**3. Methods**

The study is designed as a single explanatory case study research design [38,39] focused on Trinidad and Tobago given the nature of the research objective which is to understand the institutional drivers for waste managemen<sup>t</sup> policy decisions and managemen<sup>t</sup> actions over the last decades [39].

Multiple data collection tools and materials will be applied to triangulate and validate primary and secondary data collected from different sources. These include archival data collection and qualitative interviews. Secondary information was collected from public sources including internet and websites (organization websites, newspapers) as well as requests from governmen<sup>t</sup> and corporate entities for annual reports, publications and communications materials such as quarterly newsletters. Official governmen<sup>t</sup> archives were also consulted rendering items including Annual National Budgets and breakdowns for public agencies, Public Service Investment Portfolios with allocations to new governmen<sup>t</sup> projects and national statistical data. Secondary information was important to compliment interviews during the research process but also for content analysis to identify general themes to further explore in interviews [38].

In order to identify interviewees, an initial listing of the key organizations involved with waste metabolism in Trinidad and Tobago was established. The list was constructed through reviews of the secondary information acquired, governmen<sup>t</sup> reports and newspaper reports (The study approach including identifying key organizations involved in waste managemen<sup>t</sup> and key informants was facilitated by two study researchers who worked in the Trinidad and Tobago environmental sector.). At least two representatives of each organization were identified as potential informants and requests for interviews were made. For each organization, the target informants were (i) the chief executive or highest-ranked o fficer involved in waste regulations and (ii) the organizations' technical or operations lead with direct responsibility for waste-related regulatory or operational activities. During this initial round of interviews, where informants identified additional potential informants, these recommendations were evaluated by the research team and a second round of informants from this snowball approach were interviewed [40].

A semi-structured interview approach was adopted for this study [38], whereby a specific interview guide with similar questions was applied to each purposeful informant. The actual wording of the questions was adjusted to suit specific informants, however, the same general lines of inquiry were pursued for all informants [41]. This enabled comparability within and between di fferent informants across the waste metabolism value chain. In face-to-face or online conference call format, interviews lasted approximately thirty minutes.

The proposed data analysis process draws heavily from the constant comparative method which enabled the ongoing analysis and interpretation during the process of data collection itself, between primary and secondary information. The inductive analytical approach of pattern matching and taxonomy coding allowed substantive concepts and themes to emerge primarily from the narratives after which we ascertained which, if any, were associated with the institutional drivers, actors, and actions, operating environment and regulatory or non-governmental waste managemen<sup>t</sup> decisions and directions [42].

While interview methods are noted for their relative strengths including the ability to focus directly on case study topics, they may also be compromised due to researcher bias, response bias, and inaccurate accounts from informants due to poor recall [42]. To address these weaknesses, we triangulated information from interviews with secondary information. Threats to reliability were reduced in the study design by using semi-structured questionnaires. This approach allowed enough flexibility to capture the story but enough structure to build consistency and ensure quality. Reliability was also reinforced by interviews undertaken by the researchers themselves. Internal validity can be challenged in single case studies. Here it was minimized by triangulation of data sources and the use of multiple respondents at multiple organizational levels.

#### **4. Results and Analysis**

#### *4.1. Case Study of Island Waste Metabolism in Trinidad and Tobago*

#### 4.1.1. The Current Situation

The magnitude of the waste challenge is illustrated by the most recent waste characterization conducted in 2010 [43]. It identified the di fferent types of waste as follows:

On a national level, with the exception of organic material, plastics dominate the waste-landscape, as a percentage of total waste, particularly in Trinidad (see Figure 2). Notwithstanding this, plastic waste constitutes at least a fifth of total waste on both islands. As it relates to volume, the waste characterization study in 2010 indicated that 700,000 tonnes had been delivered to landfills in Trinidad for the year of the study, while approximately 17,228 had been delivered to the landfill site in Tobago [44]. More recent data pertaining to the character of waste is not available. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the waste characterization for Trinidad and Tobago respectively, for the year 2010.

**Figure 2.** Waste characterization in Trinidad and Tobago for the year 2010. Source: National Waste Recycling Policy, Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago [43].

**Figure 3.** Waste Characterization for the island of Trinidad only, in 2010.

**Figure 4.** Waste characterization for the island of Tobago only, in 2010.

In terms of expenditure on solid waste managemen<sup>t</sup> in Trinidad and Tobago, over the course of the last 10 years, Government of Trinidad & Tobago (GORTT) allocations have fluctuated but have decreased overall, from a high of Trinidad & Tobago dollars (TTD) \$8.7 million in 2010 to TTD \$6.67 million in 2020 (See Figure 5). No expenditure was reported as being allocated to solid waste managemen<sup>t</sup> for 2015. That aside, in light of recent attempts to improve recycling locally, particularly through the establishment of a Waste Recycling Management Authority (which will initially be housed under the Solid Waste Management Company of Trinidad and Tobago (SWMCOL)), funding allocations have increased in recent times. In fact, in 2019 TTD \$1 million was allocated to a "Public Sector Recycling Programme". Similarly, in the 2020 allocation, TTD \$5 million was set aside for the upgrade of recovery and recycling facilities, plant and equipment" [45].

#### 4.1.2. The Policy Environment

In modern times, the country's waste managemen<sup>t</sup> policy landscape has been characterized by an Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Policy, National Waste Recycling Policy, and a National Environment Policy. Notably, the National Environment Policy "recognizes major drivers of solid waste generation to be unsustainable consumption patterns and the inefficient use of resources in the production of goods and services" [46]. The need for behavioral change in order to transform the manner in which goods and services are produced and consumed is therefore underscored. However, the theory or model of change employed often involves educational campaigns that follow an approval process very similar to the one mentioned earlier with respect to policy. Some twenty years ago, a National Beverage Container Bill was drafted but to date, has not been approved and passed by Parliament, even as it has cropped up for debate from time to time. The Bill would, among other things, set up bottle (plastic and glass) deposit-return mechanisms and promote producer responsibility among manufacturers. As recently as 2019, the Minister responsible for the Environment identified the passage of this bill as a prime concern.

All these policy instruments find relevance and place in the overarching context of the National Development Strategy of Trinidad and Tobago 2016–2030 (Vision 2030) which promises to strengthen national environmental governance through the: "development of a comprehensive and well-coordinated system to address the many interconnected environmental issues, including: natural resource managemen<sup>t</sup> (terrestrial ecosystems and forests, biodiversity, water resources and marine ecosystems and resources), waste managemen<sup>t</sup> (waste disposal, solid waste, electronic waste and hazardous waste), pollution and chemicals managemen<sup>t</sup> (air pollution, ozone depletion, water pollution, land pollution, marine pollution), built environment managemen<sup>t</sup> and climate change" [47].

In light of the need for more up to date data to support decision making, in 2019, the SWMCOL issued a public request for proposals for the following:


While steps are being taken to address the lack of data about waste, a further significant challenge with respect to enhancing waste managemen<sup>t</sup> is related to governance. The introduction of systems to facilitate the recycling of plastics and other materials is in large part dependent upon the reform and strengthening of the institutional framework, established to manage and regulate waste collection and disposal.

## *4.2. Key Actors*

Policy implementation is distributed (or fragmented) across several institutions as shown in Figure 6. SWMCOL is responsible for the "management and control of all wastes severally or jointly with any other company, statutory authority or persons in Trinidad and Tobago" [49]. In 1983, the organization's remit surrounded the operation and managemen<sup>t</sup> of three landfills. However, in 2003, SWMCOL's mandate was expanded "to include the preservation and upgrade of the environment" which extended to the provision of services such as General and Special Waste Collection, Fecal Waste Disposal, Portable Sanitation Product Rentals and Recycling [49]. Though initially a department of SWMCOL, the Community-Based Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme (CEPEP), which currently operates as a separate publicly owned company that provides unemployment relief for unskilled labor through the provision of services, focused on "environmental protection, enhancement, and beautification" [50]. However, CEPEP (among other services) also o ffers waste and dead animal removal services. Additionally, in conjunction with the O ffice for Disaster Preparedness and Management (ODPM), CEPEP o ffers clean up services after natural disasters [51].

**Figure 6.** The key institutional actors and relationships.

It should, therefore, be noted that SWMCOL is not responsible for all matters related to waste. The Ministry of Health is responsible for medical waste while the Ministry of Trade and Industry is responsible for the regulation of the scrap metal industry. Additionally, local governmen<sup>t</sup> authorities

are responsible for waste collection and delivery to landfill sites. The Environmental Management Authority (EMA) is tasked, inter alia, with the development and implementation of policies (including the National Environment Policy) and programs for the e ffective managemen<sup>t</sup> and wise use of the environment, with the promotion of public awareness and the development of national standards related to the environment [52]. The Act also mandates the organization to "make recommendations for the rationalization of all governmental entities performing environmental functions" [52]. While the EMA has been central to drafting most of the waste managemen<sup>t</sup> policies currently enacted, it is not directly responsible for implementation.

#### *4.3. Interactions and Outcomes Regarding Plastic Wastes*

While these institutional arrangements reasonably serviced municipal, commercial, and industrial waste managemen<sup>t</sup> including hazardous waste management, no significant e fforts were made around waste recycling, particularly for plastics. The only long-standing waste recycling e ffort in the country was glass bottles whereby the major bottlers voluntarily provided a few cents per returned beer bottle, and this has been the norm since the 1970s. By the early 2000's with the insertion of the newly established EMA in the policy mix, and growing concerns around major flooding events in urban and suburban areas that disrupted business, commerce, and quality of life, fresh interest in waste managemen<sup>t</sup> grew as the public and authorities began noting the vast volumes of plastic bottles and debris clogging waterways, drains, pipes, and culverts, and also washed out to the nearshore beaches. Interest in reducing and recycling plastics surged.

It should be noted that several attempts have been made by local governmen<sup>t</sup> authorities to partner with other institutions, including the EMA, in order to boost e fforts at recycling at the municipal level within Trinidad and Tobago. For example, the Port of City Corporation partnered with the EMA's recycling initiative known as the 'iCare' initiative in order to launch a 'curbside' recycling program within the nation's capital city [53]. Additionally, in several regional corporations, there have been a number of discrete in-house projects aimed at recycling and reusing tyres, inclusive of a collaborative project with the University of the West Indies focused on researching ways in which recycled rubber produced from automotive and truck scrap tyres (also known as crumb rubber) could be used for road works [49].

Still, however, there were hiccups, especially with the Beverage Container Bill which remained unsupported by major political interests within the manufacturing sector. It is notable that, for example, during this period of concerns with plastics recycling, the manufacture of plastic bottles for water and beverages surged. Manufacturers of plastic products assumed leadership positions in the local Manufacturers Association and Chambers of Commerce, even winning prestigious national awards including the Prime Minister's Exporter of the Year Award and Manufacturer of the Year Award. One particularly problematic optic was the awarding of the Green Business Award to the 'largest, most modern and eco-e fficient' commercial bottled water interest in the country. Legislation to enforce recycling was stymied by political and business interests but blamed on the 'complexity and lack of clarity of the policy'. In this environment, with urgency to act, the governmen<sup>t</sup> and the non-governmental sectors sought to collaborate on solutions.

One of the most ambitious initiatives taken up by the non-governmental sector in partnership with SWMCOL was the Plastikeep Initiative, launched around 2010 by the Greenlight Network. This was a plastic waste recovery project geared toward increasing "public awareness of the proper managemen<sup>t</sup> of plastic waste, encouraging community participation and building recycling capacity in Trinidad". The project emphasized specifically on community education and the recovery of unwanted or discarded plastics from households. Via this project, Type 1 plastics, also known as Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) were collected and sent to a SWMCOL Beverage Container Processing Facility, processed into flakes and exported. According to the Greenlight Network (GLN), "other types of plastic not directly processed by SWMCOL were sorted by type and color and baled for export" [54].

Notwithstanding the above, diseconomies of scale restrict the ability of NGOs like GLN, along with other small businesses from making investments in machinery that would allow them to engage in these activities on a commercial scale. In addition to this, the material collected was often co-mingled and contaminated, resulting in a labor-intensive sorting of materials for recycling. Moreover, there was, and still does not exist a legislative or regulatory framework that incentivizes the return or sorting of plastics at the level of the end-user. The GLN was therefore dependent upon on multiple iterations of governmen<sup>t</sup> financing through the Green Fund (which is the national accumulation of a Green Fund Levy of 0.3% on gross income paid quarterly by companies and business partnerships) to sustain its operations. Indeed, in spite of receiving some support from the private sector, when public funding ceased in 2016 the organization found itself in debt and largely unable to continue.

After almost a decade of e ffort, Plastikeep was o fficially closed in 2019 and its collection bins were handed over to the EMA as a component of their Recyclable Solid Waste Collection Project, also referred to as the "iCare" project. iCare, which stands for "Community, Awareness, Recycle, Everyday" is also funded via the aforementioned Green Fund and aims to "create heightened public awareness on the benefits of recycling and the adverse e ffects of poor waste management." [55]. While it is a positive development that some of the services that were being o ffered in the past by GLN via Plastikeep are now being o ffered by the EMA through its iCare program, it should be noted that the eventual demise of a "bottom-up", community-based approach to plastics recovery and recycling has been replaced by a more "top-down", government-operated and funded alternative.

The waste managemen<sup>t</sup> landscape appears to now be at another inflection point in its progress. Until recently, the business and manufacturing sectors have been very cautious in outwardly supporting some aspects of waste managemen<sup>t</sup> legislation including the Beverage Container Bill which could essentially place producer responsibility (and cost) back on them. While there has been some evidence of corporate proactivity on waste managemen<sup>t</sup> initiatives, often as part of the corporate social responsibility portfolio or on direct request of the EMA, this pales in comparison to the political lobbying, pressure, and negotiations to hold back such legislation as the Beverage Container Bill. However, public mood and market perceptions are evolving to become more conscious of these issues and strategically, there may be pressure on business and manufacturing interests to exhibit proactive voluntary e fforts, so as to head o ff the recent governmen<sup>t</sup> declarations of plastics and Styrofoam bans and finally the passing of the Beverage Container Act. For example, in 2018 the Massy Group, the largest Caribbean regional conglomerate, headquartered in Trinidad and Tobago, adopted a voluntary ban on single-use plastic bags within all of its supermarket and retail store chains [56,57]. The CEO noted,

"As a responsible, leading retailer we are determined to play a role in the reduction of waste. Along with citizens of every Caribbean country in which we operate, we are collectively accountable for actions which impact the future of the Caribbean. We started this journey by procuring bags made of biodegradable plastic, but it is imperative that we take a stand to reduce our overall consumption of plastic, which is why we introduced a campaign to help end 'double bagging'. Our focus is now on encouraging customers to bring their reusable bags, with the intention to phase out the demand for plastic bags."
