Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
, , , ,

Plastic Shopping Bag Levy: One of the Ways to Tackle the Waste Problem?

Thursday, November 3, 2016


CRPG has contributed to the policy discussion regarding the plastic shopping bag levy that was introduced in February 2016 in several cities in Indonesia.  The article, written by Dyah Paramita, was published in the Jakarta Post. The following is an excerpt:

Plastic waste is a problem. It is very difficult to decompose naturally and when it burns, it releases toxins such as dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are very harmful for human health and the environment and is linked to the development of cancer. Animals also suffer from the ingestion of plastic. According to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, the use of plastic bags in Indonesia for the past 10 years is increasing. In the past decade, Indonesians used approximately 9.8 billion sheets of plastic bags per year and almost 95% of them ended up as waste.  Based on a recent study published in the Science Magazine written by Jenna R. Jambeck, the country ranks second (after China) that mismanaged plastic waste followed by the Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka.

In order to handle the growing problem in Indonesia, a policy regarding the shopping plastic bag levy will be imposed on a trial basis.  The policy is geared specifically for consumers shopping in modern markets and retail outlets and will be imposed from February 21, on the National Waste Awareness Day, to June 5, 2016, the World Environment Day. At the completion of the trial phase, the regulatory framework is expected to be completed by June 2016.  The local governments of 23 cities have shown interest in participating in this movement (Jakarta Post  05/02/16). The Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) has proposed the charge of Rp. 500 per bag. Of this amount, Rp. 200 will be repaid to the consumers who return the plastic bags to the retailers and the rest (Rp. 300) will be used by the retailers and the local municipality to fund environmental activities. However, the price might vary and could range between Rp. 500-Rp. 5000, depending on the local policy (Kompas 26/01/16).

Will the plastic bag levy tackle the waste problem? A plastic bag levy is not a new concept in the environmental field.  Several countries have already introduced this policy, such as Taiwan, Ireland, Hong Kong, Botswana, China and Denmark.

There are different approaches regarding this matter. A levy on plastic shopping bags can be imposed to encourage the change of the consumers’ behavior. In this case, the main goal is to discourage consumers from using plastic bags, which will decrease the amount of litter and reduce the volume of waste going to the landfill. The amount of the levy is intended to deter consumers from using plastic shopping bags and to encourage them to bring their own bag.  Ireland applies this type of levy. The KLHK seems to be proposing similar type of levy combined with the deposit-refund system. The deposit-refund system means when a product, which potentially pollutes the environment, is sold, a deposit should be charged simultaneously. Thus, the deposit will be re-funded when the consumers return the empty containers to the collection points. It is similar to the policy known as the “bottle bill” in the United States. The consumers pay a deposit when they purchase beverage containers and they are refunded their money when they return the empty containers to the retailers or to the designated collections points. One of the objectives of the deposit-refund system is to prevent improper waste disposal.

Another approach is imposing a Pigouvian tax on the plastic bag. The name is taken from the British university professor, Arthur Cecil Pigou who coined the theory. This way, the tax is intended to internalize the external cost of using the plastic bags. The external cost in this sense is the environmental costs, which include pollution, waste problems, and damage to wildlife. To implement this type of tax, there are efforts to calculate the margin of the external costs and determine the optimum level of the tax accordingly. This is also a way to reduce pollution and protect the environment by discouraging excessive consumption of plastic bags. This policy reflects what is called the polluter-pay principle, meaning those who cause pollution should bear the cost of managing it.

See full article here

 

, , , ,

Lecture on the regulation of sharing economies

Monday, March 28, 2016

The lecture explores sharing economies, externalities associated by it and whether self-regulation (or shared regulation) can be applied to sharing economy platforms. The lecture use the case of Uber (transportation platform) in Indonesia. Session 1 contains slides on sharing economy. Session 2 introduce basic regulation theories and apply it into sharing economy. The lecture contain videos/multimedia, you need to click on the box to play it. 





 

, , , ,

Dapatkah Uber dan GoJek Mengatur Dirinya Sendiri?

Thursday, March 24, 2016



Sumber: Koran Sindo, Edisi 24-03-2016

 Pic Credit: Adzaniah

 Apakah Uber dan GoJek harus diregulasi? Secara prinsip, apabila suatu kegiatan ekonomi dapat berjalan lancar dengan sendirinya tanpa merugikan orang lain dan lingkungan, tidak perlu ada regulasi. 

Meski demikian, apabila ada sedikit saja potensi pihak ketiga dan lingkungan dirugikan, di situ terdapat justifikasi untuk melakukan regulasi. Dalam kasus transportasi online seperti Uber dan Gojek, setidaknya ada beberapa pihak yang—apabila tidak terdapat regulasi yang memadai—dapat dirugikan. Pertama adalah sopir. 

Karena status hukumnya bukan sebagai pekerja, sopir tidak mendapat perlindungan dari hukum ketenagakerjaan berupa hak-hak jaminan kesehatan, jaminan sosial, dan sebagainya. Kedua adalah penumpang. Dalam transportasi umum berizin ada beberapa standar yang harus dipenuhi. Misalnya, harus ada yang memastikan tersedia seatbelt yang berfungsi atau remnya tidak blong. 

Apabila tidak, ada potensi bahaya. Ketiga adalah lingkungan sekitar seperti pengguna jalan yang dapat dibahayakan akibat pengemudi yang ugal-ugalan dalam mencari setoran. Bagi para ekonom, istilah dari fenomena-fenomena ini adalah ”eksternalitas negatif”. Tiga hal di atas adalah contoh singkat justifikasi mengapa Uber dan GoJek seharusnya diregulasi. 

Mungkin ada yang akan berpendapat bahwa soal standar keamanan sebenarnya sudah diatur dalam peraturan lalu lintas dan transportasi umum, mengapa untuk Uber dan GoJek harus diatur khusus? Betul bahwa ada standar umum yang berlaku bagi setiap kendaraan, namun Uber dan GoJek berbeda karena aset kendaraan dipergunakan khusus untuk keperluan nonpribadi. 


Di sini ada potensi ”moral hazard ” di mana standar keselamatan dikompromikan karena kepentingan finansial. Dengan kata lain, pemilik kendaraan pribadi akan lebih cenderung melakukan investasi terhadap keselamatan dibanding pemilik angkutan umum atau mobil yang diompreng -kan. Tapi, bukankah ada aturan tidak menjamin keselamatan, buktinya banyak juga angkutan umum yang terlibat kecelakaan dan sopirnya ugal-ugalan? 



Betul, tapi di sini kita bicara ”efektivitas regulasi”, sementara sebelumnya kita bicara soal ”justifikasi regulasi”. Moral hazard dan eksternalitas negatif merupakan dua justifikasi utama untuk melakukan regulasi. Adalah kewajiban pemerintah untuk memastikan ongkos sosial dari kegiatan ekonomi ini minimum dan terefleksikan dalam harga yang dibayar. Bukankah GoJek lebih bagus dari ojek pangkalan karena sudah pasti penumpang diberikan helm dan masker? Betul. 



Nah, sekarang kita bicara soal efektivitas regulasi. Soal GoJek yang memberikan helm kepada penumpangnya sebenarnya merupakan sinyal bahwa Uber dan GoJek memiliki potensi untuk meregulasi dirinya sendiri (self regulation). 



Setiap kali berbicara regulasi, orang cenderung berpikir tentang aturan dan sanksi yang dikeluarkan pemerintah lewat peraturan perundangundangan. Ini sebenarnya kurang tepat karena pertanyaan kedua yang wajib dijawab ketika pertanyaan pertama tentang justifikasi regulasi sudah terjawab adalah dengan metode dan model apa regulasi akan dilakukan? 



Model regulasi aturan dan sanksi dari pemerintah itu dikenal dengan metode ”commandand- control”. Metode ini paling klasik karena berbicara otoritas negara. Mayoritas publikasi akademik terakhir dalam arena regulasi mengusulkan self regulation bagi sharing economy. Self regulation berbeda dengan commandandcontrol karena dalam self regulation ada ”ruang regulasi” bagi pelaku ekonomi. 



Dalam self regulation, pemerintah tidak perlu mengawasi detail tetek bengek standar keselamatan secara langsung dan memberikan sanksi kepada pelanggarnya karena hal itu dilakukan sendiri oleh pelaku ekonomi. Kenapa self regulation banyak diusulkan sebagai metode regulasi sharing economy? Jawabannya adalah platform bisnis ini dengan mudahnya (dan dengan ongkos yang sangat minim) bisa mengeluarkan dan memasukkan orang ke dalam kegiatan ekonomi. 



Regulasi intinya adalah penentuan siapa yang boleh ikut serta dan siapa yang tidak serta standar apa yang dipakai untuk menentukan seseorang boleh ikut serta atau tidak. Uber dan GoJek punya standar untuk menentukan siapa yang bisa jadi sopir dan ikut ke dalammarketplace- nya. Apabila ada sopir yang ugal-ugalan, akan di-ban dari appnya dan di-blacklist sebagai sopir. 



Standarstandar ini ”regulasi” juga walaupun tunduk kepada ”terms ofservice ” dan bukan peraturan perundang-undangan di bidang transportasi. Metode kedua yang dipakai untuk self regulation dalam sharing economy adalah sistem reputasi. Sistem reputasi ini dulu terkenal ketika dipakai oleh Ebay untuk me-rating penjual. Penjual yang punya rating tinggi memperoleh reputasi yang baik dan dipercaya oleh konsumen. 



Pada hakikatnya, sistem reputasi ini merefleksikan kualitas suatu barang (atau dalam kasus GoJek dan Uber, suatu layanan). Kendati demikian, sistem ini tidak sempurna. Orang bisa memberikan rating baik karena sopirnya ganteng atau cantik atau rating buruk hanya karena sopirnya tidak ramah. Ihwal yang tidak kasatmata seperti rem blong dan sebagainya tidak dengan mudah terefleksikan dalam rating ini. 



Bisa jadi sopirnya ganteng atau cantik, tapi remnya blong dan tetap saja orang memberikan rating yang bagus. Walaupun sistem reputasi ini tidak sempurna, setidaknya ini memberikan cerminan atas kualitaslayanan. Sisteminijugadapat disempurnakan untuk bisa merefleksikan standar pelayanan transportasi pada umumnya. 



Apakah self regulation ini bisa efektif? Kita tidak tahu. Mau tidak mau, sharing economy melakukan disrupsi terhadap pemain lama. Tapi, yang jelas, self regulation akan tetap lebih baik dibandingkan no regulation atau pelarangan total. Uber dan GoJek juga seharusnya tertarik dengan proposal self regulation ini karena dengan metode ini intervensi pemerintah akan minim. 



Ditambah lagi, yang sudah dan sedang mereka lakukan selama ini sebenarnya juga sebuah self regulation. Secara teoritis, kita bisa mengetahui apabila self regulation ini efektif ketika perubahan perilaku dan turunnya biaya sosial yang diakibatkan dari aktivitas ekonomi. Katakanlah, apabila standar keselamatan naik dan keluhan penumpang turun, kita bisa tahu bahwa metode ini efektif. 



Yang harus dilakukan pemerintah saat ini adalah untuk menentukan bagian-bagian mana yang akan diberlakukan self regulation dan bagian-bagian mana yang tetap akan diberlakukan command-and-control. Bagi saya, prinsip yang harus diberlakukan dalam self regulation adalah same service, same standard. Artinya, standar-standar umum keselamatan transportasi harus berlaku sama bagi Uber dan GoJek maupun taksi konvensional. 



Tinggal permasalahannya, bagaimana standar ini akan ditegakkan. Dalam regulasi commandand- control, standar layanan ini bisa ditegakkan oleh DLLAJ dengan melakukan KIR atau pengecekan kendaraan. Nah, dalam self regulation penegakan aturan harusnya dapat dilaksanakan oleh Uber dan GoJek sendiri. Caranya bagaimana, apakah petugas Uber harus memeriksa satu persatu armadanya? 



Saya kira tidak. Bisa ditemukan cara lain agar sopir melaporkan sendiri kelaikan kendaraan. Soal jam kerja maksimal misalnya (karena dalam aturan kendaraan umum ada pem-batasan jam kerja sopir) bisa secara langsung dikalkulasikan lewat aplikasi yang ada dalam telepon genggam sopir. 



Bagaimana kalau mereka menolak kepatuhan terhadap standar layanan dan keselamatan transportasi umum tersebut? Nah, kalau itu tidak apa-apa, silakan blokir saja sebab pemerintah punya kewajiban melindungi warganya.


MOHAMAD MOVA AL’AFGHANI 
Direktur Center for Regulation, Policy and Governance (CRPG), Memperoleh PhD dalam Ilmu Hukum dari University of Dundee , UK 

 

, ,

Mengenal Bahaya Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Wednesday, February 24, 2016


Polychorinated Biphenyls (PCB) dapat menyebabkan kanker, kemandulan, penyakit cardiovaskular, gangguan sistem syaraf, gangguan endokrin, gangguan imunitas dan berbagai permasalahan kesehatan lainnya. PCB -- karena sifat isolatornya -- banyak diganukan pada peralatan listrik seperti trafo, kapasitor, Air Conditioner.

Karena termasuk kedalam Bahan Berbahaya dan Beracun, tim dari CRPG, UNIDO dan KLH saat ini sedang memformulasikan regulasi dan ESM (environmentally sound management) PCB di Indonesia. Regulasi PCB akan memberikan dampak berbagai industri yang menggunaan peralatan tersebut, khususnya industri energi/ketenagalistrikan, pabrik-pabrik dan lain sebagainya.






Update lain dari CRPG tentang PCB:


Website KLH untuk PCB.

 

, ,

PCB Regulations in European Union

Monday, February 22, 2016



PCB’s have long been recognised as posing a threat to the environment because of their toxicity, persistence and tendency to bioaccumulate (i.e. to build up in the bodies of animals, particularly at the top of the food chain). Although the use of PCBs has been reduced greatly since the 1970s it is recognised that those still remaining in existing equipment pose a continuing environmental threat.

 In European Union, about Polychlorinated Byphenils (PCBs) is regulated through EC Directive 96/59 EC on the disposal of PCBs and Polychlorinated Terphenils (PCTs), which requires the preparation of national inventories and the labelling/disposal of all PCB holdings.

 Also there are European Communities (Dangerous Substances and Preparations)(Marketing and Use) Regulations 2003.[1] These regulations implement Council Directives 85/467/EEC and 89/677/EEC in relation to polychlorinated biphenyls (except mono and dichlorinated biphenyls), PCTs, and preparations, including waste oils, with a PCB or PCT weight content higher than 0.005%. These substances may not be used, except in designated applications that were in service prior to 30 June 1986. Equipment and plant containing PCBs or PCTs are required to display instructions concerning disposal and maintenance and use of equipment and plant containing them.

 Member states then implement this directive into their municipal laws and regulations.

 Below are laws and regulations about PCBs in several member states of EU :

 United Kingdom
1.      The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 requires employers to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare of all their employees at work. You are required to co-operate with your employer, for example by using safety equipment and working methods as instructed.
2.      The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (COSHH) place duties on employer to:
·         ensure that your exposure to PCBs is either prevented, or if this is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled;
·         assess the risks to your health from PCBs and identify the measures which are needed to protect your health;
·         ensure that control measures are adequate and that you use them;
·         monitor your exposure;
·         provide you with information on the risks of PCBs and the steps which are necessary to protect your health.
Employer also have duties under COSHH to:
·         co-operate with your employer;
·         use protective measures and to report any defects.
3.      The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires, amongst other things, waste holders to exercise a duty of care when disposing of certain materials.[2]

 Ireland

 The Waste Management (Hazardous Waste) Regulations 1998[3] of Ireland implement provisions of the EC Directive (96/59/EC) and sets out the requirements in terms of disposing of PCBs and registering holdings of PCBs. A holder of PCBs, used PCBs or contaminated equipment must:
1.      Decontaminate or dispose of used PCBs, contaminated equipment and the PCBs contained in such equipment as soon as possible. For contaminated equipment containing more than 5dm3 (5 litres) of PCBs:
·         By 31 December 2010, if the fluid content contains more than 0.05% by weight of PCBs. Transformers containing more than 0.05% by weight of PCBs must be decontaminated in accordance with a specific set of conditions;
·         At the end of its useful life if the fluid content contains between 0.005% and 0.05% by weight of PCBs.
2.      Label equipment containing more than 5 litres of PCBs and the doors of premises where such equipment is located. The labels must be indelible, easily visible and legible, stating that the equipment (or premises contain equipment) is “Contaminated by PCBs”. Where it is reasonable to assume that the fluid content of the equipment contains between 0.005% and 0.05% by weight of PCBs label as "PCBs contaminated 0.05%".
3.      Separate such PCBs or equipment from flammable materials and take precautions to avoid any risk of fire
4.      Operate a source separation program for equipment that contains less than 5 liters of PCBs and is a component of another piece of equipment, i.e., remove and arrange for the separate collection of such components with a view to their recovery or disposal.
5.      Give Notice to the EPA for all PCBs, used PCBs or contaminated equipment containing more than 5 litres of PCBs no later than the 1 September each year. To include: the name and address of the holder; the location and quantity of the PCBs or used PCBs; the location and description of the equipment; the quantity of PCBs contained in such equipment; the measures taken or proposed to be taken for the decontamination or disposal; and the date of giving such notice.
6.      Respect the prohibition of certain uses of PCBs:
o Importation, production or supply to another person of PCBs or contaminated equipment;
o Holding or use of PCBs or contaminated equipment, unless notified to the EPA;
o Separation of PCBs from other substances for the purpose of reusing the PCBs;
o Addition of PCBs to transformers or other equipment; and
o Maintenance of transformers containing PCBs, unless under certain circumstances




[1] “S.I. No. 220/2003 - European Communities (Dangerous Substances and Preparations) (Marketing and Use) Regulations 2003,” accessed February 23, 2016, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/si/220/made/en/print.
[2] “HSE - Publications: Do You Know How to Work Safely with PC...,” accessed February 23, 2016, http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/msa19.htm.
[3] “S.I. No. 163/1998 - Waste Management (Hazardous Waste) Regulations, 1998,” accessed February 23, 2016, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/si/163/made/en/print.