dan Takada, H. (2012). Long-term Decreases in Persistent Organic Pollutants in South African Coastal Waters Detected from Beached Polyethylene Pellets. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 64, 2756–2760.

Sherrington, C. (2016). Plastics in the Marine Environment. Eunomia.

Morten W. Ryberg, A. L. (2018). UN Environment Document Repository Home. Retrieved from wedocs.unep.org: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11822/26745

Jambeck, Jenna R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, Theodore, R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., dan Law, Kara L. (2015). Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean. Science, Volume 347, 768-771.

Barnes, D. K. A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., dan Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and Fragmentation of Plastic Debris in Global Environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1985–1998.

Elias S.A. (2018) Plastics in the Ocean. In: Dominick A. DellaSala, and Michael I. Goldstein (eds.) The Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene, Volume 1, 133-149. Oxford: Elsevier.

Lee, J. (2015). Economic Valuation of Marine Litter and Microplastic Pollution in The Marine Environment: An Initial Assessment of The Case of The United Kingdom. Discussion Paper 126 Centre for Financial & Management Studies SOAS University of London.

Boucher, J., Friot, D. (2017). Primary Microplastics in The Oceans: a Global Evaluation of Sources. Global Marine and Polar Programme IUCN, 43.

Koelmans, Albert A., Merel Kooi, Kara Lavender Law, dan Erik van Sebille. (2017). All Is Not Lost: Deriving a Top-down Mass Budget of Plastic at Sea. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12 (11).

Kooi, M., Egbert H. van Nes, Marten Scheff er, dan Albert A. Koelmans. (2017). Ups and Downs in the Ocean: Eff ects of Biofouling on Vertical Transport of Microplastics. Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 51 (14), 7963–7971.

Woodall, L. C., A.w Sanchez-Vidal, M. Canals, G. L. J. Paterson, R. Coppock, V. Sleight, A. Calafat, A. D. Rogers, B. E. Narayanaswamy, dan R. C. Thompson. (2014). The Deep Sea Is a Major Sink for Microplastic Debris. Royal Society Open Science, Volume 1 (4).

Choi, E. C., dan Lee, J. S. (2018). The Willingness to Pay for Removing The Microplastics in The Ocean – The Case of Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea. Marine Policy, Volume 93, 93–100.

Kirkley J., McConnell K.E. (1997). Marine Debris: Benefits, Costs, and Choices. In: Coe J.M., Rogers D.B. (eds) Marine Debris. Springer Series on Environmental Management, pp171-185

Laurans, Y., Pascal, N., Binet, T., et al. (2013). Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from 76 Coral Reefs in The South Pacific: Taking Stock of Recent Experience. Journal of Environmental 77 Management 116, 135-144.

Newman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., Brink, P., dan Schweitzer, J.P. (2015). The Economics of Marine Litter. In: Bergmann M., Gutow L., Klages M. (eds). Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Cham

3. Indonesian Marine Litter Management Behavior: Institutional Perspective

Achmad Rizal

Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universitas Padjadjaran.

arizrzl@gmail.com

3.1. Plastic Issue

Marine litter poses serious environmental, health, and economic threats to oceans and coastal ecosystems. It also presents a unique legal and regulatory challenge for many nation-States, as it can originate from diverse land-based and sea-based sources both within and outside of a State. While the full magnitude of the problem can be challenging to ascertain, some estimates suggest that an average of 8 million tons of plastic waste entered the ocean in 2010, and this figure has been projected to increase (Rizal, 2018).

The prevalence of marine litter results from many diferent factors, including changing production and consumption patterns, inadequate waste management, and gaps in regulation of waste materials. The diverse sources require a comprehensive response. Accordingly, countries frequently utilize various laws and policies to prevent, manage, and reduce the proliferation of marine litter. Many of these approaches are part of the general frameworks to reduce the generation and spread of solid waste, rather than being part of frameworks specifically designed to address marine litter (Rizal et al.,2020). That said, a growing number of countries are developing targeted laws and policies to address marine litter—from laws mandating more research (e.g., in the United States) to laws banning certain types of products (e.g., plastic bags in Bangladesh and Rwanda), to overarching frameworks to address the growing problem (e.g., in Japan and Singapore). Policies and laws need to address not only the removal of litter but are generally more successful when they govern the production, use, and disposal of products that would otherwise become marine litter. Until now, using a circular economy approach to prevent the generation of waste products can reduce the overall production of marine litter.

With no marine spaces left untouched by human actions (Halpern et al., 2012), amplified and diversified human activities on these areas have triggered alterations on oceanic life, habitats and landscapes (Atkins et al., 2011; Mani-Peres et al., 2016). Essentially linked to human actions, marine litter has been a ubiquitously growing concern to coastal and marine environments (Campbell et al., 2014). Being part of the larger problem of waste management, marine litter or debris has been defined as “any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment” (UNEP, 2005). Marine debris has been regarded as a problem of global dimensions that adversely affects human beings, wildlife, and the economic health of coastal communities to varying degrees (Oosterhuis et al., 2014; UNEP, 2005). From a human safety and health perspective, beach visitors could be harmed by broken glasses, fish lines and hooks, while swimmers and divers could get entangled in submerged or floating debris while also being exposed to harmful bacteria found in contaminated water (Sheavly and Register, 2007). With regards to the marine environment and wildlife, entanglement and ingestion have been considered as significant problems of litter, which could also cause damage and death risks to marine animals (Ryan et al., 2009; Gregory, 2009; Tomas et al., 2002; Lazar and Gračan, 2011).

Plastic bags and bottle caps were identified as the most hazardous marine debris to wildlife in addition to fishing nets and gears (Hardesty et al., 2015; Laist, 1987). Moreover, marine litter causes wearing of the sea bed and leads to the accumulation of toxic waste substances that negatively impact the sea's flora and fauna (Schlining et al., 2013). Furthermore, marine littering is known to cause destruction or alteration of habitats, thus further impacting marine life (European Commission, 2011). Aesthetically, debris makes beaches unattractive, thereby discouraging coastal users from performing their activities and visiting such areas (Sheavly and Register, 2007). Since coastal communities often depend on the revenues generated by seaside businesses, marine litter could reduce the number of visitors to the coastal area thus causing adverse economic impacts (Mouat et al., 2010).

Marine debris originate from two principal sources at the grass-root level, i.e. ocean-borne waste disposed within the sea and terrestrial waste from coastal users (Rees and Pond, 1995; Whiting, 1998). Ocean-borne waste sources from merchant ships, fishing vessels and pleasure crafts, whereas terrestrial waste originates mainly from recreational visitors, beach-goers and landfills (Coe and Rogers, 2012; Davenport and Davenport, 2006; Strand et al., 2015).

Among these two sources, terrestrial waste from coastal users has been considered most significant, accounting for up to 80% of global marine pollution (GESAMP, 1991). This litter source mainly accounts for disposed shore-based solid waste, inappropriate or illegal dumping of domestic and waste dumps which are blown into water or carried by creeks, rivers, drains, and sewers following human activities on the coastal areas (Sheavly, 2005; UNEP, 2011). Having slow degradation rates also leads to accumulation of such debris in the ocean, thus negatively impacting the marine environment (Barnes et al., 2009; Ioakeimidis et al., 2014). The principal reasons for terrestrial litter to end up as marine debris have been attributed to human behavior, actions and activities at sea (Campbell et al., 2014; Derraik, 2002; Sheavly and Register, 2007; Cheshire et al., 2009; Oosterhuis et al., 2014).

Due to its involvement with human behavior, marine littering has been regarded as a cultural matter (Golik and Gertner, 1992). Generally, culture is connected to the core values and norms of individuals at the micro level while also being strongly linked to society at the macro level (Erez and Gati, 2004; Bandura, 1986). In other words, marine debris related issues encompass macro-micro level aspects from a sociological perspective. At the micro level, human behavior was identified as a critical factor that is fundamentally linked to awareness, perception, attitude, concern level about this environmental issue, and motivations to engage in solutions (Hartley et al., 2015; Rees and Pond, 1995). Among these factors, understanding perceptions on marine litter and littering has been considered among the foremost steps towards a sustainable approach to cleaner marine environments (Hartley et al., 2015). Even though much literature is available regarding the behavioral dimensions of environmental concerns (Gardner and Stern, 2002; Schultz et al., 2011), limited work has been done to address perceptions (Santos et al., 2005). On the other hand, at macro or societal levels, different aspects, including policies and legislation, influence behavior. This paper investigates marine littering through the institutional lenses to analyze and recommend how anti-littering behavior can be improved and sustained to eventually target a litter-free marine environment.

3.2. Theoritical Framework

A recognized approach to investigate institution level issues involves using Coleman's model of micro-macro relations (Coleman, 1986; Coleman, 1994). This model is regarded as one of the most popular theoretical diagrams in sociology and was conceptualized to explain how micro-level action is linked to macro level structures and vice versa. In this model, the macro-level encompasses large social entities or groups whereas the micro-level comprises individuals acting out of their agency states and their interactions with other individuals (Little, 2012). Although this model has been extensively used in studies related to sociology (Hedstrom and Swedberg, 1998), organizational literatures (Minbaeva et al., 2007; Felin and Foss, 2006) and information systems (Markus and Robey, 1988; Melville, 2010) among other research areas, it is yet to be used to investigate issues related to marine littering. Since aspects about marine litter encompass both macro and micro level parameters, Coleman's micro-macro relations model was used as a basis for the framework in this paper.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 6. Macro-micro-macro relations: methodological individual (Coleman, 1986)

As discussed earlier, since human behavior, actions and activities at sea are principal causes for terrestrial litter to end up as marine debris (Campbell et al., 2014; Derraik, 2002; Sheavly and Register, 2007; Cheshire et al., 2009; Oosterhuis et al., 2014), a desired outcome of studies involving marine litter is unarguably to promote sustainable anti-littering behavior at both individual or micro level and societal or macro levels. As it has generally been established that people's behavior is based on their perception of what the reality is (Dijksterhuis and Van Knippenberg, 1998), improving the perceptions of coastal users could improve their anti-littering behavior. Using Coleman's model of micro-macro relations, four variables become important to study, i.e. the coastal society and behavior of social system at macro-level, and the perceptions about marine litter and anti-littering behavior at micro level.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 7. Macro-micro level model (Beeharry et.al, 2017)

Within the model shown in both figures, macro level is conventionally illustrated at the top while the micro level is depicted at the bottom. Interconnecting the identified variables establishes three fundamental links where the arrows in Fig. 1 indicate possible pathways of causal influence. Creation of these links also forms different transitions in the structure namely, macro-micro (Link 1), micro-micro (Link 2) and micro-macro (Link 3). The identified variables and the established links are further discussed as follows.

3.3. Coastal society Factors

The coastal society in this study is regarded as the aggregate of users that influence a particular coastal area. Generally, groups form an essential part of the society and perform important functions on the same entity (Stinchcombe and March, 1965). The society can be regarded as a large social group (Tajfel, 2010) and different groups are expected to have shared values which reflect their culture (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2003; Edmondson, 2002). With regards to coastal user groups, limited literature is available on their categorization. A basic coastal user group classification is based on residency and activities exerted on a coastal area including residents, visitors and workers (Mikalsen and Jentoft, 2001; Tudor and Williams, 2006). In such classification, a coastal resident or inhabitant refers to a person who resides in that area. It has been estimated that 1.9 billion people reside closer than 100 km from the coast within areas less than 100 m from above current sea level (Kummu et al., 2016).

This figure represents approximately 28% of the world's total population. Inhabitants of coastal zones can enjoy various benefits while settling in in such areas, including biophysical and climatic conditions, and communication and navigation amenities (Kay and Alder, 2005; Wheeler et al., 2012). The second category, namely visitor, refers to a person who visits coastal zone for a short period. Visitors can also be sub-classified as local or international. Local visitors here refer to people visiting a particular coastal area, but living outside the same area within the same country. On the other hand, international visitors or tourists refer to people from an international destination to visit a particular coastal area during their stay. Both sub-categories of users visit coastal areas to make most of the activities including fishing, surfing, boating, beach-going or sun tanning.

The final category ‘worker’ relates to people doing a particular work in a coastal area. It includes hawkers, fishermen, tour-operators and shop owners, among others. Hawkers are more commonly seen on beaches to sell easily transportable merchandise to visitors, whereas tour operators derive an income by arranging tours. Fishermen derive their income by catching fishes and fishing-related litter, which is considered an important contributor to ocean-borne litter (Edyvane et al., 2004). A previous study showed that marine litter has had various impacts on fishing and these include reduced yield, damaged nets and time wasting due to regular needs for clearing debris from nets (Nash, 1992). The severity of these impacts also caused modifications in fishing behavior, notably avoidance of some fishing areas. Additionally, reduced number of visitors due to litter undoubtedly harms the workers’ income (Sheavly and Register, 2007).

3.4. Factors of perceptions about marine litter

As discussed earlier, understanding a users' perception has been considered among the foremost steps to a more complete and sustainable approach towards anti-littering (Hartley et al., 2015). From a psychological perspective, perception is defined as “a set of internal sensational cognitive processes of the brain at the subconscious cognitive function layers that detects, relates, interprets and searches internal cognitive information in the mind” (Wang, 2007). At the macro level, studies have demonstrated that group perceptions are influenced by various factors including entitativity, characteristics, goal and homogeneity, among others (Yzerbyt et al., 2004). It has also been recognized that a group's perception is influenced by some essential qualities of its members (Campbell, 1958; Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2007). Additionally, society also influences individuals' perception (Link 1) (Armstrong, 1996). At the micro-level, studies showed that this set of sensational cognitive processes is influenced by several factors principally related to the perceiver, the target being perceived and the situation in which the perception is made (Merleau-Ponty and Smith, 1996; Schneider, 1987). Among these factors, much work has been done regarding the perceiver, and the studies showed that perception is shaped or distorted by different characteristics including background, awareness, past experiences, attitudes, moods, motives, self-concepts, interests and expectations, among others (Zalkind and Costello, 1962; Jones and Davis, 1965). As for the target, influencing factors include novelty, size, background, proximity and similarity; as compared to time, environmental and social settings (Robbins and Judge, 2001).

Hartley et al. (2015) investigated the children's baseline understanding, attitudes and self-reported behaviors about marine litter, and it was shown that the participants were quite concerned about marine debris and did recognize a few of their causes and impacts. Another study investigated the perceptions of beach users with different socio-economic backgrounds (origin, education level, sex, annual income, and time spent on beach) on solid litter pollution and the results revealed that beach users rarely admit littering but blame other users in contaminating the beach (Santos et al., 2005).

Furthermore, the influence of non-resident workers on marine debris issues was investigated and the results revealed that the same group litter at the same rate as tourists, permanent residents and visitors and that residency influences awareness of marine litter (Campbell et al., 2014). Even though the studies conducted provided insightful information, limited published literature is available on the identified coastal user groups' perceptions about aspects regarding marine litter.

3.5. Factors of Anti-littering behavior

Anti-littering behavior encompasses the range of actions and mannerisms performed by coastal users to positively impact the coastal and marine environment relating to litter. To promote antilittering behavior, previous research focused on the behavioral patterns about marine litter. In other words, it is important to understand littering behavior so that appropriate preventive actions can be taken (Kolodko et al., 2016). For instance, studies showed that people are more likely to throw debris in littered and disordered environments as compared to a clean one; and are also less prone to litter after having observed someone picking up debris (Cialdini, 2003; Cialdini et al., 1990; Schultz et al., 2011; Keizer et al., 2008). In terms of demographics, people of younger age groups are considered to be more likely to litter than older people (Durdan et al., 1985; Finnie, 1973; Krauss et al., 1978).

Moreover, males have generally been considered to litter more than females (Meeker, 1997). Also, people living in rural environments are considered to litter more than those living in urban regions (Schultz et al., 2011). Additionally, studies have revealed that education level, religious conviction, marital status and income affect littering behaviors in general (Al-Khatib et al., 2009; Eastman et al., 2013; Santos et al., 2005; Slavin et al., 2012). Although all these factors have been co-related with littering behavior, it has commonly been established that people's behavior is based on their perception (Link 2) of what the reality is (Dijksterhuis and Van Knippenberg, 1998). Behavior and the individual's behavioral motivation are driven by his/her perception (Ajzen and Madden, 1986).

3.6. Factors of social system behavior

The final variable of the model is the social system behavior which is related to the society's operational aspects and the natural environment (Melville, 2010). The society system's behavior is influenced by the interdependent actions of the actors who make up the system (Link 3) (Coleman, 1986). Studies have shown that social behavior can be automatically activated by features of the environment where a person's behavior automatically increases the probability of another individual or group to engage in that behavior (Bargh et al., 1996; Chartrand and Bargh, 1999). As such, improved anti-littering behavior at micro levels could positively impact the social system behavior at large (Link 3).

3.7. Size and Weight Characteristics of Marine Debris

Waste problem is common in urban areas in Southeast Asian countries along with their increasing population, followed by increased income, changes in consumption patterns, economic growth as well as urbanization and industrialization, resulting in an increase in the potential for per capita waste generation and various types of waste produced (Nguyen & Schnitzer , 2009). Based on the Environmental Law No. 32 of 2009 article 1 (14), pollution is the entry or inclusion of living things, substances, energy and/or other components into the environment and/or changes in environmental structures by human activities or by natural processes. Therefore, the environmental quality decreases to a certain level which causes the environment to become less or unable to function anymore with its designation.

The sea is a place for direct disposal of garbage or waste from various human activities with ease. Thus, various types of waste and other pollutants will be found in the sea (Rizal, 2018). According to UNEP (2011), marine debris are all solid materials that are not found naturally (a product of human activity) in water areas (seas, oceans, beaches). It can pose a direct threat to the condition and productivity of water areas and require certain specific actions to prevent and minimize negative effects. Marine debris can be transported by ocean currents and winds from one place to another, and can even travel very far from its origin.

Based on its size, Lippiat et al. (2013) divided the characteristics of marine debris into 5 categories : mega-debris (> 1 m), macro-debris (>2.5 cm - <1 m), meso-debris (5 mm - 2.5 cm), micro-debris (0.33 mm - 5.00 mm) and nano-debris (<1 μm). The observation results of marine debris samples obtained at the study site were included in the 2 characteristics of marine debris as mentioned by Lippiat et al., (2013), i.e. macro-debris and meso-debris; some of them are micro-debris.

3.8. Legal Regulation on the Institutional Authority of Marine Plastic Waste Management in the Regions

Based on the observations of several plastic marine debris’ cases, the relationship between the government, private sector and NGOs is weak in solid waste management in many national coastal areas. This issue can be proven wherein those areas, almost no private parties or NGOs participate and play a role in the management of marine plastic waste. Therefore, nationally, the management of marine plastic waste is not optimal. Solid waste management is fully the responsibility of the government.

The analysis results for the roles of the community, private sector and NGOs show that there is no relationship between either of them in solid waste management. This occurs because the private sector's role in waste management is not felt by the community in many national coastal areas. The private sector has not played a big role in increasing waste management effectiveness in these places.

The same applies for NGOs. There are no NGOs’ activity in waste management in many national coastal areas because they think that these areas do not have a major waste problem yet, and can still be handled by the government. The problem of solid waste in many national coastal areas is not an inter-regional or national problem which must be resolved as soon as possible so that its management is left entirely to local government policies.

Meanwhile, the relationship between the role and the private sector shows a strong relationship between the private sector and NGOs' roles. Even though in the current condition they have not been involved in waste management in many national coastal areas, the community’s hope in the future regarding the role of the private sector and NGOs in waste management is very large to achieve good and sustainable waste management. This situation shows that the private sector must play an active role by providing environmentally friendly goods and services, carrying out 'take-back' activities for recycling and recycling used products.

The private sector must manage waste in an environmentally sound manner, and the private sector must provide honest information to consumers through labels and reports. Meanwhile, NGOs play a role in promoting positive plastic waste recycling activities at the community level, promoting public awareness, preparing/conducting training and socialization. NGOs also play a role in monitoring the efforts made by businesses and government activities, and in providing appropriate policy input.

As the main administration pillar of Marine debris Management, environmental management institutions are key factors in Marine debris management's success. Nancy K. Kubasek and Gary S. Silverman emphasized that environmental institutions have the authority to make "administrative regulations" and simultaneously enforce them administratively in addition to carrying out real marine debris management "administrative activities" (Monteiro, 2014). Therefore, a Marine Plastic Waste Management institution at the central and regional levels has a strategic and significant role in managing Marine debris Management. Magda Lovei and Charles Weise emphasized that the marine debris management institution is categorized as "the main pillars" and includes "the key factors" in the marine plastic waste management system (Monteiro, 2014). Thus, an independent and strong marine debris management institution is an absolute necessity and becomes the main basis for the successful management of the coastal and marine environment, especially with the widening regional authority granted through decentralization and regional autonomy which began ten years ago.

The various forms of waste management institutions or agencies occurred after PP. 8 of 2003 concerning Guidelines for the Organization of Regional Apparatus. This regulation was issued in the context of resource efficiency so that the number of regional offices was limited. After the issuance of this regulation, waste managers in cities/regencies that were originally in the form of a Sanitation Service were then forced to merge with various other agencies whose election was determined by the city/district itself with the autonomy mission.

Based on the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 9 of 2015 concerning Second Amendment to Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government, environmental management institutions as part of regional apparatus organizations have the duty and function to carry out government affairs in the environmental sector which becomes the regional authority. Thus, the study of the institutional capacity for marine debris management in the regions cannot be separated from the regional authority regulation's clarity. Regulating regional authority is very important, because from the theoretical point of view of administrative law, it is the basis for the legitimacy of governmental acts.

As stated by Hadjon (1994), every government’s act must be based on legitimate authority, that is, given by laws and regulations. Hench van Maarseven emphasized that this authority's legal basis must always be demonstrated (Monteiro, 2014). Theoretically, government authority originates or is obtained by attribution, delegation and mandate. According to H.D. Van Wijk/Konijnenbelt, attribution is the granting of governmental authority by legislators to government organs; delegation is the delegation of governmental authority from one governmental organ to another; and mandate occurs when an organ of government allows its authority to be exercised by another organ on its behalf. F.A.M. Stroink and J.G. Steenbeek stated that attribution is related to granting new authority, while delegation is concerned with the delegation of existing powers (by organs that have obtained authority attribution to other organs). So logically delegation is always preceded by attribution. Regarding the mandate, it is explained that there has been no change in authority whatsoever — at least in the formal juridical sense (Monteiro, 2014).

Despite the disagreements, it seems that Van Wijk/Konijnenbelt, F.A.M. Stroink and J.G. Steenbeek have the same view that attribution authority is governmental authority obtained directly from law, while delegation is obtained based on the delegation of existing powers. Attribution authority is usually outlined through the distribution of state power by the constitution (Hadjon, 1994), which in its implementation can be delegated to other organs or subordinates in the form of assignment relationships by superiors to subordinates.

In the context of a unitary state and in accordance with the provisions of Article 33 paragraph (3) and (4) of the 1945 Constitution, attributable to the authority of managing natural resources and the environment is the authority of the state, in this case the central government. Through the concept of the right to control the state over land and water and the natural resources contained therein, the state has the authority to regulate its use and management for the maximum benefit of the people's welfare. All state economic activities must be based on the principles of sustainability and environmental insights. Government authority that comes from this attribution is then delegated to local governments. The legal basis is the provisions of Articles 18 and 18 A of the 1945 Constitution, which are further regulated by Law Number 9 of 2015 concerning Regional Government (Monteiro, 2014).

Based on Article 1 number 7 of Law Number 9 of 2015 it is emphasized that: "decentralization is the transfer of governmental authority by the Government to autonomous regions to regulate and manage government affairs in the system of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia". From this formulation, it is clear that the authority of the regional government is the authority that comes from the government's handover of authority to autonomous regions. Thus the regional authority in the implementation of various regional government affairs is the authority of the delegation (Monteiro, 2014) including environmental management, especially marine debris.

[...]

Excerpt out of 145 pages

Details

Title
Marine Debris in Indonesia. Ecology, Social, and Economic Aspects
Authors
Year
2020
Pages
145
Catalog Number
V956347
ISBN (eBook)
9783346393883
ISBN (Book)
9783346393890
Language
English
Keywords
marine, debris, indonesia, ecology, social, economic, aspects
Quote paper
Noir P. Purba (Editor)Prof. Dr. Zuzy Anna (Editor), 2020, Marine Debris in Indonesia. Ecology, Social, and Economic Aspects, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/956347

Comments

  • No comments yet.
Look inside the ebook
Title: Marine Debris in Indonesia. Ecology, Social, and Economic Aspects



Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free