This is the accepted version of the article: Torrente, Jorge M.; Ripa, Maddalena; Chifari, Rosaria; [et al.]. «A waste lexicon to negotiate extended producer responsibility in free trade agreements». Resources, conservation and recycling, Vol. 156 (May 2020), art. 104711. DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104711 This version is avaible at https://ddd.uab.cat/record/217244 under the terms of the license Authors' Accepted Manuscript (AAM). The published version of this paper is available at the publisher's website: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resconrec.2020.104711 1 A waste lexicon to negotiate extended producer responsibility in free trade agreements 2 Jorge M. Torrente-Velásquez1,2, *, Maddalena Ripa1, Rosaria Chifari3, Sandra Bukkens1, Mario 3 Giampietro1,4 4 1 Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain, 5 2Universidad Tecnológica de Panamá, Panamá, 6 3Fundació ENT, Barcelona, Spain. 7 4Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain 8 *Corresponding author: Jorge M. Torrente-Velásquez – jorgemiguel.torrente@uab.cat 9 Abstract 10 Developing economies largely rely on imported consumer goods from the manufacturing 11 industries of industrialized economies through free-trade agreements. 12 After consumption, goods end-up in local waste streams and landfilled because of poorly 13 developed waste management systems. 14 This paper proposes a methodology to extend responsibility to exporting country 15 manufacturers for indirect waste disposal in developing countries through imported goods. 16 It establishes a functional relationship between the weight and volume of the imported goods 17 and the local municipal solid waste stream derived from their consumption, by adapting the 18 recycling concepts of by-product and co-product to the municipal solid waste stream derived 19 from the household sector. 20 A lexicon is formalized to conceptualize an extended-producer-responsibility information 21 system operating at the global level between exporting and importing countries. This EPR 22 system i) determines the recyclability, reusability and treatability attributes of imported goods 23 based on their constitutive parts (primary package or product), as well as the material value as 24 per the net value in the global waste market and final destination once consumed, ii) defines 1 25 specific conditions regarding the goods´ materials value and structural configuration of their 26 constitutive parts for inclusion in Free-Trade Agreement clauses, and iii) checks for the 27 fulfilment of these proposed conditions. 28 The proposed methodology was validated with a case study on Panama. It was found that 29 24%(w/w)-34.5%(v/v) of valued materials derived from goods imported in Panama through 30 FTAs could be exported back to the country of origin, 18%(w/w)-2.8%(v/v) could be locally 31 reused, and 58%(w/w)-62.5%(v/v) locally valorized. Only 16%(w/w)-16%(v/v) would have to be 32 landfilled. 33 Keywords: Extended producer responsibility; free-trade agreement; imported consumer 34 goods; developing economies; landfill waste diversion; decision-support system. 35 36 Highlights 37  Trade liberalization through free-trade agreements involves indirect pollution 38  An extended producer responsibility information system at global level is proposed 39  A waste lexicon and decision support system are developed 40  The approach is validated with a case study on Panama 41  24% (w/w) of valued materials derived from imported goods could be returned to origin 42 43 1. Introduction 44 In 1986, The Khian Sea ship attempted to deliver a cargo of 15,000 tons of incinerator toxic ash 45 from Philadelphia to the shores of Panama. Just before arrival to destination, the deal was put 46 off by the Panamanian government. For two years the ship roamed the seas in search of a host 47 for its load (Uva and Bloom, 1992). In 1988, The Khian Sea returned home empty, the 48 whereabouts of the cargo were never revealed. Had it not been for the massive closure of US 49 landfills during the early ’80s, the ash might have been disposed of in the Philadelphia landfill. 2 50 It was a global waste trade agreement that triggered the travel of The Khian Sea with the offer 51 of 10 million USD to the Panamanian government for importing a total 250,000 tons of ashes 52 ($40/ton) at the expense of the local environment (Uva and Bloom, 1992). 53 At present, the governments of most developing countries, including Panama, have acquired 54 sufficient environmental consciousness to refuse this kind of deals (Llorach-Massana et al., 55 2015) with some exceptions (Kollikkathara et al., 2009; Papu-Zamxaka et al., 2010; Demaria, 56 2010; Hoornweg and Bhada, 2012). However, today’s global waste trade encompasses more 57 than the direct export of waste; it also includes less evident processes that go under the 58 name” trade liberalization”. Trade liberalization is a way of indirect pollution of developing 59 countries through the import of consumer goods from industrialized economies that 60 eventually will become waste after being consumed and non-deliberately disposed of in the 61 local Municipal Solid Waste Stream (MSWS) of barely established waste management systems 62 (Baldwin, 1993). Waste, either directly imported or generated in-situ from imported goods, is a 63 threat to developing countries. 64 Today, the world’s 20 most industrialized economies manufacture and export 60% of the 65 world goods (UNCTAD, 2018). The rest of the world exports on average 93% less goods per 66 country than these industrialized economies (CIA, 2017). The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) (the 67 most common type of bilateral trade agreement) is a fast-proliferating way for countries to 68 satisfy their needs and achieve their economic goals. By 2007 every country in the world was a 69 member of at least one FTA, most countries being member of several (Menon, 2007). FTAs, 70 signed between industrialized and non-industrialized economies, generally do not include 71 clauses about the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for local waste streams associated 72 with the exported goods (ECLAC, 2017). 73 After imported goods are consumed, they become ‘consumed goods’ and in most developing 74 countries the materials making up their constitutive parts are indiscriminately mixed up in the 3 75 local municipal solid waste stream because, more often than not, waste source-separation is 76 poorly developed or implemented. In the household sector of these countries, the solid waste 77 generated is collected and transported commingled as bulk waste and disposed of in landfills. 78 Although landfills remain the most common method for waste disposal worldwide and are 79 considered a reliable and low-cost alternative to final solid waste disposal (Powrie and White, 80 2004; Zacharof and Butler, 2004; Caprile and Ripa, 2014), there is little awareness that not all 81 consumed goods have to end up as waste (JICA, 2005). Indeed, diverting waste from landfills 82 through material and resource recovery is an important goal of many environmental policies 83 worldwide (EEA, 2009; Ripa et al., 2017; UNEP, 2009). 84 Materials recovery, by reusing consumed goods as second-hand goods before being disposed 85 of or by recycling in the manufacturing industry, as well as energy recovery, by valorizing waste 86 materials in treatment plants as energetic resource before landfilling, requires integral and 87 robust waste management strategies, like the ‘zero-waste concept’ (Islam and Jashimuddin, 88 2017). Many industrialized economies have locally implemented EPR systems¡ to make the 89 manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life-cycle of the product and especially 90 for the take-back, recycling and final disposal (Lindhqvist, 2000a). Good examples are PRO 91 Europe´s Green Dot®, NAFTA region´s Green Dot North America and UK´s VALPAK (Song et al., 92 2015). However, in developing economies, material and energy recovery of MSWSs by reusing 93 or valorizing, are only slowly implemented. For recycling to be implemented through EPR 94 systems, a minimum level of MSWS management and consumer´s contribution to waste 95 source-separation would have to be accomplished first (Lindhqvist, 2000b). Local recycling of 96 MSWS materials is still an unreliable option because the manufacturing industry is only 97 incipient in these economies. Waste export thus remains the main alternative to divert waste 98 from landfills and relief the local waste management system (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). 99 Waste exporting requires the assignment of value to waste materials as per the global waste 100 market (Figure 1). In the global waste market, non-tradable materials are unvalued materials 4 101 while tradable materials are valued materials (Kollikkathara et al., 2009). The global waste 102 market defines the value of materials according to their technical and economic viability of 103 recycling. Some waste materials are technically recyclable in the global waste market, but poor 104 cost-effectiveness of available recycling methods results in a low net waste value, thus 105 classifying them as unvalued materials and making local management through reuse, 106 valorization or landfilling a more suitable option (Soo et al., 2017). For instance, expanded 107 polystyrene, used for food-service, is a high-volume, low-weight material composed mainly of 108 air with such high transport and recycling costs that it is considered ‘economically non- 109 recyclable’ in the global market (NYCDOS, 2017). Also for wooden crates, locally used to deliver 110 fruits and vegetables, local reuse or landfilling is preferred over global recycling (Ng et al., 111 2014). Unvalued materials, including the organic fraction, could be valorized in different ways 112 but the global market net waste value does not apply to valued materials segregated from 113 unvalued materials (Figure 1) (García et al., 2012; Ali and Courtenay, 2014; Lee et al., 2014). 114 The relative material composition of goods is measurable from the manufacturing stage to the 115 point of consumption while the goods´ primary package (and product itself) is still in place. In 116 the post-consumption stage, the material composition changes depending on country-specific 117 variables, such as resource consumption habits, waste generation behaviors, waste deposition 118 patterns (Kofoworola and Gheewala, 2009), local weather conditions and street animal 119 behavior (Tchobanoglous, 2009). Within the MSWS, the constitutive parts of consumed goods 120 are subject to weight and volume changes in variable degrees. For instance, volume changes of 121 goods´ primary packages are less likely to happen than weight changes of both, organic 122 product of the packaged goods and unpackaged products. The material composition of 123 consumed goods in MSWSs can still be estimated in absolute quantities using waste 124 classification traditional systems that classify waste by composition of material groups (DEQ, 125 2004; IPCC, 2000) but these systems are not useful to understand management options of 126 consumed goods´ materials before consumption. Note that there is little awareness that 5 127 volume measurements are complementary to weight measurements to accurately assess the 128 recycling viability of the MSWS materials as valued material by their attributes before 129 transformation into consumed goods (Bing et al., 2014). 130 131 132 133 Figure 1. Import of goods, municipal solid waste generation, and recycling. 134 135 Recognition of the nexus between the quantity, (material) composition and proportions of the 136 constitutive parts of imported goods (goods´ primary packages, primary packaged goods and 137 unpackaged products) before and after ending up in the local (mixed) municipal solid waste 138 stream (Savino et al., 2018) is a necessary step for developing economies to determine the 139 recyclability potential of the waste materials derived from imported goods through FTAs and 140 label them valued or unvalued materials according to the net waste value on the global 141 market. Simply accounting for the quantity, composition and relative proportions of imported 142 goods does not, and cannot accurately reflect the quantity, composition and relative 6 143 proportions of the consumed goods´ mixed materials in the local MSWS so as to assign 144 responsibility for the reception of valued materials derived from the economic activity. Indeed, 145 there is a need for the formalization of a new lexicon for a functional waste classification 146 system allowing to conceptualize the definitions of an EPR-like information system at the 147 global level, thus recognizing the complex relation between industrialized exporting countries 148 and developing importing countries. Such lexicon would facilitate the assignment of a globally 149 extended responsibility to industrialized economies for the waste flows they produce in 150 developing countries and to assess the potential of local MSWSs for local management as 151 unvalued materials or recycling in the global market as valued materials. 152 This paper aims to open a debate about how to extend responsibility to industrialized 153 economies for indirect waste disposal in developing countries through imported goods. It 154 proposes a conceptual approach for an EPR information system at the global level that 155 establishes a functional relationship between the weight and volume of the imported goods 156 and the local municipal solid waste stream derived from their consumption. To this purpose, in 157 the following section, a waste lexicon is defined. The recycling concepts of by-products and co- 158 products of the manufacturer are adapted to imported goods and the corresponding waste 159 generated to create a lexicon based on the constitutive parts, material value and final 160 destination of the consumed goods. Conditions on the goods´ material value and structural 161 configuration that should be declared in FTAs and fulfilled are proposed. In section 3, the 162 proposed methodology is validated with a case study on Panama, using data on the quantity 163 and composition of imported consumer goods through FTAs, and data on the quantity and 164 composition of the consumed goods´ materials in the municipal solid waste stream. The case 165 study examines the extent to which: i) consumed imported goods in the household sector 166 could be reused before being inputted into the MSWS, ii) the materials of the MSWS are 167 valued materials or unvalued materials as per their global market net waste value, iii) valued 7 168 materials could be recycled back to industrialized economies, and iv) unvalued materials could 169 be valorized or landfilled. Section 4 discusses the results and concludes. 170 171 2. Materials and methods 172 173 2.1 Lexicon for a consumed good material classification system 174 A “good” is defined here as a final product that may or may not be packaged for final 175 consumption by consumers satisfying their current wants or needs rather than used in the 176 production of another good. As for packaged goods, there are basically three major packaging 177 layers that protect the goods during the stages of the trade process: (i) a transport packaging 178 layer for manufacturing/transport, such as pallets, (ii) a secondary packaging layer for 179 distribution/display, such as cases, and (iii) a primary packaging layer for 180 acquisition/consumption (inner packs). The constitutive parts of goods are the goods´ primary 181 package and the product itself which may be product of the packaged good or unpackaged 182 product; the latter is a good acquired without primary packaging (Hansen et al., 2012; 183 Robertson and Hamza, 2016). 184 Product manufacturing entails the generation of co-products of the manufacturer and by- 185 products of the manufacturer. Both are secondary products linked to the manufacturing of 186 goods; while co-products are planned for by the manufacturer, by-products are not. Co- 187 products are normally tradable without any additional treatment, while by-products usually 188 serve as additives or raw material replacement in the manufacturing of other products or even 189 the same manufacturing process from which it was created (Figures 1 and 2) (Ali et al., 2009; 190 Sandin et al., 2015). 191 By adapting the recycling concepts of by-products and co-products of the manufacturer to 192 imported goods, a novel lexicon is proposed in Figure 2 to define (i) consumed goods as a 8 193 function of their final destination (i.e., recycling, reusing, valorizing, landfilling), and (ii) 194 constitutive parts (i.e., goods´ primary package, product of the packaged good and unpackaged 195 product) as a function of their net waste value in the global market (i.e., valued materials, 196 unvalued materials). 197 198 199 200 Figure 2. An expanded waste lexicon for imported goods. 201 202 2.1.2. Reusability: By-product and co-product of the consumer 203 As shown in Figure 2, before being inputted to the local MSWS, consumed goods´ parts can 204 become either ‘by-product of the consumer’ or ‘co-product of the consumer’ through reuse. 205 After goods are acquired, products (either product of the packaged good or unpackaged 9 206 product) are used until they lose value for the consumer who acquired them. The concept of 207 by-product of the consumer is analogous to that of by-product of the manufacturer: products 208 that lost their value for the first consumer in an unplanned manner become useful for other 209 consumers (second-hand products). This is the case for products like clothes, shoes, books, 210 electronic products, toys, tires, etc. The exchange of the imported products among consumers 211 is a closed deal and not associated with the terms of imported goods through FTAs. Reuse of a 212 product of the packaged good or unpackaged product by the original (same) consumer is not 213 considered here as reusing but using. 214 In a similar way, the concept of co-product of the consumer is the analogue of co-product of 215 the manufacturer: the imported goods´ primary packages may find a new use for the 216 consumer who acquired the packaged good in a planned and foreseeable manner thus 217 deciding not to dispose of it. Examples are shoe boxes, mayonnaise jars, jewelry cases, etc. 218 Goods´ primary packages that are not (meant to be) reused by the first consumer who 219 acquired the good (or other consumers) as well as products of packaged goods and 220 unpackaged goods that can no longer be (re)used because they reached their end of lifetime 221 are inputted into the MSWS. 222 The reuse of consumed goods will depend upon the consumer who acquired the goods, and 223 will be influenced by local factors such as culture, education and environmental consciousness. 224 In some cases, waste collection workers may act as secondary consumers of consumed goods 225 disposed of by consumers. 226 2.1.3. Implementation of ‘dirty’ material recovery facilities 227 To open the possibility of returning valued materials to industrialized economies, a 228 segregating/packaging/exporting process is considered where separation of mixed consumed 229 goods´ materials in the MSWS by their constitutive parts and material value is performed by 230 ‘dirty’ Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) accepting commingled waste. ‘Dirty’ MRFs are 10 231 expected to segregate unvalued materials, including most of the organic fraction, from dry 232 recyclables materials (valued materials) that can be packaged and exported back to 233 industrialized economies (Modak et al., 2015). 234 Traditional waste classification systems (DEQ, 2004; IPCC, 2000) can be used to identify 235 material composition once the consumed goods´ parts are recovered from the MSWS. 236 Material value in the global waste market can then be determined as per their global market 237 net waste value, where valued materials are recyclable and unvalued materials are not 238 (Martínez Urreaga et al., 2015). 239 2.1.4. Treatability: Co-product of the system and “waste” concepts 240 According to (Ali and Courtenay, 2014), an average of 92% of the MSWS inputted to ‘dirty’ 241 MRFs could be recycled, 6% valorized and the remaining 2% landfilled. Unvalued materials of 242 the MSWS with the potential to be valorized as energy, organic amendment, RFD, syngas, etc., 243 are defined as ‘co-product of the system’ (Figure 2), because in a certain way they are being 244 “reused” after proper treatment. Unvalued materials that cannot be recovered are defined as 245 ‘waste’. 246 The handling of unvalued materials as co-product of the system or waste is a responsibility of 247 the local waste management system. If this system is poorly developed then ‘co-product of the 248 system’ will end up with ‘waste’ in landfills and produce environmental pressure, thus 249 following the business-as-usual case (Schubert, 2014). 250 2.1.5. Recyclability: By-product of the system, co-waste of the manufacturer and by-waste 251 of the manufacturer concepts 252 Valued materials derived from the output of consumed goods of the MSWS are considered 253 ‘by-product of the system’ (Figure 2). They may need further processing through recycling in 254 the manufacturing industry of the industrialized economy that produced the goods. After by- 255 products of the system are exported back to the country of origin, they can either be used 11 256 directly in the receiving manufacturing industry as co-products of the manufacturer or a 257 second pre-treatment by a specific-purpose material recovery facility could be performed 258 within their recycling process to increase the quality for use as by-products of the 259 manufacturer. 260 The concepts ‘co-waste of the manufacturer’ and ‘by-waste of the manufacturer’ are 261 introduced to define the valued-material waste returned to the manufacturer derived from, 262 respectively, the product of the packaged good/unpackaged product and the primary package 263 part of the consumed goods. The aggregate of co-waste of the manufacturer and by-waste of 264 the manufacturer constitutes the ‘by-product of the system’. 265 The acknowledgement of the ‘by-product of the system’ would allow the importing country to 266 inform the manufacturers in industrialized economies about the proportion of the imported 267 goods being returned through recycling. The extent to which consumed goods become by- 268 product of the system could determine the tradability level of goods before being included in 269 FTAs. Valued materials recycled through this process would relief the local waste management 270 system through landfill waste diversion. 271 2.2. Decision support system 272 The flow diagram in Figure 3 provides a decision support system for the implementation of 273 globally extended producer responsibility in trade agreements (FTA clauses) related to the 274 import of consumer goods in developing countries. It establishes relationships among the 275 defined lexicon (shown in blue) through proposed actions (shown in green) taken according to 276 certain criteria/conditions (shown in yellow). 277 The information on imported goods required from the manufacturer in the exporting country 278 includes, besides total quantity and type of product: i) constitutive parts (goods´ primary 279 package and product of the packaged good or unpackaged product), ii) type, proportion and 280 value of materials, including the current global market net waste value and its forecasted 12 281 variation within a determined period. This information will allow the importing party to survey 282 for valued materials in the MSWS, using the proposed lexicon, and return them to the 283 manufacturer as per declared. 284 As shown in Figure 3, manufacturers do not have to guarantee that each valued material 285 declared will be tradable as per its economic viability but recyclable as per its technical 286 viability. This is relevant as the quality of valued material returned to industrialized economies 287 will depend on the local separation process. It is the responsibility of the importing party to 288 improve the efficiency of the dirty MRF so as to obtain the highest quality of valued materials. 289 Each good proposed for importing should be checked by both FTA parties for the fulfillment of 290 the following conditions: 291 1. to encourage waste diversion from landfills, volume and weight of valued materials 292 should be larger than volume and weight of unvalued materials as per the global 293 market net waste value (i.e., in Fig. 3: VVM > VUM and WVM > WUM, respectively), and 294 2. to discourage the consumption of over-packaged goods, the volume of imported 295 goods that are valued materials should not be more than 3 times the volume of the 296 products contained (product of the packaged good plus unpackaged product) (VVM 297 GPP+PPG+UP/ V VM PPG+UP ≤ 3) (Wang et al., 2018). Unpackaged product is added to the 298 condition to incentivize the import of goods without packaging. Also, the weight of the 299 product parts of imported goods (products of the packaged goods plus unpackaged 300 products) that are valued materials should be larger or equal to the weight of the 301 imported goods´ primary packages (in Fig 3: WPPG+UP ≥ WGPP). 302 If any of these conditions are not met, proper justification should be given by industrialized 303 economies before goods can be traded with non-industrialized economies through FTAs. 304 Justification could be complimented with determined tariffs to industrialized economies to 305 support diversion of unvalued materials from landfills and valorization instead. 13 306 In addition, the importing economies could locally check the fulfillment of these conditions by 307 examining the following relationships among the MSWS outputs according to the defined 308 lexicon: (i) volume and weight of ‘by-product of the system’ should be larger than volume and 309 weight of ‘waste and co-product of the system’ (VBPS > [VWaste + VCPS] and WBPS > [WWaste + WCPS]) 310 and (ii) the volume of ‘by-product of the system’ should not be more than 3 times the volume 311 of ‘co-waste of the manufacturer’ (VBPS / VCWM ≤ 3) and weight of ‘co-waste of the 312 manufacturer’ should be larger or equal to weight of ‘by-waste of the manufacturer’ (WCWM ≥ 313 WBWM). The use of the defined lexicon (co-waste of the manufacturer, by-product of the 314 system, by-waste of the manufacturer, co-product of the consumer, by-product of the 315 consumer, and co-product of the system) would be internal to the importing country, the 316 industrialized exporting countries would only have to manage the concepts of valued and 317 unvalued materials, goods´ primary package, product of the packaged good and unpackaged 318 product for declaration purposes. 319 This overall assessment will also include goods of the MSWS that are not derived from FTAs, so 320 relationships among the MSWS outputs should be checked according to the proposed lexicon 321 before and after the FTA is implemented to assess the effects on the whole MSWS by 322 comparing yields through time. Valued materials for return to the country of origin are 323 allocated from the total output valued materials derived from the MSWS separation process 324 according to the declared features of the imported goods –i.e. quantity, type and proportion of 325 materials and functional parts as imported goods (goods´ primary package, product of the 326 packaged good and unpackaged product). 327 As goods can also be reused as ‘co-product of the consumer’ or ‘by-product of the consumer’, 328 qualitative mechanisms acknowledging reuse practices in society could be implemented to 329 monitor the change in overall reusing rates in reference to the input of imported goods. 330 14 331 332 Figure 3. Flow diagram to establish relationships among the defined lexicon (blue) through 333 actions (green) taken according to criterions (yellow). Abbreviations: V: volume; W: weight; 334 VM: values materials; UM: unvalued materials; IG: imported Goods; PPG: products of the 335 packaged Goods; UP: unpackaged products; GPP: Goods´ primary package; BPC: by-products of 336 the consumer; CPC: co-products of the consumer; BPS: by-products of the system; CPS: co- 337 products of the system; BWM: by-wastes of the manufacturer; CWM: co-wastes of the 338 manufacturer; GMNWV: global market net waste value. 339 340 3. Case study 341 342 3.1. Case study selection 343 Panama accounts for 5% of the regional good imports in Latin America; it is ranked 6 out of the 344 26 Latin-American countries with 1.5% more imports than the average (SICE, 2018). With the 15 345 highest GDP per capita of the region together with Chile (The World Bank, 2017) and liberal 346 consumption habits acquired from the political and social influence of the USA, Panama is a 347 consumer per excellence (Tagle, 1988). What makes the country particularly attractive for FTA 348 negotiations with industrialized economies is its strategic position: the “hub of the Americas” 349 (Muñoz and Rivera, 2010); Panama is projected as a relative interesting re-exporting market 350 for industrialized economies (UNCTAD, 2017).. Since 2002, Panama has signed around 14 FTAs, 351 6 from which has been signed with industrialized economies (SICE, 2018) (Figure 4). 352 Currently, China and Panama are negotiating the second round of their FTA (La Prensa, 2018). 353 The FTAs main aim is to increase the exchange of products and services, mostly from the most 354 (China) to the least industrialized economy (Panama). Among the negotiated chapters 355 reported thus far (MIRE, 2018), there is none including environmental provisions (Colyer, 356 2013) concerning any degree of responsibility for imported goods contribution to the local 357 MSWS once consumed. Within the context of this FTA, the creation of the first Digital Free 358 Trade Zone of the Americas in Panama was recently announced to function as a gateway for 359 Chinese goods to reach Latin American economies in a more effective way through e- 360 commerce and re-exporting (La Prensa, 2019). However, the experience with Panama’s Free 361 Trade Zone of Colón, the largest in the Americas and the second-largest in the world after 362 Hong Kong, has shown that consumer goods will be nationalized as well (Blais et al., 2010). 363 364 3.2. Import of consumer goods in Panama through FTAs and consumption of imported 365 goods 366 Figure 4 shows Panama´s overall situation of imported consumer goods in 2016. Imported 367 goods through FTAs with industrialized economies accounted for 20% of the total national 368 imports (INEC, 2018), representing 1.05 million tons (Mt) consumed by the 76 districts that 369 make up the country (Figure 4, 1st column). There are 20 differentiated types of imported 16 370 goods (Table A1, appendix section) mainly brought in from North America (51%), South 371 America (17%), and Asia (17%) (Figure 4-a). The Panama district (capital) consumes 25% (0.26 372 Mt) of the total (national level) goods imported through FTAs; 95% more than the average 373 consumption per district (Figure 4-2nd and 3rd columns). 374 With proportions over 10%, imported consumer goods of types C4, C6 and C12 together 375 account for more than 65% of the weight of all imported types of consumer goods in the 376 capital district (Figure 4-b). Once consumed, their contribution in quantity (w/w) to the MSWS 377 is higher than the rest of the imported goods, which proportions (w/w) are lower, however the 378 latter are richer in variety of materials because of their diversity (Figure 4-c). From the total 379 imported goods being consumed in the Panama district, 43% (0.11 Mt) is not traded with 380 primary packaging layer or unpackaged through traditional retailing to the end consumer, but 381 with transport/secondary packaging layers through other trade ways (Figure 4-4th column) 382 (INEC, 2018). The primary packages of these imported goods are easier to recover because 383 they are not commingled with organic waste in the MSWS from households; they are finally 384 consumed in specific activities of the commercial sector (Modak et al., 2015). 385 Around 57% of consumer goods imported through FTAs are consumed in the Panama district 386 household´s sector and are retailed with primary packaging layer (product of the packaged 387 goods + goods´ primary package = 0.13 Mt) or unpackaged (0.02 Mt) (Figure 4, 5th and 6th 388 columns). When accounting only for this stream of imported goods, the relative contribution 389 (w/w) of the types of goods changes (Figure 4-d), with C4 becoming most abundant (52%) and 390 other types of goods becoming more prominent (Figure 4-e). This is also reflected in the 391 package types ending up commingled in the MSWS, which is disposed of in the local landfill 392 (Figure 4-d). 393 The density conversion factor as per the EWC code was used to estimate the volume of 394 imported goods from their weight according to the waste type description that best suits each 17 395 imported good (SEPA, 2015). The total volume of imported goods is around 470 km3, of which 396 48% is goods’ primary package and 52% is product of the packaged good and unpackaged 397 product. Note that primary packaging accounts on average for 35% of the packaged goods 398 weight but up to 3 times their volume (Wang et al., 2018). 399 400 401 402 Figure 4. Imported goods to Panama in 2016. Graph a: Origin of goods imported to Panama 403 through FTAs (INEC, 2018). Graph b: Proportions of consumed goods´ types imported through 404 FTAs and consumed in the Panama district with transport, secondary and primary packaging 405 layers (w/w). Graph c: Quantities of consumed goods types by their proportion thresholds. 406 Graph d: Redistributed proportions of consumed goods´ types imported through FTAs and 407 consumed with primary packaging layer in the household sector of the Panama district (w/w) 408 and average % per volume. Graph e: Quantities of consumed goods´ types consumed with 409 primary packaging layer in the household sector by their proportion thresholds. Percentages 18 410 smaller than 1% are not shown. IG refers to Imported Goods. Classification codes of types of 411 goods are explained in Appendix Table A1. 412 413 414 3.3. MSWSs to Panama district´s landfill 415 In 2016, the capital district landfill (Cerro Patacón) had accumulated more than 12 million m3 416 of waste during 31 years of operation (AAUD, 2016). It was estimated that the landfill received 417 of total of 2500 t of waste/d (0.913 Mt/y) from different sources; 89% is MSWS generated in 418 households and commerce of the Panama district and its dormitory district, San Miguelito 419 (Figure A1, appendix section). 420 A large part of commercial waste is generated clean and dry directly from commerce (120 t/d), 421 thus allowing partial waste diversion from Cerro Patacón (37%) by the segregation/recovery 422 activities of waste pickers in the landfill who trade the separated materials in-situ with the 423 middleman. The middleman trades it with few wastes materials packaging/exporting 424 companies that place it in the global waste market to the highest bidder as per the current 425 global waste market net value at the moment of the trade. Waste recovered by waste pickers 426 represents not more than 0.2% of all waste disposed of in Cerro Patacón, more than 99% is 427 disposed of mixed without any halfway recyclable material segregation or recovery process 428 (AAUD, 2016). 429 To account for the MSWS derived from the consumption of imported goods through FTAs in 430 the household sector of the Panama district, only the proportional part of imported goods 431 (20%) that ends up in the MSWS generated in the household sector of the capital district of 432 Panama (336 t/d) is considered, that is, 14% of the total MSWS. 433 A total of 56 waste fractions in the MSWS from the household sector of the Panama district 434 were characterized in 2016 by the local waste management authority (AAUD, 2016). Waste 19 435 fractions were reduced to 29 as per their materials´ description (Table A3, appendix section) 436 by aggregating them according to i) their structural and functional properties, ii) their 437 tradability as by-product of the system and iii) the environmental pressure exerted when 438 landfilled untreated. 439 Each fraction of the MSWS was categorized as per waste classification traditional systems 440 assigning definitions to MSWS materials by their structural properties depending on their final 441 destination (Table A4, appendix section). For instance, when the goal is to ensure the stability 442 of waste bodies in landfills by the evaluation of waste mechanical properties, Dixon and 443 Langer (2006) mention existing classifications systems based on: i) material groups by 444 composition, size and dimension; ii) waste type by density, shear parameters, liquid/plastic 445 limit, permeability; iii) organic/inorganic materials by degradability degree and shape, 446 degradable/inert/deformable materials by strength, deformability and degradability, and on 447 the distinction between soil- like and non-soil-like (i.e. fibrous) appearance. Zhou et al., (2014) 448 classified municipal solid waste by their thermochemical properties based on proximate and 449 ultimate analysis, heating value and statistical methods such as analysis of variance and cluster 450 analysis. Classification as per their function as constitutive parts of goods (goods´ primary 451 package, product of the packaged good, unpackaged product) and material value (valued and 452 unvalued material) is also presented (Table A3, appendix section). 453 Proportions in weight (w/w) and volume (v/v) of MSWS fractions of the household sector are 454 shown in Figure A2 of the appendix section*. Eighteen out of twenty-nine fractions (D12 – 455 D29) are wet fractions, usually derived from product of the packaged goods and unpackaged 456 products, that sum up to 60% (w/w) of the MSWS with an average per fraction of 3% (Figure 457 A2-a). The density conversion factor as per the EWC code was used to estimate the volume of 458 MSWS fractions from their weight values (SEPA, 2015) (Figure A2-b). Eleven out of twenty- 459 nine fractions (D1 to D11) are light, voluminous and dry container fractions, usually 460 corresponding to goods´ primary packages, that sum up to 50% (v/v) of the MSWS with an 20 461 average per fraction of 4%. As is typical in developing countries, MSWS fractions of the 462 household sector like D5, D10, D15, D16, D17, D18, D19 and D21 are predominant over other 463 fractions in both weight and volume (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009; Thanh et al., 2010; 464 Dinesh et al., 2018). 465 The volume of the MSWS is around 457 km3. Around 40% (w/w) and 49% (v/v) of the MSWS 466 was found to be goods´ primary package, 28% (w/w) and 32% (v/v) to be product of the 467 packaged good, and 33% (w/w) and 19% (v/v) to be unpackaged product. To allocate goods´ 468 primary package from product of the packaged good in imported goods, the identified goods´ 469 primary package fraction of the MSWS (40%) was used, which input as consumed goods and 470 output in the MSWS is assumed to be equivalent. The same was assumed for unpackaged 471 products since their weight proportion within imported goods is kept from imported goods to 472 consumed Goods and to the MSWS. 473 Figure 5 shows the current allocation of the MSWS disposed of in Cerro Patacón as the final 474 destination (123 kt) and imported goods consumed, collected and transported from the 475 household sector of the Panama district (150 kt). Consumed goods not entering the MSWS (27 476 kt) could be reused, disposed of through underground dumping or other final destination 477 method. Here it is assumed to be completely reused either by: i) other consumers, or by ii) 478 waste collection workers who conveniently segregate valued materials from the MSWS for 479 underground trading before ending collection routes; both proportions are undetermined 480 (INECO, 2017). 481 The information shown in Figure 5 on the imported goods input/MSWS output situation does 482 not yet permit the definition and implementation of an EPR mechanism at the global level to 483 account for the MSWSs locally generated from the imported goods. The implementation of 484 dirty MRF facilities in the importing country is a prerequisite for the system to work. 21 485 Before entering the dirty MRF recovery process, around 45% (w/w) (35% goods´ primary 486 package, 10% product of the packaged good plus unpackaged product) and 55% (v/v) (44% 487 goods´ primary package, 11% product of the packaged good plus unpackaged product) of the 488 materials in the MSWS is defined as valued materials (Table A3, appendix section). After the 489 dirty MRF process, it is assumed that 29% (w/w) and 36% (v/v) could be recovered 490 (CalRecovery, 2006); 65% of the total valued materials in the MSWS. Around 23% is goods´ 491 primary package, 5.9% is product of the packaged good and 0.2% is unpackaged product 492 (w/w), and 28.4% is goods´ primary package, 7% is product of the packaged good and 0.2% is 493 UP (v/v). From the unvalued material, around 75% is assumed to be valorized and 25% 494 landfilled (Ali and Courtenay, 2014). 495 496 22 497 Figure 5. Current input/output situation of the MSWS disposed of in Cerro Patacón and 498 imported goods consumed, collected and transported from the household sector of the Panama 499 district. 500 501 4. Discussion and conclusions 502 Using the proposed methodological approach, material flows from imported goods to the 503 MSWS as per the defined lexicon in terms of weight and volume were allocated for the 504 Panama case (Figure 6). Overall results for the fulfilment of the proposed conditions for 505 imported goods are also shown (Table 1). 506 Approximately 24% (w/w) / 34.5% (v/v) of imported goods could be exported back as by- 507 product of the system to the industrialized economies through the FTAs with Panama; 5.3% 508 (w/w) / 9.8% (v/v) as by-waste of the manufacturer, and 18.7% (w/w) / 24.7% (v/v) as co- 509 waste of the manufacturer. Hence, the amount of MSWS disposed of as waste in landfills could 510 be significantly reduced in Panama through the inclusion of extended producer responsibility 511 in FTA clauses. Waste backhauling would represent an effective way for the goods´ exporting 512 entity to save on logistics costs emerging from the implementation of the proposed 513 methodology, as ships carrying goods to the importing country could load and carry back 514 waste to the source of origin (Kellenberg, 2010). 515 Around 82% (w/w) / 97.2% (v/v) of imported goods in Panama is inputted to the MSWS; 516 around 10.7% (w/w) / 2.1% (v/v) is supposedly reused as by-product of the consumer and 7.3% 517 (w/w) / 0.7% (v/v) as co-product of the consumer. Appropriate local mechanisms to monitor 518 the quantity and quality of reused consumed goods (as by-product of the consumer and co- 519 product of the consumer) could improve the effectiveness of awareness campaigns and 520 increase the reuse rate so as to reduce the input to the MSWS. 23 521 Around 58% (w/w) / 62.5% (v/v) could be valorized as co-product of the system, so only 16% 522 (w/w) / 16% (v/v) would have to be disposed of as waste in the landfill (Cerro Patacón). It is 523 evident that the implementation of local ´dirty´ MRFs is key to the diverting of >50% of the 524 MSWSs from landfills through the proposed approach. This technology could be recommended 525 as a clause of FTAs with the exporting industrialized economy assuming (partial) responsibility 526 for design, implementation and funding of the facility(ies). 527 528 529 530 531 Figure 6. Allocated material flows from imported goods to the MSWS as per the defined lexicon 532 in terms of weight and volume. 533 24 534 The aggregate of goods collectively imported by Panama through its FTAs with industrialized 535 economies does not fulfil the materials´ value conditions, neither in terms of weight nor 536 volume. On the other hand, the structural configuration conditions are met both in terms of 537 weight and volume (Figure 6). This suggests that Panama would have to be more careful in the 538 FTA negotiations and ban certain products from the agreement. 539 540 Imported goods´ conditions Type of condition MSWS overall check Fulfillment VVM > VUM Materials’ value VBPS > VWastes + VCPS no WVM > WUM Materials’ value WBPS > WWastes + WCPS no Structural VIG/ VPPG+UP ≤ 3 VBPS / VCWM ≤ 3 yes configuration Structural WPPG+UP ≥ WGPP WCWM ≥ WBWM yes configuration 541 542 Table 1: Overall fulfilment results for the proposed conditions to imported goods. 543 Abbreviations: V: volume; W: weight; VM: values materials; UM: unvalued materials; IG: 544 imported Goods; PPG: products of the packaged Goods; UP: unpackaged products; GPP: Goods´ 545 primary package; BPC: by-products of the consumer; CPC: co-products of the consumer; BPS: 546 by-products of the system; CPS: co-products of the system; BWM: by-wastes of the 547 manufacturer; CWM: co-wastes of the manufacturer; GMNWV: global market net waste value. 548 25 549 Local pollution in developing countries derived from the consumption of imported goods could 550 be mitigated through adequate definitions of material flows getting in and out of the importing 551 country and FTA clauses including EPR policies, negotiated between the exporting and 552 importing country, where the responsibility for the MSWSs derived from imported goods is 553 extended beyond local boundaries, to the country of origin. 554 The proposed methodology could be boosted through the eco-labelling of imported goods, 555 such as the C2C (Cradle to Cradle) system (Llorach-Massana et al., 2015). This could help the 556 importing country in assessing whether the imported goods fulfill the conditions drawn up and 557 laid down in FTAs clauses and decide whether or not to ban goods with environmentally 558 unfriendly packaging or unsustainable life-cycle outcome. Eco-labelled goods should be 559 preferred over others if the objective is to increase the efficacy of the EPR clause of the FTAs. 560 Like is the case with Panama, many non-industrialized countries –notably in Latin-America– are 561 facing a dramatic increase in resource consumption, where the vast majority of the goods 562 consumed is imported from industrialized economies, a large part through FTAs (Saltelli et al., 563 2015). While industrialized economies have locally well-established MSW management 564 systems, in non-industrialized countries MSW management systems are still incipient. FTAs 565 encouraging waste generation in non-industrialized economies through indiscriminate and 566 rapidly expanding imports of consumer goods represent an indirect polluting license and 567 cannot be ignored by industrialized economies when committing to such agreements. 568 Industrialized economies should assume responsibility when exporting consumer goods to 569 non-industrialized economies with poorly developed waste management systems, while non- 570 industrialized economies should demand the application of adequate EPR policies before 571 signing an FTA. 572 573 5. Acknowledgements 26 574 This original work was supported by the Government of Panama and the Sustainable Energy & 575 Environmental Development (SEED) initiative of the Universidad Tecnológica de Panamá (UTP). 576 Authors Jorge M. Torrente V., Mario Giampietro and Maddalena Ripa acknowledge financial 577 support from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, through the “María 578 de Maetzu” program for Units of Excellence (MDM-2015-0552). Authors are deeply grateful to 579 Gestión de Residuos (GDR) (www.gestionderesiduos.com.pa), the National Waste Management 580 Authority of Panama (AAUD) (www.aaud.gob.pa) and the Zero-Waste division of the 581 Municipality of Panama district (MUPA) (www.basuracero.mupa.gob.pa) for providing rich 582 updated data on waste. Authors declare no competing financial interests. This work reflects the 583 authors’ view only. 584 585 6. References 586 AAUD, 2016. PLAN NACIONAL DE GESTIÓN INTEGRAL DE RESIDUOS 2017-2027 Análisis y 587 Diagnóstico de la Situación Actual (TOMO I) [WWW Document]. URL 588 http://aaud.gob.pa/plangestion//Docs/ANEXOS/20170731_E 1.3.3.3.5_Propuesta Nuevo 589 Modelo de Gestion_v3.pdf (accessed 9.1.19). 590 Ali, M., Courtenay, P., 2014. Evaluating the progress of the UK’s Material Recycling Facilities: A 591 mini review. Waste Manag. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14554645 592 Ali, M.A., Lee, C.H., Kim, S.Y., Kim, P.J., 2009. Effect of industrial by-products containing 593 electron acceptors on mitigating methane emission during rice cultivation. Waste Manag. 594 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.018 595 Baldwin, R., 1993. A Domino Theory of Regionalism. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. Work. Pap. Ser. 4465, 596 1–39. https://doi.org/10.3386/w4465 597 Bing, X., de Keizer, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., van der Vorst, J.G.A.J., 2014. Vehicle routing 598 for the eco-efficient collection of household plastic waste. Waste Manag. 34, 719–729. 27 599 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.01.018 600 Blais, A., Ritch, E., Berlin, R., Clima, R., Glendening, J., Gutierrez, V., Izard, J., Mallow, C., 601 Nelson, R., Swigert, P., 2010. Managing Trash in Colón , Panama : A Case Study of 602 Selected Strategies A Report of the Panama Initiative [WWW Document]. URL 603 https://panama.evsc.virginia.edu/docs/team_panama_report_100621.pdf 604 CalRecovery, I., 2006. Preliminary Feasibility Study of Regional MRF Alternatives. California. 605 Caprile, M.D., Ripa, M., 2014. A Life Cycle Assessment of Landfilled Municipal Solid Waste in 606 Argentina: The Influence of Waste Composition on Greenhouse Gases Emissions and 607 Other Impacts. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 2, 145–162. 608 https://doi.org/10.5890/JEAM.2014.06.005 609 CIA, 2017. The World Factbook [WWW Document]. URL 610 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2087rank.html 611 (accessed 10.15.18). 612 Colyer, D., 2013. Environmental Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements. 613 Demaria, F., 2010. Shipbreaking at Alang-Sosiya (India): An ecological distribution conflict. Ecol. 614 Econ. 70, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.006 615 DEQ, 2004. 2002 Oregon Solid Waste Characterization and Composition. 616 Dinesh, G.K., Chauhan, R., Chakma, S., 2018. Influence and strategies for enhanced 617 biohydrogen production from food waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 618 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.009 619 Dixon, N., Langer, U., 2006. Development of a MSW classification system for the evaluation of 620 mechanical properties. Waste Manag. 26, 220–232. 621 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.02.018 622 ECLAC, 2017. International Trade Outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean. 28 623 EEA, 2009. Diverting waste from landfill: Effectiveness of waste management policies in the 624 European Union 1–68. https://doi.org/10.2800/10886 625 García, A., Maulini, C., Torrente, J.M., Sánchez, A., Barrena, R., Font, X., 2012. Biological 626 treatment of the organic fibre from the autoclaving of municipal solid wastes; preliminary 627 results. Biosyst. Eng. 112, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.05.005 628 Hansen, A.Å., Svanes, E., Hanssen, O.J., Void, M., Rotabakk, B.T., 2012. 8 - Advances in bulk 629 packaging for the transport of fresh fish, in: Advances in Meat, Poultry and Seafood 630 Packaging. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 248–260. 631 https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9780857095718.2.248 632 Hoornweg, D., Bhada, P., 2012. What a Waste. A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. 633 Urban Dev. Ser. Knowl. Pap. 281, 44 p. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13058 634 INEC, 2018. Anuario de Comercio Exterior, Volumen I - Importación: Año 2016 [WWW 635 Document]. URL 636 https://www.contraloria.gob.pa/inec/Publicaciones/Publicaciones.aspx?ID_SUBCATEGOR 637 IA=18&ID_PUBLICACION=866&ID_IDIOMA=1&ID_CATEGORIA=4 (accessed 10.15.18). 638 INECO, 2017. Plan Nacional de gestión integral de residuos 2017 - 2027 [WWW Document]. 639 URL http://aaud.gob.pa/plangestion//Docs/ANEXOS/20170731_E 1.3.3.3.5_Propuesta 640 Nuevo Modelo de Gestion_v3.pdf (accessed 4.29.18). 641 IPCC, 2000. IPCC Classification of MSW Composition. 642 Islam, K.M.N., Jashimuddin, M., 2017. Reliability and economic analysis of moving towards 643 wastes to energy recovery based waste less sustainable society in Bangladesh: The case 644 of commercial capital city Chittagong. Sustain. Cities Soc. 645 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.11.011 646 JICA, 2005. Supporting Capacity Development in Solid Waste Management in Developing 29 647 Countries; Towards Improving Solid Waste Management Capacity of Entire Society 648 [WWW Document]. URL http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11795846.pdf (accessed 649 11.26.17). 650 Kellenberg, D., 2010. Consumer waste, backhauling, and pollution havens. J. Appl. Econ. 13, 651 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(10)60013-X 652 Kofoworola, O.F., Gheewala, S.H., 2009. Estimation of construction waste generation and 653 management in Thailand. Waste Manag. 29, 731–738. 654 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.004 655 Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., Stern, E., 2009. A purview of waste management evolution: Special 656 emphasis on USA. Waste Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.032 657 La Prensa, 2019. Panamá invertirá $38 millones en la primera zona franca digital. 658 La Prensa, 2018. China negocia TLC con Panamá pensando en expandirse en América Latina 659 [WWW Document]. URL https://www.prensa.com/economia/China-TLC-Panama- 660 America-Latina_0_5072492759.html (accessed 10.24.18). 661 Lee, U., Chung, J.N., Ingley, H.A., 2014. High-Temperature Steam Gasification of Municipal 662 Solid Waste, Rubber, Plastic and Wood. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef500713j 663 Lindhqvist, T., 2000a. Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production - Policy Principle 664 to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems. 665 Lindhqvist, T., 2000b. Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production. Policy principle 666 to promote environmental Improvements of Product Systems. IIEE Diss. 667 https://doi.org/http://www.lub.lu.se/luft/diss/tec355.pdf 668 Llorach-Massana, P., Farreny, R., Oliver-Solà, J., 2015. Are Cradle to Cradle certified products 669 environmentally preferable? Analysis from an LCA approach. J. Clean. Prod. 93, 243–250. 670 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.032 30 671 Martínez Urreaga, J., González-Sánchez, C., Martínez-Aguirre, A., Fonseca-Valero, C., Acosta, J., 672 De La Orden, M.U., 2015. Sustainable eco-composites obtained from agricultural and 673 urban waste plastic blends and residual cellulose fibers. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1–8. 674 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.001 675 Menon, J., 2007. Bilateral trade agreements. Asia. Pac. Econ. Lit. 676 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8411.2007.00201.x 677 MIRE, 2018. RESUMEN DE ACUERDOS SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE PANAMÁ Y LA 678 REPÚBLICA POPULAR CHINA. 679 Modak, P., Wilson, D.C., Velis, C., 2015. Waste Management: Global Status, in: Global Waste 680 Management Outlook. pp. 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15616055 681 Muñoz, D., Rivera, M., 2010. Development of Panama as a Logistics Hub and the Impact on 682 Latin America. Environ. Eng. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 683 Ng, R., Shi, C.W.P., Tan, H.X., Song, B., 2014. Avoided impact quantification from recycling of 684 wood waste in Singapore: An assessment of pallet made from technical wood versus 685 virgin softwood. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 447–457. 686 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.053 687 NYCDOS, 2017. Determination on the Recyclability of Food-Service Foam. 688 Papu-Zamxaka, V., Harpham, T., Mathee, A., 2010. Environmental legislation and 689 contamination: The gap between theory and reality in South Africa. J. Environ. Manage. 690 91, 2275–2280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.014 691 Powrie, W., White, J., 2004. Landfill process modelling, in: Waste Management. pp. 225–226. 692 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.02.001 693 Ripa, M., Fiorentino, G., Giani, H., Clausen, A., Ulgiati, S., 2017. Refuse recovered biomass fuel 694 from municipal solid waste. A life cycle assessment. Appl. Energy 186, 211–225. 31 695 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.058 696 Robertson, T.R., Hamza, M., 2016. Paper Products: Food Packages. Ref. Modul. Mater. Sci. 697 Mater. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.09809-X 698 Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., Avan, E., Ambientals, T., Autonoma, U., 2015. The fallacy of 699 evidence based policy Science for policy . Predicaments and doubts. Futures 1–30. 700 Sandin, G., Røyne, F., Berlin, J., Peters, G.M., Svanström, M., 2015. Allocation in LCAs of 701 biorefinery products: Implications for results and decision-making. J. Clean. Prod. 93, 702 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.013 703 Savino, A., Solórzano, G., Quispe, C., Correal, M.C., 2018. Waste Management Outlook for Latin 704 America and the Caribbean. 705 Schubert, E.M., 2014. The Carbon Footprint of Waste Management Systems – Analysis and 706 Comparison of Different Approaches. 707 SEPA, 2015. Guidance on using the European Catalogue ( EWC ) to code waste November 2015 708 Waste. 709 SICE, 2018. Acuerdos Comerciales en vigor [WWW Document]. 710 Song, Q., Li, J., Zeng, X., 2015. Minimizing the increasing solid waste through zero waste 711 strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 104, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.027 712 Soo, V.K., Compston, P., Doolan, M., 2017. The influence of joint technologies on ELV 713 recyclability. Waste Manag. 68, 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.020 714 Tagle, M.A., 1988. Changes in the patterns of food consumption in Latin America. Arch. 715 Latinoam. Nutr. 38, 750–765. 716 Tchobanoglous, G., 2009. Solid Waste Management, in: Environmental Engineering: 717 Environmental Health and Safety for Municipal Infrastructure, Land Use and Planning, 718 and Industry, Sixth Edition. pp. 177–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470432822.ch3 32 719 Thanh, N.P., Matsui, Y., Fujiwara, T., 2010. Household solid waste generation and characteristic 720 in a Mekong Delta city, Vietnam. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 2307–2321. 721 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.016 722 The World Bank, 2017. GDP per capita (current US$) | Data [WWW Document]. URL 723 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=PA- 724 CL&year_high_desc=true (accessed 10.22.18). 725 Troschinetz, A.M., Mihelcic, J.R., 2009. Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in 726 developing countries. Waste Manag. 29, 915–923. 727 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.016 728 UNCTAD, 2018. World Investment Report. 729 UNCTAD, 2017. Trade policy framework: Panama [WWW Document]. URL 730 https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditctncd2016d3_en.pdf (accessed 12.16.19). 731 UNEP, 2009. Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Training Manual Volume 3: 732 Targets and Issues of Concern for ISWM. 733 Uva, M.D., Bloom, J., 1992. Exporting Pollution: the international waste trade, Journal of 734 Management Information Systems. Taylor & Francis Group . 735 https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1989.9928938 736 Wang, Z., Stone, R.T., Mumani, A., Schnieders, T., 2018. How Packaging Characteristics Change 737 the Perception of Product Net Weight. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 738 Zacharof, A.I., Butler, A.P., 2004. Stochastic modelling of landfill processes incorporating waste 739 heterogeneity and data uncertainty, in: Waste Management. pp. 241–250. 740 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.12.001 741 Zhou, H., Meng, A., Long, Y., Li, Q., Zhang, Y., 2014. Classification and comparison of municipal 742 solid waste based on thermochemical characteristics. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 64, 33 743 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2013.873094 744 Landva, A., Clark, J., 1990. Geotechnics of Waste Fill, in: Geotechnics of Waste Fills—Theory 745 and Practice. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West 746 Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, pp. 86-86–18. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP25301S 747 DEQ, 2004. 2002 Oregon Solid Waste Characterization and Composition. 748 Dixon, N., Langer, U., 2006. Development of a MSW classification system for the evaluation of 749 mechanical properties. Waste Manag. 26, 220–232. 750 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.02.018 751 IPCC, 2000. IPCC Classification of MSW Composition. 752 34 1 A. Appendix 2 Imported goods´ types index* Imported goods´ types C1 Animal C2 Vegetable C3 Oils/grease/wax C4 Industrial food/alcohol/tobacco C5 Minerals C6 Chemical C7 Plastic/Rubber C8 Leather/skin/fur C9 Wood C10 Cellulose C11 Textile C12 Ceramic/glass C13 Precious stones C14 Metal C15 Electric/electronic C16 Vehicles C17 Clinical C18 Weapons C19 Various C20 Art Table 3 A1. Imported goods´ types to Panama through FTAs with industrialized economies. * Index used 4 through this study to refer to imported good types 5 1 6 Figure 7 A1. Fractions of all waste disposed in the Cerro Patacón landfill (t/d). D29; 4% D1; 2% D26; 2% D28; 2% D29; 2% D1; 2% D2; 2% D28; 1% D2; 2% D26; 1% D3; 4% D3; 4% D21; 5% D4; 1% D21; 4% D20; 1% D8; 3% D20; 2% D5; 12% D19; 8% D19; 9% D5; 14% D6; 1% D18; 4% D9; 2% D7; 1% D10; 13% D18; 5% D17; 4% D16; D16 D10; 17% D8; 3% 10% D17; 5% ; 9% D15; 17% D13; 2% D9; 2% D15; 6% D11; 1% a) 8 D14; 2% b) D14; 1% D13; 2% Figure 9 A2. Proportions of the MSWS fractions from the household sector of the Panama district 10 disposed of in Cerro Patacón as a: a) (w/w) and b) (v/v). *Percentages less than 1% have been omitted for space 11 reasons. Disposed MSW Constitutive Material Description Materials fractions part value Index** Bottle/jar package as container for Polyethylene terephthalate D1 GPP beverage products (PET) VM 2 Bottle/jar package as container for High-Density Polyethylene D2 household chemicals (HDPE) GPP VM Dish/glass package as foam D3 container for food and beverages Expanded polystyrene (EPS) products GPP UM Family size packages as container D4 Diverse plastics types for liquid products GPP VM Low-Density Polyethylene D5 Plastic films for single-use bags (LDPE) GPP VM Cartoon with Tetra Pak® technology D6 Tetra Brik® as container for beverage products GPP VM Multi-layer bag as container for D7 Complex laminates food and beverage products GPP VM Metal can as containers for D8 Steel/Aluminum beverage products GPP VM Bottle as container for beverage D9 Glass products GPP VM Cartoon as container for beverage D10 Cardboard and packaging products GPP VM Crates as container for fruits and D11 Wood vegetables GPP UM Tubing and hydraulic application D12 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) UP accesories VM D13 Non-container applications waste Diverse plastics PPG VM D14 Non-container application waste Steel/Aluminum PPG VM D15 Household kitchen food waste Food rest UP UM 3 D16 Household gardens green waste Ligneous/non-ligneous raw UP UM Disposable kitchen/toilet paper D17 Lignocellulosic biomass PPG waste UM Disposable absorbent wearable D18 Sanitary pad/diapers waste PPG UM Rags/clothes/leather/wood D19 Textile/leather/wood fragments waste PPG UM Minor construction/earthenware, D20 Concrete/brick/Ceramic/Clay pottery and porcelain waste PPG UM D21 Writing and printing paper waste Lignocellulosic biomass PPG VM Kitchen, automobile or commercial D22 Oil used lipophilics/hydrophics liquids PPG UM D23 Electrochemical cells device waste Batteries PPG VM D24 Household application chemicals Chemical substances PPG UM D25 Medical application materials waste Diverse materials PPG UM Electrical/electronic Waste of Electrical and D26 appliances/cables/CFL components Electronic Equipment waste (WEEE) PPG VM D27 Vehicle wheels rim cover waste Tires UP UM Non-container application D28 Diverse materials voluminous waste UP UM Fine refuse/earth/stones/glass D29 Diverse materials bottle cullets waste (<20 mm) UP UM 12 Table A3. Fractions of the MSWS of the household sector of the Panama district, materials, 13 constitutive parts and material value as per the global market net waste value. ** Index used through this 14 study referring to disposed MSW fractions. 4 15 Organic/inorganic Composition of fraction Index Size and dimension of Degradability IPCC Disposed materials (Landva material groups material groups (Dixon (Dixon and classification and Clark, 1990) (DEQ, 2004) and Langer, 2006) Langer, 2006) (IPCC, 2000) Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ D1 organic Plastic Flexible plastic non-degradable Plastic Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ D2 organic Plastic Flexible plastic non-degradable Plastic Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ D3 organic Plastic Flexible plastic non-degradable Plastic Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ D4 organic Plastic Flexible plastic non-degradable Plastic Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ D5 organic Plastic Flexible plastic non-degradable Plastic Non-Putrescible Paper/ D6 organic Mixed Paper/ cardboard Medium difficult cardboard Degradable Very difficult/ D7 inorganic Plastic Flexible plastic non-degradable Other Degradable Very difficult/ D8 inorganic Metal Metal non-degradable Metal Non-Degradable Very difficult/ D9 inorganic Glass Mineral non-degradable Glass Non-Putrescible Paper/ D10 organic Paper Paper/ cardboard Medium difficult cardboard Non-Putrescible D11 organic Organic Wood/leather Difficult Wood 5 Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ D12 organic Plastic Rigid plastic non-degradable Plastic Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ D13 organic Plastic Rigid plastic non-degradable Plastic Degradable Very difficult/ D14 inorganic Metal Metal non-degradable Metal Putrescible D15 organic Organic Organic Easy Food waste Putrescible D16 organic Organic Organic Easy Wood Non-Putrescible Paper/ D17 organic Paper Paper/ cardboard Medium difficult cardboard Non-Putrescible D18 organic Organic Miscellaneous Medium difficult Other Textiles - Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ Rubber/ D19 organic Organic Wood/leather non-degradable Leather Non-Degradable Very difficult/ D20 inorganic Inorganic Mineral non-degradable Other Non-Putrescible Paper/ D21 organic Paper Paper/ cardboard Medium difficult cardboard Non-Putrescible D22 organic Hazardous Miscellaneous Medium difficult Other Degradable Very difficult/ D23 inorganic Hazardous Miscellaneous non-degradable Other 6 Non-Putrescible D24 organic Hazardous Miscellaneous Medium difficult Other Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ D25 organic Inorganic Miscellaneous non-degradable Other Degradable Very difficult/ D26 inorganic Metal Miscellaneous non-degradable Other Non-Putrescible Very difficult/ Rubber/ D27 organic Organic Rigid plastic non-degradable Leather Non-Putrescible D28 organic Organic Miscellaneous Difficult Other Non-Degradable Very difficult/ D29 inorganic Inorganic Mineral non-degradable Other Table 16 A4. Fractions of the MSWS of the household sector of the Panama district classified according to various 17 classification systems regarding structural properties. 18 7