De los datos a la acción: Guía para usar la base de datos anti-incineración
Latin America & the Caribbean - Incineración y cementeras -
Esta base de datos nace como una respuesta colectiva frente a la creciente ola de proyectos que promueven falsas soluciones para la gestión de residuos en América Latina y otras regiones del Sur Global. Incineradoras, plantas de "waste to energy", co-procesamiento en cementeras o reciclaje químico, se presentan como respuestas técnicas modernas, pero en la práctica reproducen impactos profundos y desiguales sobre los territorios, las comunidades y los sistemas públicos de gestión de residuos.
En este contexto, las organizaciones sociales, ambientales y comunitarias no pueden enfrentar estos proyectos únicamente desde la indignación o la urgencia del conflicto, por más legítimas que estas emociones sean. La experiencia en los territorios ha demostrado que quienes impulsan estas tecnologías se amparan en lenguajes técnicos, estudios fragmentados y marcos regulatorios complejos que buscan desplazar el debate hacia terrenos donde las comunidades o siempre cuentan con herramientas suficientes para responder.
Esta base de datos surge, entonces, para equilibrar esa asimetría, poniendo al alcance de las organizaciones evidencia científica, académica y técnica que permita sostener las luchas desde argumentos sólidos, verificables y contextualizados.
El objetivo no es reemplazar la experiencia territorial ni despolitizar los conflictos, sino articular el conocimiento técnico con la realidad vivida. La quema de residuos no es solo un problema ambiental, tiene impactos económicos, sociales, sanitarios y políticos que se entrecruzan. Afectan presupuestos públicos, redefine modelos de desarrollo local, afectan la salud de las comunidades, debilitan el trabajo del movimiento reciclador y consolidan decisiones tomadas sin participación real.
Esta base de datos busca ofrecer una mirada integral de estos impactos, demostrando que las falsas soluciones no pueden evaluarse de forma aislada, sino como parte de un modelo que profundiza desigualdades y sacrifica territorios en nombre de la eficiencia.
RIGGING THE NUMBERS: Questions and Answers on Biogenic Carbon in Waste and Climate Change
UN Day of ZW 2026 - Climate -
This brief Q&A explains why biogenic CO2 is not inherently climate-neutral, how IPCC inventory guidance is frequently misinterpreted to justify these exclusions, and how waste facilities must report biogenic carbon emissions as well as fossil carbon emissions.
Lutter contre les émissions de méthane des décharges grâce à la justice environnementale
- Climate -
Le présent rapport décrit les risques liés aux approches habituelles (« Business As Usual » ou BAU) en matière de réduction des émissions de méthane provenant des décharges et plaide en faveur d'une réponse durable et axée sur la justice. Il s'appuie sur des données internationales, sur les tendances politiques actuelles et sur l'expérience des communautés pour identifier les solutions efficaces et inefficaces en matière de fermeture des décharges et de gestion des déchets organiques.
GAIA and its members are fighting to end Global North plastic waste dumping in Global South countries, and advocating Basel Convention leadership for a worldwide shift towards localized zero waste economies that foster sharply reduced plastic production, discourage false solutions like so-called “chemical recycling,” and end plastic waste burning, which poisons people and planet and harms our climate.
For more information on the Global Plastics Treaty, visit our webpage.
Featured Publications
Policy Brief: Plastics at Basel COP 15
Three years after the Basel Convention COP14 adopted the plastic waste trade amendments that came into force in January 2021, the global plastic waste trade has shifted but remains a cause of environmental injustice, with communities and ecosystems in importing countries bearing a disproportionate portion of the toxic burden associated with the dumping, burning and environmentally-unsound recycling of plastic waste.
Chemical Recycling: Status, Sustainability, and Environmental Impacts
This technical assessment reveals that chemical recycling is polluting, energy intensive, and has a track record of technical failures, and concludes that it is impossible for chemical recycling to be a viable solution in the short window of time left to solve the plastic problem, especially at the scale needed.
Bridging the Basel Convention Gaps with the Future Plastics Treaty
While recognising and supporting the need to avoid duplication of mandates,institutions and resources between treaties, the new legally binding international instrument to end plastic pollution (“Plastics Treaty” or “the Treaty”) offers an excellent opportunity to highlight and fill gaps that either fall outside the scope of the Basel Convention or that the Basel Convention is not effectively addressing.
Comments on the Plastic Waste Technical Guidelines
Comments on the Basel Convention Draft Updated Technical Guidelines on the Environmentally Sound Management of Plastic Wastes and for their Disposal Submitted by Basel Action Network, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Environmental Investigation Agency.
Top exporters such as the United States, Germany, the UK, Japan and Australia are placing a disproportionate toxic burden on the environment and communities in importing countries. A Global Plastics Treaty can enact stricter measures on the waste trade to prevent environmental injustices.
Mr Yoga, (left) poses for a portrait with his wife and daughter amongst imported plastic waste at his recycling factory in Bangun Village, near Gresik, Surabaya, Indonesia on 22nd February, 2019.
PLASTIC WASTE HAS ARRIVED IN LATIN AMERICA: TRENDS AND CHALLENGES IN THE REGION
Between January and August 2020, the United States shipped 44,173 tons of plastic waste, the same tonnage as almost 300 blue whales, to 15 Latin American countries, approximately 35 containers per day. An investigative report by GAIA LAC (Latin America and the Caribbean) members reveals the untold story of how the United States is exporting its plastic problems to Latin America–disregarding international and national laws–and the harm that it’s causing to the Latin American people and environment.
Policy Brief: Transposing the Basel Convention plastic waste amendments
Before April 2019, most plastic waste flows between countries were uncontrolled under international law. Exporters only had to obtain prior informed consent from importing countries before shipping hazardous plastic waste, as is the case for all hazardous waste under the Basel Convention. However, companies in high-income countries have been exporting mixed, heavily-contaminated and often unrecyclable plastic waste abroad in order to avoid paying to properly manage it locally.
Here, activists, policy makers, academics and industry stakeholders can find up-to-date information on the global trade in plastic waste, the countries and actors engaged in it, as well as campaign information to combat the unsustainable trade in plastic waste.
Waste trade is the international trade of waste between countries for further treatment, disposal, or recycling. Often, toxic or hazardous wastes are exported by developed countries to developing countries, such as those in Asia-Pacific. Since 1988, more than a quarter of a billion tonnes of plastic waste has been exported around the world. In 2021, a report by the Environmental Investigative Agency and Rethink Plastic found that if the world is serious about tackling marine plastic pollution, waste trade issues must be addressed, alongside other solutions.
Comments on the Draft Updated. Technical Guidelines on the Environmentally Sound Management pf Plastic Wastes and for their Disposal
GAIA and Basel Action Network recommend that the SIWG and the consultants supporting its work focus on improving these draft guidelines in the was outlined on this publication.
Description for this block. Use this space for describing your block. Any text will do. Description for this block. You can use this space for describing your block.
EARTH Thailand: Banking on citizen science towards environmental activism and protection
Interview with Penchom Saetang by Sonia G. Astudillo and Dan Abril
Filing an EIA lawsuit. Photo courtesy of EARTH Thailand
For Penchom Saetang, Executive Director of EARTH Thailand, it all started in the 1991 chemical explosion in the port of Klong Toey in Bangkok that ripped chemical warehouses and shanties in the area. With over 23 kinds of chemicals stored in the warehouses and a newly established military government, “the Thai officers could not handle the explosion, nor identify the kind and volume of chemicals present.”
Together with like-minded friends, Penchom organized a public seminar to explore the situation and demand the government to release information about the explosion and provide assistance to the victims. By the end of 1991, a Toxic Chemical Committee was formed to assist victims, discuss industrialization issues, assess existing industrial policies, and provide support for banning hazardous chemicals.
From the committee, this Liberal Arts and Journalism graduate, set up the Campaign for Alternative Industrial Network (CAIN) in 1998 and eleven years later in 2009, CAIN gave way to Ecological Alert and Recovery or simply, EARTH Thailand which was registered as a foundation.
From 3 to 4 staff, EARTH now has 10 regular employees and while it has the same objectives and mission as CAIN’s, the work has greatly expanded with more activities like environmental monitoring in communities, tools to analyze chemicals in the environment, and more experts in the field who can provide assistance including legal assistance to the community.
GAIA sat down with Penchom to talk about EARTH’s project, plans, challenges, and successes.
What are EARTH Thailand’s top priorities?
We promote social and environmental justice to communities affected by bad waste management, illegal dumping, and communities that are being affected by hazardous waste recycling. We also work with communities affected by the waste trade of plastic scraps and other scraps. In 2008, the Thailand and the Japanese government were entering into a contract on economic partnership or the form of free trade agreement. We learned that the draft bipartite contract would allow waste trade and that once we enter into the partnership, Japan can send in their waste to Thailand. We could not stop the partnership because a number of Asian countries already signed it. That was the first time we had a campaign against the waste trade. Since then, we wanted to know the impacts related to waste imports. We found that Thailand imported huge volumes of plastic waste from other countries and there was an increase in this importation in 2018 when China signed the Sword Policy banning the import of plastic and other materials.
Ban Plastic. Photo courtesy of EARTH Thailand
What are EARTH Thailand’s main and ongoing campaigns?
We work on the waste importation issue. This includes plastic, electronics, metal scraps, and other hazardous waste. We are also opposing the recycling of electronics and hazardous waste and also pushing for the Basel ban amendment ratification.
There are several waste-to-energy project proposals in the country and we are opposing that too.
We have several citizen science projects on environment, health, and reducing industrial pollution. What we do is we provide support to communities to have environmental monitoring and sampling and support them by producing reports that they can use to push the government to solve environmental issues in the area.
We also work with partners on other issues such as mercury and sustainable development.
What are your biggest accomplishments/achievements?
What we do is strengthen the community and give them a better solution / stronger negotiation to their problem. Our role in supporting the communities has stimulated/encouraged the actions of the environmental and health agencies.
Some concrete achievements like in 2002, we succeeded in the campaign in calling for additional health damage compensation provided to the chemical explosion victim of 1991 from the government.
We are also a part of the social movement to support the Minamata Convention and Basel Convention. We supported the government to ratify the Minamata Convention and the Thai government now had accession to the Minamata Convention. This year the government is considering ratifying the Basel Ban Amendment. And now we are campaigning to end the plastic scrap importation to Thailand and we hope it will succeed.
Using the citizen science approach, we have set up environmental monitoring activities in different communities. This can empower the communities in their fight with industrial pollution and toxic waste problems in a number of communities.
We do research to support lawsuits of communities against the hazardous waste recycling case and in 2020 one community in Ratchaburi Province which had fought for almost 20 years against the recycling company won a class-action lawsuit against the recycling company
There are three levels to our work:
Community which includes training, consultancy, data gathering, and simplifying information for their use in environmental movement
Connecting with international network such as IPEN, GAIA, and CSOs in Thailand
Policy Advocacy and law improvement which involves advocating for environmental law.
Photo courtesy of EARTH Thailand
What challenges are you currently facing? How is your work impacted by the COVID crisis?
There are many. There are external factors such as in the earlier period of our activities, we found that we cannot coordinate with agencies such as environmental agencies that should be working on industrial pollution. There was no collaboration there. Recently, it is getting better but still challenging because the biggest environmental policies are being dominated by industrial investors or big businesses. It is difficult to overcome them, particularly in the legal & policy areas.
With regards to waste management, plastic waste is very challenging, especially at the policy level. Local political parties and authorities didn’t want to enforce measures to encourage the general public to reduce plastic waste. Plastic reduction is still on a voluntary base. We still have a lot to do to solve the plastic issue.
With environmental justice, our problem is the mentality and attitude of the government and judicial authority. The process takes a long time. We need a platform for dialogue to change attitudes and mindsets on environmental justice. We need to think about how we can enter into their way of thinking. Corruption is also a big challenge.
Internally, EARTH has a big problem with staff turnover. Most of the staff stay short term and often move to other fields such as the government or private sectors or pursue higher education. Every time it happens, I have to start again and train new staff on how to analyze data, do advocacy work… It is hard for us to continue working efficiently and to conduct effective campaigns. In fighting the hazardous waste and pollution issue, we still need more knowledge and technical things to strengthen our action and campaign.
The budget is also difficult because we have to raise funds. Projects last for four years at most and we have to comply with all the requirements of the funding agencies and it is difficult to handle everything.
With the pandemic, we cannot move and do environmental monitoring, particularly in impacted areas. Project implementation could not happen and there are an increasing number of online meetings and conferences.
What are the main environmental issues that your country/region is facing?
There are big issues such as environmental contamination/deterioration by industrial pollution, the state of marginalized people and their land rights and then there are dam constructions and climate change related to deforestation. Lots of things but now the big challenge we have in Thailand is about special economic development. It is a big and tough challenge for CSOs and many communities. Thailand just declared 3 provinces under the Eastern Economic Corridor (ECC) when they will receive a special period in investment and we know those industrial investments do not always go well with environmental protection. The government also announced more than 20 special economic zones across the country and those have all become pollution hotspots.
KhonKaen hotspot. Photo courtesy of EARTH Thailand
Farmers and agriculturists are affected, then the marginalized groups who are discriminated against under different laws but even more so with the special economic zone, and then labour groups discriminated against on their daily wage and no risk protection to chemical exposure, and then migrant workers who are the worst of.
Tha Thum Hotspot. Photo courtesy of EARTH Thailand
These economic zones bring in big investors and corporations and all types of investments from multinational corporations. We observe from 2018 that there have been an increasing number of waste recycling being promoted and constructed in the EEC area. We launched a campaign against dirty recycling this 2021 and call for more regulations and measures to control toxic emissions. Beyond air pollution, other problems from waste recycling are wastewater, land contamination, and illegal dumping. Waste recycling is now one of the big problems of EARTH Thailand aside from WTE projects and waste dumping.
Lawsuit against dirty recycling. Photo courtesy of EARTH Thailand
How do you see your organization’s work evolving in the next few years?
We try to promote the citizen scientist team to have better technical knowledge with some scientific tools which can help them provide environmental monitoring and analyzing contamination in areas, provide good reports, and teach negotiating power to communities to policy and decision-makers.
We hope to develop local communities to campaign against dirty recyclers. We can build the citizen scientist team to provide training support and provide consultancy to affected communities. In parallel, we have to move on and advocate for other policy changes such as the modification of the environmental laws.
We will also campaign for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and continue working on it along with the circular economy.
Photo courtesy of EARTH Thailand
Citizen science is very important because when we talk about health, the environment, and science, people have the belief that those things fall in the hands of scientists, economists, and academic institutions. When we want to do environmental monitoring, the community doesn’t have the skill to do that. But we have to fight environmental problems. Citizen scientists need to work with the community. If we don’t have a device, we can’t do anything and we can’t ask for assistance from academic institutions for free. People need to depend on people. If we’re fighting pollution, we need to strengthen citizen science and use our knowledge and provide support to affected communities.
Citizen science approach is used by many countries to empower the negotiation skills of the people.
What are your thoughts on the waste crisis that many countries in your region (and in the world) are living in right now?
Waste importation from the west is still happening. Thailand and other countries in the region are targets for dumping due to corruption in these countries and the low labour cost.
Plastic waste is related to consumption and economic “development”. We have to keep watching this issue because it will be a big crisis in the future even if countries have policies and similar goals to reduce.
I call this the crisis of recycling. Low-income countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and other low-income countries in Africa are dealing with the plastic waste trade because richer countries can send their waste to them in the guise of recycling and there are no environmental regulations to control this.
Who inspires you the most in the environmental work (in your country or in the world)?
I respect and admire those who contribute to public interest and social well being, no specific idols. I learned from some teachers and friends during my schooling and undergraduate life and I wanted to do something related to public interest like them. After graduation, I initially was not interested in environmental work. But later, I realized that in this area, I can do something for the greater good.
Between January and August 2020, the United States shipped 44,173 tons of plastic waste, the same tonnage as almost 300 blue whales, to 15 Latin American countries, approximately 35 containers per day. An investigative report by GAIA LAC (Latin America and the Caribbean) members reveals the untold story of how the United States is exporting its plastic problems to Latin America–disregarding international and national laws–and the harm that it’s causing to the Latin American people and environment. The Executive Summary of the report, including its key findings, has been translated into English.
En una reciente investigación de organizaciones miembro de GAIA en México, Ecuador, Argentina y Chile, se alertó que en 2020, en plena pandemia, las exportaciones de residuos plásticos desde Estados Unidos hacia algunos países de América Latina aumentaron en más del 100%.
Por eso, las organizaciones que conforman la Alianza Global por Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA) en América Latina y el Caribe declaran su rechazo y estado de alerta ante esta amenaza, que convierte a nuestra región en un destino emergente de la basura plástica mundial luego de que China detuviera en 2018 ese tipo de importaciones para proteger su territorio de la contaminación.
A escala mundial, existe una creciente preocupación sobre el envío de residuos plásticos desde potencias como Estados Unidos, el mayor exportador de residuos plásticos, hacia naciones con débiles legislaciones y controles. Ante esta situación, vemos con preocupación que:
Según la base de datos de libre comercio internacional de Estados Unidos, USA Trade Online, entre enero y agosto de 2020 llegaron 44.173 toneladas de desechos plásticos procedentes de Estados Unidos a 15 países latinoamericanos. Eso significó el envío de aproximadamente 35 contenedores diarios a la región con estos materiales.
Pese a las normativas y a las iniciales acciones gubernamentales, en los países investigados aún se desconoce el estado en que ingresan, a través de puertos y fronteras, miles de toneladas de desechos plásticos cuyo principal origen es Estados Unidos, que además no es parte firmante del Convenio de Basilea.
Actualmente, el comercio de residuos plásticos se realiza a través de partidas, subpartidas y fracciones arancelarias amplias y ambiguas, que no permiten el seguimiento de estos materiales hasta su uso final. Por las experiencias de países asiáticos, existe amplia evidencia de que estos desechos llegan contaminados o son difíciles de reciclar, lo cual causa un impacto en los países receptores.
GAIA no es la única organización que ha observado con preocupación el aumento de los flujos de desechos plásticos hacia la región. Un informe de Interpol de 2020, alertó que el sector del reciclaje está creciendo en América Latina, con inversores chinos que han mostrado su interés en nuestro continente para instalar sus fábricas debido al acceso a mano de obra barata y la cercanía con Estados Unidos.
México, El Salvador y Ecuador son los principales importadores de desechos plásticos en la región. Solo entre enero y agosto de 2020, llegaron 32.650 toneladas a México; 4.054 toneladas a El Salvador; y 3.665 toneladas a Ecuador, según los datos recopilados por The Last Beach Cleanup.
Alertamos que estamos ante un peligro inminente de contaminación de la naturaleza y vulneración de los derechos de las comunidades de vivir en un ambiente seguro para su salud y la de sus territorios. Asimismo, representantes de distintas organizaciones han manifestado su adhesión y preocupación indicando:
“El comercio transfronterizo de desechos plásticos es quizás una de las expresiones más nefastas de la mercantilización de los bienes comunes y de la ocupación colonial de los territorios del sur geopolítico para convertirlos en zonas de sacrificio. América Latina y el Caribe no somos el patio trasero de los Estados Unidos, somos territorios soberanos y exigimos el cumplimiento de los derechos de la Naturaleza y de nuestros pueblos” – Fernanda Soliz, directora área de salud, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Ecuador.
“Que Estados Unidos no haga nada para que las empresas dejen de exportar residuos plásticos a América Latina y el Caribe, así como a todo el Sur Global, es irresponsable e inmoral. En vez de aplicar en su país las medidas adecuadas de reducción, Estados Unidos está perpetrando un colonialismo de residuos al depositar esta contaminación tóxica en otros países. Solidarizamos con nuestros socios y aliados latinoamericanos que les están exigiendo a sus gobiernos que dejen de aceptar las importaciones de residuos, y exigimos al gobierno de EE.UU. que se responsabilice de encontrar soluciones reales y equitativas a la crisis de la contaminación por plástico.” – Melissa Aguayo, Coordinadora, Break Free From Plastic, Estados Unidos.
El problema de la contaminación por plástico no es sólo una cuestión de acumulación de residuos, es también un problema de justicia medioambiental y un factor que alimenta nuestra crisis climática. Este informe muestra que las desigualdades y los daños causados por la contaminación plástica no tienen fronteras y, en última instancia, perjudican a las comunidades de color. Nuestras comunidades latinxs en Estados Unidos y en los países latinoamericanos, viven esta contaminación todos los días, desde la extracción hasta la incineración. Este informe realmente pone de manifiesto que no existe tal cosa como “lejos” – y que tenemos que empezar a abordar el problema de la contaminación con soluciones concretas.” –Mariana Del Valle – GreenLatinos
Las organizaciones firmantes exigimos con urgencia que :
Los países de América Latina y el Caribe adapten sus legislaciones para aplicar el Convenio de Basilea (del que todos son suscriptores, menos Haití) y su Enmienda de Plásticos.
Las autoridades transparenten la información respecto a las importaciones de residuos plásticos y reforzar sus controles.
Deben existir registros aduaneros que permitan saber con exactitud el tipo y el estado de los desechos plásticos que ingresan a los puertos latinoamericanos.
La protección de nuestro territorio y sus comunidades sean prioritarios ante acuerdos bilaterales o multilaterales como tratados de libre comercio que podrían abrir puertas al ingreso de desechos plásticos.
Estamos ante una crisis de los residuos que muestra que para alcanzar el éxito en los esfuerzos hacia una gestión de residuos realmente sustentable, se deben priorizar políticas de reducción, y en segundo término asegurar la reutilización y reciclabilidad de los envases, asegurando que su reciclaje se realice en sitios cercanos a donde se generan. Rechazamos tajantemente que las altas cifras de reciclaje que muestran los países ricos sean a costa de convertir nuestro continente en un basurero.
Adhieren:
Acción Ecológica, Ecuador Acción Ecológica y Academia Mexicana de Derecho Ambiental Agrupación Aitué de Huillinco, Chile Alianza Basura Cero Chile Arnika, República Checa. Asociación Ecológica Santo Tomás, México. Ban SUP (Single Use Plastic), Estados Unidos. C-CUBED, Nigeria CAAN Glens Falls, Estados Unidos. Cafeteria Culture, Estados Unidos. Climate Reality Project Philippines, Filipinas Colectivo VientoSur, Chile. Community Research, Estados Unidos. CREPD, Camerún. CT Coalition for EJ, Estados Unidos. Digital Data Standards LLC, Estados Unidos. East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Estados Unidos. Ecoton, Estados Unidos. Ecoviable, Colombia. Evestico Ltd, Reino Unido. FoCo Trash Mob, Estados Unidos. Fronteras Comunes, México. Fundación Basura, Chile, Fundación El Árbol, Chile. Fundación Lenga, Chile. Galena Green Team, Estados Unidos. Gili Eco Trust, Indonesia. Greenpeace Finlandia. Health and Environment Justice Support (HEJSupport), internacional. Humusz Waste Prevention Allience, Hungría. ICA Agro SpA, Chile. INTA, Argentina. JA!Justica Ambiental, Mozambique. Just Goods, Estados Unidos. KY Environmental Foundation, Estados Unidos. Local Futures, Estados Unidos. Love Plant Nourish by Ike & Eli’s Organic Farm, LLC , Estados Unidos. Mingas por el mar, Ecuador. Missouri River Bird Observatory, Estados Unidos. MN BIPOC Environmental Justice Table, Estados Unidos. Nipe Fagio, Tanzania. PCC Environmental Club, Trinidad y Tobago. Plastic Free Society, Francia. Plastic Oceans International Plastic Pollution Coalition, Estados Unidos. Plataforma Antiincineración de Montcada, España. Public Environmental Centre for Sustainable Development, Bulgaria. Purge Plastic, Reino Unido. Red de Acción por los Derechos Ambientales RADA, Chile. SAISOCA, Venezuela. Sea Hugger, Estados Unidos. Six Senses Hotels Resorts Spas, Tailandia. StopPlastics, Canadá. Sustainable Environment Development Initiative, Nigeria. Sustainable Mill Valley, Estados Unidos. Taller de Comunicación Ambiental (Rosario), Argentina. Taller Ecologista, Argentina. TECHshare – Technik, Bildung, Solidarität, Suiza. The Last Beach Cleanup, Estados Unidos. The Last Plastic Straw, Estados Unidos. The Ocean Project, Estados Unidos. UANL, México. UDD, Chile. Universidad Santo Tomás, Colombia. UUFHCT, Estados Unidos. VMCH, Australia. WasteLess, India. Whole Vashon Project, Estados Unidos. Wonderfil, Estados Unidos. Zero Waste Association of South Africa, Sudáfrica. Zero Waste Lab Portugal.
Foto: Andy Li en Unsplash
En 2020, en plena pandemia, las exportaciones de residuos plásticos desde Estados Unidos hacia algunos países de América Latina aumentaron en más del 100%. A escala mundial, existe una creciente preocupación sobre el envío de residuos plásticos desde potencias, como Estados Unidos, hacia naciones pobres con débiles legislaciones y controles.
Estados Unidos exportó 44.173 toneladas de desechos plásticos a 15 países latinoamericanos, entre enero y agosto de 2020, lo que significó el envío de por lo menos 35 contenedores diarios a la región con estos residuos. Esto ocurre en medio de un creciente rechazo mundial al comercio transfronterizo de desechos plásticos por su impacto en los países receptores, generalmente en vías de desarrollo.
Esta es una de las revelaciones de una investigación realizada por organizaciones sociales y medioambientales de México, Ecuador, Argentina y Chile*, con el apoyo de la Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA, por sus siglas en inglés), que promueve estrategias de basura cero.
Según GAIA, América Latina y el Caribe se están convirtiendo a pasos acelerados en un nuevo destino de la basura plástica mundial, en especial de la procedente de Estados Unidos, el mayor exportador de estos desechos. La región se ha sumado a países del sudeste asiático como receptores de estos desperdicios.
Este movimiento es parte de una nueva tendencia que se originó en 2018 después de que China restringiera esas importaciones. En ese año, la potencia asiática cerró las puertas a los desechos plásticos de Estados Unidos, que llegaban sucios o eran difíciles de reciclar, lo cual generaba mayor contaminación en su territorio.
Ahora ese flujo ha desembarcado en puertos y fronteras de la región y la tendencia es hacia el alza. De acuerdo a la información recopilada, México, El Salvador y Ecuador son los principales destinos en América Latina de estos desechos plásticos. Solo entre enero y agosto de 2020, llegaron 32.650 toneladas a México; 4.054 toneladas a El Salvador; y 3.665 toneladas a Ecuador. El estudio se concentró en los casos de México y Ecuador.
Foto: Pat Whelen en Unsplash
Ambos países registraron fuertes incrementos en las importaciones de desechos plásticos desde Estados Unidos, pese a la pandemia. En México, en 2019, los envíos no superaron las 4.000 toneladasmensuales. Pero en julio de 2020, se registró un súbito aumento a más de 6.700 toneladas. Entre enero y agosto de 2020 el crecimiento de estas importaciones fue del 135%.
Ecuador tuvo un repunte similar en el mismo periodo del 137%. En enero de 2020 importó desde Estados Unidos 446,3 toneladas y en agosto la cifra fue de 1.059,7 toneladas. Anualmente, las compras de estos desechos por empresarios ecuatorianos equivalen a la producción total de residuos plásticos de 40 cantones del país sudamericano. Este es un grave contrasentido para una nación que entierra el 96 % de su basura.
Por estados, California fue el principal exportador de desechos plásticos a estos dos países de la región. Estos desechos ingresaron a México, principalmente por vía terrestre en camiones. A Ecuador, a través de sus puertos. California lidera las exportaciones de residuos plásticos a países con mala gestión de residuos. México, El Salvador y Ecuador están entre los 13 países del mundo que más desechos plásticos reciben desde California, según cifras de la base de datos de libre comercio internacional de Estados Unidos, USA Trade Online, levantadas por la organización norteamericana The Last Beach Cleanup.
Chile y Argentina están en el lado opuesto. Estos países tienen importaciones mínimas de residuos plásticos en comparación con México y Ecuador. A Chile llegaron 102 toneladas entre enero y agosto de 2020. A Argentina, 301 toneladas en el mismo lapso. Este último país tiene normas restrictivas para el ingreso de residuos peligrosos y de desechos recolectados en la calle o procedentes de la industria desde el exterior. Pero en 2019, el presidente Mauricio Macri flexibilizó el ingreso de esos desechos al derogar el Decreto 181 de 1992, una medida que fue revertida por su sucesor, Alberto Fernández.
En México, los investigadores reportaron la existencia de legislaciones con vacíos, inconsistencias y duplicidades en una serie de normas que abordan este tipo de. En Ecuador, hay normativas que establecen regulaciones a todo movimiento transfronterizo de residuos o desechos, sean peligrosos, especiales o no peligrosos. Estos deben contar con la autorización del Ministerio del Ambiente, pero esa entidad solo ha recibido tres solicitudes, lo cual contrasta con el creciente número de importaciones hacia ese país.
GAIA no es la única organización que ha observado con preocupación el aumento de los flujos de desechos plásticos hacia la región. En agosto de 2020, la Interpol publicóun informeque menciona el crecimiento del sector reciclaje en América Latina, lo que podría abrir nuevos mercados para los residuos plásticos, sobre todo de Estados Unidos. Explicó que existen crecientes inversiones en la región para implantar nuevas instalaciones de reciclaje en México, Argentina y otros países de América Central, del Sur y en el Caribe.
América Latina, obligada a controlar el comercio de desechos plásticos
En los países de estudio, la investigación evidenció la falta de información y de controles por parte de las autoridades a los desechos plásticos que ingresan a sus territorios. Aquello supone un mayor reto para la aplicación del Convenio de Basilea y de su Enmienda de plásticos, de la que son suscriptores casi todos los países latinoamericanos, con excepción de Haití.
El Convenio de Basilea es un acuerdo internacional sobre el control de los movimientos transfronterizos de los desechos peligrosos y otros desechos. En mayo de 2019, los países parte adoptaron la Enmienda de plásticos ante la creciente contaminación mundial por basura plástica y microplásticos.
La Enmienda de plásticosagregó al acuerdo el control de los residuos plásticos mezclados, no reciclables, sucios y halogenados (que generan emisiones tóxicas cuando se someten a ciertas temperaturas o son quemados), así como todos los residuos plásticos no destinados a un reciclaje ambientalmente racional. Su propósito es mejorar el control de los movimientos transfronterizos de los desechos plásticos y evitar que los países industrializados inunden a los países pobres con su basura. No es una prohibición a la importación, pero sí requiere a los exportadores el consentimiento de los países receptores. La Enmienda entró en vigencia en enero de 2021.
En la región, los gobiernos están adaptando sus legislaciones para acoger los postulados del acuerdo, pero la investigación demuestra graves deficiencias respecto a la transparencia de las cifras sobre este tipo de importaciones y la existencia de registros aduaneros imprecisos y ambiguos que no permiten saber qué tipo de desechos plásticos y en qué estado llegan a los puertos latinoamericanos.
A ello se suman otros desafíos como los acuerdo bilaterales o multilaterales como tratados de libre comercio como el existente Estados Unidos, México y Canadá (T-MEC), que abren las puertas al ingreso de esos desechos y entran en conflicto con los postulados del Convenio de Basilea.
Para Magdalena Donoso, coordinadora en América Latina de GAIA, la región vive un nuevo colonialismo. “Los recursos naturales de la región latinoamericana han sido desde los tiempos de la colonia explotados y extraídos de manera sistemática y brutal. Hoy estos materiales se exportan en grandes cantidades, mientras muchos de ellos son devueltos a nosotros en la forma de residuos y productos baratos hechos de materiales reciclados tóxicos. Este es a todas luces un nuevo colonialismo de los países del norte, los que hoy exportan su problema de generación excesiva de residuos hacia los territorios latinoamericanos”, afirma.
GAIA y sus organizaciones aliadas en los países de estudio exigen a los gobiernos el cumplimiento del Convenio de Basilea y mayor transparencia sobre el tipo de desechos plásticos que están llegando a la región, para evitar que nuestros países se conviertan en nuevos vertederos de la basura mundial.
*Organizaciones participantes por cada país: Argentina: Taller Ecologista. Chile: Alianza Basura Cero Chile Ecuador: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador, VLIR–UOS.
Environmental groups: further delay is unacceptable
Photo credits: Réseau Tunisie Verte
Tunis, Rome and Brussels, 3 May 2021 – Forty-four Tunisian, Italian, European and international environmental groups have demanded today that Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi and European Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius cease delay and order the immediate return of Italian municipal waste illegally shipped to Tunisia last year. According to the groups, EU and international environmental law make it plain that Italy should have taken its waste back at least three months ago.
In 2020, Italian company Sviluppo Risorse Ambientali illegally exported 282 containers of mixed municipal waste to Tunisia under deceptive claims that the waste was processed and would be recycled. In fact, it was mixed municipal waste, with little chance for recycling.
The exports quickly became the subject of a national scandal in Tunisia when it was revealed that certain officials had approved the shipments. The shipments cost the former Minister of the Environment his position and resulted in his prosecution and detention. Despite the furore, however, Italian national authorities have still failed to repatriate the wastes, three months after the 8 January deadline as is required under the Basel Convention.
Under the Basel Convention, the Bamako Convention and the Izmir Protocol of the Barcelona Convention, the export from Italy to Tunisia was illegal trafficking and a criminal act. Further Italy is required to repatriate the waste within 30 days of the discovery of illegal traffic.
On 3 March the organizations Réseau Tunisie Verte, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Basel Action Network and Zero Waste Europe published a short report examining the legality of these shipments and called for their repatriation. Following a complete lack of action on the port of Rome, on April 1, Tunisian groups protested outside the Italian embassy demanding that Italy takes its waste back. On 29 March, Italian MEPs Piernicola Pedicini and Rosa D’Amato (Verts/ALE) also raised European parliamentary questionsasking the European Commission how they will ensure that the Italian government fulfills its Basel Convention obligations and guarantee this does not happen again.
While a court in Rome is currently considering the fate of the financial guarantee that the Italian exporter had provided for the shipments, with the court adjourning until 15 June, there is no evidence that the Italian national government has acted to remove the wastes as required.
“Court squabbles between the Italian exporter, the insurance company and government authorities are entirely irrelevant to the obligation to repatriate,” said Sirine Rached of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “The Italian national authorities must assume the immediate costs now, and remain at liberty to recover costs from the guilty parties later.” “The postponed repatriation increases the risk of harm that Tunisians bear from these illegal shipments, as the toxic mix of Italian garbage continues to putrefy in the port of Sousse,” said Hamdi Châabane of Réseau Tunisie Verte (Green Tunisia Network).
“We don’t understand why the Italian government sits on their hands in this case. And we cannot understand how the European Commission allows Italy to sit on their hands. The law is clear, the shipments were unlawful and Italy must bear initial responsibility,” said Semia Gharbi of Réseau Tunisie Verte.
Demand for the EU and Italy to Ensure Wastes are Returned Immediately Réseau Tunisie Verte – Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) – Basel Action Network (BAN) – Zero Waste Europe (ZWE) – European Environmental Bureau (EEB) – Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) – Greenpeace MENA – Rethink Plastic alliance (RPa)
Brussels, March 3, 2021. International, European, Italian and Tunisian environmental groups have joined in demanding the immediate return of 282 containers full of mixed municipal waste that were illegally exported from Italy’s Campania region to the Port of Sousse in Tunisia between May and July 2020. According to the environmental organizations, the exports violated European Union law, Tunisian law as well as international waste trade treaties — the Basel Convention, the Bamako Convention and the Izmir Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. A short report shows how weaknesses in EU regulations may have contributed to this waste being exported for disposal under the cover of recycling. Under the terms of international and EU laws, Italy should have returned the shipments many months ago.
Bales of Italian waste exported to Tunisia by Sviluppo Risorse Ambientali photographed during a visit by Tunisian legislators and journalists to the port of Sousse in December 2020 (Credits: Hamdi Chebaane).
Indeed, the Italian Administrative Region of Campania has already demanded that the exporting company Sviluppo Risorse Ambientali (SRA) return the waste at their own cost. SRA reportedly appealed this request to an administrative court in Naples and the court ruled it has no jurisdiction to counter the regional demand. Regardless, the responsibility to enforce the international rules lies ultimately with the Italian national government.
“We fail to understand why Italy has not moved decisively to resolve this case and have these unwanted wastes returned,” said Ms. Semia Gharbi of Réseau Tunisie Verte, in Tunis. “We cannot wait indefinitely. We, therefore, call upon the European Commission to get involved and take the necessary actions to ensure that Italy fulfills its clear legal obligations. Tunisia is not Europe’s dumping ground!”
Tunisia is a Party to the Bamako Convention and the Izmir Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. Both of these agreements make it illegal for Tunisia to import wastes collected from households. At the same time, Italy’s obligations under the Basel Convention and the European Waste Shipment Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006) require them to not approve of any exports to countries that have banned the import of such wastes. Therefore, the shipments are considered as illegal traffic under the Basel Convention and the EU Waste Shipment Regulation that implements that treaty in the European Union.
Illegal traffic under these rules is a criminal act. Shipments that are illegal due to the fault of the exporter, as is the case in this instance, must be taken back by the exporting state within 30 days from the time the exporting state was made aware of the illegal shipment, or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally sound manner under the direction of the exporting country. “Italy was made aware of the illegal shipment by the Tunisian government on 9 December 2020,” said Jim Puckett of the Basel Action Network (BAN). “They are therefore nearly two months overdue in acting as required by law. This is unacceptable. We call upon the European Commission to take the necessary action to ensure compliance.”
“Italy ought to take responsibility for preventing and managing its own municipal waste, rather than exporting its problems to Tunisia”, said Sirine Rached of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). “Every additional day of delayed repatriation adds to this injustice”.
“This type of trade is immoral and environmentally destructive; it is not acceptable to import waste from Italy to Tunisia for landfilling. Landfilling of waste can generate toxic leaching and contribute to the degradation of human health and the environment,” added Mohammed Tazrout, campaigner for Greenpeace Middle-East and North Africa.
“This is another striking example of a weakness in European legislation and enforcement causing ethical and environmental harm to others,” said Pierre Condamine, waste policy officer at Zero Waste Europe. “The first clear and immediate step is for Italy to repatriate the shipment. The following step should be to fix and properly enforce EU legislation to avoid doing any more harm.”
NOTE: To read the short report, please visit this link.
28 October 2019 – Jakarta, Indonesia. In what environmental watchdogs are calling a global pollution shell game, Indonesian officials have been caught approving re-exports of illegal U.S. waste shipments to other Asian countries instead of returning them to the U.S. as promised. Instead of being returned to their senders, the waste containers have been diverted to India, Thailand, South Korea, and Vietnam.
“After promising that the illegal plastic waste imports would be returned to their countries of origin, our officials have instead, engaged in a global waste shell game, victimizing more countries with the unwanted, illegal and contaminated shipments,” said Yuyun Ismawati of the Indonesian NGO, Nexus3. “Meanwhile the U.S. government and the original perpetrators of the illegal shipments are let off the hook. The public has been lied to, the environment is further harmed, and the criminals go free. It’s outrageous.”
The original U.S. waste shipments were imported by the Indonesian paper recycling companies PT Mega Surya Eratama and PT Surabaya Mekabox located in East Java. Upon arrival they were deemed illegal by Indonesian authorities when they were found to contain large amounts of plastic and hazardous wastes mixed into what was supposed to be paper scrap.
In the Indonesian government press release issued on September 18, 2019, the government noted the hundreds of consignments of illegal waste imports and stated that the containers “will be reexported to their country of origin.”
The source and identification numbers of 70 of the seized containers were obtained by Nexus3 from a trusted source. 58 of these containers came from the U.S. with 25 of the containers shipped by the Cosco Shipping Line, 13 by the Maersk Shipping Line, and 20 more by the Hyundai Line.
The waste trade watchdog group Basel Action Network (BAN) then tracked the return pathways of the illicit containers. BAN discovered that of the 58 containers that were meant to be returned to the U.S., 38 containers were diverted to India, three to South Korea, and one container each went to Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Canada. Only 12 of the 58 were actually returned to the U.S. as promised by the government.
“It is an international norm that illegal waste exports are the responsibility of the state of export, in this case the United States, and the exporting state has the duty to reimport the wastes,” said Jim Puckett, Executive Director of Basel Action Network (BAN). “In this way the exporters can be prosecuted for any illegality and the problem can actually be solved rather than simply passed on to other unsuspecting victim countries and communities.”
“In India, we thought we had banned the import of plastic wastes. Now we see more coming in through a back door,” said Dharmesh Shah of GAIA in India. “These shipments from Indonesia must be the subject of an international inquiry.”
It remains unknown whether the U.S. government was informed of the illegality of the exports to Indonesia, or whether the governments where the wastes actually ended up were notified and able to consent to their import. It is further unknown whether the receiving facilities were even capable of environmentally sound management of the wastes. If the experience in Indonesia is representative, much of the plastic waste which comes with the paper waste ends up being burned in waysides, creating highly toxic smoke and fumes.
“Unwanted plastic scrap imported by paper companies in East Java have routinely contributed to the environmental pollution in poor communities,” said Prigi Arisandi from Ecoton, Indonesia. “The same things will likely be repeated in other developing countries where the containers end up.” END
About Nexus3 Foundation Nexus for Health, Environment and Development Foundation (formerly known as BaliFokus Foundation) is working to safeguard the public, especially the vulnerable population, from health and the environmental impact of development, towards a just, toxic-free, and sustainable future. www.balifokus.asia | www.nexus3foundation.org
About Basel Action Network (BAN) Founded in 1997, Basel Action Network is a 501(c)3 charitable organization of the United States, based in Seattle, WA. BAN is the world’s only organization focused on confronting the global environmental justice and economic inefficiency of toxic trade and its devastating impacts. Today, BAN serves as the information clearinghouse on the subject of waste trade for journalists, academics, and the general public. Through its investigations, BAN uncovered the tragedy of hazardous electronic waste dumping in developing countries. For more information, see www.BAN.org.
About the Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives (GAIA) The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) is a global network of more than 800 grassroots groups, NGOs and individuals. 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. We work to catalyze a global shift towards ecological and environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. www.no-burn.org
About ECOTON ECOTON works towards the realisation of biodiversity sustainability and environmental functions for humans, through equitable and participatory river ecosystem and wetland management. www.ecoton.org
Report with Data and Photos on US Shipments to Indonesia and their Returns
MANILA, Philippines (August 15, 2019)—Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently announced that they will stop export of recyclable waste amid rising global plastic pollution concern and pushback from Asian countries who are at the receiving end of the waste trade.
Green groups in and around the region are wary of the pronouncement that can be used as an opening to push for waste-to-energy (WtE) incineration which the Australian government has been silently supporting. They are also pushing the government to take back waste that were already shipped to Asian countries.
Jane Bremmer, Coordinator, Zero Waste Australia (National Toxics Network): “The Prime Minister’s announcement and Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) support for a ban on waste exports should be cautiously welcomed and is long overdue following the embarrassing revelations of Australian illegal waste dumping in Southeast Asia. However, it seems certain that the announcement is designed to distract from a major government push to burn Australia’s waste in polluting incinerators: an industry it quietly supports. Waste-to-energy incineration has no place in a sustainable zero waste management and circular economy agenda. Burning finite resources in our residual waste stream—predominantly single-use, non-recyclable, fossil fuel-based plastic waste—is not only highly polluting but entrenches a linear economy, the very cause of global climate, pollution and health disasters and is the antithesis of a sustainable circular economy.” Contact: Jane Bremmer, +(618) 0432 041 397; acejane@bigpond.com
Enzo Favoino, Scientific Coordinator, Zero Waste Europe: “While we welcome Australia’s move to ban waste export, we are strongly against any plans by the federal government to use this to justify waste-to-energy incineration in the hope that it will power Australian homes. Burning plastics is one of the largest contributors to climate change, and energetic efficiencies of incinerators are appallingly low, let alone where heat finds little or no use. In Europe, a climate correction factor had to be adopted to artificially change calculation of energy efficiency and falsely show higher energy efficiency where heat is to no use, as it would be the case in most situations in Australia. However, Europe has disincentivized support to new incineration projects in the last few years, since reliance on incineration may be counterproductive for the ambitious recycling and reuse targets as defined in the Circular Economy Package. Most recently, a study in Nordic countries is showing that these countries are not on track to meet EU’s recycling target because of heavy reliance on incineration. Australia should learn from the mistakes of Europe and not invest in incineration. Reusing and recycling saves remarkably more energy than what may be retrieved through incineration, and given the remarkably low energetic efficiency of incinerators, waste of energy is a more appropriate term to use than waste to energy.” Contact: Enzo Favoino, +39 335 355446; enzo.favoino@zerowasteeurope.eu
Beau Baconguis, Plastics Campaigner of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Asia Pacific and Break Free From Plastic Asia Pacific coordinator: “There is a clear link between waste dumping by the Global North and the promotion of false solutions such as incineration to the waste problem in developing countries. Asia is now standing up against this injustice. Moreover, communities in our region, as well as in the global north, have demonstrated that the solution to the plastic waste problem is Zero Waste and that involves plastic waste reduction, alternative delivery systems, and ecological waste management programs. Governments need to listen more to its people rather than the profit-driven corporations peddling non-solutions.” Contact: Beau Baconguis, +63 917 8715257, beau@no-burn.org
Yuyun Ismawati, Alliance for Zero Waste Indonesia (AZWI) and co-founder & Senior Advisor of BaliFokus/Nexus3 Foundation: “We call for the Consulate General of Australia in Surabaya to apologize for saying that the Indonesian government approved Australia’s sending of nasty scrap. Our government never approved such importation. We also ask the Australian ports to improve and strengthen their monitoring and the work of the surveyors who confirm the impurities and content of “recyclables” inside containers that are sent out of Australia. Finally, we call on the exporting and importing companies to clean the messy dumpsites they have created in Indonesia and the rest of Asia. We also call for the Australian government to collaborate with the Indonesian government to use safe technology to treat historical plastic waste in dumpsites and avoid incineration.” Contact: Yuyun Ismawati, +447583768707, yuyun@balifokus.asia
Mageswari Sangaralingam, Consumers Association of Penang (Malaysia): “The Malaysian government announced in May that it will send back Australian plastic waste because it was too contaminated to recycle or had been falsely labelled and smuggled in. Now that the Australian PM made pronouncement to stop waste export, the Australian government must take back waste that has already been shipped to Malaysia. We want the Australian government to clearly state their plans and timelines in cleaning up their mess (waste take back) and in stopping waste export. Further, in the future we want assurances that wastes are not relabelled and exported as commodities or fuel.” Contact: Mageswari Sangaralingam, +60128782706, magesling@gmail.com
Alliance for Zero Waste Indonesia (AZWI) is an alliance of organizations and concerned individuals, campaigning to promote a correct term of the Zero Waste approach to enforce the existing activities, programs and initiatives that have already implemented in many Indonesian cities considering waste management hierarchy concept, material life cycle, and circular economy. https://www.aliansizerowaste.id/
Nexus3 Foundation (formerly known as BaliFokus) is a non-governmental organization working to improve community’s capacity, quality of life and advocating a toxics-free environment together with all stakeholders in sustainable way. https://www.balifokus.asia/
Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) focuses on sustainable and ethical consumption and challenges current aggressive advertising industry that is unfettered and shapes people’s consumption to lifestyles and behavior that is unsustainable, unethical, and inequitable. https://consumer.org.my/
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) is a worldwide alliance of more than 800 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries whose ultimate vision is a just, toxic-free world without incineration. www.no-burn.org
National Toxics Network is a community-based network working to ensure a toxic-free future for all. It is a national network giving a voice to community and environmental organizations across Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific. https://ntn.org.au/
Zero Waste Europe is a fast-growing movement of communities, local leaders, businesses, experts, influencers, and other “change agents” working towards the vision of eliminating waste in our society. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/
Este movimiento es parte de una nueva tendencia que se originó en 2018 después de que China restringiera esas importaciones. En ese año, la potencia asiática cerró las puertas a los desechos plásticos de Estados Unidos, que llegaban sucios o eran difíciles de reciclar, lo cual generaba mayor contaminación en su territorio. 
