Waste trade

INC-4 Day 4, April 26, 2024

Mid-Week Plenary: The Clock is Ticking

After days of slow progress in negotiations, tonight the dam seemed to break open. Many countries expressed their realization of how little time we have left to negotiate this critical, legally binding agreement to stop plastic pollution. 

And, observers were finally given an opportunity to intervene and they came ready. A series of powerful interventions from Soledad Mella of the International Association of Waste Pickers, Rafael Eudes from Aliança Residuo Zero Brasil and GAIA, and Nina Azzahra of ECOTON Indonesia, Break Free From Plastic, and GAIA, culminated in a moving intervention by Janelle Nahmabin with Aamjiwnaang First Nation in so-called Canada about the state of emergency her Nation was forced to declare because of ongoing benzene discharges from a nearby industrial facility, during which dozens of comrades and relatives stood in solidarity behind her. 

We’re hoping the delegates listened and heard what so many civil society observers have been saying for ages: plastic is pollution, it’s harming our communities and the environment, we need this binding treaty, and Member States have to act now.

Rwanda-Peru Speak Out for Plastic Reduction Targets

Rwanda and Peru were the visionaries behind the resolution that formed the basis of the mandate for a legally binding plastics treaty that covers the entire life cycle.

This partnership has once again provided an ambitious north star for the negotiations when late Thursday night, the two countries released a paper urging Member States to enshrine a global primary plastic polymer reduction target based on the available science, similar to the 1.5°C in the Paris Agreement. The countries put forward a 40% reduction by 2040 against a 2025 baseline, which by GAIA’s analysis would not be enough to avoid breaching the 1.5°C, but nevertheless is the first concrete proposal put forward by a Member State in the negotiations, which is worth celebrating. 

The paper also proposes including a transparency framework for countries party to the treaty to accurately report on their progress towards this collective reduction goal. They also recommend a “start and strengthen” approach mirroring that of the most successful environmental treaties like the Montreal Protocol and Stockholm Convention. This means that the reduction target can be made more ambitious over time as new science and strategies become available. 
On Friday evening GAIA had the opportunity to interview Yesica Fonseca Martinez, National Focal Point of the Peru delegation, who reinforced the country’s strong position on reduction: “We seek to regulate the reduction of primary plastic polymers, that plastics be regulated, and products of concern, and that chemicals are also regulated that are contained in the production process of plastics. All of this is designed to take care of the health of our citizens. And we expect Latin American countries to join us in this process.”

      Contact:

      Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead

      claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

      References: 

      For more information about GAIA’s treaty advocacy, please visit  no-burn.org/unea-plastics-treaty, follow us on X @gaianoburn, and read our Press kit.

      Bruselas, 17 de noviembre de 2023

      Fuente: eia-international.org

      Tras varios meses de negociaciones, la Comisión Europea, el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo de la UE parecen haber llegado a un acuerdo para abordar la práctica nociva del comercio de residuos plásticos en la UE, en el contexto de la revisión del Reglamento de la UE sobre Traslado de Residuos. La alianza Rethink Plastic y Break Free From Plastic aplauden la histórica decisión de poner fin a las exportaciones de residuos plásticos a países no pertenecientes a la OCDE en el plazo de dos años y medio, pero lamentan que las instituciones de la UE no hayan acordado dejar de exportar sus residuos plásticos a todos los países. No se han publicado aún los detalles, ni tampoco se informó si se han adoptado políticas de salvaguarda para los envíos de desechos dentro de la UE.

      El Reglamento de la UE sobre Traslado de Residuos describe las obligaciones para todos los residuos comercializados dentro de la UE y para las exportaciones a terceros países. Durante muchos años se pudo demostrar que los envíos de residuos plásticos de la UE han planteado problemas únicos e importantes, por lo que se necesitaban medidas específicas para abordar este flujo de residuos en particular.

      Queda claro el motivo por el cual se han tomado dichas medidas. El comercio de desechos plásticos causa importantes daños ambientales y a la salud humana, que se ven exacerbados por el tráfico ilícito de residuos y el desplazamiento de la capacidad de reciclaje. La UE es uno de los mayores productores de residuos plásticos per cápita, así como también uno de los mayores exportadores de estos desechos en el mundo. Además, lucha contra niveles significativos de delitos relacionados con los residuos, tanto dentro como fuera de la UE, como resultado de las continuas exportaciones y la falta de políticas de salvaguarda. A modo de ejemplo, en 2022, la UE exportó más de un millón de toneladas de sus residuos plásticos a países donde las importaciones de estos residuos se han gestionado mal, se han vertido o se han quemado a cielo abierto: el 50 por ciento tuvo como destino países no pertenecientes a la OCDE como Malasia, Vietnam, Indonesia y Tailandia, en tanto Türkiye fue el receptor del 33 por ciento de dichos residuos.

      En ese contexto, el movimiento de Break Free From Plastic y la alianza Rethink Plastic han incidido con firmeza para que la UE ponga fin a la exportación de residuos plásticos fuera de la Unión y del Acuerdo Europeo de Libre Comercio (EFTA, por su sigla en inglés), tanto a países de la OCDE (por ejemplo, Türkiye) como a aquellos que no pertenecen a la Organización (por ejemplo, Malasia), además de resaltar la necesidad de contar con más políticas de salvaguarda para envíos dentro de la UE. 

      En noviembre de 2021, la Comisión Europea publicó una propuesta legislativa que buscaba garantizar que la UE no exportara sus desafíos relacionados con los residuos a terceros países, facilitara el transporte de residuos para su reciclaje y reutilización en la UE y realizara un mejor abordaje de los envíos ilegales de residuos. Si bien los detalles de lo acordado no se han comunicado aún en su totalidad, pareciera que, exactamente dos años después de la publicación de la propuesta, la Comisión Europea, el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo acordaron lo siguiente:

      • En un plazo de dos años y medio, se prohibirá la exportación de residuos plásticos a países no pertenecientes a la OCDE.
      • Se reforzarán las obligaciones en relación con la exportación de residuos plásticos a los países de la OCDE.
      • El envío de residuos destinados a su eliminación en otro país de la UE solo se permitirá en casos excepcionales.

      Voces expertas

      Lauren Weir, Activista Senior de la Environmental Investigation Agency – Agencia para la Investigación Ambiental (EIA, por su sigla en inglés) expresó en nombre y representación de la alianza Rethink Plastic:

      “Si bien los detalles de lo acordado no se han comunicado aún en su totalidad, nos alivia saber que la UE ha convenido prohibir las exportaciones de sus residuos plásticos a países no pertenecientes a la OCDE, como así también promulgar medidas de salvaguarda más estrictas para las exportaciones a países de la OCDE. Aunque ello supone una mejora respecto de las obligaciones actuales, resulta clara la evidencia de los daños y la necesidad de una prohibición total de los residuos plásticos. Esta es una señal de que finalmente la UE comienza a asumir su responsabilidad en la emergencia global de contaminación por plásticos. Ahora corresponde a los Estados Miembros de la UE garantizar que se realicen todos los esfuerzos posibles para que las futuras exportaciones de residuos plásticos de la UE se gestionen de manera ambientalmente racional y no afecten negativamente a las capacidades de reciclaje de los países receptores. Sin embargo, aún está por verse si esto es posible. Hago llegar mis mayores felicitaciones a los defensores y comunidades de todo el mundo que hicieron realidad este resultado y a los responsables políticos de la UE que adoptaron esta postura”.

      El Dr. Sedat Gündoğdu, investigador en microplásticos de la Universidad Çukurova en Türkiye comentó lo siguiente:

      “La prohibición de las exportaciones de desechos plásticos a países no pertenecientes a la OCDE es una decisión importante; sin embargo, es decepcionante no ver una prohibición total de los envíos de residuos -y ni siquiera una prohibición de los desechos plásticos peligrosos y mixtos- a Türkiye que es, a su vez, el mayor importador de residuos plásticos de la UE y miembro de la OCDE. Sabemos por prácticas del pasado que las prohibiciones parciales y los controles de contenido ineficaces no impiden la circulación ilegal de residuos plásticos. Si bien esta decisión representa un paso adelante y en la dirección correcta, estas nuevas reglamentaciones implican que Türkiye puede quedar expuesta a más desechos plásticos de la UE. El punto crucial aquí es cómo poder garantizar que no haya impactos ambientales negativos y que la infraestructura de gestión de residuos no se vea adversamente afectada. En la actualidad, nuestra única opción es luchar por una gestión ambientalmente racional de las futuras exportaciones de residuos plásticos por parte de los Estados miembros de la UE, y garantizar que no afecte de forma negativa la gestión de residuos de los países importadores. Espero que esto no sea simplemente una ilusión”.

      Pui Yi Wong, de Basel Action Network en Malasia agregó: 

      “Muchos de nosotros que vivimos en países no pertenecientes a la OCDE nos enfrentamos a incesantes vertidos ilegales, quemas a cielo abierto y contaminación por microplásticos en las proximidades de las instalaciones de reciclaje de plástico. Nos tranquiliza saber que la UE ha escuchado nuestras peticiones y que comienza a reconocer el tremendo impacto causado por un consumo excesivo de plástico y la exportación de sus desechos. Ha llegado el momento de que otros países de altos ingresos también asuman su responsabilidad: Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido, Japón, entre otros. Esperamos con ansias tener un mundo en el que los países se centren en reducir la producción de plásticos y los residuos que generan, en lugar de enviarlos al exterior. Nos solidarizamos con los países de la OCDE que son receptores de desechos plásticos provenientes de la UE, donde la evidencia de la contaminación y el daño causado por los desechos plásticos importados ha sido clara”.

      El acuerdo alcanzado hoy tendrá que ser adoptado formalmente por el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo en las próximas semanas. Para complementar las medidas del Reglamento sobre el Traslado de Residuos, la alianza Rethink Plastic y el movimiento Break Free From Plastic instan a la UE y a sus Estados Miembros a apoyar sólidas disposiciones jurídicamente vinculantes sobre el comercio de residuos plásticos en el instrumento internacional jurídicamente vinculante para poner fin a la contaminación por plásticos, que en la actualidad se encuentra en proceso de negociación en el marco de las Naciones Unidas. Además, a fin de garantizar que se reduzcan los residuos de envases que luego hay que gestionar, solicitamos al Parlamento Europeo y al Consejo que apoyen medidas ambiciosas sobre la prevención de residuos de envases, así como sobre sistemas de reutilización de envases, en el contexto de la revisión en curso del Reglamento de Envases y Residuos de Envases.

      GAIA members in the Global South tackle the plastic crisis head-on at INC-3 for a Globally Binding Plastics Treaty 

      Global South Representatives at INC-3 Media Briefing

      14 November 2023 – Nairobi, Kenya – As the third session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on Plastic Pollution begins this week to negotiate a global plastics treaty, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) hosted a media briefing to voice the demands of the Global South. Featuring representatives from a coalition of civil society organizations, including Acción Ecológica México, Aotearoa Plastic Pollution Alliance/New Zealand Product Stewardship Council/Massey University Political Ecology Research Centre, Asociación Nacional de Recicladores de Chile, Consumers’ Association of Penang and Sahabat Alam Malaysia, Foundation For Environment And Development, GAIA Latin America & the Caribbean, Green Africa Youth Organisation, South African Waste Pickers Association, and the Sustainable Research and Action for Environmental Development, this united front of civil society organizations have called on their leaders to urgently address the plastic crisis. 

      With the problem escalating to massive proportions, the INCs stand as a decisive turning point in the battle against plastic pollution. These negotiations are not only an opportunity to address environmental concerns but also to tackle issues that affect the health and rights of individuals and communities. One of these issues is waste colonialism, which is the practice of illegal exporting of waste, from economically powerful countries in the Global North, to lower-income countries in the Global South, who are ill-equipped to handle this waste. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the trade of waste is extensive. In the period from 2018 to 2021, the shipment of plastic garbage to Mexico had a growth of 121%, according to a 2023 report. 

      Alejandra Parra, GAIA Latin America & the Caribbean’s  Zero Waste and Plastics Advisor says that, “To stop waste colonialism, we need to reduce plastics production. To make recycling really useful, we need to reduce plastics production. To manage waste in an environmentally healthy manner, we need to reduce plastics production. To achieve the climate goals, we need to reduce plastics production. To respect human rights and planetary boundaries, we need to reduce plastics production. And that is what we must achieve with this plastics treaty that is currently being negotiated. But some countries don’t want this and are acting so this process fails. That is why we need to unite our voices because we are the ones suffering the worst consequences of plastics pollution and we need to be heard.”

      Emphasizing that the plastic crisis didn’t start with the Global South, speakers stressed the need to correct a narrative that unfairly singles them out as the main culprits of plastic pollution. This narrative overlooks the significant role of the Global North, which not only contributes heavily to plastic production but also exports toxic plastic waste to developing nations, often disguising this under the guise of “trade.” With many African countries struggling with extreme poverty, they fall victim to toxic, unrecyclable plastic waste, e-waste, textile waste, and a range of different technological false solutions from corporations to attain economic development. 

      Merrisa Naidoo, GAIA/BFFP  Africa Plastics Campaigner, underscores this point, stating, “Colonialism continues to manifest on the African continent in the form of ‘waste trade’ that permits the importation of toxic and non-recyclable waste into the continent from Global North countries.”

      In detailing the situation in Africa, she explains, “Every day, markets in Accra, Ghana, and rivers in Kenya are inundated with Europe’s addiction for fast fashion, particularly plastic fiber-based apparel. This unjust practice places economic, social, and environmental burdens on Africa and its future generations. It reflects a disregard for Africa’s sovereignty and the laws in place to protect its people. Therefore, the Global Plastics Treaty must prioritize closing trade loopholes through a global plastics trade tracking system, imposing trade bans on plastics and associated chemicals post-phase-out, and strengthening the Y48 listing of plastics waste in Annex II of the Basel Convention to explicitly include paper waste contaminated with plastics, textiles, and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) to halt the dumping of these mixed plastic wastes on the continent. Africa is not a dumping ground!””

      In addition, the Global South is advocating for a comprehensive set of crucial measures. These include reducing plastic production, discontinuing harmful technologies like incineration, imposing strict limits on toxic chemicals in plastics, and adopting a transparent approach to chemical use. The delegation underscores the importance of a just transition, the implementation of mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) based on the Zero Waste hierarchy, and a steadfast commitment to translating policies into practical operational regulations. These mechanisms are important to preserve traditional knowledge within the Global South, which has abided by principles of preservation and reuse for centuries. Our investment in these systems will allow us to return to regenerative indigenous knowledge that illustrates understanding and respect for the unique ecosystems in which we live. 

      Arpita Bhagat, GAIA Asia Pacific’s Plastic Policy Officer, emphasizes, “Prior to the industry introducing toxic plastics into our local systems, causing harm to our land and sea; cultures in the Asia and Pacific region prioritized co-existing with nature. This cultural value has also positioned us at the forefront of adopting Zero Waste solutions.”

      She goes on to say, “The most significant opportunity for addressing global plastics pollution lies in an international agreement. This agreement should advocate for a policy mechanism mandating the transition away from plastics. We need a treaty grounded in human rights and justice, recognizing the role of petrochemicals in plastics by mandating a reduction in production, banning harmful chemicals and polymers, and discontinuing polluting technologies like incineration, plastics-to-fuel, and chemical recycling. Moreover, it should underscore scaling up reuse, safeguarding indigenous peoples’ rights, and facilitating a just transition for informal workers and waste pickers away from plastics and into Zero Waste systems. To ensure the effectiveness of this instrument, a conflict of interest policy is essential to prevent the industry’s disproportionate influence on negotiations and avoid maintaining the status quo.”

      Furthermore, the delegation further underlines the importance of inclusion by advocating for the participation of Waste Pickers, Indigenous Peoples, and Frontline Communities. Their focus extends to under-represented African, Asian, and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) countries, in addition to advocating for greater involvement of women and youth in global efforts to combat plastic pollution. Moreover, the delegation calls for the establishment of robust financial mechanisms to support the effective implementation of these essential measures.

      The Global South is calling on the INC-3 delegates to create a strong, comprehensive, and globally binding plastics treaty that respects health, human rights, and centers justice with due consideration to the realities of the Global South. This approach underscores the interconnectedness of the plastic lifecycle, environmental justice, and the rights of marginalized communities.

      14 de noviembre de 2023 – Nairobi, Kenia – Con motivo del inicio de la tercera sesión del Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación (INC por sus siglas en inglés) para negociar un tratado mundial para prevenir la contaminación por  plásticos, la Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA) organizó una rueda de prensa para dar voz a las demandas del Sur Global. Con la participación de representantes de un grupo de organizaciones de la sociedad civil, entre ellas Acción Ecológica México, Aotearoa Plastic Pollution Alliance, New Zealand Product Stewardship Council, Massey University Political Ecology Research Centre, Asociación Nacional de Recicladores de Chile, Consumers’ Association of Penang and Sahabat Alam Malaysia, Foundation For Environment And Development, GAIA América Latina y el Caribe, Green Africa Youth Organisation, Asociación de Recicladores de Sudáfrica y Sustainable Research and Action for Environmental Development, este frente de organizaciones de la sociedad civil hizo un llamado a sus tomadores de decisiones para que aborden urgentemente la crisis del plástico. 

      Dado que el problema está alcanzando proporciones masivas, las sesiones de los INC suponen un punto de inflexión decisivo en la batalla contra la contaminación por plásticos. Estas negociaciones no sólo brindan la oportunidad de abordar las preocupaciones medioambientales, sino también las cuestiones que afectan a la salud y los derechos de las personas y las comunidades. Uno de estos problemas es el colonialismo de la basura, que es la práctica de exportar ilegalmente residuos de países económicamente poderosos del Norte Global a países de ingresos más bajos del Sur Global, que no cuentan con la infraestructura necesaria para manejar estos residuos. En América Latina y el Caribe, el comercio de residuos es una práctica extendida. Por ejemplo, en el periodo de 2018 a 2021, el envío de basura plástica a México tuvo un crecimiento del 121%, según un informe de 2023. 

      Alejandra Parra, Asesora en plástico y basura cero de GAIA América Latina y el Caribe, afirma que “para acabar con el colonialismo de la basura, necesitamos reducir la producción de plásticos. Para que el reciclaje sea realmente útil, necesitamos reducir la producción de plásticos. Para gestionar los residuos de una manera ambientalmente sana, necesitamos reducir la producción de plásticos. Para alcanzar los objetivos climáticos, debemos reducir la producción de plásticos. Para respetar los derechos humanos y los límites planetarios, necesitamos reducir la producción de plásticos. Y eso es lo que debemos conseguir con este tratado de plásticos que se está negociando actualmente. Pero algunos países no quieren esto, y están actuando para que este proceso fracase. Por eso necesitamos unir nuestras voces, porque somos los que sufrimos las peores consecuencias de la contaminación por plásticos y necesitamos que se nos escuche.”

      Subrayando que la crisis del plástico no empezó en el Sur Global, las y los panelistas insistieron en la necesidad de corregir la narrativa que injustamente les señala como los principales culpables de la contaminación plástica. Esta narrativa pasa por alto la responsabilidad del Norte Global, que no sólo contribuye en gran medida a la producción de plástico, sino que también exporta residuos plásticos tóxicos a países en vías de desarrollo, a menudo disfrazado bajo la etiqueta de “comercio”. Muchos países africanos luchan contra la pobreza extrema y son víctimas de los residuos plásticos tóxicos y no reciclables, los residuos electrónicos, los residuos textiles y toda una serie de falsas soluciones tecnológicas de las empresas para alcanzar el desarrollo económico. 

      Merrisa Naidoo, campañista de plásticos de GAIA/BFFP en África, subraya este punto al afirmar: “El colonialismo sigue manifestándose en el continente africano en forma de “comercio de residuos” que permite la importación de residuos tóxicos y no reciclables al continente desde los países del Norte Global”.

      Al detallar la situación en África, explica: “Cada día, los mercados de Accra (Ghana) y los ríos de Kenia se ven inundados por la adicción europea a la moda rápida, en particular a las prendas hechas de fibras de plástico. Esta práctica injusta supone una carga económica, social y medioambiental para África y sus futuras generaciones. Refleja un desprecio por la soberanía de África y las leyes vigentes para proteger a su población. Por lo tanto, el Tratado global de plásticos debe dar prioridad al cierre de las lagunas legales del comercio a través de un sistema mundial de seguimiento del comercio de plásticos, la imposición de prohibiciones comerciales de plásticos y productos químicos asociados después de su eliminación, y el fortalecimiento de la lista Y48 de residuos plásticos en el Anexo II del Convenio de Basilea para incluir explícitamente los residuos de papel contaminados con plásticos, textiles y combustibles derivados de residuos (CDR) para detener el vertido de estos residuos plásticos mezclados en el continente. África no es un vertedero.”

      Además, el Sur Global aboga por un amplio conjunto de medidas cruciales. Entre ellas figuran la reducción de la producción de plásticos, el abandono de tecnologías nocivas como la incineración, la imposición de límites estrictos a las sustancias químicas tóxicas en los plásticos y la adopción de un enfoque de transparencia sobre el uso de sustancias químicas. La delegación subraya la importancia de una transición justa, la aplicación obligatoria de la Responsabilidad Extendida del Productor (REP) basada en la jerarquía basura cero, y un compromiso firme para traducir las políticas en normativas operativas prácticas. Estos mecanismos son importantes para preservar el conocimiento tradicional en el Sur Global, que ha acatado los principios de preservación y reutilización durante siglos. Nuestra inversión en estos sistemas nos permitirá volver a un conocimiento indígena regenerativo que ilustre la comprensión y el respeto por los ecosistemas únicos en los que vivimos. 

      Arpita Bhagat, responsable de Política de plásticos de GAIA Asia Pacífico, subraya: “Antes de que la industria introdujera plásticos tóxicos en nuestros sistemas locales, causando daños a nuestra tierra y nuestro mar; las culturas de la región de Asia y el Pacífico priorizaban la coexistencia con la naturaleza. Este valor cultural también nos ha situado a la vanguardia de la adopción de soluciones de Basura Cero.”

      Y añade: “La oportunidad más importante para abordar la contaminación mundial por plásticos reside en un acuerdo internacional. Este acuerdo debería abogar por un mecanismo político que obligue a abandonar los plásticos. Necesitamos un tratado basado en los derechos humanos y la justicia, que reconozca el papel que juega la industria petroquímica en los plásticos y obligue a reducir su producción, prohíba los productos químicos y polímeros nocivos, y ponga fin a tecnologías contaminantes como la incineración, la conversión de plásticos en combustible y el reciclado químico. Además, debería hacer hincapié en el aumento de la reutilización, la salvaguarda de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y la facilitación de una transición justa para los trabajadores informales y los recicladores, alejándose de los plásticos y hacia sistemas de Basura Cero. Para garantizar la eficacia de este instrumento, es esencial tener una política acerca del conflicto de intereses que impida la influencia desproporcionada de la industria en las negociaciones y evite que se perpetúe el “statu quo”.

      Además, la delegación subraya la importancia de la inclusión abogando por la participación de los recicladores, los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades de primera línea. Su atención se extiende a los países subrepresentados de África, Asia y los Pequeños Estados Insulares en Desarrollo (PEID), además de abogar por una mayor participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes en los esfuerzos mundiales para combatir la contaminación por plásticos. Además, pide que se establezcan mecanismos financieros sólidos para apoyar la aplicación efectiva de estas medidas esenciales.

      El Sur Global hace un llamamiento a los delegados del INC-3 para que elaboren un tratado sobre plásticos sólido, exhaustivo y vinculante a escala mundial que respete la salud, los derechos humanos y centre la justicia teniendo debidamente en cuenta las realidades del Sur Global. Este enfoque subraya la interconexión entre el ciclo de vida del plástico, la justicia medioambiental y los derechos de las comunidades marginadas.

      ###

      Media Contacts:

      GAIA Africa: Carissa Marnce, +27 76 934 6156,  carissa@no-burn.org

      GAIA Asia Pacific: Sonia G. Astudillo, +63 9175969286, sonia@no-burn.org

      GAIA América Latina: Camila Aguilera, +56 9 5 111 1599; camila@no-burn.org 

      About GAIA:

      GAIA is a network of grassroots groups as well as national and regional alliances representing more than 1000 organizations from 92 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, Zero Waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. www.no-burn.org

      GAIA es una red de grupos de base y alianzas nacionales y regionales que representan a más de 1.000 organizaciones de 92 países. Con nuestro trabajo pretendemos catalizar un cambio global hacia la justicia medioambiental fortaleciendo los movimientos sociales de base que promueven soluciones a los residuos y la contaminación. Imaginamos un mundo justo, de Basura Cero, construido sobre el respeto a los límites ecológicos y los derechos comunitarios, donde las personas estén libres de la carga de la contaminación tóxica y los recursos se conserven de forma sostenible, no se quemen ni se viertan. www.no-burn.org

      Exposing the truth behind the plastic crisis through a brand audit 

      The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Asia Pacific took a bold step forward in unveiling the truth behind the plastic pollution crisis through a waste assessment and brand audit (WABA)* and media briefing event on January 24, 2023 as part of International Zero Waste Month 2023. 

      With participation from Ocean Conservancy, this event shed more light on the narrative impact of the GAIA network’s brand audits. Ocean Conservancy had published a report in 2015* that put blame on Asian countries as the main drivers of plastic pollution in the ocean and positioned incineration as a solution to the plastic crisis. They retracted the report in July 2022, recognizing the harm it caused.

      “We, at the Global South, have carried the weight and responsibility of waste for too long while our reality and the community solutions we have developed are ignored,” said Froilan Grate, GAIA Asia Pacific Coordinator.  “This brand audit with GAIA, Mother Earth Foundation, Ecowaste Coalition, and Ocean Conservancy shows the commitment to work towards reducing waste, moving away from false solutions, acknowledging the work happening on the ground, and most important, restoring justice where it was previously overlooked.”    

      Since Ocean Conservancy’s retraction of the report, the two organizations have been engaging in a restorative justice process to acknowledge and address the harm done by the report, and join forces to expose false solutions and drive accountability among plastics producers. 

      “We cannot solve the plastic pollution crisis without reducing virgin plastic production, especially single-use plastics,” said Nicholas Mallos, Ocean Conservancy’s  Vice President of Ocean Plastics. “This has to be our first priority. We are grateful for the incredible work that GAIA has done to shed light on this issue, and hope to learn from their members. We look forward to working together by leveraging each of our organizations’ strengths to eliminate plastic pollution.”  

      For years brand audit reports have shown that consumer brands based in the Global North have been overproducing single-use plastics and flooding Asian markets with disposable, throwaway packaging, at the expense of citizens and local governments who end up footing the bill and enduring the long-lasting environmental health effects associated with plastic pollution. 

      Von Hernandez, Global Coordinator of the #breakfreefromplastic movement said, “For years, the public has been conditioned to believe that the problem of plastic pollution, now manifesting in the unprecedented, pernicious, and wide-ranging contamination of all life on the planet, was caused by their undisciplined ways and the failure of governments to institute and implement proper waste management systems. Our brand audits have now exposed the real causes of this crisis – and it is mainly due to the irresponsible and predatory practice by corporations of saturating our societies with single-use plastics of all kinds with no consideration about how they can be managed in an environmentally safe and benign manner.” 

      “In addition,  Ecowaste Coalition campaigner Coleen Salamat said that, “The real issue is the export of waste and waste-to-energy (WtE) incineration technologies to developing countries,” In the Philippines and in the rest of Asia, “We are faced with truckloads of waste that we have no means of handling. From products packed in sachets to WtE incineration projects, and waste colonialism* has sadly become a norm.” 

      “It is never too late to turn things around. Communities around the world are discovering the power of Zero Waste solutions. Through the restorative justice process, we will continue to expose the truth of the waste crisis and it will be more than just a wake-up call to fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs) and purveyors of false narratives, but cold water splashed over their faces,” said Grate. “The Zero Waste solutions that we have and been doing all these years will be enough for our lawmakers to rethink their policies to turn the tide against waste and the climate crisis.” 

      ***

      * Waste Assessment and Brand Audit (WABA) is a methodical process of collecting and analyzing waste to determine the amount and types of waste generated by households and cities and identity which brands are responsible for producing certain percentages of the collected waste. Plastics Exposed details how waste assessments and brand audits help Philippine cities tackle plastic waste. 

      * In 2015, the  US-based non-profit Ocean Conservancy published the report, Stemming the Tide. This has since been retracted by Ocean Conservancy.  

      * Waste colonialization is the practice of exporting waste, from the higher-income countries to lower-income countries who are ill-equipped to handle this waste which places the burden of plastic and toxic waste on the environment, communities, and these countries’ informal waste sector, especially in the Global South.   

      Von Wong Production 2021.

      Fuente: Rethink Plastic, Bruselas, 01/12/2022

      En una decisión histórica, la Comisión de Medio Ambiente del Parlamento Europeo (ENVI por sus siglas en inglés) votó a favor de prohibir las exportaciones de residuos plásticos de la Unión Europea y reforzar las medidas de protección para los traslados internos de residuos plásticos.

      En una decisión histórica, la Comisión de Medio Ambiente del Parlamento Europeo votó a favor de prohibir las exportaciones de residuos plásticos de la UE y reforzar las medidas de protección para los traslados internos de residuos plásticos.

      El movimiento Break Free From Plastic y la alianza Rethink Plastic han abogado enérgicamente para que la Unión Europea ponga fin a la exportación de residuos plásticos fuera de la Unión y de la Asociación Europea de Libre Comercio (AELC), tanto a países de la OCDE (por ejemplo, Turquía) como de a aquellos que no pertenecen (por ejemplo, Malasia). Esto se debe al concluyente conjunto de pruebas y experiencias reales que demuestran que este tipo de comercio causa daños medioambientales y a la salud humana en los países receptores. En 2021, las exportaciones de residuos plásticos de la UE a todos los países ascendieron a 1.135 millones de kilos, de los cuales el 43% se destinaron a países no pertenecientes a la OCDE y el 35% a Turquía. Algunos Estados miembros de la UE incluso han aumentado sus exportaciones de residuos plásticos a países no pertenecientes a la OCDE y a Turquía en 2022.

      “La decisión de la Comisión de Medio Ambiente de apoyar la prohibición de las exportaciones de residuos plásticos es un hito en la política de la UE. La exportación de residuos plásticos de países de altos ingresos, como los Estados miembros de la UE, es inmoral y explotadora. Que esto se haya reconocido es un gran paso, ahora es urgente que el Pleno del parlamento europeo y el Consejo sigan su ejemplo.” declaró Lauren Weir, campañista de océanos de la Agencia de Investigación Medioambiental.

      Theresa Mörsen, responsable de política de residuos de Zero Waste Europe, indicó: “Una prohibición hace recaer la responsabilidad del tratamiento de los residuos en los Estados miembros de la UE y abre camino para una gestión más eficaz de los residuos, además de fomentar la reducción del uso de plásticos mediante la reutilización y la prevención en lugar de externalización este problema tóxico.” 

      La votación también ha sido bien acogida por los miembros del movimiento Break Free From Plastic en los países receptores de residuos plásticos de la UE.

      “Esta votación protegerá a las comunidades que llevan décadas soportando la contaminación por residuos plásticos exportados por los países ricos e industrializados, especialmente en Asia. Los residuos plásticos mal gestionados provenientes de otros países han contaminado nuestras tierras, alimentos, agua y aire con microplásticos y sustancias tóxicas. Los habitantes locales ven con impotencia cómo sus familiares enferman de generación en generación. Se trata de un asunto urgente de injusticia medioambiental. Europa debe rendir cuentas del coste real de sus residuos plásticos”, declaró Pui Yi Wong, Coordinadora del Proyecto de Comercio de residuos de Break Free From Plastic en Asia Pacífico.

      Como bien han demostrado los miembros de la alianza Rethink Plastic, la prohibición abordaría los problemas a los que se enfrentan los países receptores como consecuencia de las importaciones de residuos plásticos, además del hecho de que las exportaciones de residuos plásticos son una vía ampliamente explotada por delincuentes que se dedican a los residuos e influyen en el desplazamiento de la capacidad de reciclaje interna en los países receptores. Sin embargo, no sólo los países de destino fuera de la UE son víctimas de los efectos negativos de este comercio. Muchos Estados miembros de la UE también se ven afectados, en parte como consecuencia del creciente número de países que cierran sus fronteras a los residuos plásticos de la UE. De ahí que el Reglamento sobre el traslado de residuos deba esbozar políticas de protección adecuadas para todos los Estados miembros de la UE. 

      Una de esas medidas esenciales que la UE puede poner en marcha para los envíos internos de residuos plásticos es la plena transposición del Convenio de Basilea, es decir, el requisito del consentimiento previo del país receptor para el ingreso de residuos plásticos mezclados, contaminados y no destinados al reciclaje, dado que son más vulnerables a la mala gestión y la ilegalidad. Afortunadamente, la Comisión de Medio Ambiente ha decidido poner fin a la perjudicial excepción a este requisito del Convenio de Basilea que la UE tiene actualmente en vigor.

      Con las negociaciones del primer Tratado Mundial de Plásticos desarrollado en Uruguay, los próximos dos años serán cruciales para elaborar un acuerdo global jurídicamente vinculante que resuelva el problema de la contaminación por plásticos. Una de las soluciones clave es reducir la producción de plástico, además de rediseñar materiales, productos y sistemas, lo que también evitaría la generación de residuos. La votación de la Comisión de Medio Ambiente demuestra que la UE está avanzando en reconocer cómo las exportaciones de residuos plásticos actúan como una laguna jurídica, permitiendo además que continúen los altos niveles de producción y consumo de plástico en la UE.  

      El plenario del Parlamento Europeo votará el Reglamento sobre envío de residuos en enero, y el Consejo  fijará también su posición a principios del próximo año.

      Recomendamos leer:

      Comercio transfronterizo de plásticos en América Latina: Resumen de los informes investigativos de miembros de GAIA

      Ocean Conservancy commits to working with GAIA Network to address damages done to impacted communities

      September 14, 2022 – Today the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) in the Asia Pacific and its member organizations have concluded the first step of a restorative justice process with the U.S.-based organization Ocean Conservancy (OC). The process aims to address the years of damage brought about by its “Stemming the Tide” report (now removed from OC’s website) by correcting the narrative and agreeing to restorative actions requested by communities and sectors most impacted by the report. 

      In contrast to the 2015 report which placed the responsibility for plastic waste solely on the shoulders of five Asian countries (China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam) while ignoring the role of the Global North in plastic overproduction and waste exports, this process is leading to new common ground. Agreements include prioritizing plastic reduction policies, moving resources to Zero Waste solutions, denouncing false solutions like burning plastics in so-called “waste to energy” (WTE) incinerators and “chemical recycling,” and accountability mechanisms.

      ”This unprecedented report retraction is an opportunity to interrupt decades of waste colonialism,” shares Froilan Grate, GAIA Asia Pacific Coordinator. “Ocean Conservancy is in a position to raise awareness among other organizations and policymakers about the false narrative propagated by the report. We call on all organizations to adhere to democratic organizing principles when interacting with communities in the Global South, and to respect solutions that are grounded in the real situation of the communities.” Grate encourages advocates to reinforce the restorative justice process.

      First coined in 1989, waste colonialism is the process by which rich and developed countries show dominance over other lesser-developed countries through toxic waste exports, leaving the receiving (and often, ill-equipped) countries to deal with the waste, thus severely affecting their communities and environment. 

      Christie Keith, GAIA International Coordinator, expounds,  “The five Asian countries mentioned in the report are not to be blamed for plastic waste. That fault lies with the corporations that make and push out ever-increasing quantities of plastic – and those fighting for Zero Waste community solutions deserve to be honored and celebrated, not attacked. We welcome OC’s commitment to repair the harm done, and uplift Zero Waste solutions. ”

      Aditi Varshneya, GAIA US Membership Coordinator, adds, “‘Stemming the Tide’ also harmed communities in more ways than one. The report’s findings have undermined long-standing community efforts to achieve sustainable policies on health, waste management, and funding.”

      Rahyang Nusantara of Aliansi Zero Waste Indonesia emphasizes that “The report (‘Stemming the Tide’) has harmed our communities but we are not victims because we have the solutions.” David Sutasurya of Yaksa Pelestari Bumi Berkelanjutan (YPBB) adds,  “We have Zero Waste solutions to counter waste.”  Sutasurya shares that in the first year of YPBB’s Zero Waste pilot areas in Bandung, the districts successfully diverted 950 kg of waste away from landfills daily and managed to save about IDR 63 million (USD 4,300) in waste transportation costs. 

      According to Satyarupa Shekhar, #breakfreefromplastic movement Asia Pacific Coordinator, “OC’s report, which was drafted by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm whose clientele includes some of the world’s top plastic polluters, diluted existing restrictions on incineration and opened the doors to false solutions and controversial techno-fixes to deal with the plastic pollution crisis. Some of the glaring examples are: in the Philippines, where a national ban on incineration is threatened by new proposals to allow WTE incineration plants, and in Indonesia, where the government continues to push for waste incineration despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruling revoked Presidential regulation No. 18/2016, which speed up the development of waste-based power plants or incinerators.“

      Aside from retracting the report, OC acknowledged its mistake in focusing on plastic waste management and reconsidered its position on WTE incineration and other similar technologies to deal with the burgeoning plastic waste crisis. OC has also admitted its error in failing to look at the work of local communities and the subsequent effects of the report on them. 

      Welcoming OC’s change of position, Aileen Lucero of Ecowaste Coalition in the Philippines and Daru Rini of ECOTON in Indonesia illustrated that the current plastic crisis is not a waste management issue, but instead, the problem should be addressed by looking at the entire lifecycle of plastic. Rini states that “the problem begins the moment fossil fuels are extracted to produce single-use plastics (SUP).”  

      Fighting False Solutions to Plastic Pollution

      In recent years, several false solutions have been offered to counteract the plastic crisis,  from burning waste to “chemical recycling,” which in no way addresses the full lifecycle of plastic. 

      For Sonia Mendoza, Chairman of Mother Earth Foundation in the Philippines, “Each country should be responsible for the waste it generates and not export them under the guise of ‘trade’. Burning waste is not an option as well. WTE could as well mean “waste of energy.”

      Looking at the current end life of SUPs, Xuan Quach, Vietnam Zero Waste Alliance chairman, highlights that, “WTE and chemical recycling are not sustainable.” To which, Nindhita Proboretno of Nexus 3 Foundation in Indonesia adds,  “Those technologies are not environment-friendly solutions and have no place in a world struggling against climate change.”  

      Xavier Sun,  organizer of the Taiwan Zero Waste Alliance, agrees, stating that such strategies only  “cause further toxic pollution (such as bottom ash, fly ash, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) that damages our climate and human health. Additionally, they encourage further plastic production, and undermine real solutions.”

      Moving toward Zero Waste

      Meanwhile, Merci Ferrer of War on Waste-Break Free From Plastic (WOW-BFFP) – Negros Oriental in the Philippines, adds that “This  process with OC would bring justice and recognition to the work of communities engaged in Zero Waste work.”

      Summarizing the sentiments of all key leaders, Nalini Shekar of Hasiru Dala in India, adds, “The report has influenced decision makers to divert valuable resources meant for decentralized Zero Waste solutions to centralized, highly-mechanical unsustainable practices and caused other harm to communities. However, the report retraction is a step towards healing and reversing the damages done –  showing once again that Zero Waste is the only sustainable solution.”

      ###

      About GAIA – GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 800 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work, we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, Zero Waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

      Media Contacts:

      Sonia Astudillo, GAIA Asia Pacific Senior Communications Officer  | sonia@no-burn.org | +63 9175969286

      #####

      Bahasa Indonesia:

      Kemajuan Bersejarah dalam Perang Melawan Kolonialisme Sampah

      Ocean Conservancy berkomitmen untuk bekerja sama dengan GAIA Network untuk mengatasi kerugian yang terjadi pada masyarakat yang terdampak

      14 September 2022 – Kemarin, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Asia Pasifik dan anggotanya telah menyelesaikan langkah pertama dari proses keadilan restoratif dengan Ocean Conservancy (OC) organisasi yang berbasis di AS. Proses ini bertujuan untuk mengatasi kerugian yang sudah bertahun-tahun  yang ditimbulkan oleh laporan “Stemming the Tide” (saat ini sudah dihapus dari situs web OC) dengan mengoreksi narasi, dan menyepakati tindakan restoratif yang diminta oleh masyarakat dan sektor yang paling terkena dampak atas laporan tersebut.

      Berbeda dengan tahun 2015, dimana lima negara Asia (China, Indonesia, Filipina, Thailand, dan Vietnam) dinobatkan sebagai negara yang bertanggung jawab atas sampah plastik namun mengabaikan peran negara-negara Global Utara dalam produksi plastik dan ekspor sampah yang berlebihan, saat ini proses keadilan restoratif mengarah ke kesepakatan baru. Kesepakatan termasuk memprioritaskan keb akan pengurangan plastik, mentransfer sumber daya ke solusi Zero Waste, menolak solusi palsu seperti pembakaran plastik yang disebut insinerator “Waste to Energy”, daur ulang bahan kimia’, dan mekanisme akuntabilitas.

      ”Pencabutan laporan yang belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya ini untuk menginterupsi puluhan tahun kolonialisme sampah,” kata Froilan Grate, Koordinator GAIA Asia Pasifik. “Ocean Conservancy berada dalam posisi untuk meningkatkan kesadaran di antara organisasi dan pembuat keb akan lain tentang narasi palsu yang disebarkan oleh laporan tersebut. Kami meminta kepada semua organisasi untuk mematuhi prinsip-prinsip pengorganisasian yang demokratis ketika berinteraksi dengan masyarakat di negara-negara Global South, dan untuk menghormati solusi yang didasarkan pada situasi nyata masyarakat lokal,” tambah Grate mendorong para advokat untuk memperkuat proses keadilan restoratif.

      Pertama kali diciptakan pada tahun 1989, kolonialisme sampah adalah proses di mana negara-negara kaya dan maju menunjukkan dominasi atas negara-negara kurang berkembang lainnya melalui ekspor limbah beracun, membiarkan negara-negara penerima

      (dan seringkali, tidak dilengkapi teknologi yang baik) untuk menangani limbah, dengan demikian mempengaruhi dalam memperparah dampak yang dialami masyarakat dan lingkungan mereka.

      Christie Keith, Koordinator Internasional GAIA, menjelaskan, “Lima negara Asia yang disebutkan dalam laporan tidak dapat disalahkan atas sampah plastik. Kesalahan itu terletak pada perusahaan yang membuat dan mendorong jumlah plastik yang terus meningkat – dan mereka yang berjuang untuk solusi Zero Waste Community layak untuk dihargai dan dirayakan, bukan diserang. Kami menyambut baik komitmen OC untuk memperbaiki kerusakan yang terjadi, dan meningkatkan solusi Zero Waste, ” ujarnya.

      Aditi Varshneya, GAIA AS Koordinator Keanggotaan, menambahkan, “‘Stemming the Tide’ juga merugikan masyarakat dengan lebih dari satu cara. Temuan laporan tersebut telah merusak upaya masyarakat lokal untuk mencapai keb akan berkelanjutan tentang kesehatan, pengelolaan limbah, dan pendanaan,” tambahnya.

      Rahyang Nusantara dari Aliansi Zero Waste Indonesia juga menekankan bahwa, “Laporan (‘Stemming the Tide’) telah merugikan komunitas kami tetapi kami bukan korban karena kami memiliki solusinya.” Begitu juga dengan David Sutasurya dari Yaksa Pelestari Bumi Berkelanjutan (YPBB), dia menambahkan, “Kami memiliki solusi Zero Waste untuk mengatasi sampah.” David menjelaskan bahwa pada tahun pertama daerah percontohan Zero Waste YPBB di Kota Bandung dan kabupaten-kabupaten tersebut berhasil mengalihkan 950 kg sampah dari tempat pembuangan sampah setiap hari dan berhasil menghemat sekitar Rp 63 juta (USD 4.300) untuk biaya transportasi sampah.

      Sementara itu, menurut Satyarupa Shekhar, Koordinator gerakan #breakfreefromplastic Asia Pasifik, “Laporan OC, yang disusun oleh McKinsey & Company, sebuah perusahaan konsultan manajemen global yang kliennya mencakup beberapa pencemar plastik terbesar di dunia, melemahkan pembatasan penggunaan teknologi insinerator yang ada dan membuka pintu untuk solusi palsu dan perbaikan teknologi kontroversial untuk menangani krisis polusi plastik,” jelasnya. Satyarupa memaparkan beberapa contoh mencolok adalah: di Filipina, di mana larangan nasional terhadap insinerator terancam oleh proposal baru yang mengizinkan pembangkit listrik tenaga sampah menjadi energi, dan di Indonesia, di mana pemerintah terus mendorong insinerasi sampah meskipun keputusan Mahkamah Agung telah mencabut Perpres No. 18/2016, yang mempercepat pembangunan pembangkit listrik berbasis sampah atau insinerator.

      Selain mencabut laporan tersebut, OC mengakui kesalahannya yang hanya fokus pada manajemen pengelolaan sampah plastik dan mempertimbangkan waste-to-energy atau insinerasi dan teknologi serupa lainnya untuk menangani krisis sampah plastik yang sedang berkembang. OC juga mengakui kesalahannya karena tidak melihat apa yang sudah dikerjakan oleh masyarakat lokal dan bagaimana dampaknya terhadap mereka akibat laporan tersebut.

      Menyambut perubahan posisi OC, Aileen Lucero dari Ecowaste Coalition di Filipina dan Daru Rini dari ECOTON di Indonesia mengilustrasikan bahwa krisis plastik saat ini bukanlah hanya masalah manajemen pengelolaan sampah saja, melainkan masalah yang harus diatasi dengan melihat seluruh siklus hidup plastik. “Masalah dimulai saat bahan bakar fosil diekstraksi untuk menghasilkan plastik sekali pakai (PSP),” pungkas Daru.

      Memerangi Solusi Palsu terhadap Pencemaran Plastik

      Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, beberapa solusi palsu telah ditawarkan untuk melawan krisis plastik, mulai dari pembakaran sampah hingga ‘daur ulang bahan kimia’, yang sama sekali tidak membahas siklus hidup plastik secara penuh.

      Bagi Sonia Mendoza, Ketua Mother Earth Foundation di Filipina, “Setiap negara harus bertanggung jawab atas limbah yang dihasilkannya dan tidak mengekspornya dengan kedok ‘perdagangan’. Membakar sampah juga bukan pilihan. Waste to Energy (WtE) juga bisa berarti: pemborosan energi.”

      Melihat umur akhir PSP saat ini, Xuan Quach, ketua Vietnam Zero Waste Alliance, menyoroti bahwa, “WtE dan daur ulang bahan kimia tidak berkelanjutan.” Untuk itu, Nindhita Proboretno dari Nexus 3 Foundation di Indonesia menambahkan, “Teknologi tersebut bukanlah teknologi yang ramah lingkungan dan tidak memiliki tempat di dunia manapun yang saat ini berjuang melawan perubahan iklim.”

      Senada dengan Nindhita, Xavier Sun, pengurus Taiwan Zero Waste Alliance, menyatakan bahwa “Strategi seperti itu hanya menyebabkan polusi beracun lebih lanjut (seperti bottom ash, fly ash, dan gas rumah kaca (GRK) yang merusak iklim dan kesehatan manusia. Selain itu, mereka mendorong produksi plastik lebih lanjut, dan merusak solusi nyata.”

      Bergerak menuju Zero Waste

      Sementara itu, Merci Ferrer dari War on Waste-Break Free From Plastic (WOW-BFFP) -Negros Oriental di Filipina, menambahkan bahwa “Proses dengan OC ini akan membawa keadilan dan pengakuan atas pekerjaan masyarakat yang terlibat dalam pekerjaan Zero Waste.”

      Merangkum sentimen dari semua key leaders, Nalini Shekar dari Hasiru Dala di India, menambahkan, “Laporan tersebut telah mempengaruhi para pengambil keputusan untuk mengalihkan sumber daya berharga yang dimaksudkan untuk solusi Zero Waste yang terdesentralisasi menjadi terpusat, praktik tidak berkelanjutan yang sangat mekanis dan menyebabkan kerugian lain bagi masyarakat. Namun, pencabutan laporan adalah langkah menuju penyembuhan dan membalikkan kerusakan yang dilakukan – menunjukkan sekali lagi bahwa Zero Waste adalah satu-satunya solusi yang berkelanjutan.”

      ###

      Tentang GAIA – GAIA adalah aliansi di seluruh dunia yang terdiri dari lebih dari 800 kelompok, organisasi non-pemerintah, dan individu di lebih dari 90 negara. Dengan pekerjaan kami, kami bertujuan untuk mengkatalisasi perubahan global menuju keadilan lingkungan dengan memperkuat gerakan sosial akar rumput yang memajukan solusi untuk limbah dan polusi. Kami membayangkan dunia tanpa limbah yang adil yang dibangun dengan menghormati batas ekologis dan hak-hak masyarakat, di mana orang bebas dari beban polusi beracun, dan sumber daya dilestarikan secara berkelanjutan, tidak dibakar atau dibuang.

      Kontak Media:

      Sonia Astudillo, Senior Staf Komunikasi GAIA Asia Pasifik | sonia@no-burn.org | +63 9175969286

      Vancher, staf komunikasi AZWI | vancher@aliansizerowaste.id | +62 812-8854-9493

      Kia, staf komunikasi AZWI | kia@aliansizerowaste.id | +62 852-1580-9537

      ###

      Vietnamese

      Bước nhảy vọt lịch sử trong cuộc chiến chống chủ nghĩa thực dân chất thải

      Ngày 14 tháng 9 năm 2022 – Hôm nay, Liên minh Toàn cầu về Giải pháp Thay thế Lò đốt (GAIA) ở Châu Á Thái Bình Dương và các tổ chức thành viên của nó đã kết thúc bước đầu tiên của quy trình phục hồi công lý với tổ chức Ocean Conservancy (OC) có trụ sở tại Hoa Kỳ. Quy trình này nhằm mục đích giải quyết những thiệt hại trong nhiều năm do báo cáo “Stemming the Tide” gây ra (hiện đã bị xóa khỏi trang web của OC) bằng cách sửa lại câu chuyện và đồng ý thực hiện các hành động phục hồi theo yêu cầu của cộng đồng và các lĩnh vực bị ảnh hưởng nhiều nhất bởi báo cáo.

      Trái ngược với báo cáo năm 2015 đặt trách nhiệm về rác thải nhựa lên vai 5 quốc gia châu Á (Trung Quốc, Indonesia, Philippines, Thái Lan và Việt Nam) trong khi bỏ qua vai trò của các nước phát triển trong việc sản xuất thừa nhựa và xuất khẩu chất thải, quá trình này đang dẫn đến điểm chung mới. Các thỏa thuận bao gồm ưu tiên các chính sách giảm thiểu nhựa, chuyển nguồn lực sang các giải pháp Không Chất thải, lên án các giải pháp sai lầm như đốt nhựa trong cái gọi là lò đốt “biến chất thải thành năng lượng” (WTE) và “tái chế hóa chất” và cơ chế trách nhiệm.

      Froilan Grate, Điều phối viên GAIA Châu Á Thái Bình Dương chia sẻ: “Việc rút lại báo cáo chưa từng có tiền lệ này là một cơ hội để ngăn chặn chủ nghĩa thực dân chất thải nhiều thập kỷ qua”. “Ocean Conservancy có nhiệm vụ nâng cao nhận thức của các tổ chức và nhà hoạch định chính sách khác về câu chuyện sai sự thật được tuyên truyền bởi báo cáo. Chúng tôi kêu gọi tất cả các tổ chức tuân thủ các nguyên tắc tổ chức dân chủ khi tương tác với các cộng đồng ở các nước đang phát triển và tôn trọng các giải pháp dựa trên tình hình thực tế của cộng đồng”. Grate khuyến khích những người ủng hộ củng cố quy trình phục hồi công lý.

      Được hình thành lần đầu tiên vào năm 1989, chủ nghĩa thực dân chất thải là quá trình các nước giàu và phát triển thể hiện sự thống trị so với các nước kém phát triển khác thông qua việc xuất khẩu chất thải độc hại, khiến các nước tiếp nhận (và thường là thiếu cơ sở hạ tầng) phải đối phó với chất thải, do đó ảnh hưởng nghiêm trọng tới cộng đồng và môi trường của họ.

      Christie Keith, Điều phối viên Quốc tế của GAIA, giải thích, “Năm quốc gia châu Á được đề cập trong báo cáo không nên bị đổ lỗi cho rác thải nhựa. Lỗi đó nằm ở các tập đoàn đã sản xuất và đưa lượng nhựa ra môi trường ngày càng tăng – và những người đấu tranh cho các giải pháp không rác cộng đồng (Zero Waste Community) xứng đáng được tôn vinh và trân trọng, chứ không phải bị tấn công. Chúng tôi hoan nghênh cam kết của OC trong việc khắc phục những tác hại đã gây ra và đề cao các giải pháp Không Chất thải.”

      Aditi Varshneya, Điều phối viên Thành viên GAIA Hoa Kỳ, cho biết thêm, “Stemming the Tide” cũng gây hại cho cộng đồng theo nhiều cách. Các phát hiện của báo cáo đã làm suy yếu những nỗ lực lâu dài của cộng đồng nhằm đạt được các chính sách bền vững về y tế, quản lý chất thải và tài trợ”.

      Rahyang Nusantara của Aliansi Zero Waste Indonesia nhấn mạnh rằng, “Báo cáo (‘ Stemming the Tide ’) đã gây hại cho cộng đồng của chúng tôi nhưng chúng tôi không phải là nạn nhân vì chúng tôi có các giải pháp.” David Sutasurya của Yaksa Pelestari Bumi Berkelanjutan (YPBB) cho biết thêm, “Chúng tôi có các giải pháp Không Chất thải để chống lại chất thải”. Sutasurya chia sẻ rằng trong năm đầu tiên của các khu vực thí điểm ở Bandung, các quận đã chuyển thành công 950 kg rác khỏi các bãi chôn lấp mỗi ngày và tiết kiệm được khoảng 63 triệu IDR (4.300 USD) chi phí vận chuyển rác.

      Theo Satyarupa Shekhar, Điều phối viên Châu Á Thái Bình Dương của phong trào #breakfreefromplastic, “Báo cáo của OC, được soạn thảo bởi McKinsey & Company, một công ty tư vấn quản lý toàn cầu có khách hàng bao gồm một số nhà gây ô nhiễm nhựa hàng đầu thế giới, đã làm loãng các hạn chế hiện có về đốt rác và mở ra cánh cửa cho các giải pháp sai lầm và các bản sửa lỗi công nghệ gây tranh cãi để đối phó với cuộc khủng hoảng ô nhiễm nhựa. Một số ví dụ rõ ràng là: ở Philippines, nơi mà lệnh cấm đốt rác trên toàn quốc bị đe dọa bởi các đề xuất mới cho phép các nhà máy đốt rác phát điện và ở Indonesia, nơi chính phủ tiếp tục thúc đẩy đốt rác bất chấp phán quyết của Tòa án Tối cao đã thu hồi Quy định của Tổng thống số 18/2016, trong đó đẩy nhanh sự phát triển của các nhà máy điện hoặc lò đốt rác thải.”

      Bên cạnh việc rút lại báo cáo, OC thừa nhận sai lầm của mình trong việc tập trung vào quản lý chất thải nhựa và xem xét lại quan điểm của mình về đốt rác phát điện và các công nghệ tương tự khác để đối phó với cuộc khủng hoảng chất thải nhựa đang gia tăng. OC cũng đã thừa nhận lỗi của mình khi không xem xét công việc của các cộng đồng địa phương và những ảnh hưởng sau đó của báo cáo đối với họ.

      Hoan nghênh sự thay đổi quan điểm của OC, Aileen Lucero của Liên minh Ecowaste ở Philippines và Daru Rini của ECOTON ở Indonesia đã minh họa rằng cuộc khủng hoảng nhựa hiện nay không phải là vấn đề quản lý chất thải, mà thay vào đó, vấn đề cần được giải quyết bằng cách xem xét toàn bộ vòng đời của nhựa. Rini nói rằng, “vấn đề bắt đầu từ thời điểm nhiên liệu hóa thạch được chiết xuất để sản xuất nhựa sử dụng một lần (SUP).”

      Chống lại các giải pháp sai lầm đối với ô nhiễm nhựa

      Trong những năm gần đây, một số giải pháp sai lầm đã được đưa ra để chống lại cuộc khủng hoảng nhựa, từ đốt chất thải đến “tái chế hóa học”, chúng không giải quyết được toàn bộ vòng đời của nhựa.

      Đối với Sonia Mendoza, Chủ tịch Quỹ Đất Mẹ tại Philippines, “Mỗi quốc gia phải chịu trách nhiệm về chất thải mà mình tạo ra và không xuất khẩu chúng dưới chiêu bài‘ thương mại ’. Đốt chất thải cũng không phải là một lựa chọn. Biến chất thải thành năng lượng (đốt rác phát điện) cũng có thể có nghĩa là: lãng phí năng lượng.”

      Nhìn vào vòng đời của nhựa dùng một lần, Xuân Quách, Điều phối viên Liên minh Không rác Việt Nam, nhấn mạnh rằng “Đốt rác phát điện và tái chế hóa chất không bền vững”. Nindhita Proboretno thuộc Tổ chức Nexus 3 ở Indonesia cho biết thêm, “Những công nghệ đó không phải là giải pháp thân thiện với môi trường và không có chỗ đứng trong một thế giới đang đấu tranh chống lại biến đổi khí hậu”.

      Xavier Sun, người sáng lập Liên minh Không chất thải Đài Loan, đồng ý, nói rằng các chiến lược như vậy chỉ “gây ra ô nhiễm độc hại hơn nữa (chẳng hạn như tro bụi, tro bay và khí nhà kính (GHG) gây hại cho khí hậu và sức khỏe con người của chúng ta. Ngoài ra, chúng khuyến khích tiếp tục sản xuất nhựa, và phá hoại các giải pháp thực sự.”

      Hướng tới Không Chất Thải

      Trong khi đó, Merci Ferrer chiến binh của Chống Rác thải (WOW-BFFP) – Negros Oriental ở Philippines, nói thêm rằng “Quá trình này với OC sẽ mang lại công lý và sự công nhận cho công việc của các cộng đồng tham gia vào công việc Không Chất thải”.

      Tóm tắt ý kiến của tất cả các nhà lãnh đạo chủ chốt, Nalini Shekar của Hasiru Dala ở Ấn Độ cho biết thêm, “Báo cáo Stemming the Tide của OC đã ảnh hưởng đến các nhà hoạch định chính sách để chuyển hướng các nguồn lực có giá trị dành cho các giải pháp Zero Waste phi tập trung sang các hoạt động không bền vững tập trung, mang tính cơ học cao và gây ra những tổn hại khác cho cộng đồng. Tuy nhiên, việc rút lại báo cáo là một bước hướng tới việc chữa lành và khắc phục những thiệt hại đã gây ra – một lần nữa cho thấy rằng Zero Waste là giải pháp bền vững duy nhất”.

      ——

      GAIA là một liên minh trên toàn thế giới gồm hơn 800 nhóm cơ sở, tổ chức phi chính phủ và cá nhân tại hơn 90 quốc gia. Với công việc của mình, chúng tôi đặt mục tiêu thúc đẩy sự thay đổi toàn cầu hướng tới công bằng môi trường bằng cách tăng cường các phong trào xã hội cấp cơ sở nhằm thúc đẩy các giải pháp chống lãng phí và ô nhiễm. Chúng tôi hình dung một thế giới công bằng, không rác thải được xây dựng dựa trên sự tôn trọng các giới hạn sinh thái và quyền của cộng đồng, nơi mọi người không phải chịu gánh nặng ô nhiễm độc hại và các nguồn tài nguyên được bảo tồn bền vững, không bị đốt cháy hoặc đổ bỏ.

      Para su publicación inmediata: jueves 15 de septiembre de 2022.

      Un nuevo informe publicado por miembros de la Alianza Global por Alternativas a la Incineración, GAIA, de México, Ecuador, Chile y Argentina expone las cifras más actuales de importación y exportación de residuos plásticos hacia América Latina. El reporte investigativo contiene información crítica e inédita sobre las importaciones de residuos plásticos que están ingresando a países de América Latina, alertando nuevamente sobre la necesidad de reducir la producción de plásticos y de que cada país gestione sus residuos dentro de sus fronteras.

      Estados Unidos nuevamente lidera la exportación de plásticos a América Latina y el Caribe, enviando más de 200 mil toneladas de residuos plásticos a la región entre 2020 y 2021.  Algunos de los principales países receptores fueron México y Ecuador que pasaron de recibir 63 mil toneladas durante el 2020 a 84 mil durante el 2021, y de 6.745 toneladas en 2019 a 8.253 toneladas en 2020 respectivamente. 

      Residuos plásticos exportados desde EE.UU a Latinoamérica bajo la Partida 3915 periodo 2020-2021
      México147.897  toneladas 
      El Salvador20.975 toneladas 
      Ecuador12.791 toneladas 
      Las fuentes de información para el desarrollo de la investigación de nuestros miembros fueron bases de datos de Datasur, aduanas, Sistema de Información Arancelaria Vía Internet (SIAVI) y consultas a ministerios locales.
      Únicos registros oficiales públicos, hasta la fecha, sobre la importación de desechos plásticos en Ecuador. Imagen de una de las inspeciones realizadas en 2021 entre el Ministerio de Ambiente y el Senae. Foto: Cortesía MAE.

      El 1 de enero del año 2021 se hizo efectiva la Enmienda de plásticos del Convenio de Basilea, que obliga a los países que deseen exportar plásticos contaminados o mezclados, o que no tengan como destino principal el reciclaje ambientalmente racional, a solicitar consentimiento previo al país receptor, no obstante, no se ha reflejado aún una clara disminución en el flujo de residuos plásticos, lo que es una señal alarmante sobre el cumplimiento de los compromisos internacionales de cada país. Por ejemplo en México, el movimiento internacional de desechos desde y hacia México, incluso ha incrementado. Además, mucho del plástico que ha ingresado como destinado al reciclaje, y que por lo tanto no necesita el consentimiento previo estipulado en la Enmienda de plásticos, ha llegado contaminado o es imposible de reciclar en el país de destino. 

      Los datos oficiales del gobierno mexicano indican que del año 2015 al año 2021 las importaciones de desechos plásticos a México se han triplicado, pasando de 58 mil toneladas en 2015 a 175 mil toneladas en 2021. El 94% de estos desechos plásticos provienen de los Estados Unidos de América. Nuestra preocupación es que no hay certeza del destino final de estos desechos plásticos, no sabemos si se usan para alimentar cementeras, en rellenos sanitarios, en tiraderos clandestinos. Creímos que con la entrada en vigor de la enmienda del Convenio de Basilea el movimiento de desechos plásticos entre los países se reduciría, en el caso Mexicano no fue así, el año 2021 es cuando más basura plástica ha ingresado a México. Consideramos que es necesario desmontar esa política pública que promueve a México como el vertedero de nuestro vecino del norte. Solo el poder ciudadano puede lograrlo y estamos trabajando en ello.”

      José Manuel Arias de la Asociación Ecológica Santo Tomás A.C., México.

      Los plásticos ingresan a cada país bajo la Partida 3915, que corresponde a una clasificación arancelaria para desechos, desperdicios y recortes de plástico; sin embargo, sus subpartidas tienen denominaciones demasiado amplias que no permiten saber exactamente qué se está importando ni el estado en el que llegan los plásticos a cada país. Pero los autores del informe indican que la gravedad del problema no pasa por solo saber cuánto y qué tipo de plástico ingresa al continente porque se trata de materiales que en todos los países se descartan cotidianamente, y que en muchos casos ya representan un problema porque no existe la infraestructura adecuada para su tratamiento, colapsan los rellenos sanitarios que ya están enfrentando una crisis o aún peor, puede conducir a propuestas de falsas soluciones como plantas incineradoras, quema en cementeras o propuestas de plástico-a-combustible. 

      “Es una práctica inaceptable porque estamos hablando de un residuos considerado peligroso , con diversos impactos negativos y , que además, se manifiesta como un síntoma de un sistema ya colapsado, el cual insiste en buscar soluciones al final del ciclo de vida del plástico y no en una etapa inicial como es la  generación. Bajo esta lógica, para la región y Chile, los riesgos que se presentan son altos ya que  no están los  sistemas e infraestructura necesaria como tampoco la correcta fiscalización, lo cual permite que se generen muchas fugas a lo largo de toda la cadena, desde que el material es generado, hasta que es puesto en otro país. En función de todo esto, lo importante es monitorear, educar e incidir sobre los impactos de esta práctica a nivel social y político bajo alero de los acuerdos internacionales, como por ejemplo, la convención  de Basilea y su enmienda sobre plásticos.“

      Matías Roa de la Alianza Basura Cero Chile.

      El informe también evidencia los vacíos de información que existen entre aduanas y las instituciones ambientales de cada país, ya que hasta el momento no existe certeza de la peligrosidad ni de las condiciones en las que están ingresando los plásticos, mucho menos se sabe sobre el destino real de cada contenedor, por eso las organizaciones urgen que se transparente antes del ingreso a cada país el detalle del proceso de reciclaje que se pretende realizar, el destino final para poder identificar re-exportaciones (efecto pivote) y llenar cualquier otro vacío respecto al uso de los residuos importados. La razón principal de la falta de coordinación entre entidades, según señalan, sería que el ingreso desmedido de plásticos al continente es de orden económico y no ambiental ni de salud pública. 

      “En Ecuador, la importación de desechos plásticos como “materia prima”, está siendo justificada bajo el discurso de economía circular pese a que va en contra del Convenio de Basilea, del acuerdo 061, del art. 227 del Código Orgánico del Ambiental y de varias leyes orgánicas. Se trata de un discurso que pretende “blanquear” el imperialismo de la basura utilizando subterfugios lingüísticos. En esta línea, la “dispensa temporal” se ha convertido en la figura que deja la puerta abierta para que el incumplimiento de las enmiendas de plástico y prohibición del Convenio de Basilea se dé con venia del Estado en un país que no tiene escasez de desechos plásticos y que, por el contrario, entierra en malas condiciones, el 96% de sus residuos. Las cifras de esta expresión colonial son escandalosas: en promedio, cada año se importan alrededor de 13.000 toneladas de desechos plásticos a un costo de más de cinco millones de dólares. Pagamos por recibir la basura, especialmente de los EEUU, perversa aporía.”

      María Fernanda Soliz, directora del área de salud de la Universidad Simón Bolívar Ecuador y Alianza basura cero Ecuador.

      Concluyen además que los esfuerzos globales para detener el comercio de residuos plásticos deben estar orientados a la disminución en la generación de residuos como objetivo principal, no solo a mejorar los controles aduaneros, al igual que establecer prohibiciones para que países desarrollados envíen sus residuos a aquellos más pobres y con legislaciones débiles. En este sentido, las negociaciones para alcanzar un Tratado global de plásticos jurídicamente vinculante representa una gran oportunidad para avanzar en la resolución de los problemas ambientales, sociales y económicos provocados en todas las etapas del ciclo de los plásticos.

      Informe disponible en: https://bit.ly/GAIAplasticos2022

      Organizaciones que realizaron informes:

      Alianza Basura Cero Chile, Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador, Taller Ecologista, Argentina, Acción Ecológica, Fronteras Comunes, Asociación Ecológica Santo Tomás; México.

      Contactos:

      • Camila Aguilera, Alianza Global por Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA) en América Latina, camila@no-burn.org, +56 951111599 
      • Claire Arkin, Alianza Global por Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA), claire@no-burn.org, +1 973 444 4869  (en EE.UU)

      FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 22 JUNE, 2022

      Civil society organizations, including the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives and Break Free from Plastic, are calling on leaders in the U.S. and Africa to stop waste colonialism—the illegal importing of waste from countries in the Global North to African nations already impacted by the waste and climate crises. 

      Their demand letter was first introduced at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention in Geneva, Switzerland, the first of a series of negotiations following the March adoption at UNEA-5 of a global, legally-binding treaty addressing the full lifecycle of plastics.

      The U.S. is one of only three countries that have not ratified the Basel Convention, which prohibits the export of hazardous waste from OECD countries (primarily wealthier nations) to non-OECD countries (primarily low-income countries in the Global South). Recent research from the Basel Action Network found that U.S. ports exported 150 tons of PVC waste to Nigeria in 2021, in violation of the Convention. Many of the exporting ports are located in environmental justice communities, which like their counterparts in Africa are impacted by the waste and climate crises. 

      “Whatever waste is not burned in our communities is being illegally sent to relatives and grassroots partners in the global South,” says Chris Tandazo, Community Connections Program Coordinator at New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance. “Fighting for waste justice here would mean waste justice for communities in the Global South. We cannot allow the white supremacist colonial practice of dumping waste in low-income and communities of color to continue. We will continue to organize against polluting industries at home, and globally.”

      Rather than stopping plastic pollution at its source, waste colonialism encourages waste management approaches that create severe health implications for workers, communities and the environment by generating significant amounts of greenhouse gases, toxic air pollutants, highly toxic ash, and other potentially hazardous residues. This includes waste incineration, chemical “recycling”, plastic-to-fuel or plastic-to-chemical processes, pyrolysis, and gasification.

      “Colonialism is alive and fully functioning in the ways that waste, toxicants, and end-of-life products produced by and for overdeveloped societies move to Indigenous lands,” says Dr. Max Liboiron, director of the Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research (CLEAR) at Memorial University, Canada. “Without access to other people’s lands and waters, the economic systems of overdeveloped countries simply don’t work. This assumed access to other’s lands and waters is colonialism.”

      “Nigeria is already overwhelmed with plastic waste—we barely have enough facilities to recycle internally generated plastics in Nigeria,” says Weyinmi Okotie, Intervention Officer of Green Knowledge Foundation (GKF) Nigeria. “I’m urging the Federal Government of Nigeria to sign the Bamako convention on toxic waste, as it will be an effective legal tool in stemming the importation of toxic wastes into Africa.”  

      “Ensuring that countries manage their own waste is the best way to prevent global environmental injustice. It is also essential for countries to truly come to terms with their waste footprint rather than shipping it off in containers. Once countries fully realize the absurdity of wasting precious materials and resources, harming the planet, our climate, and human health in the process, they become ready to shift to local zero waste economies centered around reuse, repair and composting of bio-waste,” says Sirine Rached, Global Plastics Policy Coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). 

      Media Contact:

      Zoë Beery, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternative
      zoe@no-burn.org

      For more information, see no-burn.org/stopwastecolonialism. 

      ###

      Contact

      Claire Arkin, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), claire@no-burn.org 

      ###

      Kenya Waste Pickers, in Nairobi, at  Dandora Dumpsite (2022)

      The term decolonisation describes the process of indigenous people achieving sovereignty over their land, culture, political and economic systems. African countries have largely achieved political independence from colonial powers, and have attempted to dismantle political systems and symbols of oppression. Sadly, in the 21st century, we are facing a new wave of neo-colonialism from Multinational Corporations. 

      Colonial settler objectives are rooted in principles of gaining control and exploiting indigenous territories. Likewise, corporations have taken over public space, destroyed consumer choice and displaced individuals from their traditional mechanisms of subsistence. 

      In the waste sector, colonialism is evident in several ways. It can be described as the export of waste from economically powerful countries to lower-income countries, where there is a clear lack of infrastructure to manage problematic waste streams. This is further compounded by the double standards that corporates have by sending cheap, single-use products to African countries- under the guise of development while boasting effective sustainable waste management practices where they operate in the Global North. Petrochemical plants which are part of the plastic production process are often placed in poorer communities at the expense of their health and wellbeing. Waste colonialism is also evident when corporations propose false solutions like Waste-To-Energy incineration (WTE), which disregards and will displace waste pickers and their contribution to the local economy. Fundamentally, these practices of waste colonialism treat people as disposable and that is unacceptable.

      In Ghana, a German company McDavid Green Solutions has proposed to construct a facility in the Ashanti region.3  Waste workers in Ghana have helped increase waste management services across the 261 Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) to 80%, across the country.4 A facility like this risks displacing waste workers who are integral to the country’s waste management system. Since there is a high level of organic waste in the African waste stream, in order to meet the quotas of waste needed to be burnt to make incinerators financially feasible, it would need recyclable materials to be burnt as well.

      The way forward |

      We need African governments to:

      • Uphold existing legislation like the Basel and Bamako conventions, which prohibit the illegal exportation of waste from economically powerful countries. 
      • Invest in the ongoing discussions around a global plastic treaty, and ensure this mandate reflects the local plastic pollution realities within the region and attempts are made to address the problems of plastic across its entire value chain with significant emphasis on slowing down production.
      • Avoid false solutions like WTE, and rather empower individuals with local solutions to waste management by adopting zero waste practices. 

      Last year we commemorated  Africa Day on the 25 May 2021, by releasing a solidarity video on Waste Colonialism.  This year we continued creating awareness on the different impacts and forms of waste colonialism by holding an online meeting with our African member organisations, with presentations from expert speakers. In addition to the online meeting, we developed a sign-on letter on waste colonialism directed to African government, which was launched on 01 June 2022.  

      To quote Griffins Ochieng, director of the Centre for Environmental Justice and Development in Kenya: “When waste is within your boundaries, it is your responsibility to deal with it, and assess how you manage this waste. You don’t export this to other countries to live with your problem.”

      Ends 

      Our Work
      Global Community
      Donate