Asia Pacific

TO:
Mr. Akinwumi Adesina, President, African Development Bank
Mr. Takehiko Nakao, President, Asian Development Bank
Mr. Liqun Jin, President, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
Sir Suma Chakrabarti, President, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Mr. Werner Hoyer, President, European Investment Bank
Mr. Luis Alberto Moreno, President, Inter-American Development Bank
Mr. James P. Scriven, Chief Executive Officer, Inter-American Investment Corporation
Dr. Bandar M. H. Hajjar, President, Islamic Development Bank
Mr. K. V. Kamath, President, New Development Bank
Mr. Jim Yong Kim, President, World Bank

We, the undersigned organizations from national, regional and international NGOs, grassroots and community groups, and individuals from 54 countries, are alarmed by the support of multilateral development banks (MDBs), for waste incinerators, including so-called “waste-to-energy” (WTE) incinerators.

We maintain that waste incinerators, in any form, are part of a failed system that is putting the planet and societies in the wrong path. These facilities:

Threaten people and the environment
Incineration endangers people’s health and well-being, destroys livelihoods and harms the environment. Incinerators generate toxic ash and sludge and emit toxic chemicals such as dioxins, furans and mercury.
Contribute to climate change
Incinerators emit significant quantities of greenhouse gases. Burning waste is not renewable energy and takes investments away from renewable energy solutions; waste is from non-renewable resources, and plastics are from fossil fuels.
Damage local and national economies
Incineration is the most expensive way to manage waste and produce electricity, and it prevents the implementation of Zero Waste solutions that create jobs and invigorate local economies.
Obstruct resource sustainability
Incineration perpetuates the unsustainable “take, make, waste” linear economic model that abets wasting and the continuous extraction of natural resources.

We believe that:
– support of waste incinerators runs counter to the stated mission of development banks,
– waste incinerators are not “sustainable, accessible, resilient”, nor “quality infrastructure” that should be considered for developing countries, and
– waste burning detracts from the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris climate goals.

We further assert that public money should not be used to fund nor promote these facilities in the Global South.

Communities and local governments in the Global South are struggling to improve the management of their natural resources, address growing pollution and waste in cities, and cope with climate change impacts.

Many cities and communities have proven that a transition into Zero Waste systems is a viable solution, providing a key opportunity for them to decouple economic growth from excessive resource extraction, consumption and wastage. Their efforts, however, are under threat from lack of financing and investments wasted on building and maintaining destructive infrastructure, such as trash incinerators.

We strongly believe that Zero Waste is the direction that MDBs should be advancing in order to protect the environment and public health, help communities and cities build robust local economies, generate productive jobs and livelihoods, and help mitigate climate change.

We call on the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Inter-American Investment Corporation, Islamic Development Bank, New Development Bank and World Bank, together with the UN and governments of wealthy countries, to:

Halt the aggressive promotion of, and phase out all financing for waste incineration, including so-called “waste-to-energy” incineration in borrowing countries; and stop promoting waste incineration as “renewable energy.”

Prioritize waste and resource management approaches at the top of the waste hierarchy, which address the waste problem at root—primarily through reduction, reuse and redesign; refrain from endorsing waste incineration projects; and stop advocating waste incineration in all publications and statements.

Support borrowing countries in pursuing and funding sustainable, just and equitable Zero Waste solutions that effectively addresses their unique contexts and needs, supports local economies and livelihoods, and respects and integrates the informal waste sector.

For Immediate Release             
October 2, 2018

Contact:
Claire Arkin, Campaign and Communications Associate, GAIA, claire@no-burn.org, 510-883-9490 ext: 111

Experts Urge Drastic Waste Reduction Measures Following Release of World Bank Waste Report

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 2, 2018,  10:00 am Pacific Standard Time

The new World Bank report, “What a Waste 2.0,” gives a clear and indisputable case for waste reduction, according to an international network of NGOs and waste experts, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). The group underscores that the world’s mounting waste problems can and must be avoided—and called on governments and development banks to put a bigger focus on proven waste reduction approaches and a halt to unsustainable waste management systems that incentivize waste rather than reducing it.

“With its new report, the World Bank sets down an unassailable argument that the world needs to focus urgently on serious waste reduction,” says Christie Keith, Executive Director at GAIA. “The report also provides very strong evidence that decades of business-as-usual waste management systems– such as landfilling and incineration—have failed to make any dent on the garbage crisis, and in fact, have worsened the problem. Clearly, we need new systems that focus on preventing waste, rather than failed systems that attempt to deal with waste only after it is in existence.”

“What a Waste 2.0” presents the challenging realities of the world’s current and projected waste generation. The report states that plastic is an increasing threat in the waste stream, making up 12% of the global waste composition. 40% of the plastic produced worldwide is in the form of single-use packaging.₁ Overall, a frightening 81% of the materials we discard are wasted, whether in landfills, open dumps, or incinerators. GAIA believes that the presence of these waste treatment facilities have abetted, rather than minimized, waste generation.

Instead of last-resort approaches like landfilling and incineration, highly effective preventive measures such as zero waste systems have been employed successfully in hundreds of cities by GAIA members all over the world.

“Solving the waste problem starts with the shift away from business-as-usual waste treatment systems,” states Joan Marc Simon, Executive Director of Zero Waste Europe.  “By doing this, and adopting zero waste resource management systems, our members have led the way to meaningful waste reduction in their communities and cities through policy advocacy, citizen engagement, corporate accountability and design innovation.”

One example is  the city of Roubaix in France where 25% of households participating in the zero waste pilot were able to reduce their waste generation by over 80%, and 70% reduced their waste by 50%. Many other cities have similar experiences of successful waste reduction programs.₂

“Zero waste systems that are decentralized, regionally appropriate, and community-led are proven solutions that are working successfully to reduce waste volumes not only in Europe but also in Asia, ” says Froilan Grate, Executive Director of GAIA Philippines.

Unlike expensive industrial waste management approaches, a city’s transition to zero waste costs considerably less and can take as little as two years to set up. For example, one zero waste project in the Philippines averages at $2.30 per person per year. GAIA has estimated that an initial influx of $30 million could provide zero waste programs for the entire Metro Manila area over two years, after which the capital would be paid back using the dramatic savings over current waste management expenditures, paving the way for further investment in zero waste systems.

Grate concludes: “With ‘What a Waste 2.0,’ the World Bank is repeating the same alarm bells it raised in its last report six years ago, but since then things have only gotten worse. We hope the World Bank along with governments and other institutions heed the message of these reports and massively shift all funding and action to waste reduction and zero waste—while phasing out wrong-headed approaches like landfilling and incineration, which led us into this mess in the first place. In the next six years, we shouldn’t have another ‘What a Waste 3.0’ report with even even more dire figures of how the world is failing to address waste, if the world shifts to zero waste now.”

###

₁ In partnership with the #breakfreefromplastic movement, GAIA members all over the world participated in waste and brand audits in time for World Clean-Up Day earlier this month, joining movement members in 6 continents and over forty countries. Through these brand audits over 250,000 pieces of plastic waste was collected worldwide.

In a brand audit, participants count the number of plastic items found in clean-ups that are associated with specific brands, and hold the most prevalent brands accountable for their role in the plastic pollution crisis. Unilever, Nestle, and Procter & Gamble were the most commonly found brands at cleanups in the Philippines. For more information, visit breakfreefromplastic.org.

₂ In the Philippines, all residents of Tacloban City now enjoy access to regular waste collection, compared to only 30% of residents two years ago, and are composting or recycling 64% of materials collected (from 2.5% previously) thanks to its zero waste program. The city also reduced its environmental leakage from 52% (105 tpd) of total waste to just 2.5% (5 tpd).

GAIA Asia Pacific is pleased to share the second issue of its official quarterly, Waste Not Asia, covering the period April to March 2018. The issue features stories from the World Environment Day in June, profiles on Zero Waste heroes, and updates from Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Vietnam, among others. The quarterly may be viewed as an online flip book or as a downloadable PDF file.

GAIA Asia Pacific is now accepting stories for its third issue, for release in November 2018.

By Sherma E. Benosa

It was like a modern version of the biblical story of David and Goliath, where the young boy David took on the giant Goliath—an uneven battle that saw the underdog eventually emerging victorious.

In our version, Froilan Grate, regional coordinator of GAIA Asia Pacific and president of Mother Earth Foundation, was taking aim at not just one but many giants, represented by the world’s biggest consumer brands. If that’s already a lopsided battle, throw in the fact that Froilan was also inside the giants’ den—the brands’ very own conference, the Sustainable Brands Forum in Vancouver, Canada held last June 6.

Back in the GAIA Asia Pacific office in Manila, Philippines, a private hashtag was created in support of Froilan—#prayforfroi—a joke intended to make light of the situation which also conversely emphasized the gravity of what their leader was about to do.

But Froilan, in the company of friends from US-based NGOs working on plastic pollution, did not feel nervous at all. Like David, he knew he was doing it for the right cause and that he was sufficiently armed: in his hands was damning evidence that many of the companies in that conference are anything but “sustainable.”

But what brought Froilan to this battle?

His mission: confront the top brands about their major role in the global plastic pollution problem.

From the point of view of the #breakfreefromplastic movement of which GAIA is a member, it’s about time that polluting brands are confronted with their own hypocrisy. As NGOs promoting real Zero Waste solutions, they knew that these brands are nowhere near sustainable, as the name of the conference suggests. Worse, these brands are also happily evading the responsibility of the marine pollution they are causing by passing the blame on to governments and the consumers.

But for Froilan, speaking out at the conference was not just in fulfillment of his leadership role. It was also the logical next step to his Zero Waste journey that started 15 years prior.

As a Zero Waste activist before the term was even coined, Froilan has been bringing his own reusable tumbler, lunch box, cutlery, and bags wherever he goes—for which he was generally regarded as “weird” before the trend started catching on. As staff of Mother Earth Foundation, he was deeply involved in helping barangays (villages) and cities in the Philippines in implementing the country’s solid waste management law. The law decentralizes municipal waste management down to the smallest level of government (the barangay), requires door-to-door collection of segregated waste, and establishment of materials recovery facility (MRF) in every barangay, among others.

A crucial part of the Zero Waste implementation is the at-source Waste Assessment and Characterization Survey (WACS), now popularly known as waste assessment and brand audit (WABA). Indeed, Froilan has worked too many years in various communities and contexts, and conducted too many WACS and WABAs to know that blaming the people and the government is just a tactic  corporations use so they can continue with business as usual.

“Results of the at-source brand audits we conducted in various parts of the Philippines show that corporations are the source of problems. They keep producing and using products that cannot be managed… products that can neither be composted nor recycled,” Froilan said, adding that their findings consistently showed that a huge percentage of the problematic waste are single-use plastic, most of which are branded.

Armed with data from the Philippines, Indonesia and India, and in front of an audience which included representatives from the offending brands, he challenged another commonly accepted narrative: that Asia is the source of the global plastic waste problem caused by these countries’ lack of waste management and discipline.

He said that although there is recognition that there are problems in these countries with regards to waste management, the current narrative misses important things; for example, that there are hundred of thousands of waste pickers and waste workers in these countries managing the waste, sometimes, for “less than a dollar a day.”

“Waste pickers and waste workers divert as much as 80% of waste from landfills. But why can’t they divert 100%? It’s because of the problematic products that can neither be composted nor recycled,” he said.

In an interview, Froilan emphasized that the top 10 plastic polluters are multinationals headquartered in the Global North.
“It is these manufacturers who should be tagged as the sources of the global plastic problem, not the countries they flooded and burdened with their problematic products. These consumer brands cannot, for example, sell products in sachets in their own countries. So they come to Asia, and push their products despite fully knowing that these countries do not have the infrastructure to manage the problems caused by their products,” he said.

Asked how the brand representatives reacted to his presentation, Froilan shared that a representative accused him of simply shifting the blame on to the brands, instead of encouraging the people to manage their waste well by recycling more and not littering, and demanding that governments establish efficient waste management systems.

“The accusation is not only uncalled for, but also cruel and unjust. They’re talking to someone who has been doing his part for decades and worked with communities in implementing Zero Waste programs. I know very well that even if there was an efficient waste management system and consumers composted all their organics and recycled all their recyclables, there will still be a percentage of the waste that will not be managed simply because it is unmanageable—their packaging!” Froilan shared.

Froilan emphasized that these companies have made billions of dollars out of the problematic products, so they must take responsibility for the waste their products create. “Exposing them as the top polluters is simply showing the world who is really to blame, and making them accountable,” he said.

About his experience at the Sustainable Brands Conference, Froilan shared: “I don’t have any illusion that one single talk can make companies change their minds over their product packaging. But I’m happy that the conversation has started. People are more aware now. More people are demanding change, so companies are realizing that doing nothing about plastic waste will ultimately hurt their bottom line.”

Sherma E. Benosa is the communications officer of GAIA Asia Pacific.

Monday, September 17, 2018 Mr. Erik Solheim United Nations Avenue, Gigiri PO Box 30552, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya cc: United Nations Environment Program Dear Erik Solheim, We were dismayed to see that the United Nations Environment has expressed its support for the controversial Reppie Waste-to-Energy Project. This misguided plan is setting the region on the wrong path: one that encourages waste instead of reducing it, and puts the surrounding community’s health at risk. We are also concerned with UN Environment’s inconclusive stance on incineration in Africa, as outlined in its latest Outlook Report. According to the UN Environment’s own report, waste incineration is especially unfeasible for low and middle income countries like those in Africa, due to its cost-prohibitive nature and unsuitable waste composition [pp.22-pp.26]. As stated in the report: “WtE technologies are…typically both a more expensive way of managing waste and a more expensive way of producing energy.”  However later in another report, one of the authors–who is connected with the Danish incinerator industry– writes favorably of incineration [pp.141-148]. The U.S. and EU are already moving away from incineration, with the understanding that incineration stands in the way of a zero waste, circular economy. Why should Africa be treated differently than its Northern counterparts? It seems that in response to “waste-to-energy”’s waning popularity in the West, the incinerator industry is attempting to make a profit by exporting Europe’s old waste management approach to Africa, undermining both regions’ zero waste goals.    The Reppie project might be lucrative for the multinational company behind it, Cambridge Industries Ltd, but it is a burden on the surrounding communities who will be exposed to the emissions that result from burning waste. In fact, the waste incineration industry has the highest negative economic impacts from air pollution compared to the financial value added by the industry. Trash incineration emits large quantities of pollution including nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury, dioxins, and ultra-fine particles. Incinerators are also a major contributor to climate change. Africa has the opportunity to build a just, equitable Zero Waste economy by enacting policy mechanisms to phase out the sale of wasteful products, create markets for reduction and reuse, and build more robust zero waste infrastructure. Instead, incinerator projects like Reppie lock cities into a cycle of burning that directly competes with zero waste efforts like recycling, composting, and other waste reduction strategies. We ask the UN Environment to give a clear stance and policy statement supporting sustainable waste and resource management approaches at the top of the waste hierarchy, to refrain from endorsing waste incineration projects, particularly here in Africa, and to stop advocating waste incineration in all the agency’s publications and statements.

From, ACPO – Associação de Combate aos Poluentes African Uranium Alliance Amigos de la Tierra Argentina APRONAD Association Toxicologie-Chimie (ATC) Biofuelwatch BIOS Argentina CADIRE CAMEROON ASSOCIATION Centar za zivotnu sredinu/ Friends of the Earth Bosnia and Herzegovina Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) Centre for Earth Works (CFEW) Centre for Environment Justice and Development Centre for Zero Waste & Development CETAAR Children’s Environmental Health Foundation Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group COAST Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd Consumers’ Association of Penang Coordinadora de Pueblos y Organizaciones del Oriente del Estado de México en Defensa de la Tierra, el Agua y su Cultura CREPD Društvo Ekologi brez meja Earthlife Africa Durban Eco-Accord EMPOWER INDIA Environmental & Public Health Consulting Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) European Environmental Bureau Fluoride Action Network Food & Water Europe Food & Water Watch Friends of the Earth Australia Friends of the Earth Australia Friends of the Earth Canada Friends of the Earth Europe Friends of the Earth Ghana Friends of the Earth International Friends of the Earth Sierra Leone Friends of the Earth U.S. FUNAM, Environment Defence Foundation Fundación Basura Fundación el árbol GAIA Africa Goldman Environmental Prize Green Knowledge Foundation, Nigeria Greeners Action groundWork Health Care Foundation Nepal IndyACT and InnoDev – Lebanon Institute for Local Self-Reliance Irrigation Training and Economic Organization – IRTECO JA!Justica Ambiental/FOEMozambique Jovenes Ambientalistas Les Amis de la Terre-Togo NESMAC KITARA NGO LA GRANDE PUISSANCE DE DIEU Nipe Fagio No Waste Louisiana ONG AVPIP ONG Valpo Interviene Pan African Vision for the Environment Plastic Change Recicladores El Bosque. RedBioLAC REDES – Friends of the Earth Uruguay Regional Centre for international development cooperation Rose Academies Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth Malaysia) Society for Earth South Durban Community Environmental Alliance Thanal Toxisphera Environmental Health Association United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) University of the Witwatersrand School of Governance Wellington Association Aggainst the Incinerator (“WAAI”) Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) Zero Waste Europe Zero Waste OZ Centro Universitário Fundação Santo André

For Immediate Release             

September 13, 2018

Contact:

Claire Arkin, Campaign and Communications Associate, GAIA, claire@no-burn.org, 973-444-4869

C40 Declaration Signals International Shift Away from Waste Incineration and Towards Zero Waste

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 13, 2018,  2:00 pm Pacific Standard Time

San Francisco, CA. Today at the Global Climate Action Summit, the C40 network launched the declaration: “Advancing Towards Zero Waste.”  Twenty three cities and regions have signed on, including San Francisco, Auckland, Catalonia, Copenhagen, Dubai, London, Milan, Montreal, New York City, Paris, Rotterdam, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Toronto, Vancouver, and Washington D.C. The participating cities have committed to reduce the municipal solid waste generation per capita by at least 15% by 2030 compared to 2015, reduce the amount of municipal solid waste disposed to landfill and incineration by at least 50% by 2030 compared to 2015, and increase the diversion rate away from landfill and incineration to at least 70% by 2030.

“This move signals that cities around the world are waking up to the dangers of waste incineration and are taking concrete steps to reduce their waste instead of burning it,” says Christie Keith, Executive Director of GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives). “The cities who have signed on to this pledge are setting an example for other municipalities around the world to pursue true zero waste.”

Waste reduction is a critical part of combating climate change, as waste generation is directly linked to global resource extraction, transportation, processing, and manufacturing. Studies show that waste reduction, recycling, composting, etc. could lead to a reduction of up to 20% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.

“We congratulate signatories on their commitments to prioritizing waste reduction and phasing out waste burning , and encourage other cities to sign on as well” says Joan Marc Simon, Executive Director of Zero Waste Europe.  Most importantly, we are eager to see these commitments translate into practice.”

The declaration’s emphasis on phasing out waste incineration as part of cities’ zero waste goals is critical for the future of our planet. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), both landfills and incinerators (euphemistically referred to as “waste to energy”) contribute far higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions and overall energy throughout their life cycles than source reduction, reuse and recycling of the same materials. Incineration also drives a climate changing cycle of new resources pulled out of the earth, processed in factories, shipped around the world, and then wasted in incinerators and landfills.

“If the goals of this declaration are achieved in a just, inclusive way it will be a big step forward for our climate,” says Anne Larracas, Managing Director for GAIA Asia Pacific. “We’re hoping that this will be a tipping point for other cities to sign on and agree to move away from incinerators and landfills and implement instead real zero waste policies as a main strategy to mitigate climate change.”

###

A group of environmentalists urged Dumaguete City officials to strictly enforce the plastic bag regulation ordinance and the residents to segregate their waste during the at-source Waste Assessment and Brand Audit (WABA), 27 July 2018.

War On Waste Break Free From Plastic Negros Oriental (WOW-BFFP-NegrosOr), a collective of non-government organizations (NGOs), academics, and individuals brought together by their passion to help solve waste management challenges in Negros Oriental, noted that despite the reboot early this year of the City Ordinance No. 231 series of 2011 which regulates the use of plastic bags, enforcement remains wanting.

Volunteers from various sectors including the youth took part in the Dumaguete at-source waste assessment and brand audit (WABA). Photo by Natasha Kunesch.

“We call on the city government to strictly implement the plastic bag regulation,” said Merci Ferrer, Co-Convenor of WOW-BFFP-NegrosOr.

Ferrer noted that whereas the ban should be in full force now following the partial implementation in May to June through the Plastic Bag-Free Mondays at the public market, compliance is still low. The group also noticed that the majority of houses do not appear to segregate their waste.

“In our house-to-house visits, we confirmed that many households do not segregate their waste and furthermore, single-use plastics, which become residual waste, comprised a huge bulk of their waste. It is only if we segregate our waste that we are able to manage them properly. Segregation allows us to compost biodegradable waste, capture and sell the recyclables, and dispose of the problematic products properly. This then drastically reduces the amount of waste that goes into the landfill,” Ferrer added.

Participants of the Zero Waste Academy weigh waste per category. Photo by Sherma Benosa.

Since July 18, WOW-BFFP-NegrosOr, together with participants of the Zero Waste Academy (ZWA) which include representatives from Barangays Looc, Piapi and Bantayan, as well as from the City Environment Office and DILG, have been working with the three barangays conducting baseline surveys, IECs on waste segregation, and actual garbage collection to prime the residents about the need for them to segregate their waste.

The participants likewise re-worked an existing materials recovery facility (MRF) in Barangay Looc that had been sitting idle for years. They cleaned the area and added important features of an operational MRF such as various composting methods designed for both garden waste and kitchen waste. This, after they were taught about the critical steps in implementing a community Zero Waste program.

“Contrary to what many people believe, waste management is not about building structures and buying equipment. More than anything, it is about establishing an efficient system. Without such system, the structures we build and the equipment we buy will be investments down the drain,” said Sherma Benosa, Communications Officer of GAIA Asia Pacific.

Benosa added that wrong investments make officials think that they are doing their part but that the problem is simply too big to manage. “So they look for quick-fix technology to magically solve the problem, not realizing that the problem is that they have been doing things wrong and that there is no such technology that can magically take the problem away,” she added.

Rap Villavicencio, Program Officer of Mother Earth Foundation, concurred, saying that in their experience, when people see that the barangay has a good program and that they are strictly enforcing it, the people would follow. “It is only at first that things seem overwhelming. As the program is strictly implemented and the people see its benefits, they follow,” he said.

The at-source WABA aims to help the communities understand the types and amount of waste generated by households and identify the companies that produce them. WABA provides information that the local government can use to develop a sound waste management plan for the community, in compliance with the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (Republic Act No. 9003).

Single-use plastic packaging make up a huge bulk of the problematic waste generated by households. Photo by Natasha Kunesch.

The July 27 WABA was conducted as part of the just-concluded Zero Waste Academy in Dumaguete. The academy is an intensive two-week practical and theoretical training exercise that shall prime participants for all aspects of Zero Waste work, from learning about waste management in specific instances such as medical waste and organics, to designing and conducting IECs for individual households, to collecting information through baseline assessments such as the WABA, to collecting trash from households and establishing functional Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). The participants included barangay leaders, purok leaders, and barangay volunteers, City ENRO, DILG and other city representatives and participants from Siquijor.

The Academy is the start of an eight-month endeavor called Zero Waste Cities Project-Dumaguete which aims to reduce waste transported to the city’s dumpsite and promote a circular, sustainable and environmentally friendly consumption and economy. This project will focus on barangays Looc, Piapi and Bantayan which were selected owing to their urban coastal set-up and strong leadership.

COMMUNITY IN ACTION. To transform this materials recovery facility (MRF), volunteers from the community helped the participants of the Zero Wast Academy in cleaning and enhancing the old MRF that stood idle for years. Photo by Natasha Kunesch.

“Once we have transformed the initial three barangays into mode Zero Waste communities, WOW-BFFP-NegrosOr will propose for the project to be scaled up to the remaining 27 barangays within the city, with the ultimate goal of making Dumaguete the first Zero Waste City in the Central Visayas,” Ferrer added.

The Dumaguete leg of the Zero Waste Academy is a project of WOW-BFFP-NegrosOr in partnership with MEF and GAIA. Results of the WABA will be published in the coming weeks. The ZWA is part of the Zero Waste Cities Project coordinated by GAIA Asia Pacific and funded by the Plastics Solutions Fund.

ABOUT THE ORGANIZERS

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) is a worldwide alliance of more than 900 grassroots groups, NGOs and individuals who are leading the transition toward a Zero Waste world. Together, we work with communities to advance inclusive, bottom-up strategies to address waste and pollution, grounded in the principles of environmental and social justice.

Mother Earth Foundation (MEF) actively works with various cities in the Philippines in implementing Zero Waste Programs that allowed communities and cities to achieve 70%-90% waste diversion and become recognized leaders in Zero Waste in the Philippines as well as in the Asia Pacific region.

War On Waste Break Free From Plastic Negros Oriental (WOW-BFFP-NegrosOr) is a movement of NGOs, businesses, academic, and individuals brought together by a passion to help solve waste management challenges in Dumaguete and Negros Oriental. Their campaign on zero waste helped pushed the local government of Dumaguete City to re implement and enforce its Plastic Bag Ordinance.

Volunteers from various sectors worked with the participants of the Zero Waste Academy in sorting, weighing, and counting the waste from 55 households in Barangay Looc. Volunteers included community leaders and members, students, members of the Marine Conservation of the Philippines, and individuals who believed in the cause. Photo by Natasha Kunesch.

By: Pratibha Sharma, India Regional Coordinator, GAIA Asia Pacific

Maharashtra’s plastic ban can be seen as a step closer to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pledge to end the use of single-use plastic by 2022- a timely announcement as India hosted this year’s World Environment Day. Maharashtra is not the first Indian state to come up with a plastic ban ruling, but it is certainly the first state to set forth a broad action plan and strong punitive measures against plastic.

The state had announced a ban on manufacture, use, sale, distribution and storage of plastic materials such as one-time-use bags, spoons, plates, PET, and PETE bottles and styrofoam items on March 23, 2018. The announcement came without a clear roll-out plan and received backlash from both the public and plastic lobbying groups. As a result, the  government decided to give three months’ time, until June 23, to dispose of the existing stocks and to prepare for implementation. The plastic ban notification indicates that violators will be fined over 70 USD and 145 USD for first and second-time offenses respectively. A third-time offender will have to shell out over 350 USD and may also face imprisonment for three months.

Informal waste workers of Mumbai sorting through and separating the recyclables. Pic credit: Pratibha Sharma

While the Maharashtra State Government’s move to ban single-use plastic is applauded nationally and internationally, the poor record of the plastic ban implementation in the country, along with the several exemptions, raises several concerns about its rigour and seriousness in addressing the plastic problem effectively.

Case in point:  India’s commitment to phase out non-recyclable multi-layered plastics by 2018 through the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 was reversed a mere 20 days prior to its end of the implementation period. The original Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 were hailed as a bold step in the right direction, however they were amended to say that only non-recyclable plastic that is non-energy recoverable or without any alternate use is to be phased out in two years. This gave plastic producers a scope to argue that their products can be put to some other use, if not recycled and also created opportunities for incinerator industries disguised under “waste to energy”, to burn ‘energy-recoverable’ single-use multi-layered plastic for its higher calorific value characteristics. This rendered the phase-out pointless and now effectively allows manufacturers of multilayered single-use plastics and plastic bags to continue with business as usual.

Soon after the release of Maharashtra Plastic Ban notification in March, PET bottle and styrofoam manufacturers and retailer associations opposed the ruling in the state’s High Court. They felt the ban was arbitrary, bad in law, and violated their fundamental right to livelihood.  Giving in to the industry pressure, the state modified the rules, and made allowances for PET bottles for water and beverages of all capacities, which had been earlier restricted to bottles under 500 ml. Now, the Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers’ Association (PDWMA) and The Federation of Retail Traders plan to file another appeal in the High Court, seeking permission to use plastic packaging for retail. PDWMA claims that packaging plastics should be exempt from the ban as they use transparent plastics which are “not hazardous for the environment”.

In a surprise inspection carried out by Mumbai’s “anti-plastic squad” global food companies such as McDonald, Starbucks, and Burger King, among other food chains, were found to be in contravention of the plastic ban in the state and were fined over 70 USD as first-time offenders. Meanwhile, McDonald’s joined restaurant associations in the region in asking for exemptions from the ban for delivery and takeaway orders.

Joining the list of plastic-ban-diluters, are the bigger multinational giants – Amazon, H&M, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola -who heavily rely on plastic for products packaging and delivery system.

In 2015, plastic packaging accounted for 36% of the plastic waste generated globally. As the production of plastic is largely reliant on fossil hydrocarbons, which are non-renewable resources, if the growth in plastic production continues at the current rate, by 2050 the plastic industry may account for 20% of the world’s total oil consumption.

At a time when the world is looking to move away from oil as fuel and towards renewable energy sources, the petrochem industry on the other hand is moving its capacity to plastic production.

Rather than stepping up and showing real accountability for the plastic mess already perpetuated by them, industries’ attempt to maintain the status quo by demanding dilution of plastic ban is rather appalling and says a lot about their apathy, business ethics, and commitment to address plastic problem.

To help shine a light on the role of corporates and businesses in spawning the plastic crisis, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)  conducted a robust India Waste and Brand Audit under the banner of the Break Free From Plastic global movement. The brand audit was a unique and powerful tool which uses public participation to demonstrate the evidence of plastic pollution.

Global Plastic Production by Industrial Sector in 2015, UNEP

Results showed that both local and international FMCG brands are responsible for the plastic waste in the country. India’s topmost FMCG companies- Parle, Britannia, Amul, ITC, emerged as the top waste generators amongst the national brands where as PepsiCo India topped the multinational list, followed by Perfetti van Melle and Hindustan Unilever, as second and third, respectively. Other multinational brands in the top 10 list are Coca-Cola, Mondelez, Nestle, Procter & Gamble, McDonald’s, and Ferrero SpA. Multi-layer packaging, which is non-recyclable, accounted for  48% of waste followed by 22% of single-layer packaging, 15% of PET and 12% of hard plastic.

The Plastic Bags Manufacturers Association of India estimates that India’s plastic industry could lose over $2.2 billion and 300,000 jobs as a result of the Maharashtra State Government ban. While loss of livelihood is a real concern, it is often used as a tool to avoid responsibility by the plastic industry, especially the manufacturers and the leading FMCG companies who enjoy the maximum benefit from the plastic production and recycling. Yet not much of that profit trickles down to those on the front lines of recycling–especially women wastepickers and other informal recycling workers who pick up, clean, sort, and segregate recyclable waste to sell it further up the value chain.

As in the case of most developing countries with a robust informal recycling sector, the true cost of India’s recycling operations has never been determined. The cost is often externalized to the environment and to workers by compromising their health, safety, and statutory entitlements. If manufacturers were to face the true costs of their plastic production and recycling operations, such as the costs of handling, disposing, or treating the post-consumer waste generated, as well as the environmental and health impacts of workers, a more realistic assessment of the true cost of recycling would emerge. Unmasking these costs and pinning them back onto manufacturers and consumers will not only shift the economic burden of managing products from local government and taxpayers to product manufacturers and consumers, but it will also call out for innovations in materials science and product redesign that maximizes reuse, repurposing, and recycling. It will also spur the much-needed investment in improving recycling standards and will rally for a fundamental shift in our throwaway culture.

Wastepickers from Stree Mukti Sanghatana sorting recyclables at a Material Recovery Facility in Mumbai Pic credit: Pratibha Sharma

Many countries have successfully adopted environmental protection strategy such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in order to design waste out of products. EPR, based on the “polluter pays” principle, entails making manufacturers responsible for the entire lifecycle of the products and packaging that they produce. These instruments range from product take-back schemes, ‘pay-as-you-throw’ fees, advance disposal fees, deposit-refund schemes and recycling and composting incentives. However cities need to be cautious about bad EPR practices which are being pushed to integrate take back schemes to fuel waste in incinerators, cement co-processing facilities and other false climate solutions.

While Maharashtra’s single-use plastic ban is a step in the right direction, it will take a lot more than just a ban to fix the problem. The cases of many Indian states and other 60 countries where bans have been introduced indicate that mere plastic bans will not work. A radical shift in our plastic-waste reduction strategy is required which strongly holds the plastic ban, industry accountability, and public education  together and ensures there is a just transition pathway from a linear extractive economy to that of circular economy.

As for India, the government should revoke the recent amendment to the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 and reinstate the phasing out of multilayer packaging as the very first step. Only when the government is resolute in its commitment to protect public and environmental health and not swayed by industry pressure will it be able to make India single-use plastic-free by 2022.

MANILA, Philippines (July 3, 2018) — Filipinos should prepare for the worst impacts of dirty disposal technologies if the government decides to repeal the ban on waste incineration, Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, a former DOST Balik Scientist and expert on waste management warned.

“Thermal waste-to-energy facilities will not solve our waste problems but rather make things worse. Despite claims to the contrary, these facilities release toxic chemicals—including dioxins and furans—which are very harmful both to human health and the environment, said Dr. Emmanuel.

In a forum organized by the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Dr. Emmanuel explained that dioxins are toxic at extremely low concentrations and stay in the environment for a long time. “Dioxins released today by an incinerator or WtE will affect not only you and your children, but many generations hence,” he emphasized.

“Dioxins are among the most toxic chemicals known to science. They can cause several types of cancer, reproductive disorders, and developmental problems,” he warned.

One of his concerns is that operators of these technologies only test their dioxin emissions once or twice a year yet the results of continuous monitoring of dioxins show that quarterly or even monthly tests may miss episodes of very high releases since dioxins are not emitted uniformly. Furthermore, thermal waste-to-energy projects compel communities to produce more waste rather than reduce waste.

Several lawmakers from both the House of Representatives and the Senate have proposed changes to the Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA 8749) in a bid to lift the ban on waste incineration. A bill in the House of Representatives has already passed the third reading this year while a counterpart legislation is being proposed in the Senate.

Green groups belonging to No Burn Pilipinas echoed the same concerns on the planned repeal of the incineration ban. Aileen Lucero, National Coordinator of Ecowaste Coalition Philippines, said the Congress should rather focus on strengthening the Ecological Solid Waste Management (RA 9003) by passing measures aimed at waste prevention and reduction. “These measures include banning single-use plastic bags, disallowing recyclable and compostable materials in disposal facilities, curbing e-waste, incentivizing innovations in waste management sector,” she added.

For Von Hernandez, Global Coordinator of the #breakfreefromplastic movement, legislations that ban plastic bags and single-use plastics at the national level are key steps towards the right direction that the Philippine government should pursue instead of building “waste-to-energy” incinerator facilities.

“The number of governments and institutions worldwide taking aggressive action to stop the use of single-use plastics continues to grow by the day. This is one area where the Philippines can demonstrate leadership, by also banning and phasing out the use of disposable plastic items like bags, cups, straws, styrofoam food containers, and cutlery nationwide. The fact that these single-use plastics keep ending up in our oceans, coastal areas, and dumpsites prove that they are problematic, unrecyclable, and impossible to manage,” Hernandez said.

For Sonia Mendoza, chairperson of Mother Earth Foundation (MEF), the push to revoke the incineration ban will undermine source segregation, recycling, and other Zero Waste strategies that conserve resources, avoid toxic pollution and generate livelihoods.

“Zero Waste is still the best approach for the sustainable management of discards,” Mendoza remarked. “Waste is a complex problem that can’t be solved by a machine that burns trash and merely converts solid waste to toxic air pollution. The government should support and invest in Zero Waste approaches instead of partnering with incinerator companies that sell false solutions to cities and municipalities.”

During the forum, Councilor Benedict Jasper Lagman of the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, also called on the national government to dump waste-to-energy incineration deals and instead strengthen Ecological Solid Waste Management Act. He narrated the experience of the City of San Fernando which initially entered into a gasification facility deal in 2006 but eventually decided to pursue Zero Waste strategies and succeeded.

“San Fernando’s Zero Waste strategy is, at its core, the implementation of RA 9003. Together with other cities in the country that have pledged to go Zero Waste, we are showing that ecological waste management and Zero Waste is possible and can be implemented nationally,” Lagman said.

In partnership with Mother Earth Foundation, the city was able to drastically reduce the volume of municipal waste in just six months. In the past, the city brought almost 90% of its waste to landfills. In the last four years with a Zero Waste program which includes segregation at source and composting of organics, this figure was reduced to 30%, resulting in huge savings for the city. Following San Fernando’s example, other cities such as Tacloban City, Malabon City, and General Mariano Alvarez in Cavite have also started implementing Zero Waste strategies.

The forum was organized by the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources together with No Burn Pilipinas, a coalition of more than 50 Philippine NGOs opposing waste incineration. The main convenors of No Burn Pilipinas are #breakfreefromplastic, EcoWaste Coalition, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Greenpeace Philippines, Health Care Without Harm Asia, and Mother Earth Foundation Philippines. //ends

CONTACT:

Sherma Benosa, Communications Officer, GAIA Asia Pacific | +639178157570 | sherma@no-burn.org

Jed Alegado, Communications Officer, Break Free From Plastic | +639176070248 | jed@breakfreefromplastic.org

Our Work
Global Community
Donate