Project index number

2018-1-0572

Project title

Reducing the Consumption and Disposal of Single-use Plastics (SUP) in the Tourism Industry in Cyprus, Greece and Malta

Fund

EEA and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation

Fund priority sectors

Environment, Energy, Climate Change and Low Carbon Economy

Start date of project

01/07/2020

Project coordinator

Aspon Consulting Ltd

Work package

Development of the decision-support tool, running he pilot programs in each region and development of bespoke action plans for the pilot tourist establishments in Cyprus, Greece and Malta

Output title

Duration of project

36 months

Best Practice Guide

Output description

An overview of the SUPMed project, main findings from the pilot studies, overview of the DST tool and bespoke Action Plans and recommended actions to help hotels transition away from the use of SUP. Plus, a final discussion regarding the applicability of the project in a wider context.

Document Title

Best Practice Guide

Date: 14th December 2022

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 2

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 1 Funding Operator..................................................................................................................... 1 Project Partners ....................................................................................................................... 1 Participating Hotels.................................................................................................................. 2 1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Overview of the SUPMed Project.................................................................................. 1

1.2

The Single Use Plastic Problem ..................................................................................... 1

1.3

Relevant EU Legislation ................................................................................................ 4

1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4

2

DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC: WASTE AND REPEALING CERTAIN DIRECTIVES ........................................................ 4 A EUROPEAN STRATEGY FOR PLASTICS IN A CIRCULAR ECONOMY (2018) ....................................................... 5 DIRECTIVE 2019/904: REDUCTION OF THE IMPACT OF CERTAIN PLASTIC PRODUCTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT ........ 6 DIRECTIVE 94/62/EC: PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE ....................................................................... 7

1.4

Participating Tourist Establishments ............................................................................. 8

1.5

Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... 14

1.6

Project Deliverables ................................................................................................... 14

Summary of the Results of the Project Deliverables ............................................................. 16 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4

2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2

2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3

Hotel Pilot Surveys ..................................................................................................... 16 Guest Questionnaires ................................................................................................................... 17 Department and General Manager Questionnaires ..................................................................... 22 Interviews ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Observations ................................................................................................................................. 24

Decision Support Tool ................................................................................................ 25 Explanation of the DST Results ..................................................................................................... 26 Example Use of the DST ................................................................................................................ 31

Action Plans ............................................................................................................... 36 Cyprus ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Greece (Crete)............................................................................................................................... 39 Malta ............................................................................................................................................. 40

3

SUP and Their Impact on the Environment and Human Health............................................. 44

4

Overview of Plastic Waste in the Tourism Industry .............................................................. 46

5

Recommended Actions to Reduce SUP in the Tourism Industry and Other Sectors ................ 50 5.1

Tourism Industry ........................................................................................................ 50

5.2

Other Industries ......................................................................................................... 54

Appendix I: DST User Guide ........................................................................................................ 57

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 3

List of Figures Figure 1: Litter on EU beaches (Source: EU Plastics Strategy Brochure, 2018) ...................................... 2 Figure 2: Plastic production in the EU27 + 3 based on estimated data (includes thermoplastics, polyurethanes, thermosets, elastomers, adhesives, coatings, sealants and PP-fibres; but excludes PET-, PA- and polyacryl-fibres)3 .............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 3: Plastic production in the EU27 between 2011 and 20213 ....................................................... 3 Figure 4: Plastic waste treatment in the EU27+3 from 2006 to 2020 (2020 values are estimations based on extrapolation of 2019 data) .................................................................................................... 3 Figure 5: Waste hierarchy (Source: Bide, 2020) ..................................................................................... 4 Figure 6: Extended Producers Responsibility concept (Source: Zero Waste Scotland, 2022) ................ 5 Figure 7: Informational stand set up during the pilot hotel data collection in Cyprus......................... 16 Figure 8: SUPMed team members at one of the Cretan pilot hotels ................................................... 17 Figure 9: Information stand in one of the Maltese pilot hotels............................................................ 17 Figure 10: Average daily consumption of SUP items ............................................................................ 18 Figure 11: Distribution of SUP item usage in the different hotel facilities (percentages shown on the bars are for room and nowhere) .......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 12: SUP good practices reported by the hotel guests ............................................................... 20 Figure 13: Guests willingness to adopt SUP good practices ................................................................. 21 Figure 14: Pilot hotel average month SUP consumption quantities ..................................................... 22 Figure 15: General Managers' interest in replacing SUP items ............................................................ 23 Figure 16: DST Screenshot showing the overall impact of switching several SUP items to alternative products ................................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 17: DST screenshot showing the impact on climate change of switching from SUP carrier bags to an alternative product ...................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 18 DST screenshot showing the overall impact of switching from SUP carrier bags to alternative products.............................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 19: DST screenshot showing the overall litter reduction as a result of switching from SUP items to alternative products ............................................................................................................... 29 Figure 20: DST screenshot showing the overall marine litter reduction as a result of switching from SUP items to alternative products ........................................................................................................ 29 Figure 21: DST screenshot showing the cost implications of switching several SUP items for alternatives over a 1-year period.......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 22: DST screenshot showing the cost implications of switching several SUP items for alternatives over a 5-year period.......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 23: Screenshot of the cost implications of switching several SUP items for alternatives over a 5-year period......................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 24: Photos taken during the training sessions of the Action Plans in Cyprus ............................ 37 Figure 25: Photos taken during the training sessions of the Action Plans in Greece ........................... 40 Figure 26: SUP in the tourism industry and wider economy (Source: UNEP, 2021) ............................. 46

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 4

List of Tables Table 1: Details of the project partners .................................................................................................. 1 Table 2: Details of participating hotels ................................................................................................... 2 Table 3: Summary of actions in Directive 2019/904 which relate directly to the SUPMed project ....... 7 Table 4: Cypriot participating tourist establishments............................................................................. 9 Table 5: Greek (Cretan) participating tourist establishments .............................................................. 11 Table 6: Maltese participating tourist establishments ......................................................................... 12 Table 7: Description of the SUP items and alternative products included in the DST.......................... 25 Table 8: DST result for switching from SUP carrier bags to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items)....... 33 Table 9: DST result for switching from SUP cotton buds to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) ...... 33 Table 10: DST result for switching from SUP cutlery to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) ............ 34 Table 11: DST result for switching from SUP drink stirrers to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) ... 34 Table 12: DST result for switching from SUP drinks bottles to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) . 34 Table 13: DST result for switching from SUP drink cups and lids to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) .................................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 14: DST result for switching from SUP food containers to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) .............................................................................................................................................................. 35 Table 15: DST result for switching from SUP straws to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) ............. 35 Table 16: DST result for switching from SUP wet wipes to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) ....... 35 Table 17: Best SUP alternative products based on environmental themes ......................................... 35 Table 18: List of possible recommendations to be included in the bespoke Action Plans ................... 36 Table 19: Suggestions to reduce SUP consumption for which there is currently no viable alternative .............................................................................................................................................................. 36 Table 20: Overview of adopted actions in the Action Plans for the Cypriot pilot hotels ..................... 38 Table 21: Overview of adopted actions in the Action Plans for the Greek pilot hotels ....................... 39 Table 22: Overview of adopted actions in the Action Plans for the Maltese pilot hotels .................... 41 Table 23: Recommended actions to reduce/eliminate SUP consumption in the tourism sector ........ 50

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 5

List of Abbreviations DST EU27 EU27 + 3 GTPI MUNP MUP SUNP SUP WTO UNEP

Decision Support Tool The 27 EU Member States The 27 EU Member States, plus Norway, Switzerland and the UK Global Tourism Plastics Initiative Multi Use Non-Plastic Multi Use Plastic Single Use Non-Plastic Single Use Plastic World Tourism Organization United Nations Environment Programme

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 6

Acknowledgements Funding Operator The partners of the SUPMed project would like to take this opportunity to thank Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway who funded this project through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation. Without their support the SUPMed project would not have been possible.

Project Partners The SUPMed project is a collaboration between six partners located in Cyrus, Greece (Crete) and Malta. The details of each of the partners and their roles within the project are provided in Table 1. The project would not have been successful without the valuable contribution and collaboration between the individual partners. Table 1: Details of the project partners

Partner Aspon Consulting Ltd.

Role in SUPMed Lead partner

Website

Address

Email

Phone

https://www.asp on.com.cy

47 Strovolos Avenue, 2018 Nicosia, Cyprus

[email protected]

+357 22227 08897

Heraklion Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Beneficiary partner

https://www.ebe h.gr

9th Koronaiou Street, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

[email protected] +30 2810 342535 r

Anelixis Development Consultants

Beneficiary partner

https://www.anel ixisc.gr

Dimokratias n.3, P.C. 71306, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

[email protected]

+30 2810 286088

Cellock Ltd.

Beneficiary partner

https://www.cell ock.com

47 Strovolou, 6th Floor, 2018 Nicosia, Cyprus

[email protected]

+357 99499 4734

AIS Environment

Beneficiary partner

https://www.aise nvironment.mt

18 St John Street,

[email protected]

+356 2180 3374

Fgura, FGR 1447, Malta

Cyprus Hotel Association

Beneficiary partner

https://www.cypr ushotelassociatio n.org

12 Andrea Araouzou, Cyprus

cha@cyprushotelass ociation.org

+357 2245 2820

Participating Hotels The SUPMed partners would like to extend their thanks and gratitude to the pilot hotels who participated in the SUPMed project. The hotels willingness and eagerness to partake ensured that the project flourished and fulfilled all its goals. Details of the pilot hotels are listed in Table 2. Table 2: Details of participating hotels

Country Cyprus

Hotel

Website

Address

Email

Phone

https://ww w.grandres ort.com.cy

Amathus Area P.O. Box 54500, 3724 Limassol, Cyprus

grand@grandre sort.com.cy

+357 2563 4333

https://www.atlant icahotels.com/hote ls-in-ayianapa/atlanticamare-village-ayianapa

74 Cavo Greco Av, marevillage@atl 5340, Ayia Napa, anticahotels.co Cyprus m

+357 2372 1429

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 2

Greece (Crete)

https://www.radiss onhotels.com/enus/hotels/radissonblu-larnaca

Atlandidon 2, Larnaca, 6058, Cyprus

info.larnaca@r adissonblu.com

+357 2450 5815

https://theroyalap ollonia.com

Georgiou A 68, Str. Potamos Germasogias, 4048 Limassol, Cyprus, P.O. Box 52499

info@theroyala pollonia.com

+357 2550 8800

https://www.eloun dapalm-crete.com

Elounda, 72053, Lassithi, Crete

info@eloundap alm-crete.com

+30 28410 41825

https://www.infinit ybluehotel.gr

Daidalou 9 Street, Limenas Hersonissou

info@infinityblu ehotel.gr

+30 28970 29000

https://lifestyleres ort.gr/en/index.ph p

108 – 110 Andrea Papandreou Street, 71414 Amoudara, Heraklion, Crete

info@lifestylere sort.gr

+30 2810 310500

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 3

Malta

https://www.hilton .com/en/hotels/ml ahitw-hilton-malta/

Portomaso, St Julians, Malta

info.malta@hilt on.com

+356 2138 3383

https://hotel1926.c om.mt/

Thornton Street, Sliema, SLM 3143, Malta

hotel1926@roo sendaal.com.mt

+356 2359 3000

https://www.mhc.c om.mt

Mellieha Bay, MLH 02, Malta

[email protected]. mt

+356 2289 3322

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 4

1 Introduction 1.1 Overview of the SUPMed Project The SUPMed project stems from a European initiative to help tackle the issue of Single Use Plastic (SUP) consumption across tourist establishments in Cyprus, Greece (Crete) and Malta. Each country was selected because of their economic dependence on tourism. The project extended over a 36month period and was funded by the EEA and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation. A total of six partners collaborated throughout the duration of the project: • • • • • •

Aspon Consulting Ltd., Cyprus (Lead Partner) Heraklion Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greece (Beneficiary Partner) Anelixis Development Consultants S.A., Greece (Beneficiary Partner) Cellock Ltd., Cyprus (Beneficiary Partner) AIS Environment, Malta (Beneficiary Partner) Cyprus Hotel Association, Cyprus (Beneficiary Partner)

1.2 The Single Use Plastic Problem Plastic pollution is a global problem, with both Europe and the Mediterranean areas contributing. Europe currently generates approximately 25.8 million tonnes of plastic waste per year, with less than 30% of this waste reaching recycling facilities.1 Unfortunately, much of this plastic waste ends up as marine litter, with plastics accounting for 80% of total marine litter within the region.1 Focusing on a regional Mediterranean scale also highlights the severity of plastic pollution. The natural enclosed configuration of the Mediterranean Basin has resulted in plastic accumulation within the sea reaching exceedingly high densities. Plastic items make up 85% of the floating litter and 45 to 95% of the litter found on the sea floor within the Mediterranean region.2 According to Directive 2019/904, 80 to 85% of beach litter found across the Member State beaches is plastic waste; with 50% of the plastic being SUP items. The economy of Cyprus, Greece (Crete) and Malta are highly dependent on tourism. The tourism activities are particularly intensive on the beaches. However, the appeal of these beaches is slowly being diminished by the increasing quantities of litter. Ironically, the tourist industry itself contributes significantly towards the litter on the beaches. This concept is often referred to as the “Tourism Industry Paradox”.

1

SUPMed (2020). Reducing the Consumption and Disposal of Single-use Plastics in the Tourism Industry in Cyprus, Greece and Malta. https://www.supmed.eu/en/about-the-project/project-description 2 Karapachov, P. (2019). The consumption of single-use plastic in tourism and Hospitality - tips and lessons on the way to becoming plastic free. https://www.toposophy.com/insights/insight/?bid=495

Figure 1: Litter on EU beaches (Source: EU Plastics Strategy Brochure, 2018)

The Plastics Europe: Enabling a sustainable future project has carried out research into the production, demand and disposal of plastics within the EU 27 member states and Norway, Switzerland and the UK (referred to as the EU27 + 3). Plastic production within the EU27 + 3 has been estimated to be ca. 55 million tonnes in 2020, as illustrated in Figure 2.3 The production rates across the EU Member States decreased in 2020, due to the COVID-19 global pandemic; however, they have since recovered to prepandemic levels in 2021 (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Plastic production in the EU27 + 3 based on estimated data (includes thermoplastics, polyurethanes, thermosets, elastomers, adhesives, coatings, sealants and PP-fibres; but excludes PET-, PA- and polyacryl-fibres)3

3

Plastics Europe (2021). Plastics – the facts 2021. https://plasticseurope.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/12/Plastics-the-Facts-2021-web-final.pdf The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 2

Figure 3: Plastic production in the EU27 between 2011 and 20213

Since 2006, the rates of plastic recycling and energy recovery treatment of plastic waste have increased steadily. Consequently, the quantities of plastic waste being sent to landfill sites has decreased from ca. 12.9 million tonnes in 2006 to ca. 6.9 million tonnes in 2020.3 In 2020, approximately 29.5 million tonnes of plastic waste was collected across the EU27 + 3. Of this plastic waste, ca. 34% (approximately 10.2 million tonnes) was recycled and ca. 43% (approximately 12.4 million tonnes) sent to energy recovery facilities across the countries of study.3 The remaining ca. 23% was deposited into landfill sites.3

Figure 4: Plastic waste treatment in the EU27+3 from 2006 to 2020 (2020 values are estimations based on extrapolation of 2019 data) The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 3

All three participating countries top the EU list for per capita generation of municipal waste. In 2020, the waste generation was 609 kg/capita in Cyprus, 525 kg/capita in Greece and 643 kg/capita in Malta.4 The high waste generation in these countries is coupled with low recycling rates. In 2019, recycling rates in Greece had only just surpassed 20% whereas, the rates in Cyprus dipped below 20%. In the case of Malta, recycling rates in 2019 were around just 10%.5 In order to help deal with the growing problem, the EU has undertaken a wide range of projects to raise awareness on the environmental issues related to SUP and the need to reduce SUP consumption.

1.3 Relevant EU Legislation 1.3.1 DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC: WASTE AND REPEALING CERTAIN DIRECTIVES The overall aim of this Directive is to reduce and where possible prevent the adverse impacts caused by the generation and management of waste, in turn protecting both the environment and human health. This is to be achieved by reducing the impacts of resource consumption and improving the efficiency of resources which are used. Directive 2008/98/EC is focused around a defined waste hierarchy, as illustrated in Figure 5. The implementation of this hierarchy both stops the production of new items and minimises the amount of waste which is sent to landfill sites. Both of these factors are very important if sustainable waste management practices are to be achieved throughout the EU27 Member States.

Figure 5: Waste hierarchy (Source: Bide, 2020)6

4

EuroStat (2022). Municipal waste generation up to 505kg per person. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-202202141#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20Denmark%20and%20Luxembourg,generation%20per%20person%20this%20year 5

EEA (2021). Waste Recycling in Europe. https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/waste-recycling-ineurope#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20rates%20ranged%20from,20%25%20of%20their%20municipal%20waste. 6

Bide (2020). Report of the datasets available relating to social and environmental dimensions of extraction. Deliverable 1.3 of the ORAMA Project. The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 4

The Directive also highlights the importance of Extended Producer Responsibility. Any person/company which produces, processes, treats, sells or imports products has the responsibility for how any waste associated with the products (including the products itself) is managed. For example, the producer is required to incorporate information about how the product or waste materials should be recycled/disposed on the product packaging.

Figure 6: Extended Producers Responsibility concept (Source: Zero Waste Scotland, 2022)

The separation of waste into paper, metal, plastic and glass became mandatory under this Directive in 2015. It also set the target that by 2020, the re-use and recycling of the aforementioned waste streams from households and other similar waste generating establishments shall be increased to a minimum of 50% by weight. 1.3.2 A EUROPEAN STRATEGY FOR PLASTICS IN A CIRCULAR ECONOMY (2018) The Strategy highlights the current unsustainable practices when it comes to the production, use and consumption of plastics. The current behaviours are fighting against the creation of a circular economy and resulting in significant environmental damage. The Strategy calls for change from the producers, recyclers, retailers and consumers. The EU has set a target of ensuring that all plastic packaging is recyclable by 2030. This Strategy aims to play a crucial role in ensuring the aforementioned target is reached. The Strategy cites the growth in SUP production and consumption as a critical problem which needs to be addressed. The overall vision for the Strategy is “A smart, innovative and sustainable plastics industry, where design and production fully respects the needs of reuse, repair and recycling, brings growth and jobs to Europe and helps cut EU’s greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on imported fossil fuels.” The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 5

The Strategy has established three main EU targets to be achieved by 2030: 1. All plastic packaging placed on the EU market must either be reusable or recyclable using cost effective methods 2. More than half of the plastics generated in Europe need to be recycled 3. An increase in plastic sorting and recycling capacity by fourfold when compared to 2015 levels. In order to successfully achieve this vision and targets, the Strategy sets out a wide range of measures: •

Improving the economics and quality of plastics recycling o Designing plastic products and packaging for recyclability o Boasting demand for recycled plastics o Better and more harmonised separate collection and sorting

•

Curbing plastic waste and littering o Preventing plastic waste in the environment o Establishing a clear regulatory framework for plastics with biodegradable properties o Tackling microplastics

•

Driving innovation and investment towards circular solutions

•

Tackling the issue on a global scale

1.3.3 DIRECTIVE 2019/904: REDUCTION OF THE IMPACT OF CERTAIN PLASTIC PRODUCTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT EU Directive 2019/904 concerns the reduction of certain plastic products on the market and deals with effective controls to reduce their environmental impact. The preceding 2015 EC communication “CLOSING THE LOOP – AN EU ACTION PLAN FOR THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY” and the 2018 “A EUROPEAN STRATEGY FOR PLASTICS IN AN CIRCULAR ECONOMY” both highlighted the need to reduce the consumption and subsequent waste related issues of SUP. Directive 2019/904 aims to “prevent and reduce the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, in particular the aquatic environment, and on human health, as well as to promote the transition to a circular economy with innovative and sustainable business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market”. According to Directive 2019/904, a SUP product is defined as “a product that is made wholly or partly from plastic and that is not conceived, designed or placed on the market to accomplish, within its life span, multiple trips or rotations by being returned to a producer for refill or re-used for the same purpose for which it was conceived”. This Directive stipulates a number of actions that must be attained by each of the Member States. Article 4 relates to SUP items for which there is currently no alternative. Instead of replacing these products, the Member States are required to promote the reduction in the consumption of such products. In contrast, Article 5 relates to readily available and functional alternatives to SUP products. Member States were obliged to ban the sale/use of such products by July 2021. A summary of the measures, deadlines and affected SUP items most relevant to the SUPMed project are summarised in Table 3.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 6

Table 3: Summary of actions in Directive 2019/904 which relate directly to the SUPMed project

Article Reference in Directive 2019/904 Article 4

Article 5

Article 6 (1)

Action

Deadline

Affected SUP

Reduction in consumption of SUP for which there is currently no viable alternatives Ban on the sale/use of SUP

Reduction between 2022 and 2026

Cups for beverages (inc. lids/covers) Food containers

3rd July 2021

Plastic caps and lids on bottles must be attached to the main bottle

3rd July 2024

Cotton buds Cutlery Plates Straws Beverage stirrers Balloon sticks Food containers made of expanded polystyrene Beverage containers made of made of expanded polystyrene (inc. lids/covers) Cups for beverages made of expanded polystyrene (inc. lids and covers) Beverage containers with a capacity of up to 3 litres with plastic caps/lids

1.3.4 DIRECTIVE 94/62/EC: PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE Directive 94/62/EC was the first EU directive focusing solely on packaging and its reduction. It follows the overarching waste hierarchy principles to prevent packaging waste, reuse packaging where possible and ultimately recycle or use other methods of energy recovery where other options are not available. Combined together, these three factors are expected to reduce the final quantities of packing waste which require disposal. All member states must conform to the packaging guidelines provided in Annex II of the Directive which relate to: • • •

Limits for the weight and volume of packaging to keep it as low as possible whilst maintaining appropriate levels of safety, hygiene and suitability. Minimising hazardous content within packaging. Design of reusable or recoverable packaging.

The Directive has been amended overtime to keep the targets with relevant and timely. The latest amendment was made by Directive 2018/852. The targets set out in Directive 2018/852 are replicated hereunder: •

At least 65% (by weight) of all packaging waste must be recycled by 31st December 2025. The individual targets based on material are:

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 7

o o o o o o •

Plastic: Wood: Ferrous metal: Aluminium: Glass: Paper and cardboard:

50% 25% 70% 50% 70% 75%

At least 70% (by weight) of all packaging waste must be recycled by 31st December 2030. The individual targets based on material are: o o o o o o

Plastic: Wood: Ferrous metal: Aluminium: Glass: Paper and cardboard:

55% 30% 80% 60% 75% 85%

1.4 Participating Tourist Establishments The SUPMed project focused on three Mediterranean countries: Cyprus, Greece (Crete) and Malta. A total of 10 hotels from across the three participating countries were selected to take part in a pilot study. The selected hotels are leading hotels within each of the participating countries and have a strong sustainability ethos. Table 4 to Table 6 provide a brief description of each of the pilot hotels. Contact details for each of the hotels is provided in the Acknowledgements section of the report.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 8

Table 4: Cypriot participating tourist establishments

Participating Hotel Atlantica Mare Village, Ayia Napa

The GrandResort, Limassol

Radisson Blu Hotel, Larnaca

Logo

Description With a stunning location overlooking one of the most spectacular sunsets in Cyprus. This hotel is peacefully set away from the hustle and bustle. Located between the cosmopolitan town of Ayia Napa and the beautiful park of Cape Cavo Greco, Atlantica Mare Village is the ideal choice for a family holiday and for those seeking a serene environment. Among the finest five-star hotels in Cyprus, the GrandResort is set in beautifully landscaped tropical gardens, on a superb beach side location in the exclusive Amathus area and 11km from Limassol town centre. Standing in extensive grounds, the resort offers an impressive range of facilities and an unrivalled standard of personal service and sheer comfort. The magnificent grounds include a tranquil freeform outdoor swimming pool on the edge of a sandy beach near the ancient kingdom of Amathus. Situated on Cyprus's picturesque southern shore, the upscale Radisson Blu Hotel Larnaca offers a stylish retreat in the heart of the city. We are located just a few minutes away from Larnaca International Airport and offer direct access to Larnaca's modern and ancient culture as well as its thriving port industry. Designed to exceed the needs of contemporary business and leisure travelers alike, the Radisson Blu features 106 beautifully appointed rooms and suites. The 16-floor building redefines Larnaca's skyline and offers indulgent accommodations

Royal Apollania, Limassol

with a collection of culinary venues. Situated in the prominent area of Limassol, known as the most cosmopolitan town of the island, it is a short drive from the city centre and within walking distance from the tourist area where bars, restaurant are found in abundance. The vision of the hotel is to combine luxury firstclass hospitality with amazing views and ambiance of a seafront hotel.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 10

Table 5: Greek (Cretan) participating tourist establishments

Participating Hotel Elounda Palm Hotel and Suites, Elounda

Logo

Infinity Blue Boutique Hotel and Spa, Hersonissos

Paralos Lifestyle Beach, Ammoudara

Description Elounda Palm Hotel & Suites is a small family-owned boutique property which has been built and designed with a Cretan chic and minimal concept in mind, surrounded by a unique environment with over 150 Palm tree lush gardens, overlooking the bay of the world class Elounda resort and its historic island of Spinalonga. The concept of the hotel is to provide a friendly and professional approach to the holidays while at the same time strive to meet all needs for a relaxed and stress-free experience. Hotel’s motto is “come as a guest and leave as a friend”. Infinity Blue Boutique Hotel & Spa is set on the sandy beach of Hersonissos, a resort on the northern coast of Crete. The hotel, which welcomes guests aged 16 and over, has gardens and trees around the pool, plus a spa and has minimal and Scandinavian in style décor. Hersonissos has a variety of beaches, with the calmest waters to the sheltered west of the small port, and small coves with fine sand and rock formations to the east. Paralos Lifetyle Beach “Adults Exclusive” ideally located on the Blue Flag Award winning sandy beach of Amoudara, is a collection of superior rooms, suites and swimming pools. Offers luxury vacations in a relaxing and comfortable accommodation within a contemporary and stylish atmosphere that captures all impressions. Welcome glasses of

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 11

Participating Hotel

Logo

Description fizz, poolside waiter service, and daybeds on the sleepy, adjoining beach fulfils all guests’ desires.

Table 6: Maltese participating tourist establishments

Participating Hotel 1926 Hotel and Spa, Sliema

Logo

Hilton Malta, St Julians

Description 1926 Hotel & Spa offers 170 luxurious rooms and suites, which feature a touch of the roaring 20’s, inspired by one man, Sunny Borg. The amalgamation of luxury and wellness make up the foundation of which 1926 Hotel & Spa is built. Each room, as well as the common areas, make use of local aromatherapy products. This creates an aura of wellness throughout the hotel. In addition, the state-of-the-art SuitePad technology that all rooms are fitted with, provides the guests with up-to-date information on a variety of things such as: special offers, restaurant menus, music and entertainment to list a few. Ideally located in the prestigious Portomaso Yacht Marina within St. Julian’s, this hotel offers remarkable views of the Mediterranean, featuring 413 stylish rooms and suites, three restaurants, four bars, four outdoor pools and a fullyequipped health club including a tennis court; the hotel offers sheer comfort and relaxation whether you are visiting for business or leisure. The hotel also offers a range of different meeting and event options supported by the hotel’s highly trained events team.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 12

Participating Hotel Mellieha Holiday Centre, Mellieha

Logo

Description Mellieha Holiday Centre consists of 181 self-catering bungalows and 6 studios. It was designed by the renowned Danish Architect Hans Munk Hansen (1929 – 2021). It was built back in 1979 and remained in operation ever since. The Centre is located meters away from the island’s best sandy beaches and it accommodates between 15,000 and 16,000 guests every year. Apart from self-catering accommodation it offers a number of facilities such as in/outdoor pools, Spa, restaurants & bars, sport facilities and minimarket.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 13

1.5 Project Objectives The SUPMed project aimed to reduce the consumption and disposal of Single-Use Plastics (SUP) in the tourism industry in Cyprus, Greece (specifically Crete) and Malta. The main objective was to “implement a common solution to the EU shared and urgent challenge of plastics, by creating a transnational consortium to help the tourism sector reduce consumption, disposal and impact of SUP in line with EU Directive 2019/904”.1 The project helped tourism establishments in the three participating countries to replace SUP items with environmentally friendlier, sustainable, readily available and affordable alternatives. Six project objectives were drawn up, as follows: • • • • • •

Study and analyse the existing situation regarding SUP in each participating country Identification, sharing and implementation of best practices and methodologies gained from previous EU projects and partners activities Reduce consumption, disposal and impacts of SUP by developing an innovative tool Training groups to reduce adverse effects of human activities on the environment Dissemination and share project’s results and outcomes to potential beneficiaries and broader audience on a base Raise awareness amongst a minimum of 300 SMEs and 30 NGOs by disseminating the outputs

The project partners worked with the pilot hotels to develop bespoke Action Plans to help them move towards implementing sustainable resources efficient business models. This was done through the identification of the their most commonly used SUP items and sourcing of with environmentally compatible, available and affordable alternative products. Through these actions, the SUPMed project aimed to result in a decrease in plastic waste by 2 tonnes across the 10 pilot hotels. Based on the data gathered during the baseline research of the SUPMed project, the 10 pilot hotels collectively generate approximately 21,000 kg of SUP waste during a typical month in the peak summer tourism season.7

1.6 Project Deliverables The Project Partners produced three main deliverables from the SUPMed project; each of which is described briefly below and in further detail in Section 2. 1. Decision Support Tool The technical partner, in collaboration with the environmental consultants from the three participating countries, designed a web-based Decision Support Tool (DST). The DST provides a platform for businesses/entities to assess the environmental impact of their current SUP product selection compared with available product alternatives. The DST does not focus solely on the natural environment, but also provides a cost analysis of the switch to alternative SUP products. Refer to Section 2.2 for a more detailed description of the DST. 2. Bespoke Action Plans Following on from the collection of baseline data provided by the hotel staff (including data from the DST), interviews with hotel guests and staff and in-house observations, a Bespoke Action Plan was 7

This figure is an estimate derived from the average weight values for the consumed SUP items. This estimation excludes plastic wrappers and bags due to their light weight and inconsistent data provided by the pilot hotels.

drafted for each of the pilot hotels (a total of 10 plans). The Action Plans provide an overview of the SUPMed project, a summary of the results of the data collection in the hotels and a series of recommendations to help the individual hotels move away from SUP items to more environmentally friendly, yet cost effective alternatives. 3. Best Practice Guide The Best Practice Guide is being presented here in this report. The guide aims to provide an overview of the impacts of plastic on human and environmental health, present the results of the pilot studies, review the available SUP alternatives and their environmental impact based on the DST and replicate the recommendations made in the individual Action Plans. Finally, the report will summarise the lessons learnt from the project and apply them to the tourism industry as a whole, and other relevant industries, to help the European Member States move away from SUP consumption.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 15

2 Summary of the Results of the Project Deliverables 2.1 Hotel Pilot Surveys As part of the project, each participating country reported the top five most commonly used SUP items within the selected hotel establishments. Data collection was sourced through three main methods: questionnaires, interviews with staff and guests, and onsite observations. The questionnaires enabled the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data on SUP usage and disposal was supplemented through interviews which were carried out with stakeholders. The interviews included discussion with the hotel employees (departmental managers, bar staff and waste managers) as well as the hotel guests. The third method of data collection involved the observation of the hotel guests and employees. This method was used to eliminate the stakeholders' potential bias towards self-perceptions of environmental behaviour and reveal any true behaviours towards SUP usage. The following subsections summarise the main results from the pilot study which are directly related to the consumption and handling of SUP items.

Figure 7: Informational stand set up during the pilot hotel data collection in Cyprus

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 16

Figure 8: SUPMed team members at one of the Cretan pilot hotels

Figure 9: Information stand in one of the Maltese pilot hotels

2.1.1 Guest Questionnaires A total of 603 valid guest questionnaires were gathered across the 10 pilot hotels. The survey revealed that the 5 most commonly used SUP items by the guests (in descending order) are: beverage bottles, plastic packaging (e.g. cosmetic containers), wet wipes, cotton buds and crisp packets & sweet wrappers (refer to Figure 10).

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 17

Wet wipes, i.e. pre-wetted personal care and…

979

Cotton bud sticks

709,5

Crisp packets & Sweet wrappers

674,5

Other Plastic Packaging (e.g. shampoo, conditioner…

1138

Plastic Food Wrappers

394,5

Plastic Food Containers

330,5

Plastic Plates

150

Plastic Cutlery

194,5

Plastic bags

655,5

Coffee Lids

382

Coffee Cups

508

Plastic Drink Stirrers

403

Plastic Straws

466

Plastic beverage bottles

1466 0

200

400

600

800

1000 1200 1400 1600

Figure 10: Average daily consumption of SUP items

With the exception of plastic bottles, there is an evident trend for specific SUP items to be used predominantly in certain hotel facilities (as illustrated in Figure 11). For example, cotton buds, wet wipes and shampoo/conditioner bottles are mainly used in the hotel rooms; whereas plastic straws, drink stirrers and coffee cups & lids are most commonly used in restaurants and bars.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 18

Cotton bud sticks & Wet wipes, i.e. pre-wetted personal care and domestic wipes

48,0%

Crisp packets & Sweet wrappers

46,7%

33,3%

Other Plastic Packaging (e.g. shampoo, conditioner bottles)

51,9%

62,6%

Plastic Food Containers & Plastic Food Wrappers

33,8%

9,7%

68,8%

Plastic Plates

2,5%

89,9%

Plastic Cutlery

2,3%

88,9%

Plastic bags

20,2%

68,7%

Coffee Cups & Lids

4,3%

62,4%

Plastic Straws & Plastic Drink Stirrers

1,3%

63,9%

Plastic beverage bottles

28,4% 0%

Restaurants

Bars

Swimming Pool

Gym

20%

Spa

40%

Hotel Beach Services

60%

Room

17,3% 80%

100%

Nowhere

Figure 11: Distribution of SUP item usage in the different hotel facilities (percentages shown on the bars are for room and nowhere)

The guests also reported on their current SUP mitigation practices (henceforth referred to as good practices). The most frequently reported behaviours were the use of recycling bins and reusable shopping bags; whereas the least popular was the use of personal reusable straws. The results revealed that ca. 21% of the hotel guests do not carry out any good SUP practices. When asked about their willingness to adopt such practices, ca. 11% still said they would not consider them. Others were keener to adopt such practices, with the use of recycling bins, reusable shopping bags and refillable water bottles being the most popular options.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 19

Other

0,3% 0,5% 0,0% 0,5% 21,1% 24,0% 30,5%

None of the above 8,9% Ask for environmentally friendlier straws (paper, bamboo, etc.) instead of plastic straws – in case that the hotel provides both types of them-

8,8% 7,1%

17,1% 35,1%

Use recycling bins

55,9% 63,2%

28,4%

75,2%

2,8% 2,9% 5,1% 0,5%

Carry your own straw

14,6% 11,3% 8,1%

Carry a travel mug or water bottle at all times for coffee and other drinks

24,3%

25,5% 14,2% 19,8%

Carry reusable bottle filling it up - if it is suitable as drinking water - with tap water

Ask about the quality of the tap water on site and - if it is suitable as drinking water - fill it in carafes

10,3% 10,2%

42,6%

24,7% 53,5%

9,3% 6,4% 11,7% 9,9%

Carry your own containers for take-out food and leftovers

37,3% 36,8% 42,1% 33,2%

Carry reusable shopping bags

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% Total

Cyprus

Greece

Malta

Figure 12: SUP good practices reported by the hotel guests

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 20

Other

0,7% 0,0% 0,0% 2,0%

None of the above

10,8% 3,0% 11,8% 17,8%

Contribute to environmental volunteering actions

16,4% 20,8% 12,7% 15,7%

Participate in information campaigns that promote environmental awareness

14,6% 22,3% 9,8% 11,7%

Attend to environmental awareness sessions

16,3% 18,3% 16,2% 14,2% 68,3%

Use recycling bins 48,7% 27,0% 24,3%

Carry your own straw

17,3%

25,4%

49,5%

33,3% 33,0% 44,4%

Drink only tap water - if it is suitable as drinking water in carafes

Carry your own containers for take-out food and leftovers

37,3%

45,1%

Carry reusable bottle filling it up - if it is suitable as drinking water - with tap water

87,1%

39,2%

37,5%

Carry a travel mug or water bottle at all times for coffee and other drinks

68,6%

27,0% 33,5%

68,8%

72,8%

22,9% 31,2% 16,7% 20,8% 54,7%

Carry reusable shopping bags

44,6% 53,3%

66,3%

0,0% 10,0%20,0%30,0%40,0%50,0%60,0%70,0%80,0%90,0%100,0% Total

Malta

Cyprus

Greece

Figure 13: Guests willingness to adopt SUP good practices

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 21

2.1.2 Department and General Manager Questionnaires The departmental manager questionnaires revealed that plastic gloves, bottles, plastic packaging (shampoo/conditioner bottles etc) and bags are the most consumed SUP items (vide Figure 14). The high consumption of plastic gloves can be attributed directly to the hygienic precautions required during the COVID-19 pandemic as the pilot surveys coincided with this period. The General Managers of all of the pilot hotels expressed a strong interest in transitioning away from SUP items, as is evident in Figure 15.

61470,33333

Plastic bags

6977,333333

Wet wipes, i.e. pre-wetted personal care and domestic wipes

5400

Cotton bud sticks

798

Crisp packets / Sweet wrappers

96443

Plastic Packaging (e.g. shampoo, conditioner bottles)

2415

Plastic Food Wrappers

3890

Plastic Food Containers

400

Plastic Plates

4780

Plastic Cutlery

145210

Plastic gloves

14377,66667

Coffee Lids

21287,5

Coffee Cups

4210

Plastic Drink Stirrers

16513,33333

Plastic Straws

111466,2667

Plastic beverage bottles

0 Total

20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000

Cyprus

Malta

Greece

Figure 14: Pilot hotel average month SUP consumption quantities

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 22

Figure 15: General Managers' interest in replacing SUP items

The Managers of each of the pitot hotels also provided information in relating to their current plastic recycling practices. Beverage bottles were the most commonly recycled SUP items across the pilot hotels. In contrast, coffee cups & lids, food packets and plastic plates and cutlery were reported to be the least commonly recycled items. 2.1.3 Interviews The main attitudes and knowledge gathered during the interviews with the hotels guests and employees are outlined below. Hotel Guests • Guests showed a neutral or positive attitude towards the transition from SUP items to alternative products; • High levels of awareness about common SUP alternatives such as bags and bottles; but guests are not as aware of less commonly used items such as options to replace food packaging and wet wipes; • Guests are keen to use alternative items as long as they are functional and practical; • Several guests emphasized their dislike for paper straws and said they are not a practical alternative since they get soggy very quickly; • If given an SUP item, guests are unlikely to ask the staff for an alternative product; • A few guests questioned the environmental friendless of alternatives, such as glass bottles that require energy and water intensive cleaning; • Most guests were aware of the EU legislation that was forcing Governments to introduce local policies to ban certain plastics; • Some highlighted the importance of public education to successfully implement behavioural change; with the protection of the environment, human health and reduction in pollution being at the forefront; • Most are keen to recycle, but stated it can be hard to do so due to a lack of bins; and • Some of the guests stated they prefer to travel to countries with high levels of environmental consciousness. The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 23

Hotel Employees • Employees are generally aware of the hotel’s environmental policies, including the reduction in SUP consumption and appropriate waste management procedures; • Generally, have a good understanding of alternative products, especially those already used within their department; • Employees are keen to switch to alternatives. However, some are only willing to do so if it doesn’t result in increased workloads. Others did not identify increased workloads as an issue, indicating that they give safeguarding the environment a higher priority. A prime example of this is the introduction of reusable polycarbonate cups to replace SUP cups which require washing after each use; • Even though waste separation practices are in place; employees find it hard to maintain such standards during peak periods; • One of the hotels reported that the waste collector is often seen mixing the separated waste streams together; • Some employees were unaware that certain plastic items have to be washed before recycling; • The staff in the five-star hotels commented that the guests often expect glass items rather than plastic, as the latter is often considered to be a cheap option and lacking in luxury value; and • The issue of controlling the operations of third-party leased facilities within the hotel complexes was a common topic brought up during the interviews. 2.1.4 Observations The project partners observed the behaviour of both the hotel guests and employees whilst conducting the interviews in the hotels. A summary of the main observations are provided below. Hotel Guests • Several guests were already using reusable SUP alternative products, the most common being water bottles and bags; • Numerous hotel guests were seen carrying small SUP water bottles (noted that a large percentage of these were most likely bought off site); • Some of the hotels were enforcing the use of disposable gloves in the buffet areas due to COVID19 measures. A dedicated bin for these gloves was located at the end of the buffet table; • Polycarbonate cups and plastic bottles are used in the pool areas, where glass is not a viable option; and • Placement of plastic items in the mixed bins, due to a lack of recycling bins around the facilities. Hotel Employees • SUP alternative items given to guests where available; • High consumption of SUP items observed in the kitchens e.g. cling film and food/beverage packaging; • Some staff hand out single use items such as straws and coffee cup lids to guests; whereas others only give them out if the guests requested these items specifically; • Staff is separating waste, but standards faltered during peak workload periods; • In one of the hotels, the house keeping staff were seen emptying the bins (inc. the bin liners) when the bins were less than half full; and • Glass bottles for water were only given to guests in areas in which are safe.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 24

2.2 Decision Support Tool As briefly described in Section 1.6, the Decision Support Tool (access link: portal.supmed.eu) is an online tool which enables hotels (or any business/entity) to assess the impacts of changing from using SUP items to alternative products. It is a unique and innovative tool with great potential to help all businesses improve their overall environmental performance by transitioning away from SUP items. All users can explore a wide range of scenarios to find the one which is most suitable for their needs, operations and environmental aspirations. The DST tool was developed by carrying out thorough desktop research to identify the most commonly used SUP items and available, viable alternatives. Extensive research was also conducted to assess the environmental impacts and cost implications of each of the SUP swaps. A life-style assessment approach was used as the basis for the environmental impact assessment since it takes into consideration the entire lifecycle of the product: production, reuse and recycling/disposal. The DST includes nine commonly used SUP items and available alternative products, as summarised in Table 7. The alternative products considered comprised of: single-use non-plastic (SUNP), multi-use plastic (MUP) or multi-use non-plastic (MUNP). Table 7: Description of the SUP items and alternative products included in the DST

Alternative Product Details SUP Product Carrier bags

Alternative Product Paper bags Reusable plastic bags Cotton bags

Cotton buds

Paper cotton buds Reusable MDPE (Medium density Polyethylene) buds Wooden utensils Steel utensils

Cutlery

Drinks bottles

Drinks cups and lids

Type

Description

SUNP MUP

Typical carrier bag of paper, designed for single use. Bags made from non-woven polypropylene. This material is strong, durable and designed for multi-use. MUNP Bags made from woven from unbleached cotton. They are specifically designed to be used multiple times. SUNP Cotton buds where the stem is made out of paper. MUP

Cotton buds made out of Medium Density Polyethylene (MDPE) which enables them to be washed and reused.

SUNP

Eating utensils composed of wood. Commonly used woods include bamboo and birch. MUNP Eating utensils used out of steel which can be washed and reused multiple times. Aluminium/glass SUNP Conventional aluminium cans and glass bottles. bottles PET/glass MUP / Bottles made of PET or glass which are designed to be multiuse bottles MUNP reused. Hard plastic cup MUNP Polypropylene cup with either a silicone or rubber lid and with protective band. Designed for multiple reuses. silicone/rubber lid

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 25

Alternative Product Details SUP Product Drink stirrers

Alternative Product Wooden stirrers Steel stirrers

Food Paperboard containers containers Hard plastic containers Straws Paper straws Steel/silicone straws Wet Cotton ball with wipes lotion Cotton handkerchief and lotion

Type

Description

SUNP

Small stirring rods made out of wood. Commonly used woods include bamboo and birch. MUNP Stirring rod composed of steel which can be reused many times. SUNP Specially designed paperboard food containers with a wax lining intended for single-use. MUP Polyethylene containers with lids, such as Tupperware, designed for multi-use. SUNP Drinking straws made out of kraft paper. MUNP Straws made either out of steel or silicone. Both an be washed and reused. SUNP Use of individual cotton balls as a means of applying lotion. MUNP Use of handkerchiefs as a means of applying lotion. The handkerchiefs can be washed and reused.

A complete user guide of how to use the DST is included in Appendix 1 of this report. 2.2.1

Explanation of the DST Results

2.2.1.1 Environmental Impacts The output of the DST assesses the environmental impact of moving away from the SUP products to alternative items in terms of: • • • • • • •

Acidification potential Carcinogenic effects on humans Climate change Climate change impacts associated with End of Life (EOL) Human toxicity Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Respiratory effects on humans

As already explained, the environmental impacts are calculated based on a life-cycle approach. Overall impact The top graph in the DST (refer to Figure 16) illustrates the environmental impact of all of the selected SUP alternative products on the seven environmental themes considered in the tool. A negative value reflects a decrease in the environmental impact associated with the chosen product; whilst a positive value indicates an increase in environmental impact.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 26

Figure 16: DST Screenshot showing the overall impact of switching several SUP items to alternative products

Impact by product and environmental category The middle graph in this section (Figure 17) can be manipulated by selecting the product category (carrier bags in this case) and environmental impact category (climate change) from the two drop down menus. The bar chart will show the difference in environmental impact between the current usage (SUP) and alternative selection (SUP alternative item).

Figure 17: DST screenshot showing the impact on climate change of switching from SUP carrier bags to an alternative product

Impact by product The bottom graph (Figure 18) illustrates the environmental impact of the alternative SUP product selection (carrier bags in this case) on all the environmental themes simultaneously. A negative value

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 27

reflects a decrease in the environmental impact associated with the product; in contrast to a positive value which indicates an increase in the environmental impact.

Figure 18 DST screenshot showing the overall impact of switching from SUP carrier bags to alternative products

2.2.1.2 Results: Littering These results show the impact on the quantities of plastic litter reduction which will result from the switch from SUP to alternative items. Litter is defined as waste which is found in the natural environment, not that which is placed into bins. Litter reduction (inc. marine litter) The bar chart shows the reduction in plastic litter in kilograms per product category. The line graph illustrates the estimation of plastic litter generation (in kilograms) across all of the products combined over a period of 5 years. The line graph is cumulative to allow assessment over a relatively long timeframe.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 28

Figure 19: DST screenshot showing the overall litter reduction as a result of switching from SUP items to alternative products

Marine litter production The bar chart shows the reduction in marine plastic litter in number of items per product category. The line graph illustrates the estimation of plastic marine litter generation (in number of items) across all of the products combined over a period of 5 years. The graph is cumulative to allow assessment over a relatively long timeframe.

Figure 20: DST screenshot showing the overall marine litter reduction as a result of switching from SUP items to alternative products

2.2.1.3 Results: Costs This section allows the user to view the financial implications of switching from SUP to alternative products. The annual consumption over a 5-year period of single use products is assumed to be The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 29

constant and therefore, the cost is the same for each year. In contrast, the cost per year for multiuse items is highest in the first year and then reduced in the subsequent years based on a calculated replacement rate. Cost savings per product (year 1) The top bar chart shows the cost savings or increase in expenditure as a result of switching to alternative products per product for the first year. A negative value indicates an increase in cost of using the alternative product over the SUP leading to an overall increase in expenditure. Whilst a positive figure represents a saving since the cost of the alternative product is less than the SUP. Figure 21 shows an example for carrier bags, drinks bottles and drinks cups & lids.

Figure 21: DST screenshot showing the cost implications of switching several SUP items for alternatives over a 1-year period

Cost savings per product (over 5 years) The first line graph allows the user to select a single product category (plastic bottles in Figure 22) and view the cost implication over a 5-year period in a cumulative manner. A negative value indicates an increase in cost of using the alternative product over the SUP leading to an overall increase in expenditure. Whilst a positive figure represents a saving since the cost of the alternative product is less than the SUP.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 30

Figure 22: DST screenshot showing the cost implications of switching several SUP items for alternatives over a 5-year period

Cost savings for all products (over 5 years) The last line graph shows the cost savings/increases for all the alternatives products combined over a 5-year period in a cumulative manner. A negative value indicates an increase in cost of using the alternative product over the SUP leading to an overall increase in expenditure. Whilst a positive figure represents a saving since the cost of the alternative product is less than the SUP.

Figure 23: Screenshot of the cost implications of switching several SUP items for alternatives over a 5-year period

2.2.2 Example Use of the DST This section provides an overview of the results from the DST when changing 10 (in quantity) of each SUP item with 10 (in quantity) alternative products (refer to Σφάλμα! Το αρχείο προέλευσης της αναφοράς δεν βρέθηκε. to Σφάλμα! Το αρχείο προέλευσης της αναφοράς δεν βρέθηκε.). It is

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 31

inevitable that the switch away from SUP items will result in an overall reduction in plastic littering including a reduction in marine litter. The environmental impact caused by the transition away from SUP items differs considerably across the products; with some changes leading to decreased impacts whilst others result in increased impacts. Table 17 provides an overall summary of which alternative products can be considered the best in terms of environmental performance. The DST clearly shows that introducing alternative products often leads to an increase in expenditure both in the short-term and in the long-term. The results obtained from the scenario outlined above should be treated with caution since the quantities of items considered in this scenario are the same and theoretical. In reality, the quantities are likely to be different because the quantity of reusable products required will be less than the SUP items which are being replaced. Further considerations are also required when establishments are considering the adoption of alternative products which require significant infrastructural investments. A prime example is the replacement of SUP bottles with reusable bottles. The switch may require the provision of a potable water supply at several points around the establishment, which can be quite costly. The provision of the water itself may also have added financial implications to the hotel; especially if bottled water is currently being sold on site. Despite the cost implications, overall, the transition from using SUP drinks bottles to PET/glass reusable bottles can be considered as the most beneficial change. Drinks bottles are one of the SUP items which is consumed in the highest quantities, especially in the tourism industry during the hot summer months. Therefore, reducing the consumption quantities will directly reduce the generation of plastic waste by significant margins. In addition, the switch from SUP bottles to PET/glass reusable bottles significantly reduces the environmental impact on 6 out of the 7 environmental themes considered in the DST.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 32

Table 8: DST result for switching from SUP carrier bags to alternative bags (quantity: 10 its) Table 9: DST result for switching from SUP cotton buds to alternative bags (quantity: 10 item)

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 33

Table 10: DST result for switching from SUP cutlery to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) Table 11: DST result for switching from SUP drink stirrers to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) Table 12: DST result for switching from SUP drinks bottles to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) Table 13: DST result for switching from SUP drink cups and lids to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items)

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 34

Table 14: DST result for switching from SUP food containers to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) Table 15: DST result for switching from SUP straws to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) Table 16: DST result for switching from SUP wet wipes to alternative bags (quantity: 10 items) Table 17: Best SUP alternative products based on environmental themes

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 35

2.3 Action Plans The compilation of the bespoke Action Plans for each pilot hotel comprised of two main phases. The first stage involved the drafting of a list of possible generic recommendations. The recommended actions were divided into two categories: main and complementary actions. Table 18 lists all of the possible actions which were considered as part of the initial Action Plan drafting stage and Table 19 lists the suggestions of how to reduce the consumption of SUP items which are currently nonreplaceable. Table 18: List of possible recommendations to be included in the bespoke Action Plans

Action Category Main

Complementary

Action Replacement of all SUP items with SUNP products Replacement of all SUP items with a combination of SUNP and MUNP/MUP products Publication of a sustainability report Provisions of awareness-raising information to travel; agents, tour operators and suppliers Training workshops for hotel employees Welcome packs from hotel guests Reduction in the use of SUP items for which there are currently no viable alternatives

Table 19: Suggestions to reduce SUP consumption for which there is currently no viable alternative

Non-Replaceable SUP Item Gloves

Bin liners

Drink cups and lids

Cosmetic packaging Food wrappers (cling film)

Suggestions to Reduce Consumption Wash hands using soap and water when possible Use of bin liners only in bathrooms (not bedrooms) Use appropriate sizes and thickness of bags for the different sizes and types of bins Only change the bags when dirty Collection of garden waste in trolleys Awareness raising campaigns for staff and clients to encourage them to think about whether they really need a SUP cup and lid Encouraging guests to use own multi-use cups through reward schemes and discounts Installation of refillable soap and shampoo dispensers which are filled using large jerry cans Reduction in use of clingfilm where possible Change in operations to allow use of reusable containers if possible

Once the list of possible actions was drafted, individual meetings (training sessions) were held with each of the pilot hotels to discuss the actions which were most appropriate for their operations. Following on from these meetings, the Action Plans for each hotel were revised and implemented immediately. The following subsections summarise the recommendations which were agreed upon for each of the hotels (presented regionally).

2.3.1 Cyprus All of the Cypriot Action Plans recommend the replacement of a wide variety of SUP items with a combination of both single-use and multi-use items. The recommended alternative single-use items are wooden cutlery, paperboard packaging and paper cotton buds. All of the other suggested replacement items are multi-use items: PET/glass beverage bottles, silicone/steel straws, steel stirrers and handkerchiefs. The time period allocated for the sourcing of the alternative products and implementation is common across the four hotels and all products. The Action Plans aimed to have all alternative products sourced by the 10th June 2022 and in use in the following 10 days by the 20th June 2022. The complementary actions are very similar for each of the Cypriot hotels. They all involve training of the staff in the topics of procurement policy, waste management and the overall need to reduce SUP consumption and its impact on marine life. The Action Plans also include recommendations to reduce the consumption of certain SUP items (gloves, bin liners, drink cups and lids and cosmetic packaging) for which there are currently no viable alternatives. The Action Plan for Hotel 3 excludes the mention of cosmetic packaging since they have already moved away from such single-use products.

Figure 24: Photos taken during the training sessions of the Action Plans in Cyprus

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 37

Table 20: Overview of adopted actions in the Action Plans for the Cypriot pilot hotels MAIN ACTIONS Hotel

Hotel 1

SUP Item to Be Replaced Beverage bottles Straws

Drink stirrers Cutlery Food containers Cotton buds Hotel 2

Beverage bottles Food containers Cotton buds Wet wipes

Hotel 3

Beverage bottles Drink stirrers Cutlery Food containers

Hotel 4

Beverage bottles Straws

Drink stirrers Cutlery Food containers Cotton buds

Alternative Product Selection PET/glass multi-use containers Steel/silicone reusable straws Steel reusable stirrers Wooden utensils Paperboard packaging Paper cotton buds PET/glass multi-use containers Paperboard packaging Paper cotton buds Cotton handkerchief with lotion PET/glass multi-use containers Steel reusable stirrers Wooden utensils Paperboard packaging

PET/glass multi-use containers Steel/silicone reusable straws Steel reusable stirrers Wooden utensils Paperboard packaging Paper cotton buds

Implementation Period Sourcing of alternative products: 20th May to 10th June 2022

1) 2) 3)

Transition to use of alternative products: 10th June to 20th June 2022

Sourcing of alternative products: 20th May to 10th June 2022 Transition to use of alternative products: 10th June to 20th June 2022 Sourcing of alternative products: 20th May to 10th June 2022 Transition to use of alternative products: 10th June to 20th June 2022 Sourcing of alternative products: 20th May to 10th June 2022 Transition to use of alternative products: 10th June to 20th June 2022

1) 2) 3)

1) 2) 3)

1) 2) 3)

COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS Reduction in use of SUP products for Staff training which there is no alternative Implementation Implementation Topics Product Period Period Procurement On -going 1) Gloves On-going policy 2) Bin liners Waste 3) Drink cups management and lids Overall need 4) Cosmetic to reduce packaging SUP and its impact on marine life

Procurement policy Waste management Overall need to reduce SUP and its impact on marine life

On -going

Procurement policy Waste management Overall need to reduce SUP and its impact on marine life

On -going

Procurement policy Waste management Overall need to reduce SUP and its impact on marine life

On -going

1) 2) 3)

Gloves Bin liners Drink cups and lids Cosmetic packaging

On-going

1) 2) 3)

Gloves Bin liners Drink cups and lids

On-going

1) 2) 3)

Gloves Bin liners Drink cups and lids Cosmetic packaging

On-going

4)

4)

2.3.2 Greece (Crete) Two of the Action Plans recommended the replacement of SUP items with non-plastic single use items. One hotel is to replace straws with paper ones and cutlery with wooden ones, whilst the other to switch from plastic bottles to single-use glass bottles. In contrast, the Action Plan for the third hotel involves the use of a combination of single-use and multi-use alternative products; it recommends the use of glass bottles, paperboard food packaging and polycarbonate multiuse cups. The contrasting approaches were based on the operations and needs of the partaking pilot hotels. All of the Greek Action Plans involve the staff training as one of the complementary actions. However, the other complementary actions vary for each of the hotels. Two of the hotels have one other complementary action to implement; one aims to install refillable toiletry dispensers which the other plans to start publishing an annual sustainability report. The other hotel has committed to implementing a wider range of actions by installing refillable toiletry dispensers, providing information to guides about SUP and alternatives as well as helping promote sustainable behaviour and practices amongst the tourist agencies. Table 21: Overview of adopted actions in the Action Plans for the Greek pilot hotels

2.3.3 Malta The Action Plans for the Maltese pilot hotels focus on the replacement of SUP items with a combination of single-use and multi-use alternative products. The suggested replacement multi-use items are Tupperware boxes (for food containers) and PET/glass containers (for beverage bottles). The other recommended replacement items are single-use products: paper cotton buds and cotton balls with lotion. Hotel 1 focuses on the replacement of only food containers; whereas as the plans for the other two hotels incorporate several products. The recommended implementation period for the alternative SUP products takes a phased approach with each alternative product being assigned a 10 period for the sourcing of the product and the subsequent 10 days for its implementation. The sourcing and introduction of the different products were arranged in a sequential manner to ease the pressure on the hotels and assist with a smooth transition away from the SUP items. The recommended complementary actions are virtually the same for all three of the Maltese pilot hotels, similarly to the Action Plans for the Cypriot participating pilot hotels. The complementary actions focus on staff training on procurement policy, waste management and awareness of the impacts of SUP and the need to reduce consumption. All three of the hotels are also committed to try to reduce consumption of bin liners and drinks cups & lids. Hotels 1 and 2 will also try to reduce the consumption of plastic food wrappers; whilst Hotel 3 shall focus on the reduction in the quantity of disposable gloves which are used across the complex.

Figure 25: Photos taken during the training sessions of the Action Plans in Greece

Table 22: Overview of adopted actions in the Action Plans for the Maltese pilot hotels

MAIN ACTIONS

Hotel

Hotel 1

Hotel 2

COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS Reduction in use of SUP Staff training products for which there is no SUP Item Alternative Implementation alternative to Be Product Period Replaced Selection Implementation Implementation Topics Product Period Period Food Tupperware Sourcing of 1) Procurement On -going 1) Bin liners On-going containers boxes alternative policy 2) Drink products: 2) Waste cups and 20th June to 30th management lids June 2022 3) Overall need 3) Plastic to reduce food Transition to SUP and its wrappers use of impact on alternative marine life st products: 1 July –to 11th July 2022 Beverage PET/glass Sourcing of 1) Procurement On -going 1) Bin liners On-going bottles multi-use alternative policy 2) Drink containers product: 2) Waste cups and th th 20 to 30 June management lids 2022 3) Overall need 3) Plastic to reduce food Transition to SUP and its wrappers use of impact on alternative marine life product: 1st to 11th July 2022 Cotton Paper Sourcing of buds cotton buds alternative product: 1st to 11th July 2022

Wet wipes

Cotton balls with lotion

Transition to use of alternative product: 12th to 22nd July 2022 Sourcing of alternative product: 12th to 22nd July 2022

MAIN ACTIONS Hotel

Hotel 3

SUP Item to Be Replaced

Beverage bottles

Wet wipes

Cotton buds

Cutlery

Alternative Product Selection

PET/glass multi-use containers

Cotton ball and lotion

Paper cotton buds

Steel utensils

Implementation Period Transition to use of alternative product: 23rd July to 2nd August 2022 Sourcing of alternative product: 20th to 30th June 2022 Transition to use of alternative product: 1st to 11th July 2022 Sourcing of alternative product: 12th to 22nd July 2022

COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS Reduction in use of SUP Staff training products for which there is no alternative Implementation Implementation Topics Product Period Period

1) Procurement On -going policy 2) Waste management 3) Overall need to reduce SUP and its impact on marine life

1) Bin liners 2) Drink cups and lids 4) Gloves

On-going

Transition to use of alternative product: 23rd July to 23rd August Sourcing of alternative product: 1st to 11th July 2022 Transition to use of alternative product: 12th to 22nd July 2022 Sourcing of alternative product:

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 42

MAIN ACTIONS Hotel

SUP Item to Be Replaced

Alternative Product Selection

Implementation Period

COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS Reduction in use of SUP Staff training products for which there is no alternative Implementation Implementation Topics Product Period Period

23rd July to 2nd August 2022 Transition to use of alternative product: 3rd August to 13th August 2022

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 43

3 SUP and Their Impact on the Environment and Human Health At present, aquatic ecosystems are receptors of 19 to 23 million metric tons of globally-generated plastic waste. It is envisaged that quantities of generated plastic waste may increase up to 53 million metric tons by 2030.8 The high disposability of SUPs renders their unequivocal fate into aquatic ecosystems a major cause for concern. Moreover, plastics are not biodegradable in nature and take hundreds of years to break down. Over time, plastics are degraded into microplastics which are typically less than 5mm in length.9 In turn, this is resulting in accumulative quantities of microplastics in the environment. Environmental impacts of SUP waste may be caused by waste originating from both terrestrial and marine sources. The hospitality industry is predominantly a terrestrial source of SUP waste, together with other sources such as recreational activities, households, mismanaged mulching film waste, insufficiently treated sewage, and unprotected landfills. Aquatic sources of SUP waste include fisheries, commercial and recreational shipping, and runoff. SUP waste such as scattered plastic film fragments is airborne but may eventually settle in terrestrial and marine environments.10 Both terrestrial and aquatic environments are vulnerable to impacts of SUP pollution. Terrestrial plants such as crops may be impacted by such pollution when soil contains plastic film residue, which causes decreased water use efficiency, weak biomass accumulation, and decreased nutrient uptake. Such impacts consequently reduce crop yields.11,12 The aquatic environment is a major receptor of SUP waste originating from terrestrial sources. It is estimated that plastic accounts for over 80% of marine litter. Such waste is capable of traversing considerable distances across the medium, impacting different aquatic animals including seabirds, whales, fish and turtles. SUPs littering and contaminating waters may be ingested by aquatic animals and bioaccumulated within the affected individuals through recurrent ingestion. Moreover, the ingested SUPs may be biomagnified as this waste is transferred across organisms at higher trophic levels. Ingestion of SUPs have devastating effects on aquatic life, accumulating within the affected stomach, causing starvation and eventual death. Apart

8

Borrelle, S. B., Ringma, J., Law, K. L., Monnahan, C. C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A., Murphy, E., Jambeck, J., Leonard, G. H., Hilleary, M. A., Eriksen, M., Possingham, H. P., De Frond, H., Gerber, L. R., Polidoro, B., Tahir, A., Bernard, M., Mallos, N., Barnes, M. & Rochman, C. M. (2020). Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science, 369(6510), 1515–1518. doi:10.1126/science.aba3656 9 NOAA. What are microplastics? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html#:~:text=Plastic%20debris%20can%20come%20in,as%2 0some%20cleansers%20and%20toothpastes. 10 Chen, Y., Awasthi, A. K., Wei, F., Tan, Q. & Li, J. (2021). Single-use plastics: Production, usage, disposal, and adverse impacts. Science of The Total Environment, 752, 141772. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141772 11 Wang, J. J., Zheng, L. X. & Li, J. H. (2018a). A critical review on the sources and instruments of marine microplastics and prospects on the relevant management in China. Waste Manage. Res. 36 (10), 898–911. 12 Wang, L., Lin, T., Yan, C., H, W., Wang, J. & Tang, Q. (2018b). Effects of different film residue and irrigation quota on nutrient and water use efficiency of cotton under drip irrigation. J. Plant Nutr. Fertitizer 24 (1), 122–133.

from ingestion, SUPs may cause suffocation, lacerations, infections, reduced ability to swim, and internal injuries.13 Humans are no exception to the negative effects of SUP waste. Microplastics have been identified from sources such as tap water, beer and salt.13 Microplastics may enter the body through ingestion and inhalation and may persist within the body, leading to conditions such as inflammation, genotoxicity, oxidative stress, apoptosis and necrosis. If these conditions are sustained, a range of outcomes can ensue including tissue damage, fibrosis and carcinogenesis. The carcinogenic nature of certain plastics may cause physiological issues, interfering with the body’s endocrine system, causing developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune disorders.14 Another cause for concern pertaining to SUPs is the contribution to climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions are a consequence of many phases of SUPs’ lifespan, from production and manufacturing of products, extraction and transportation of raw materials of plastic, to plastic waste management and plastic pollution within the natural environment.15 In a single year, up to 14 plastic manufacturing facilities are capable of emitting close to 20 million tons of carbon dioxide.16 The impacts on climate change are most significant after the end of life of SUP products, releasing methane and ethylene during degradation.17 At present, plastic waste is managed through recycling, incineration and landfilling. Processing of plastic packaging through incineration contributed to 16 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2015.15 A recent study has revealed the contribution of plastic to ocean acidification rendered by carbon dioxide production by certain bacterial species inhabiting the deposited plastic.18

13

IUCN. Issue Brief - Marine plastic pollution. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/marine-plasticpollution 14 Wright, S. L. & Kelly, F. J. (2017). Plastic and human health: a micro issue?. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(12), 6634–6647. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b00423 15 Hamilton, L. A., Feit, S., Muffett, C., Kelso, M., Rubright, S. M., Bernhardt, C., Schaeffer, E., Moon, D., Morris, J. & Labbe-Bellas, R., (2019). Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Plastic-and-Climate-FINAL2019.pdf 16 Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700782 17 Royer, S.-J., Ferrón, S., Wilson, S. T., & Karl, D. M. (2018). Production of methane and ethylene from plastic in the environment. PLOS ONE, 13(8), e0200574. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200574 18 Harvey, B. P., Kerfahi, D., Jung, Y., Shin, J.-H., Adams, J. M., & Hall-Spencer, J. M. (2020). Ocean acidification alters bacterial communities on marine plastic debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 161, 111749. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111749 The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 45

4 Overview of Plastic Waste in the Tourism Industry

Figure 26: SUP in the tourism industry and wider economy (Source: UNEP, 2021)19

19

UNEP and World Travel Tourism Council (2021) Rethinking Single-Use Plastic Products in Travel and Tourism Impacts, Management Practices and Recommendations, Nairobi. The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 46

Plastic consumption and consequential plastic waste is a predominant problem within the tourism industry (refer to Figure 26). Historically SUP items were the products of choice for their convenience, light-weight, hygiene, availability and cost effectiveness. The use of SUP products has far-reaching detrimental environmental implications and wider substantial repercussions. Plastic pollution costs the global tourism industry €268 million every year.20 The Mediterranean is no exception to this problem, with plastic waste in the summer season increasing by as much as 30% due to the influx of ca. 200million tourists per year. 20 The Mediterranean tourism industry relies heavily on its pristine beaches. Therefore, the need to tackle the SUP problem and keep the beaches clean needs to be treated with urgency. The SUPMed Project has revealed that the participating hotels are generally highly aware of the environmental impact of their operations on the natural environment and are actively implementing practices to move towards environmentally sustainable practices. This awareness and transition to environmentally sensitive operations includes the elimination of SUP items where possible and the reduction of SUP consumption where there are currently very few or no feasible alternatives available. Despite this knowledge and the desire to move away from SUP products, this SUPMed project has revealed that hotels still have a tendency to consume large quantities of SUP items and often struggle to separate and recycle plastic waste. The 5 most commonly used SUP items identified through this pilot tourism study are beverage bottles, plastic packaging (toiletries), wet wipes, cotton buds and crisp packets & sweet wrappers. The areas where these SUP items are most commonly used are restaurant and bar areas, swimming pools, lidos, beaches and within guestrooms. It is acknowledged that safety limitations impose restrictions on the use of glass in pool areas and beaches where people will be barefoot. Such restrictions limit the choice of available alternative products and favours the use of SUP items. The hotels are keen to use alternative SUP items as long as they are practical, feasible and readily available. The project has revealed that there is often a problem with the procurement of alternative products with supply chain issues being a predominant factor. This issue requires further consideration and promotion to encourage both new and existing suppliers to expand their operations and increase supply in various areas. Although this study focused solely on the hotel industry, the high consumption SUP products is also experienced in the tourism industry as a whole. Other tourist-focused establishments and activities which are likely to consume large quantities of SUP items include: • • • • • • 20

Restaurants, cafes, bars and kiosks Indoor entertainment facilities (e.g. cinemas, arcades, bowling alleys, night clubs, museums and spas) Outdoor recreational facilities (e.g. lidos and beaches) Sporting events Music concerts Cruise liners

WWF Report (2019): Stop the Flood of Plastics, How Mediterranean Countries Can Save their Sea.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 47

• •

Self-catering apartments Language schools

The SUP items which are consumed by the aforementioned activities are mostly related to the packaging of products and food/beverages (especially those intended for consumption off the premises). Based on the findings within the pilot hotels, it is fair to assume that plastic beverage bottles are the most (or one of the most) commonly used SUP products within the tourism industry, especially since the pilot hotels are all subject to a hot Mediterranean climate. Certain tourist attractions and activities will naturally have a higher dependence on SUP items. For example, lidos and spas with swimming pools are not permitted to use glass due to health and safety regulations and the operation of the pool equipment itself (e.g. pumps and filters cannot risk getting damaged with shards of broken glass). Other examples include short-term attractions where providing multi-use products are unlikely to be returned and thus impose certain financial efforts, potentially rendering the business’ economic model unviable. Recent research has revealed that the use of SUP items increased substantially in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.21 The International Solid Waste Association has estimated an increase in SUP consumption during the pandemic to be 250 – 300%.22 The health protocols resulted in tourist accommodation and attractions being forced to use disposal single use items, many of which were made of plastic as they are cheap to produce and easy to source. However, the plastic problem existed before the pandemic with plastic pollution levels increasing year on year. If no significant action is taken, the issue will only continue to grow, with estimations of up to 23 – 37 million tons of plastic entering the marine ecosystems by 2040.21 Due to the high reliance of SUP in the tourism industry, it is important that the issue is tackled promptly and effectively within the sector. A number of initiatives are already well underway to help reduce and eventually eliminate SUP products within the tourism sector. The most prominent of these is The Global Tourism Plastics Initiative (GTPI) which was launched in January 2020. It is a collaboration between One Planet Sustainable Tourism Programme, Ellen Macarthur Foundation, United Nationals Environment Programme (UNEP), World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), national and local governments, private companies and other tourist related organisations/stakeholders. The main focus of the GTPI is to tackle the issue from the root of the problem using a collaborative world-wide approach, for which this collaboration aims to be a main driving mechanism. All members are committed to reducing plastic pollution in order to shift towards a more circular plastic economy by the year 2025; specifically, to: 1. Eliminate problematic or unnecessary plastic packaging and items; 2. Take action to move from single-use to reuse models to reusable alternatives; 3. (Engaging the value chain to) move towards 100% of plastic packaging to be useable, recyclable or compostable; 21

UNEP (2021). Reframing Tourism to Address Plastic Pollution. Reframing tourism to address plastic pollution (unep.org) 22 Emma Samson (2021). How the Tourism Industry Can Help Fight the Plastic Pandemic. How the Tourism Industry Can Help Fight the Plastic Pandemic - Sustainable Brands The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 48

4. Take action to increase the amount of recycled content across all plastic packaging and items used; 5. Collaborate and investment to increase the recycling and composting rates for plastics; and 6. Report publicly and annually on progress made towards these targets.23 The GTPI emphasizes the important role which the tourism industry has in helping to resolve the evergrowing SUP issue. As well as fostering a culture in which SUP consumption is reduced and where possible eliminated, the sector also has a wider role to play in overall environmental sustainability. The GTPI has highlighted the following five areas in which the tourism industry can make a significant difference: Reducing landfill, pollution, natural resource depletion and greenhouse gas emissions24; Raising awareness of conservation among staff and guests to avoid single-use plastic products; Influencing their suppliers to produce more sustainable alternatives to SUP products; Working with governments to improve local waste infrastructure and community facilities; and 5. Creating sustainable livelihoods and long-term community prosperity in harmony with nature. 1. 2. 3. 4.

23

One Planet Network (2022). Global Tourism Plastic Initiative. Global Tourism Plastics Initiative | One Planet network 24 One Planet Network (2022). Global Tourism Plastic Initiative. Global Tourism Plastics Initiative | One Planet network The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 49

5 Recommended Actions to Reduce SUP in the Tourism Industry and Other Sectors 5.1 Tourism Industry All stakeholders involved in the tourism industry need to strive to move away from SUP items by either using multi-use plastic products or non-plastic items, as already discussed in this guide (refer back to Table 7). Another vital action which needs to be implemented across the sector is staff education. Training needs to be provided to people working in the sector to raise awareness of the SUP issue, why action needs to be taken and how. In addition to these two generic actions, the different types of tourist establishments and activities can implement specific measures; examples of such measures are provided in Table 23.

Table 23: Recommended actions to reduce/eliminate SUP consumption in the tourism sector

Establishment Type/Activity Accommodation (inc. selfcatering establishments)

Recommendations Encourage guests to bring their own reusable products with them on holiday, such as water bottles, coffee cups and tote bags to reduce the demand for SUP items during their stay. This information should be sent to the guests during the booking process via email. A series of additional emails and/or mobile messages can also be sent in the lead up to the guests stay as a reminder to pack the alternative items. In-house incentives to use alternative products, such as discounts for hot drinks if you bring your own cup. Financial incentives will help encourage the guests to choose more environmentally friendly options. Provision of drinking water fountains on site to replace the need to provided SUP water bottles to the guests. This will require the premises to have a potable drinking water supply, which will most likely incur a substantial initial capital expenditure. It may also have added knock-on effects in relation to any profit lost from the selling of bottled water. Provision of toiletries in large refillable dispensers. This will eliminate the use of several small, individually wrapped cosmetics/toiletries being provided to each guest on a daily basis. Use of reusable receptacles at buffets, rather than providing individually wrapped portions. This will eliminate the waste from the individually wrapped portions, which would no longer be required. Engagement of suppliers who do not use plastic packaging. This may require a change in supplier to one who is more environmentally conscious and is also actively trying to reduce their use of SUP. The change in supplier may incur financial implications.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 50

Establishment Type/Activity

Recommendations Digital information packs explaining the problems associated with SUP use and alternative options available.

Restaurants, cafes, bars and kiosks

By raising awareness of the issues related to the production, use and disposal of SUP items it will encourage a change in behaviour of guests, not only during their stay but also in their usual daily lives/routines. Engagement of suppliers who use non-plastic or reusable plastic items such as glass beverage bottles. This may involve a change in supplier to find alternatives who are more conscious of the environmental implications of their services. The use of more environmentally conscious suppliers may result in changes in the cost of sourcing the products. Buy condiments in large refillable receptacles. The condiments should then be given to the customers in reusable dishes and only when requested. This will eliminate the plastic waste from the individually wrapped condiments, which are also often thrown away without being used. Provision of drinking water through the kitchen taps so that people can be given water in refillable receptacles, such as carafes. If a potable water supply is not provided on national level, this will require a substantial investment from the operator to install an inhouse water treatment system. Ensure correct waste separation on site to enable recycling of plastic items. This is crucial to help tackle the currently low plastic recycling rates. Avoid/reduce the use of cling film when possible. This can be hard to implement as there is currently no viable alternative product. Therefore, it may require modifications to the operating procedures. Financial discounts for those who bring their own reusable items, such as coffee cups.

Indoor entertainment facilities

Outdoor recreational facilities

Financial incentives are always viewed favourable by customers, especially those who visit regularly when the benefits will be cumulative. Engage environmentally conscious suppliers who do not use plastic packaging and provide SUP alternative items. It may take time to find suppliers who can provide the necessary items. If no local suppliers are available, there may be a need to work with suppliers from another country. Install information boards to inform the general public about the importance of reducing/eliminating SUP items. Public education is a key element to successfully tackling the SUP problem. Provide several different bins to enable correct separation of waste. There need to be several sets of bins spread across the site to make the waste separation process convenient.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 51

Establishment Type/Activity

Sporting events

Recommendations

Care also needs to be taken when selecting the waste carrier to ensure that the different waste streams are not mixed together and taken to appropriate management facilities. Provision of water via drinking fountains and encouragement (or even mandatory) use of own reusable bottles. These bottles can be given as a freebie/provided at an additional cost covered by the entry fee when entering the event. Due to the nature of sporting events and importance of staying hydrated; implementing this measure will result in a significant reduction in the SUP consumption and waste generation during such events. Use of race bibs which are made from recycled paper, with no plastic content. This will eliminate the SUP completely. Selection of goodie bag items to only contain items which are not wrapped in plastic and are themselves not SUP products. Goodie bags are a common component at sporting events with large numbers of competitors; therefore, the impacts of this switch will be substantial. Use of metal barriers or marshals rather than plastic tape to delineate race routes and competitor/spectator areas. This will eliminate the need to use plastic tape, which often gets torn into pieces and ends up being littered in the surrounding area. Use strong cardboard for the access tags, rather than laminated paper.

Music concerts

This will prevent the production of these SUP items. Recycle bins should also be provided to allow the cardboard tags to be recycled at the end of the event. Use of wrist bands which are made of recycled paper only and do not contain any plastic elements. Since concerts are attended by very large numbers of people, this simple action will have a large impact. Use of metal barriers rather than plastic tape to delineate crowd areas/routes. This will eliminate the need to use plastic tape, which often gets torn into pieces and ends up being littered in the surrounding area. Use of reusable plastic cups for beverages. The people can have the option to buy the cup or pay a deposit which will be returned to them with the cup at the end of the event. This will reduce the consumption of SUP cups and also reduce the quantities of waste generated during such events. Ensure that all confetti cannons used on stage make use of biodegradable confetti. This will help ensure that small pieces of plastics, which will eventually degrade into microplastics, do not disperse into the natural environment.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 52

Establishment Type/Activity

Recommendations Use strong cardboard for the access tags, rather than laminated paper.

Cruise liners

This will prevent the production of these SUP items. Recycle bins should also be provided to allow the cardboard tags to be recycled at the end of the event. Provide each of the passengers with their own water bottles, coffee cup and tote bag on their arrival to be used throughout their trip. Since cruise holidays are often all inclusive and tend to have multiple pool and play areas where SUP items are typically used they tend to have high levels of both SUP consumption and waste. Therefore, this measure can be highly effective if implemented onboard the entire of a ship. Installation of drinking water fountains around the ship. This may require modifications to ships’ infrastructure to locate the drinking fountains in areas which are convenient for the passengers on board. Engagement of suppliers who do not use SUP packaging or products. It maybe time consuming and potentially more costly to find such suppliers. However, due to the travelling nature of cruise ships it may be possible to use suppliers from several different countries. Digital information packs explaining the problems associated with SUP use and alternative options available.

Language schools

By raising awareness of the issues related to the production, use and disposal of SUP items it will encourage a change in behaviour of guests, not only during their cruise but also in their usual daily lives/routines. Include a section on the importance of reducing SUP consumption and how to do so in the introductory lesson on the students’ arrival. This will increase their awareness of the issue of using SUP items and hopefully instil a sense of environmental accountability. Encouragement of the students to bring their own reusable items (e.g. water bottles, tote bags and lunch boxes) with them from home. Such items may also be provided as part of their welcome pack. This will undoubtedly reduce the quantities of SUP consumed in the school operations. Provision of drinkable water from the taps in their accommodation and teaching premises. If potable water supply is not provided on a national scale, this will most likely be costly to implement. The installation of the necessary infrastructures to provide a safe drinking water supply can be a large financial outlay. Ban on the provision of SUP water bottles in the packed lunches. Since most language schools provide daily packed lunches for the students, this simple switch away from SUP bottles will have a significant impact.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 53

Establishment Type/Activity

Recommendations Ban on the use of SUP packaging such as clingfilm in the packed lunches. This measure is harder to implement due to a lack of viable alternative product. It may require the investment in reusable hardwearing food containers.

5.2 Other Industries SUP consumption and appropriate recycling is not only an issue in the tourism sector but across the entire global economy. The majority of the recommendations provided in the previous section of this report (Section 5.1) can be applied to most areas of the economy, with the switch away from SUP item use and staff education being the two most overarching actions. A vast range of other measures can be introduced to tackle the problem at a bigger scale. The measures range from small scale changes in behaviour to large scale government policies. Examples of some of the most widely applicable recommendations are provided below. Individual Level Small changes in individual behaviours to reduce SUP consumption and promote reuse and recycling of such items will have a large cumulative effective if carried out by all/the vast majority of the population. Individual level changes which can be adopted include: • • • • •

Changes in behaviour to reduce SUP consumption. Cleaning of waste plastic packaging and items to ensure that they can be recycled. Changes in behaviour to separate individual waste streams to ensure that plastic waste is taken to appropriate recycling facilities. Only changing bin liners when they are soiled. Use of appropriately sized and thickness of bags for individual bins.

Company/Business Level Due to the collective gathering of people in work places and their operations, changes at a company/business level can have substantial impacts to help fight against SUP consumption and promote appropriate waste management. This is particularly pertinent for businesses with large numbers of employees and industrial/manufacturing companies which by nature tend to consume and produce significant quantities of SUP. Possible actions which can be implemented at a company/business level include: •

• • •

The engagement of suppliers who are environmentally conscious and provide alternative SUP products. Care should also be taken to selected suppliers that use no / minimal SUP packaging and offer refillable/reusable items. Installation of drinking water fountains in working environments. Provision of a reusable water bottle as welcome gift when starting a new job. Encouragement of hand washing to replace the use of disposable gloves when hygienically feasible. It is acknowledged that this may not be possible in certain industries, such as medical care.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 54

• •

• •

Use of reusable receptables in canteens to eliminate the need for individually wrapped food / drink portions. The modification of supermarkets/grocers to provide products in large containers to allow customers to refill their own smaller reusable containers. This can be coupled with customer reward schemes; for example, for every 20 refills, you get 1 free refill. This is highly appropriate for cereals, flours and seeds as well as for non-consumable items such as cleaning and laundry products. Provision of adequate numbers of plastic recycling bins. Reducing the frequency at which bin liners are changed and eliminating them completely in bins in which clean items are placed, such as those dedicated to plastic waste. This can be coupled with ensuring the appropriately sizzed and thickness of bags are used in each bin. In some cases, alternatives may be able to be used such as reusable tarpaulin sacks for garden waste.

National, Regional and International Level Tackling the issue of SUP at a broader level will force or encourage companies and individuals to take action. Collaboration between different stakeholders, regions and countries is the most secure way of inducing the level of change which is required successfully reduce the consumption of SUP to a minimum, develop viable and affordable SUP alternative products and evolve the most efficient recycling methods. Examples of broad level measures include: • • • • • • •

•

• • •

Installation of drinking water fountains in public spaces, such as parks. Provision of adequate numbers of plastic recycling bins. Enforcement of proper waste separation, at domestic, commercial and industrial levels. This will ensure that all plastic waste (and other recycled materials) are recycled. Enforcement of local waste regulations to ensure plastic waste is collected and not dumped into landfill sites. Monitoring of recycling facilities to ensure that plastic waste is handled correctly. Investment in waste management infrastructures to maximise the quantities of plastic which are recycled. Public education campaigns to inform the people about what SUP items are, their impact the environment and actions which can be taken to improve the situation. The information campaigns should also include information about how SUP products are not always the most hygienic option available. Collaborations to prepare handbooks specific to each of the major industries to guide them on how they can transition away from SUP items and SUP intensive practices to more sustainable and plastic-free operating procedures. Investment and grant schemes for research and development into alternative plastic materials and products to replace SUP items for which there is currently no viable alternative. Business start-up financial schemes for companies specialising in SUP product alternatives to help businesses source such products locally and at a reasonable cost. Encouragement to join global, regional and national programmes to tackle the SUP problem in a holistic and collaborative approach (also applies at the company/business level).

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 55

•

•

Drafting and enforcement of packaging regulations to ban SUP packing materials, especially plastic packaging, where possible. In cases where is it not possible to eliminate, thresholds can be established for the percentage plastic content allowed. Introduction of a tax on SUP products. Enforcement of legislation (at national and regional levels) which completely ban the use of SUP items for which there are viable alternatives. Such an initiative has already taken place in Nairobi, Kenya and has proven to be very successful.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 56

Appendix I: DST User Guide Creating an Account • Visit: portal.supmed.eu/register • Complete all the fields and submit • A confirmation email shall be sent to your registered address • Follow instructions on the email to activate the account

Logging In • Visit: portal.supmed.eu/login • Enter email and password • Click on “forgot password” if can’t remember and follow the instructions

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 57

Complete Profile • Click on the person icon in the top right of the screen • Complete/revise the details and update

Create Scenario (ex. Hotel) Scenarios allow a single establishment to analysis different situations. For example, the user can set up different scenarios for the winter and summer seasons if the occupation numbers vary significantly. Or else if the establishment is considering expanding and building new facilities, one can be used for the current situation and the other to look at the changes that would be imposed due to the expansion. • •

Click “Add Scenarios” in the top right of the screen Fill out details in window entitled “Scenario setup”

The list of required fields changes depending on the type of establishment selected. Try to complete as much as the information as possible to optimise the accuracy of the DST results. The details can be revised at any time by clicking on the blue box “setup”

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 58

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 59

SUP Product Selection This first step of the DST allows the user to select the type and quantity of SUP items which are currently in use. • • • • • • •

Select the Scenario the user wishes to work on by clicking the gold box “edit” Select the SUP currently in use by clicking on the black “+” next to the corresponding product Complete the field “items consumed annually” and “cost per item” If the cost per item is not known, the default value can be left (this value was calculated during the baseline research phase) Click the blue add icon Select as many of the SUP items as required The selected items will appear in the section titled “added products” Click the gold box “explore alternatives” to move onto the next step

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 60

Selection of Alternative Products (ex. carrier bags) This second step allows the user to look at the alternative items available for each SUP product and select the one which is most appropriate for their needs. • • • • •

A list of alternatives items will be provided for each of the SUP items which were selected Select the chosen alternative item by clicking the box next to corresponding product Enter the “replacement quantity” (the DST may be able to provide a suggested quantity) and complete the “cost per item”, the default value can be left if unknown (this value was calculated during the baseline research phase) Complete these steps for all of the selected SUP items Click the gold box “view results” to move onto the next step

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 61

Results: Overall Environmental Impact The top graph illustrates the impact of all of the selected SUP alterative products on the seven environmental themes. A negative value reflects a decrease in the environmental impact associated with the product; in contrast to a positive value which indicates an increase in the environmental impact.

Results: Environmental Impact by Product & Environmental Theme (carrier bags & climate change) The middle graph can be manipulated by selecting the product category and environmental impact category from the two drop down menus. The bar chart will show the difference in environmental impact between the current usage (SUP) and alternative selection (SUP alternative item).

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 62

Results: Environmental Impact by Product (ex. carrier bags) The bottom graph illustrates the impact of the alternative SUP selection for a single product on all the environmental themes simultaneously. A negative value reflects a decrease in the environmental impact associated with the product; in contrast to a positive value which indicates an increase in the environmental impact.

Results: Littering (inc. marine litter) The bar chart shows the reduction in plastic litter in kilograms per product category. The line graph illustrates the estimation of plastic litter generation (in kilograms) across all of the products combined over a period of 5 years. The line graph is cumulative to allow assessment over a relatively long timeframe.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 63

Results: Marine Littering The bar chart shows the reduction in marine plastic litter in number of items per product category. The line graph illustrates the estimation of plastic marine litter generation (in number of items) across all of the products combined over a period of 5 years. The graph is cumulative to allow assessment over a relatively long timeframe.

Results: Cost Savings per Product (year 1) The top bar chart shows the cost savings or increase in expenditure as a result of the switch to the alternative products per product for the first year. A negative value indicates an increase in cost of using the alternative product over the SUP leading to an overall increase in expenditure. Whilst a positive figure represents a saving since the cost of the alternative product is less than the SUP.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 64

Results: Cost Savings per Product (over 5 years) The first line graph allows the user to select a single product category and view the cost implication over a 5-year period in a cumulative manner. A negative value indicates an increase in cost of using the alternative product over the SUP leading to an overall increase in expenditure. Whilst a positive figure represents a saving since the cost of the alternative product is less than the SUP.

Results: Cost Savings for All Products Combined (over 5 years) The last line graph shows the cost savings/increases for all the alternatives products combined over a 5-year period in a cumulative manner. A negative value indicates an increase in cost of using the alternative product over the SUP leading to an overall increase in expenditure. Whilst a positive figure represents a saving since the cost of the alternative product is less than the SUP.

The SUPMed project is funded by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EEA Grants and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation 65